General Permits (362)

CERTIFICATION OF EXEMPTI
_Y Eli-
7 19Q3 `.:
FROM REQUIRING A CAMA PERMIT !r� ,
as authorized by the State of North Carolina, a"—L
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources and the Coastal Ropy cqs Commission
in an area of environmental concern pursuant to 15 NCAC Subchapter 7K .0203.
Applicant Name
Address t 1
City r` k_ .,
Project Location (County, State: Road, Water
Type and Dimensions of Project An 4 k+' J,, (!, `b i-,-�� % s l,Q� do / t�atf
The proposed project to be located and constructed as described
above is hereby certified as exempt from the CAMA permit re-
quirement pursuant to 15 NCAC 7K .0203. This exemption to
CAMA permit requirements does not alleviate the necessity of
your obtaining any other State, Federal, or Local authorization.
sent of a LAMA official under the mistaken assumption that the
development is exempted, will be in violation of the CAMA if there
is a subsequent determination that a permit was required for the
development.
The applicant certifies by signing this exemption that (1) the ap-
plicant has read and will abide by the conditions of this exemp-
tion, and (2) a written statement has been obtained from adjacent
landowners certifying that they have no objections to the
proposed work.
This certification of exemption from requiring a CAMA permit is
valid for 90 days from the date of issuance. Following expiration,
a re-examination of the project and project site may be necessary
to continue this certification.
Applicant's signature
CAMA Official`s signature
Issuing date
Expiration date
Attachment: 15 North Carolina Administrative Code 7K .0203

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF CARTERET
REQUEST FOR CONTESTED )
CASE HEARING BY ELENA )
ERITTA )
BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
COASTAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
CMT 01-93
ORDER
Pursuant to N.C.G.S. 113A-121.1(b) and 15A 7J.0301(b), this
matter came before the undersigned Chairman of the Coastal
Resources Commission as a request for contested case hearing
concerning the issuance of CAMA General Permit No. C-10976 to Ed
Hofer for the construction of a private boat ramp on the
applicant's residential lot in the Oak Hammock Subdivision,
Harkers Island, Carteret County, North Carolina.
Upon consideration of the request for a contested case
hearing, a recommendation by the Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources, Division of Coastal Management, and
record documents, I find as follows:
1. On January 26, 1993, the Division of Coastal Management
(DCM) issued CAMA General Permit No. C-10976 to Ed Hofer. The
permit authorized the construction of a 20' X 12' private boat
ramp on Lot 6, Oak Hammock Subdivision, Harkers Island, Carteret
County, North Carolina. The property has water frontage on a
canal leading to West Mouth Bay.
2. Petitioner Elena Eritta is part owner of Lot 7, Oak
Hammock subdivision, 1_Illllle�'Ii_at.el �T t:, the south of the Project.
site.
' MAR 0 3 1993

J 4
-2-
3. The south side of the boat ramp would be located
approximately 7' from the northern boundary of petitioner's
property.
4. Lots 5 and 6, to the north of petitioner's lot, are
bulkheaded as is Lot 8 immediately to the south. Petitioner's
lot is not bulkheaded and there is a fringe of coastal wetland
approximately 100-150' wide between the canal and the highground
on Lot 7.
5. During the permitting process, petitioner objected to
Mr. Hofer's permit application and contended that the boat ramp
would increase erosion on the shoreline of her property.
6. In that petitioner owns riparian property immediately
adjacent to the project site, she is directly affected by the
permit decision for purposes of N.C.G.S. 113A-121.1.
7. Petitioner has not alleged that CAMA General Permit No.
C-10976 violates any specific coastal management statute or rule.
Petitioner asks the Commission to apply the fifteen -foot side
setback applicable to docks and piers under 15A NCAC
7H.0208(b)(6)(E) to the boat ramp at issue in this case, but by
its own terms the cited rule applies only to docks and piers;
coastal management rules do not impose a setback on boat ramp
construction.
8. 15A NCAC 7H.1.304(d) provides that DCM may not issue a
general permit if "the proposed activity might... unnecessarily
endanger adjoining properties". Petitioner has provided no

-3-
foundation for her fear that construction of the boat ramp seven
feet from the northern boundary of her lot will increase erosion
on her property. There appears to be no evidence of increased
erosion on petitioner's property as a result of either the
adjoining bulkheads or boat traffic in the canal.
9. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a substantial
likelihood of prevailing in that petitioner has provided no
factual foundation for her fear that construction of the boat
ramp as permitted will have an adverse impact on her property.
ORDER
For the reasons cited above, the request for contested case
hearing by petitioner Elena Eritta is DENIED.
� Ci1
This the 'day of February, 1993.
Eug e B. Tomlinson, Chairman
Coastal Resources Commission

R
1
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF CARTERET
REQUEST FOR CONTESTED
CASE HEARING BY ELENA
ERITTA
BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
COASTAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
CMT 01-93
ORDER
Pursuant to N.C.G.S. 113A-121.I(b) and 15A 7J.0301(b), this
matter came before the undersigned Chairman of the Coastal
Resources Commission as a request for contested case hearing
concerning the issuance of CAMA General Permit No. C-10976 to Ed
Hofer for the construction of a private boat ramp on the
applicant's residential lot in the Oak Hammock Subdivision,
Harkers Island, Carteret County, North Carolina.
Upon consideration of the request for a contested case
hearing, a recommendation by the Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources, Division of Coastal Management, and
record documents, I find as follows:
1. On January 26, 1993, the Division of Coastal Management
(DCM) issued CAMA General Permit No. C-10976 to Ed Hofer. The
permit authorized the construction of a 20' X 12' private boat
ramp on Lot 6, Oak Hammock Subdivision, Harkers Island, Carteret
County, North Carolina. The property has water frontage on a
canal leading to West Mouth Bay.
2. Petitioner Elena Eritta is part owner of Lot 7, Oak
11aiinnock Subdivision, immedi-ately t0 'the soUi.jl --F the proje�-'F
site.
I�
FEB 2 3 1993'

Ira
3. The south side of the boat ramp would be located
approximately 7' from the northern boundary of petitioner's
property.
4. Lots 5 and 6, to the north of petitioner's lot, are
bulkheaded as is Lot 8 immediately to the south. Petitioner's
lot is not bulkheaded and there is a fringe of coastal wetland
approximately 100-150' wide between the canal and the highground
on Lot 7.
5. During the permitting process, petitioner objected to
Mr. Hofer's permit application and contended that the boat ramp
would increase erosion on the shoreline of her property.
6. In that petitioner owns riparian property immediately
adjacent to the project site, she is directly affected by the
permit decision for purposes of N.C.G.S. 113A-121.1.
7. Petitioner has not alleged that CAMA General Permit No.
C-10976 violates any specific coastal management statute or rule.
Petitioner asks the Commission to apply the fifteen -foot side
setback applicable to docks and piers under 15A NCAC
7H.0208(b)(6)(E) to the boat ramp at issue in this case, but by
its own terms the cited rule applies only to docks and piers;
coastal management rules do not impose a setback on boat ramp
construction.
8. 15A NCAC 7H.1304(d) provides that DCM may not issue a
general permit if "the proposed activity might... unnecessarily
endanger adjoining properties". Petitioner has provided no

-3-
foundation for her fear that construction of the boat ramp seven
feet from the northern boundary of her lot will increase erosion
on her property. There appears to be no evidence of increased
erosion on petitioner's property as a result of either the
adjoining bulkheads or boat traffic in the canal.
9. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a substantial
likelihood of prevailing in that petitioner has provided no
factual foundation for her fear that construction of the boat
ramp as permitted will have an adverse impact on her property.
ORDER
For the reasons cited above, the request for contested case
hearing by petitioner Elena Eritta is DENIED.
qi
This the 11 day of February, 1993.
r � •
Eugte B. Tomlinson, Chairman
Coa al Resources Commission