11979_KOPHA, JOHN_19930622

CAMA AND DREDGE AND FILL
GENERAL
PERMIT
as authorized by the State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources and the Coastal Resources Commission
in an area of environmental concern pursuant to 15 NCAC // ' '
Applicant Name
Address A'-7
City
Project Location (County, State Road, Water Body, etc.)
i'
r
Type of Project Activity
PROJECT DESCRIPTION SKETCH e(,. 17 /)
Pier (dock) length
Groin length
number
Bulkhead length
max, distance offshore
Basin, channel dimensions
cubic yards
Boat ramp dimensions
Other
State
Phone Number 0- - 3 D
lot
(SCALE: �l� )
77
� r
— — --� —{—; —7 —
44
1
r
I i 1
i I I
l
— I
This permit is subject to compliance with this application, site
drawing and attached general and specific conditions. Any
violation of these terms may subject the permittee to a fine,
imprisonment or civil action; and may cause the permit to be-
come null and void.
This permit must be on the project site and accessible to the
permit officer when the project is inspected for compliance.
The applicant certifies by signing this permit that 1) this pro-
ject is consistent with the local land use plan and all local
ordinances, and 2) a written statement has been obtained from
adjacent riparian landowners certifying that they have no
objections to the proposed work.
In issuing this permit the State of North Carolina certifies that
this project is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal
Management Program.
attachments
application fee
applicant's signature
J
l ' permit officer's signature
issuing date expiration date

CiRAFTON MARINE. CONSTRUCTION
1105 SEAHORSE DRIVE
SWANSBORO. N. C. 28584
[phone]
PROPOSED PROJECT - 12 ft x 20 ft frame «ith boat lift
❑ u —� PROPERTY i
20 F1
I
u--L—APPRUX 2
PROPOSED LIFT
XISTING TEE II
t
t _12 FT
IF A\1' L)t:LS i'IU_`:5 - 1'LL:ASL FLEL FREE TO CONI'_1CT \IL• A 3,'3-613`1
THANK YOU
SCOTT GRAFTON

GRAFTON MARINE CONSTRUCTION
105 SEAHORSE LANE
SWANSBORO, N.C. 28584
[phone]
WIDTH 12 FT
LENGTH 20 FT
:1DJACF.\Pf PROPERTY OWNTF,R SIONTATI TRV

GRAFTON MARINT, CONSTP! TCTION
105 SEAHORSE LANE
SYVANSBORO, N.C. 28584
[phone]
WIDTH 12 FT
LENGTH 20 FT
I TJ�F
MVR SI -NTON:Vr _, ::�

GRAFTON MMUNE CONSTRUCTION
t n: cF n HORSE cr: r�nR��
1 V✓ �J C1 11\/1�SE D-D V E
SWANSBORO, NC 28594
[phone]
ADJACENT RIPARIAN PROPERTY OWNER
I hereby certi�- that. I own property adjacent to s- / -�( O e
located at _._--�.Sie _. -egC; on
( LOT, BLOCK., ROAN. FTC)
-%i�----�✓��-- in --.._. - dC�/�.-- - > NORTH CARULINA.
(WATER BODY) (TOWN ANDI OR COUNTY)
)
Property owner has decribed to me the proposed development as shown in drawing.
I , object to proposed project.
(DO) (DO NOT)
I understand that a pier must be set back a minimum.distance of fifteen (15) feet from my
area of riparian access unless wavied by me.
I , _ wish to waive that setback requirement.
(DO) (DO NOT)
DESCRIPTION OF DRMVING (MUST BE FILLED IN)
PIER
Bt AT LIFT
BI?T.I:I--TEAT)
LIFT DECK (--)N-ERIIE.�D
LIFT R0 OF OVERHEAD
(SIGNATURE)
(_ _AME) PRINK
WHO)NE NUIM11'R)
PRO >I'ER1 Y i M-\"1. k I ,i-
Jo�u
tNA\:IF,t
lbaL 6w1bo
(HOME PHONE)

CONSTR
GRAFTON MARINF UCTION
1105 SE.AHORSE DRIVE
SWANSBORO, N. C. 28584
[phone]
PROPOSED PROJECT - 12 ft 120 ft frame with boat lift
IF A'\1' QL:LS llUX'.S - PLEASE PEEL FRLE TO CON'I*AC'l' \IL _�'l' 393-G137
THANK YOU
SC,OTT GRAF TON
#,

--- 1311
Vk 9- 9 - 9G,L. ay�s-6��7 l —19 zsa�
105 feaito�urr� • 2d'6d'4
/Gyto
"�+ the order of ay_ �� �(Cc✓'S
- C ;
8
FIRST AME CA
SAVINGS BANK SB
CAP RT€RET, NC 28584-9201
o,74 �
086 L640"6
1: 2 5 3 L 40 509l:000000L/ L

r U
GRAFTON MARINE CONSTRUCTION
i()✓ �iir'Aiiiii�S LtZi'VE
SWANSBORO, NC 28584
(91.9)393-6137
ADJACENT RIPARIAN PROPERTY OWNER
I hereby certit - that I own property adjacent to %J — _ -- s
located at
(' LOT, BLOCK, ROAD FTC.)
/�'°' NORTH CAROLINA.
(WATER BODYI (TOWN AND/ CJR COUNTY)
Property owner has decribed to me the proposed development as shown in drawing.
I , ) object to proposes project.
(DO) (DO N(T)
I understand that a pier must be set back a minimum.distance of fifteen (15) feet from my
area o riparian access unless wavied by me.
I _ _ wish to wave that setback requirement.
(DO) (DO NOT)
DESCRIPTION OF DRAWING (MUST BE PILLED IN)
PIF;R
_—V—rBt=SAT LIFT
BI?IRMLAD
I.-IFT DECK 01ZRI -I
L_11'` I 0 0I UVb All
"I't T I', )
e6t
(N.A-NIL I'RIN I
WHOM,
( h( )R PR(>i,h;1-tTY O\V',J:R I
a 0hol - - A'00 P*alAW
(NAMFA
0'1A1I,ING UA)kk.SS)
as 5 3 9-0
W1I'Y. '113i.11-L•. LII' L011L)
__-U16--b13b
(HOME PI-IUNE)

77
,,mow'
SHE

�- pa-93
���os

IMPORTANT
To
Date
WHILE YOU
M 1U r A- Mrs ,
Time
WERE OUT
C rOL.
of
Phone
AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION
Message
_
Signed
TELEPHONED
PLEASE CALL
�
CALLED TO SEE YOU
WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU
URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL
N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
�]�� Printed on Recycled Paper

n
October 25, 1993~
Dear Mr. Pigott,
In a letter dated Sept. 7, I outlined my concerns over a boat lift
and deck that was constructed by my neighbor, Mr. Kopka. I am
concerned that this structure is still out of compliance with the
LAMA permit. Since my last communication with you, construction
has continued on the deck and boat lift. The most recent
construction occurred on Sunday, Oct. 24, 1993. Mr. Kopka should
be required to dismantle the boat lift and deck as it is not in
compliance with the standards stipulated in the CAMA permit.
Apparently, Mr. Kopka does not understand that he is in violation
of his permit.
I will appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to
a remedy to the situation.
Respectfully,
Tom King

r--q r--71 rim r.--
i SEP 0 8 1993 �
Sept. 7, 1993
Dear Mr. Pigott, I -
The following information is provided as a follow-up to our phone
conversations on Sept. 1st and 3rd, 1993 concerning a LAMA permit acquired by
Mr. John Kopka.
1. I signed a form (adjacent property owner) that gave permission for
Mr. Kopka to build a boat lift. There are a total of five descriptions
provided on this form that indicate the proposed project. Of the five
descriptions only the item BOAT LIFT was marked on the form.
2. An attached scaled drawing to the permit request indicated that the
top of the boat lift is a rectangle. Further inspection of the drawing
reveals that there is absolutely no indication of access to the top of the
boat lift, which should not even have a top on it. There is a space on the
request form that "must be filled in" in order to put a top on the boat lift.
The appropriate spaces indicating a "lift deck overhead" or "lift roof
overhead" were not marked on the form by Mr. Kopka.
3. The drawing furnished by Mr. Kopka illustrates that the boat lift
will not extend beyond the existing dock towards the channel. Mr. Kopka has
constructed the boat lift in violation of the documents furnished for
consideration to receive a permit. The boat lift has been constructed so
that it extends approximately six feet beyond the dock, into the channel.
4. After construction began on the boat lift, I was informed by
neighbors that Mr. Kopka was going to build a deck on
the top of the boat lift.
5. Mr. Joe Crockett, the other adjacent neighbor, contacted you and
indicated his disapproval of the deck. At this point, you placed a
"stoppage" on all construction until the matter could be resolved.
6. Mr. Kopka has resumed work on his boat lift and deck, without the
matter being resolved or without your permission.
7. Mr. Kopka is guilty of defrauding his neighbors in that his
intentions to build a deck on the boat lift were never communicated to any of
US. It is my understanding that Mr. Kopka has circumvented your authority by
getting a permit from another CAMA official. If this is the case I am under
the opinion that Mr. Kopka is guilty of defrauding the government agency
CAMA. I request that Mr. Kopka be directed by your agency to dismantle ALL
construction related to his boat lift and deck. This request is justified
due to both Mr. Kopka's fraudulent behavior in this matter and the fact that
the boat lift has been constructed approximately six feet out of compliance
with the drawing. He should be directed to comply to a time frame of no more
than two weeks to dismantle the illegal structure. As a CAMA official, you
should consider prosecution of Mr. Kopka in this matter.
8. Under no circumstance would I ever agree to a boat lift deck or lift
roof overhead being constructed by Mr. Kopka. His behavior in this matter
has been fraudulent to all parties concerned and should be stopped.
I will appreciate your immediate attention to this matter. Thank you
for sending the papers I signed for the permit. I still can not recall
seeing the scaled drawing page, but my signature is at the bottom. I am sure
that after reviewing the above information it is clear that the structure is
out of compliance with the permit request and that Mr. Kopka's behavior has
been improper.
Respect �ully,
Tom King

MEMO
TO
From:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
�1MSTA o.
North Carolina Department of Environment,
"M�•�cl Health, and Natural Resources ��� Printed onRecycled Papei

o D
,o
el
Lore a .7Z
o�
Al � °/4
4 -t-ooe.
rclil/

Roger Schecter
Director

io
I't im,
Pif
I N.A.

i..

FY,

N

' `.. - "w
�

Dear Mr. Piggott,
P Lpi rI.11V q.
Nov. 19, 1995 P NOV 2 7 M
1W--------------------- -„sue
I am writing this letter in regards to the illegal dock constructed by
Mr. John Kopka. You will note that I filed a complaint against the
construction of some of the components of the dock when Mr. Kopka originally
built those components. I have written you on several occasions to express
my concern over his dock and to solicit your assistance in this matter. Not
only did Mr. Kopka build components of his dock which are in violation of his
permit, he also defrauded LAMA. To date the structure is still standing,
even though it is not in compliance with the permit request stipulations.
Due to the serious nature of his willful and fraudulent behavior, I
request that you assert to Mr. Kopka that the illegal components of the
structure be taken down. This has gone on too long! I am totally dismayed
that you have failed to take appropriate action against Mr. Kopka. Due to
the fact that I have contacted you on several occasions, and the dock is
still standing, I request the following steps be taken:
1. I will appreciate written notification of the actions you plan to
take against Mr. Kopka. This request is pertinent in that I have not been
contacted by your office in regards to my last two letters.
2. I will appreciate the name and address of your supervisor at LAMA.
3. Mr. Kopka should be required to eliminate the offensive components
of the dock, immediately!
Recently, another neighbor was required to remove a chain link fence he
placed in the water. This fence was not as ingregious as the illegal deck
constructed by Mr. Kopka. Why was Mr. Darden required to remove his fence
when Mr. Kopka has been permitted to not only keep his dock but to continue
to add components to the dock which are illegal? I have complained about this
structure, as Mr. Kopka's other adjoining neighbors have, since he began the
construction of the illegal components of the dock. I am curious why one
person is treated with such a different level of variance in regards to LAMA
permit violations.
The illegal structure constructed by Mr.John Kopka is in violation of
the permit he submitted to LAMA. The deck is evasive to the privacy of my
family. I did not, nor did the other neighbors, approve the deck constructed
by Mr. Kopka.
I respectfully request that CAMA officials require Mr. Kopka to
dismantle the offensive components of his dock. Due to the inordinate amount
of time that has transpired, the dock should be dismantled IMMEDIATELY !
Rectfully
om King
Enclosures:
Copies of past letters submitted to CAMA in regards to this matter.

April 3, 1995
Dear Mr.Piggott,
I am writing this letter in order to provide you with an update
of a dock constructed by Mr. John Kopka. A copy of a previous
letter I wrote is attached and should serve as background
information.
Although Mr. Kopka is in violation of the conditions of his
permit, he has not dismantled the offending structure. Much time
has elapsed since my last correspondence and I am concerned that
Mr. Kopka has not taken actions to remedy the situation.
Mr.Kopka has clearly built a structure out of compliance with the
terms of the permit and should be required to make an appropriate
remedy to this situation. The only appropriate remedy in this
situation to require Mr. Kopka to dismantle the structure he
constructed in violation of his permit.
I will appreciate your immediate attention to this matter.
Respectfully,
Tom King
110 V 7
aaaaN a iiiia�a�+taMR�i6�R

October 25, 1993
Dear Mr. Pigott,
In a letter dated Sept. 7, I outlined my concerns over a boat lift
and deck that was constructed by my neighbor, Mr. Kopka. I am
concerned that this structure is still out of compliance with the
CAMA permit. Since my last communication with you, construction
has continued on the deck and boat lift. The most recent
construction occurred on Sunday, Oct. 24, 1993. Mr. Kopka should
be required to dismantle the boat lift and deck as it is not in
compliance with the standards stipulated in the CAMA permit.
Apparently, Mr. Kopka does not understand that he is in violation
of his permit.
I will appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to
a remedy to the situation.
Respectfully,
Tom King
Q '
Gov 2 7 1995

Sept. 7, 1993
Dear Mr. Pigott,
The following information is provided as a follow-up to our phonF
conversations on Sept. 1st and 3rd, 1993 concerning a CAMA permit acquired b}
Mr. John Kopka.
1. I signed a form (adjacent property owner) that gave permission fol
Mr. Kopka to build a boat lift. There are a total of five descriptions
provided on this form that indicate the proposed project. Of the five
descriptions only the item BOAT LIFT was marked on the form.
2. An attached scaled drawing to the permit request indicated that thF
top of the boat lift is a rectangle. Further inspection of the drawinc
reveals that there is absolutely no indication of access to the top of thF
boat lift, which should not even have a top on it. There is a space on thF
request form that "must be filled in" in order to put a top on the boat lift.
The appropriate spaces indicating a "lift deck overhead" or "lift roof
overhead" were not marked on the form by Mr. Kopka.
3. The drawing furnished by Mr. Kopka illustrates that the boat lift
will not extend beyond the existing dock towards the channel. Mr. Kopka has
constructed the boat lift in violation of the documents furnished foi
consideration to receive a permit. The boat lift has been constructed sc
that it extends approximately six feet beyond the dock, into the channel.
4. After construction began on the boat lift, I was informed bl
neighbors that Mr. Kopka was going to build a deck on
the top of the boat lift.
5. Mr. Joe Crockett, the other adjacent neighbor, contacted you an(
indicated his disapproval of the deck. At this point, you placed
"stoppage" on all construction until the matter could be resolved.
6. Mr. Kopka has resumed work on his boat lift and deck, without the
matter being resolved or without your permission.
7. Mr. Kopka is guilty of defrauding his neighbors in that hip
intentions to build a deck on the boat lift were never communicated to any of
US. It is my understanding that Mr. Kopka has circumvented your authority b)
getting a permit from another CAMA official. If this is the case I am under
the opinion that Mr. Kopka is guilty of defrauding the government agency.
CAMA. I request that Mr. Kopka be directed by your agency to dismantle ALi
construction related to his boat lift and deck. This request is justifies
due to both Mr. Kopka's fraudulent behavior in this matter and the fact tha-
the boat lift has been constructed approximately six feet out of complianc
with the drawing. He should be directed to comply to a time frame of no mor.
than two weeks to dismantle the illegal structure. As a CAMA official, yc
should consider prosecution of Mr. Kopka in this matter.
8. Under no circumstance would I ever agree to a boat lift deck or lif
roof overhead being constructed by Mr. Kopka. His behavior in this matte
has been fraudulent to all parties concerned and should be stopped.
I will appreciate y
for sending the papers
seeing the scaled drawing
that after reviewing the
out of compliance with t
been improper.
h
our immediate -attention to this matter. Thank yc
I signed for the permit. I still can not recal
page, but my signature is at the bottom. I am sur
above information it is clear that the structure i
e permit request and that Mr. Kopka's behavior ha
Respectfully, P
Tom King
NO'J27
w.... • ... •.............a+.

April 3, 1995
Dear Mr.Piggott,
I am writing this letter in order to provide you with an update
of a dock constructed by Mr. John Kopka. A copy of a previous
letter I wrote is attached and should serve as background
information.
Although Mr. Kopka is in violation of the conditions of his
permit, he has not dismantled the offending structure. Much time
has elapsed since my last correspondence and I am concerned that
Mr. Kopka has not taken actions to remedy the situation.
Mr.Kopka has clearly built a structure out of compliance with the
ter.ms of the permit and should be required to make an appropriate
remedy to this situation. The only appropriate remedy in this
situation to require Mr. Kopka to dismantle the structure he
constructed in violation of his permit.
I will appreciate your immediate attention to this matter.
s ectfully,
5
Tom Ki g
'�'�•w..�.r�r� � �..,,�w«.»was

October 25, 1993
Dear Mr. Pigott,
In a letter dated Sept. 7, I outlined my concerns over a boat lift
and deck that was constructed by my neighbor, Mr. Kopka. I am
concerned that this structure is still out of compliance with the
CAMA permit. Since my last communication with you, construction
has continued on the deck and boat lift. The most recent
construction occurred on Sunday, Oct. 24, 1993. Mr. Kopka should
be required to dismantle the boat lift and deck as it is not in
compliance with the standards stipulated in the LAMA permit.
Apparently, Mr. Kopka does not understand that he is in violation
of his permit.
I will appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to
a remedy to the situation.
Respectfully,
Tom King
APR 11 1-995

Sept. 7, 1993
Dear Mr. Pigott,
The following information is provided as a follow-up to our phone
conversations on Sept. 1st and 3rd, 1993 concerning a CAMA permit acquired by
Mr. John Kopka.
1. I signed a form (adjacent property owner) that gave permission for
Mr. Kopka to build a boat lift. There are a total of five descriptions
provided on this form that indicate the proposed project. Of the five
descriptions only the item BOAT LIFT was marked on the form.
2. An attached scaled drawing to the permit request indicated that the
top of the boat lift is a rectangle. Further inspection of the drawing
reveals that there is absolutely no indication of access to the top of the
boat lift, which should not even have a top on it. There is a space on the
request form that "must be filled in" in order to put a top on the boat lift.
The appropriate spaces indicating a "lift deck overhead" or "lift roof
overhead" were not marked on the form by Mr. Kopka.
3. The drawing furnished by Mr. Kopka illustrates that the boat lift
will not extend beyond the existing dock towards the channel. Mr. Kopka has
constructed the boat lift in violation of the documents furnished for
consideration to receive a permit. The boat lift has been constructed so
that it extends approximately six feet beyond the dock, into the channel.
4. After construction began on the boat lift, I was informed by
neighbors that Mr. Kopka was going to build a deck on
the top of the boat lift.
5. Mr. Joe Crockett, the other adjacent neighbor, contacted you and
indicated his disapproval of the deck. At this point, you placed a
"stoppage" on all construction until the matter could be resolved.
6. Mr. Kopka has resumed work on his boat lift and deck, without the
matter being resolved or without your permission.
7. Mr. Kopka is guilty of defrauding his neighbors in that his
intentions to build a deck on the boat lift were never communicated to any of
us. It is my understanding that Mr. Kopka has circumvented your authority by
getting a permit from another CAMA official. If this is the case I am under
the opinion that Mr. Kopka is guilty of defrauding the government agency
CAMA. I request that Mr. Kopka be directed by your agency to dismantle ALL
construction related to his boat lift and deck. This request is justified
due to both Mr. Kopka's fraudulent behavior in this matter and the fact that
the boat lift has been constructed approximately six feet out of compliance
with the drawing. He should be directed to comply to a time frame of no more
than two weeks to dismantle the illegal structure. As a CAMA official, you
should consider prosecution of Mr. Kopka in this matter.
8. Under no circumstance would I ever agree to a boat lift deck or lift
roof overhead being constructed by Mr. Kopka. His behavior in this matter
has been fraudulent to all parties concerned and should be stopped.
I will appreciate your immediate -attention to this matter. Thank you
for sending the papers I signed for the permit. I still can not recall
seeing the scaled drawing page, but my signature is at the bottom. I am sure
that after reviewing the above information it is clear that the structure is
out of compliance with the permit request and that Mr. Kopka's behavior has
been improper.
Respectfully,
rrrPMnPF1)
Tom King