20150243 Ver 1_CAMA Application_20150303

2 0 1 5 42 4 3
118M NP -1
r
fly? 7 � I` ,'"k l�
�.
FI llv, Ft a w? rk) i i`t t, G•, 4i t
(last revised 12127/06)
North Carolina DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
1. Primary Applicant/ Landowner Information
Business Name
Project Name (if applicable)
Topsail Reef HOA
Topsail Reef Emergency Sandbag Revetment
Applicant 1 First Name
MI
Last Name
Susan
Prather
Applicant 2 First Name
MI
Last Name
N/A
N/A
N/A
If additional applicants, please attach an additional page(s) with names listed
Mailing Address
PO Box
City
State
2224 New River Inlet Rd.
N/A
North Topsail Beach
NC
ZIP
Country
Phone No
FAX No
28460
Onslow
910 - 328 -1250 ext NA
N/A
Street Address (if different from above)
City
State
ZIP
N/A
N/A
N/A
N /A-
Email
propertymanager @topsailreefhoa.com
2. Agent/Contractor Information
MAR 0 3 2015
Business Name
Tom Jarrett Coastal Engineering
DENR . WATER RESOURCES
ftp ER
Agent/ Contractor 1 First Name MI
Last Name
James T.
Jarrett
Agent/ Contractor 2 First Name
MI
Last Name
N/A
N/A
N/A
Mailing Address204 Dorchester PI
PO Box
City
State
N/A
Wilmington
NC
ZIP
Phone No 1
Phone No. 2
28412
910- 264 -2166 ext. N/A
910 - 392 -0453 ext N/A
FAX No
North Carolina Professional Engineering License
910 - 392 -0453
005545
Street Address (if different from above)
City
State
ZIP
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A -
Emad
jtomjarrett @aol.com

3. Project Location
County (can be multiple)
Street Address
State
Rd #
Onslow
2224 New River Inlet Rd
N/A
Subdivision Name
City
State
Zip
North Topsail Shores — Topsail Reef
Town of North Topsail Beach
NC
28460
Phone No
Lot No (s) (if many, attach additional page with
f. Man -made features and uses now on tract
list)
910 - 328 -1250 ext. N/A
N /A, ,
a. In which NC river basin is the project located?
b Name of body of water nearest to proposed
White Oak River Basin
project
R -1 Residential
New River Inlet and Atlantic Ocean
c Is the water body identified in (b) above, natural or manmade?
d Name the closest major water body to the
®Natural ❑Manmade ❑Unknown
proposed project site
j Is the proposed activity part of an urban waterfront redevelopment proposal? ❑Yes ®No
New River Inlet and Atlantic Ocean
e Is proposed work within city limits or planning jurisdiction?
f. If applicable, list the planning jurisdiction or city
®Yes []No
limit the proposed work falls within
Town of North Topsail Beach
4. Site Description
a Total length of shoreline on the tract (ft )
b. Size of entire tract (sq ft )
Approximately 1,452 feet.
497,455 sq ft (11.42 ac)
c Size of individual lot(s)
d. Approximate elevation of tract above NHW
N /A, I
(normal high water) or NWL (normal water
I
(If many lot sizes, please attach additional page with a list)
level)
approximately +7 to +9 ft NAVD88
e Vegetation on tract
No native dune grasses are present seaward of the erosion scarp line due to continuing erosion issues and past efforts to
push sand from the foreshore to create artificial dunes and on -going sandbag installation efforts (See Attached Photo Nos
1 to 4)
f. Man -made features and uses now on tract
Topsail Reef includes 8 buildings with each budding containing 30 individual units' The size of each budding is 17,808 sq ft
A 26 acre paved parking lot is situated between the buildings and New River Inlet Road
g. Identify and describe the existing land uses adjacent to the proposed project site.
The property immediately north of Topsail Reef contains the North Topsail Shores duplex development The property
immediately south of Topsail Reef consists of one undeveloped lot and one lot containing a single family home
h How does local government zone the tract?
i Is the proposed project consistent with the
R -1 Residential
applicable zoning?
(Attach zoning compliance certificate, if applicable)
®Yes ❑No ❑NA
j Is the proposed activity part of an urban waterfront redevelopment proposal? ❑Yes ®No
k Hasa professional archaeological assessment been done for the tract? If yes, attach a copy NA
I. Is the proposed project located in a National Registered Historic District or does it involve a ❑Yes ®No ❑
National Register listed or eligible property? NA

m (i) Are there wetlands on the site? ❑Yes ®No
(n) Are there coastal wetlands on the site? ❑Yes ®No
(m) If yes to either (i) or (n) above, has a delineation been conducted? ❑Yes ❑No
(Attach documentation, if available)
n Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities
N/A
o Describe existing drinking water supply source
N/A
p. Describe existing storm water management or treatment systems
N/A
5. Activities and Impacts
a Will the project be for commercial, public, or private use? ❑Commercial
❑PubliclGovernment
®Pnvate /Community
b Give a brief description of purpose, use, and daily operations of the project when complete
The sandbag revetment will provide temporary erosion protection for the 8 buildings that comprise Topsail Reef The
location, general layout, and typical cross - sections of the proposed sandbag revetment is provided on the attached
drawings 1 of 4 to 3 of 4. The applicant only proposes to Install the larger sandbag structure between the midpoint of
Building #5 to Budding #1 at this time but wants the option of adding bags to the completed portion of the sandbag
revetment should future conditions warrant.
The Town of North Topsail Beach is moving forward with plans to construct Phase 1 of its permitted shoreline protection
project which would place beach fill in front of all of the Topsail Reef buildings. The Town expects to construct Phase 1
during the November 16, 2012 to March 31, 2013 environmental window Without the installation of the sandbags,
several of the buildings are faced with a high risk of failure either before or during the upcoming hurricane season
c. Describe the proposed construction methodology, types of construction equipment to be used during construction, the
number of each type of equipment and where it is to be stored
The sand bags will be filled with sand obtained from the immediate beach area in front of the buildings. Bulldozers will
be used to shape the area prior to placement of the sandbags When not in use, the equipment will be stored on the
extreme north end of the parking lot
d. List all development activities you propose
The single purpose of the project is to install the temporary sandbag revetment Some damaged piles on several of the
Topsail Reef units will be repaired or replaced.
e Are the proposed activities maintenance of an existing project, new work, or both? New Work
While approximately 650 feet of the permitted sandbag revetment under General Permit 57553
has been installed, additional bags would to be added to the completed section if future
conditions warrant
f What is the approximate total disturbed land area resulting from the proposed project? Approximately 2.0
❑Sq Ft or ®Acres
g Will the proposed protect encroach on any public easement, public accessway or other area ®Yes ❑No ❑NA
that the public has established use of?
The sandbags a maximum of 29 feet seaward of the front -most support pile of each budding
This will place some of the bags fronting Buildings #1 to #5 seaward of the existing Mean High
Water Line defined as elevation +1.4 feet above NAVD88
h Describe location and type of existing and proposed discharges to waters of the state
N/A
i Will wastewater or stormwater be discharged into a wetland? ❑Yes ®No ❑NA
If yes, will this discharged water be of the same salinity as the receiving water? ❑Yes ❑No ❑NA

Is there any mitigation proposed? The applicant proposes monitoring ❑Yes ®No ❑NA
If yes, attach a mitigation proposal

6. Addidonallnfonnation
In addition to this completed application form, (MP -1) the following items below, if applicable, must be submitted in order
for the application package to be complete Hems (a) — (t) are always applicable to any major development application
Please consult the application instruction booklet on how to property prepare the required items below
a A project narrative (See attached)
b An accurate, dated work plat (including plan view and cross-sectional drawings) drawn to scale Please give the
present status of the proposed project Is any portion already complete? H previously authorized work, clearly indicate
on maps, plats, drawings to distinguish between work completed and proposed (See attached sheets 2 of 4, 3 of 4, and
sheet 4 of 4)
c A site or location map that is sufficiently detailed to guide agency personnel unfamiliar with the area to the site (See
attached sheet 1 of 4)
d A copy of the deed (with state application only) or other instrument under which the applicant claims title to the affected
properties
e The appropriate application fee Check or money order made payable to DENR
f A list of the names and complete addresses of the adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners and signed return receipts
as proof that such owners have received a copy of the application and ptais by certified mad Such landowners must be
advised that they have 30 days in which to submit comments on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal
Management
Name See Attached Phone No
Address
Name Phone No
Address
Name Phone No.
Address
g. A list of previous state or federal permits issued for work on the project tract Include permit numbers, pemrittee, and
issuing dates
Pwmdtee Topsail Reef HOA
General Permit No. 57553, issued March 3, 2012
h. Signed consultant or agent authorization form, if applicable
1 WeQand delineation, if necessary.
j A signed AEC hazard nonce for projects in oceanfront and inlet areas (Must be signed by property owner)
k A statement of compliance with the N C Environmental Policy Act (N C.G S I I 3 1 -10), If necessary If the project
InvoWs expenditure of public funds or use of public lands, attach a statement documenting compliance with the North
Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
7. CerBi>hication and P*misslon to Enter on Land
I uncieratand tram any permit issued in response to this application wm allow only the development described
in the application. The project will be subject to the conditions and restrictions contained in the permit.
I certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in fact grant permission to representatives of state and federal review
agencies to enter on the aforementioned lands in connection with evaluating information related to this permit
application and follow -up monitoring of the project.
I further certify that the information provided in this application is tnithful to the best of my knowledge.
Date May 3, 2012 Print Name Tom Jarrett, P.E.
Signature -r-�
Please indicate application attachments pertaining yoke proposed project
NDCM MP -2 Excavation and Fill Information ODCM MP -5 Bridges and Culverts
ODCM MP -3 Upland Development
ODCM MP -4 Structures Information

Form DCM MP -2
1 l r
(Except for bridges and culverts)
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major Permit, Form DCM MP -1. Be sure to complete all other
sections of the Joint Application that relate to this proposed project. Please include all supplemental
information.
Describe below the purpose of proposed excavation and /or fill activities. All values should be given in
feet.
1. EXCAVATION ❑
Amount of material to be excavated from below NHW or
NWL in cubic yards.
Under the existing General Permit, approximately 800
bags have been installed Installation of the sandbag
revetment as proposed in this application would involve
the placement of an additional 2600 bags The bags will
contain between 3.5 to 5 0 cy The total estimated
volume of sand needed to fill all the bags and the tube
totals 14,300 cy. About 40% of the required fill material is
available on site from previous excavation required for
placement of the bags in front and under Buildings #8 to
#5 The remaining volume of material, estimated to be
about 9,000 cy will be obtained from the existing beach
below NHW
b Type of material to be excavated.
Beach sand and shell.
c (i) Does the area to be excavated include coastal d High- ground excavation in cubic yards
wetlands /marsh (CW), submerged aquatic vegetation N/A
(SAV), shell bottom (SB), or other wetlands (WL)? If
any boxes are checked, provide the number of square
feet affected
❑CW ❑SAV ❑SB
❑WL ®None
(u) Describe the purpose of the excavation in these
areas:
To procure borrow material for the Topsail Beach
Interim (Emergency) Beach Fill Protect.
Access
Other (excluding
Channel
Canal
Boat
Boat
Rock
Rock
shoreline
(NLW or
Basin
Ramp
Groin
Breakwater
stabilization)
NWL)
Length
Width
Avg.
Existing
NA
NA
Depth
Final
Project
NA
NA
Depth
1. EXCAVATION ❑
Amount of material to be excavated from below NHW or
NWL in cubic yards.
Under the existing General Permit, approximately 800
bags have been installed Installation of the sandbag
revetment as proposed in this application would involve
the placement of an additional 2600 bags The bags will
contain between 3.5 to 5 0 cy The total estimated
volume of sand needed to fill all the bags and the tube
totals 14,300 cy. About 40% of the required fill material is
available on site from previous excavation required for
placement of the bags in front and under Buildings #8 to
#5 The remaining volume of material, estimated to be
about 9,000 cy will be obtained from the existing beach
below NHW
b Type of material to be excavated.
Beach sand and shell.
c (i) Does the area to be excavated include coastal d High- ground excavation in cubic yards
wetlands /marsh (CW), submerged aquatic vegetation N/A
(SAV), shell bottom (SB), or other wetlands (WL)? If
any boxes are checked, provide the number of square
feet affected
❑CW ❑SAV ❑SB
❑WL ®None
(u) Describe the purpose of the excavation in these
areas:
To procure borrow material for the Topsail Beach
Interim (Emergency) Beach Fill Protect.

Z DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED MATERIAL ® This section not applicable
a Location of disposal area b Dimensions of disposal area
All excavated material will be placed in sandbags The approximate area to be covered by
installed in front and /or under Topsail Reef Buildings #1 sandbags, including the area presently
to #8 The area behind the sandbags under Buildings #4 covered under General Permit #57553 will
to #1 will be filled with sand obtained from the beach total approximately 62,000 sq ft
fronting the Buildings
c (i) Do you claim title to disposal area? d (i) Will a disposal area be available for future
❑Yes ❑No ®NA maintenance?
u If no, attach a letter granting []Yes ❑No ®NA
() g g permission from the
owner (ii) If yes, where?
e (i) Does the disposal area include any coastal f (i) Does the disposal include any area in the
wetlands /marsh (CW), submerged aquatic vegetation water?
(SAV), shell bottom (SB), or other wetlands (WL)? If ®Yes ❑No ❑NA
any boxes are checked, provide the number of square
feet affected. () If Y d ii es, how much water area is affected?
❑CW ❑SAV ❑SB An estimated 0 67 acres seaward of NHW
❑WL ®None wall be covered
(ii) Describe the purpose of disposal in these areas-
a. i ype or snoreime stabilization' b. Length 1450
❑Bulkhead ❑Riprap ❑Breakwater /Sill ❑ Width- 40 feet
Other. Sandbag revetment
c Average distance waterward of NHW or NWL 20 ft d. Maximum distance waterward of NHW or
NWL: 40 ft
e Type of stabilization material f. (i) Has there been shoreline erosion during
15 ft x 5 ft x 2 ft sandbags preceding 12 months9
10 ft x 5 ft x 2 ft sandbags ®Yes []No ❑NA
(ii) If yes, state amount of erosion and source
of erosion amount information.
25 -45 feet Change in vegetation/scarp line
from 12/31/2011 Google Earth aerial photo
and on- ground observation of scarp
position relative to building foundations
made on April 19, 2012.
g Number of square feet of fill to be placed below water h. Type of fill material.
level. 29,000 sq ft sand filled sandbags
Bulkhead backfill Riprap
Breakwater /Sill Other sandbags
i. Source of fill material.
sandbags filled with sand from the immediate beach
area.

4. OTHER FILL ACTIVITIES ❑This section not applicable
(Excluding Shoreline Stabilization)
a (i) Will fill material be brought to the sde? []Yes ❑ b M Will fill material be olaced in coastal
NO 29NA
If yes,
(u) Amount of material to be placed in the water
(m) Dimensions of fill area
(IV) Purpose of fill
wetlands/marsh (CW), submerged aquatic
vegetation (S", shell bottom (SB), or
other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are
checked, provide the number of square
feet affected
❑CW ❑SAV ❑
SB
OWL ®None
(u) Describe the purpose of the fill In these
areas
S. GENERAL
a How will excavated or fill material be kept on site and b What type of construction equipment will be
erosion controlled? used (e g., dragline, backhoe, or hydraulic
N/A (ail material to be placed In sandbags) dredge)?
Bulldozers.
c (i) Will navigational aids be required as a result of the d (i) Will wetlands be crossed in transporting
project? equipment to project site? ❑Yes ®No
❑Yes ®No []NA ❑NA
(d) If yes, explain what type and how they will be (a) if yes, explain steps that will be taken to
implemented avoid or minimize environmental impacts
R - 7
May 3, 2012
Project Name
Topsail Reef Emergency Sandbag Revetment
Applicant Name
Topsail Reef HOA
Applicant Signature Tom Jarrett, RE , Authorized Agent
8

' OCEAN HAZA AEC NOTICE
i -
Project is in an: Ocean Erodible Area High Hazard Flood Area Inlet Hazard Area
Property Owner: -� �C • C
Property Address:
0l — Q& l d
Date Lot Was Platted: .. q-1,Z° ' A/C °2 9460
This notice is intended to make you, the applicant, aware of the
special risks and conditions associated with development in this
area, which is subject to natural hazards such as storms, erosion
and currents. The rules of the Coastal Resources Commission
require that you receive an AEC Hazard Notice and
acknowledge that notice in writing before a permit for
development can be issued.
The Commission's rules on building standards, oceanfront
setbacks and dune alterations are designed to minlmize, but not
eliminate, property loss from hazards. By granting permits, the
Coastal Resources Commission does not guarantee the safety of
the development and assumes no liability for future damage to
the development. Permits issued in the Ocean Hazard Area of
Environmental Concern include the condition that structures be
relocated or dismantled if they become imminently threatened
by changes in shoreline configuration. The structure(s) must be
relocated or dismantled within two (2) years of becoming
imminently threatened, and in any case upon its collapse or
subsidence.
1 The best available information, as accepted by the Coastal
Resources Commission, indicates that the annual long -term
average ocean erosion rate for the area where your property is
located is _ feet per year.
The rate was established by careful analysis of aerial
photographs of the coastline taken over the past 50 years.
Studies also indicate that the shoreline could move as much as
e9112 feet landward in a major storm.
T ood waters in a major storm are predicted to be about
feet deep in this area.
Preferred oceanfront protection measures are beach nourishment
and relocation of threatened structures. Hard erosion control
structures such as bulkheads, seawalls, revetments, groins, jetties
and breakwaters are prohibited. Temporary sand bags may be
authorized under certain conditions.
The applicant must acknowledge this information and
requirements by signing this notice in the space below. Without
the proper signature, the application will not be complete.
I2,-HaA& '511LOO10,
Ploperty Owner Signature Date
SPECIAL NOTE: This hazard notice is required for
development in areas subject to sadden and massive storms and
erosion. Permits issued for development in this area expire on
December 31 of the third year following the year in which the
permit was issued. Shortly before work begins on the project
site, the Local Permit Officer must be contacted to detennine the
vegetation line and setback distance at your site. If the property
has seen little change since the time of permit issuance, and the
proposed development can still meet the setback requirement,
the LPO will inform you that you may begin work. Substantial
progress on the project must be made within 60 days of this
setback determination, or the setback most be re- measured. Also,
the occurrence of a major shoreline change as the result of a
storm within the 60-day period will necessitate re- measurement
of the setback It is important that you check with the LPO
before the permit. expires for official approval to continue the
work after the permit has expired. Generally, if foundation
pilings have been placed and substantial progress is continuing,
permit renewal can• be authorized, it is unlawful to continue
work after permit expiration.
For more Information, contact.
� A-
Local Parmtt Ofticer
I Z7--
Address
ac/
Locality
q (o — '?°) ""7 -2--2,4
Phone Number
Revised May 2010

"� ,' •.,,
""00
�- 1 r
I i° •fi �ti
A dSneads Ferry +',,a*i ?
Project Area
,Nohi Tops il�Beach,p
~ 'I
Holly Ridgef� =.:' -��' �� .x :•.
4l r
Data SIO, NOAA U Navy, NGA, GEBCO
Image �J 2012 GeaEye
02012 Goo gle
M, P.q iry0ate 12 341 1201.1 1 yy►9.0 � ;SUrf nit V' 3431'45•,56" N 77`23'•26 72 W elev 9 ft

z
' r =71
_....... '. 0 r w .IFi'iwrae S�j •f • _
s�+^
i
�
I ----------------- � ... APpmate I1,g50 feet:..
y,.
Footprint of Proposed Sand Bag Revetment
- - --
- —.- -- - - - -- -- �- rr___ _
^ Building NS - _- --- ----- -
1
Building #1 _ f.
- Building 42 Building #3 Building 4 B A
- - g Building N6 "
` - Building N7 Building P8
q
_:.. B A
r ^ carp Line &.Top of Dune (April 2012) `
t
` �� Approximate Scarp
i .-
-
�I—s - - --- Topsail Reef Emergency
If �` Sandbag Revetment
l Applicant:
;; Topsail Reef HOA
2224 New River Inlet Rd.
North Topsail Beach, NC 28460
April 24, 2012
ragw� far 1 inch = 700 ft
�, _,� ,; _ tale in eet so 0
Sheet 2 of 4

NAVD. Therefore, if during installation of the bags some settlement occurs, the sandbag
structure could still be raised to its maximum permitted height.
In addition to maintaining a fixed crest elevation, this permit application includes
widening the base of the sandbag structure for Buildings #1 to the midpoint of Building
#5 to a maximum of 40 feet with a maximum of 28 to 29 feet extending seaward of the
front pilings supporting each Topsail Reef Buildings. For the section of the completed
portion of the existing permitted sandbag revetment fronting Buildings #8 to the midpoint
of Building #5, no additional sandbags will be placed at this time, however, the applicant
is including the possibility of adding more bags in the future should conditions warrant.
The modification proposed for this section of Topsail Reef is shown on Sheet 3 of 4 and
would involve the widening of the base of the sandbag revetment from its presently
permitted width of 20 feet to about 40 feet with the bags extending approximately 20 feet
seaward of the front support pile of the Buildings. The crest elevation of this portion of
the sandbag revetment would also be raised to a maximum elevation of +12 feet NAVD.
For Buildings #1 to #4, where no sandbags presently exist, the sandbag structure would
have a total base width of 45 feet and a maximum crest elevation of +12.0 feet NAVD as
shown on Sheet 4 of 4.
riiUw lvu. 1. ropsaii tceei ttullaing i71, April 19, 2012.
10

Photo No. 2. Topsail Reef Building #1 condition as of April 19, 2012 and estimated pre -
storm sand level.
11

List of Adjacent Property Owners:
Town of North Topsail Beach
2008 Loggerhead Ct
North Topsail Beach, Nc 28460
Jesse Fisher
600 S Madison St
Whiteville, NC 28472
Fausto Polanco
2276 New River Inlet Rd.
Sneads Ferry, NC 24860
Letter notifying adjacent property owners
April 24, 2012
To Current property owner
From Tom Jarrett, P E
Subject. Proposed Sandbags for Topsail Reef
Dear
The Topsail Reef Homeowners Association (HOA) has voted to place a larger sandbag
revetment along the entire ocean front length of the property, a distance of approximately
1,450 feet The Topsail Reef HOA has an existing General Permit No 57553 to install
sandbags in this same area, however, recent erosion events have made modification of the
permitted sandbag stricture necessary The new sandbag design would have a crest
elevation of approximately +12 0 feet NAVD88 (North Atlantic Vertical Datum of 1988),
which is about 2 5 feet below the first floor elevation of each Building The base width
of the modified sandbag revetment would be about 45 feet.
This letter is in response to CAMA permit application requirements to notify adjacent
property owners of the intended action Adjacent property owners have the right to
protest the application Topsail Reef would hope you would loin the fight to take back
the beach
Sincerely,
Tom Jarrett, P E
Project Engineer
14

MAJOR CAMA PEMIT MODIFICATION #39 -12 (December 16, 2014)

Permit Class
AMENDED
(By CRC Variance)
Permit Number
39 -12
i
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ;
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
and
Coastal Resources Commission
4W re r m t
L
for
X Major Development in an Area of Environmental Concern
pursuant to NCGS 113A -118
A Excavation and /or filling pursuant io NCGS 113 -229
Issued to Topsail Reef HOA, 2224 New River Inlet Road, North Topsail Beach, NC 28460
Authorizing development to Onslow County at Atlantic Ocean at Topsail Reef
Condominiums , as requested in the permittee's letter dated 8/22/14. including; the
attached workplan drawings 01) as referenced in Condition No 1 of this permit.
` This permit, issued on December 16, 2014 , is subject to compliance with the application (where consistent
with the permit), all applicable regulations, special conditions and notes set forth below Any � iolation of these terms may
be subject to fines, imprisonment or civil action; or may cause the permit to be null and void
r
1) Unless specifically alteied herein, all development shall be carried out in accordance with the
attached workplan drawings (11), Figute 1 dated 4 /3/13, Figures 2 -6 dated received in the Morehead
City office on 8/27/14, Sheets 1 -3 and 5 dated 8/22/14, Sheet 4 dated revised 8/29/14, and AEC
Hazard Notice dated 5/1/12
2) In keeping with 15A NCAC 07H 0308(a)(2) of the rules of the Coastal Resources Commission
(CRC), as well as the Variance granted by the CRC on October 23, 2014, and the Variance Oider
signed by the CRC Chairman on November 21, 2014. the base width of the authorized temporary
erosion control structures located in fiont of buildings 6 thiough 8 shall not exceed 45 feet, and the
crest elevation of the structure shall not exceed 12 feet NAVD
(See attached sheets for Additional Conditions)
This permit action may be appealed by the permittee or
other qualified persons within twentN (20) days of the issuing
r
date
This permit must be accessible on -site to Department
personnel when the project is inspected for compliance
Any maintenance work or project modification not covered
hei eunder requires further Division apps oval
All work must cease when the permit ehpnes on
I
December 31, 2015
In issumd this permit, the StaTe of North Carolina agrees
that yow project is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal
Management Program
f
f
1
i
N
J
Signed by the authority of the Secretary of DENR and the
Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission }
Braxton C. Davis, Director '
Division of Coastal Management '
This permit and its conditions are hereby accepted i
r
Signature of Permittee
. - - . , - - -- -- {

t
Topsail Reef HOA Permit #3912
k
3)
4)
Page 2 of 3
ADDITIONAL, CONDITIONS
5
No portion of the authorized temporary erosion control structures located in front of buildings 6 through
8 shall be located more than 29 feet waterward of the imminently threatened structure, which in this case
is defined by the waterward most pilings ;
Sandbags used to construct the temporary erosion control structures shall be tan in color and three to
five feet wide and seven to 15 feet long when measured flat
NOTE:
5)
6)
7)
9)
10)
t
11)
s
The configuration of the individual sandbags may vary from that shown on the attached
work-plan drawings, so long as the dimensions, alignment, and size requirements of Conditions 2,
3 and 4 of this permit are not exceeded.
Soldier pilings and other types of devices to anchor the sandbags shall not be allowed.
In keeping with 15A NCAC 07H 0308(a)(2), G) of the rules of the Coastal Resources Commission
(CRC), as well as the variance granted by the CRC on October 2' ), 2014, and the Variance Order signed
by the CRC Chairman on November 21, 2014, the temporary erosion control strictures may remain in
place up to May 4, 2020
Once the temporary erosion control structure is determined to be unnecessary due to relocation or
removal of the threatened structure, a stone protection project constructed by the U S. Army Corps of
Engineers, a large scale beach nourishment project of an inlet relocation project, it shall be removed by
the permittee within 30 days of official notification by the Division of Coastal Management regardless
of the time limit placed on the temporary erosion control structure However, removal of the authorized
temporary erosion control structures shall not be required if they are covered by duries with stable and
natural vegetation
Y
0
If the temporary erosion control structure becomes damaged, the permittee shall be responsible for the
removal of remnants of all portions of the structure(s)
In order to reduce the possibility of unintended impacts to nesting sea turtles and their nests, the
permittee is encouraged to expedite the authorized work as much as possible, to work only during
daylight hours, and to coordinate all authorized activities with existing sea turtle monitoring efforts in
the area
This amended permit shall be attached to the original of Permit No 39 -12, which was issued by CRC
Variance on 5129/12, and copies of both documents shall be readily a \ailable oil site when Division
personnel inspect the project for compliance
All conditions and stipulations of the active permit remain in force under this amended permit unless r
specifically altered herein

Topsail Reef IIOA Permit 439 -12
Page 3 of 3
Ai DYJFIONAtL, CONDITIONS i
NOTE: This permit does not eliminate the need to obtain any additional state, federal or local permits,
approvals of authorizations that may be required.
NOTE, Future development of the perrnittee's property may require a modification of this permit.
Contact a representative of the Division at (910) 796 -7215 prior to the commencement of any
such activity for this determination.
NOTE: The permittee and /or his contractor are urged to meet with a representative of the Division prior
to project initiation
t
� V
t
1
f }
i
}

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
ROY COOPER. I1.0 Box 629 REPLY To MARY L LuCASSI
ATTORNEY GENEm RALEIGH, NC 27602 ENINIRONWNTAL DR'Isio\
TLL [phone]
FAX [phone]
mlucasse @ncdoj gov
November 21, 2014
Topsail Reef Homeowners Association, Inc Certified Mail/ Return Receipt Requested
c/o Community Association Management of North
Carolina, Inc, Registered Agent
P.O. Box 79032
Charlotte, NC 28271
Re: Variance Request CRC -VR -14-11
Dear Registered Agent for Topsail Reef Homeowners Association, Inc.:
At its October 2014 meeting, the Coastal Resources Commission (Commission) granted
Petitioner Topsail Reef Homeowners Association, Inc.'s (HOA) request for a variance subject to
conditions Attached is a copy of the Final Agency Decision, signed by the Chairman of the
Commission In summary, one of the conditions for granting the variance is that Petitioner must
provide proof of funding for the project within nine months of today's date We have received a
copy of the November 3, 2014 financing proposal from First Covenant Bank signed and accepted
by Jay Greenspan, President of the HOA. By itself, this document is not adequate to complete
the condition included in the variance. Please provide the additional information described in the
Final Agency Decision to the Division of Coastal Management and undersigned counsel within
the required timeframe. In addition to providing this information and prior to undertaking the
development for which a variance was sought, you must first obtain a CAMA permit from the
required permitting authority
If for some reason you do not agree to the terms of the variance as granted, you have the
right to appeal the Commission's decision by filing a petition for judicial review in superior court
within thirty days after receiving the Final Agency Decision as allowed under the North Carolina
Administrative Procedures Act A copy of the judicial review petition must be served on the
Coastal Resources Commission's agent for service of process at the following address-
John Evans, General Counsel
Dept of Environment and Natural Resources
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1601

Topsail Reef Homeowners Association, Inc.
c/o Community Association Management of North Carolina, Inc., Registered Agent
November 21, 2014
Page 2
If you choose to file a petition for judicial review, I request that you also serve a copy of
the petition for judicial review on me at the address listed in the letterhead. If you have any
questions, please feel free to contact me
Sincer ly,
Mary . . Lucasse
Special Deputy Attorney General and
Counsel for the Coastal Resources Commission
cc w/ encl Frank D Gorham, III, Chairman, electronically
I Clark Wright, Jr., Esq., US Mail and electronically
Christine A. Goebel, Esq , electronically
Braxton C. Davis, electronically
Angela Willis, electronically

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF ONSLOW
IN THE MATTER OF:
PETITION FOR VARIANCE
BY TOPSAIL REEF HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC
BEFORE THE NORTH CAROLINA
COASTAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
CRC- VR -14 -11
FINAL AGENCY DECISION
This matter was heard on oral arguments and stipulated facts at the regularly scheduled
meeting of the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission (hereinafter CRC) on October 23,
20141 in Wilmington, North Carolina pursuant to N.C. Gen Stat § 113A -120.1 and 15A NCAC
7J .0700, et seq I. Clark Wright, Jr appeared on behalf of Petitioner Topsail Reef Homeowners
Association, Inc (HOA). Assistant Attorney General Christine A Goebel, Esq. appeared for the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Coastal Management. Upon
consideration of the stipulated facts, stipulated exhibits, the record documents and the arguments
of the parties, the CRC adopts the following
STIPULATED FACTS
1. Petitioner in this case is the Topsail Reef Homeowners' Association ( "HOA ").
2. The HOA manages the Topsail Reef Condominium property ( "Property ") which
is located at 2224 New River Inlet Road in North Topsail Beach, Onslow County, North
Carolina Built between 1980 and 1981, the Property includes eight buildings, each with thirty
condominium units (total 240 units). Running from the northeast to the southwest, the buildings
are numbered 1 through 8. Each of the buildings is approximately 19,960 square feet in area
i Petitioner had initially submitted a request for an expedited hearing on this variance request September 4, 2014
Based on the information provided, the chairman of the Commission conditionally granted Petitioner's request for
an expedited hearing However, Petitioner withdrew its request for an expedited hearing by email communication on
September 22, 2014 and the matter was heard at the regularly scheduled Commission meeting on October 23, 2014
1

3 Located at the northeastern end of North Topsail Beach, the Property is
approximately a quarter mile from the New River Inlet. The Property is located within the Ocean
Erodible and High Hazard Flood Areas of Environmental Concern ( "AECs "). The long term
average annual erosion rate for the Property is two feet per year according to the DCM erosion
rate maps which were last updated in 2011 (Long Term Shoreline Change Study and Setback
Factors, 2011 Update, Map Sheet North Topsail Beach, Sheet 2 of 2). The Property is
immediately south of the current Inlet Hazard AEC boundary The Property is within the
proposed updated Inlet Hazard AEC, which the Coastal Resources Commission ( "Commission ")
reviewed but did not finalize at its November 2010 meeting, pending completion of the ocean
shoreline erosion rate updates.
4. Pictures of the site were provided to the Commission in the Stipulated Exhibits
attached to DCM's Staff Recommendation.
5 Over the past eight years, the United States Army Corps of Engineers deposited
dredge spoil along an area located generally in front of the Property three times during the
winters of 2007 -08, 2009 -10 and 2010 -11 The dredge spoil was taken using a pipeline dredge
system from the New River Inlet Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway crossing and Cedar Bush Cut
6. The First Permit. On February 3, 2012, the Division of Coastal Management
( "DCM ") issued a CAMA General Permit ( "First Permit ") to the HOA to install a sandbag
revetment along 1,500 linear feet of ocean shoreline in front of all eight buildings at the Property.
Consistent with 15A NCAC 07H .0308(a)(2)(E) and (K), the permit limited the bag revetment to
a section 6 feet high and 20 feet wide as measured from the profile directly beneath the bags The
sand bag revetment installation was begun by Erosion Control Services ( "ECS ") in March 2012
FA

As of April 13, 2012, approximately 650 linear feet of the revetment adjacent to Buildings 8, 7, 6
and part of Building 5 was completed
7. During the period from April I 1 to April 13, 2012, the Property was impacted by
a moderate northeaster that occurred during a high lunar tide Between April 12 and April 18,
2012, a 127 -hour period, waves were from the southwest for 116 hours, or over 90 percent of the
time. The elevation of the sand on the beach and under the Property eroded approximately 51
inches (4.3 feet) Portions of the existing sandbag revetment sloughed off. As a result, the top
elevation of the six -foot tall sandbag revetment permitted under the 2012 General Permit was six
to eight feet below the elevation of the first floor of Buildings 1 through 4
8 Emergency Permit Subsequently, the HOA applied for an emergency Mayor
CAMA Permit on May 3, 2012 to install a sandbag revetment with a bottom width of 45 feet and
+12 feet NAVD crest elevation. The permit request was for placement of the larger revetment for
Buildings 1 through 4, and a revetment with a bottom width of 40 feet and a crest elevation of +
12 feet NAVD for Buildings 5 through 8 CAMA Emergency Major Permit No 39 -12 was
issued on May 4, 2012 In accordance with 15A NCAC 07H 0308(a)(2)(E) and (K), the permit
limited the width of the sandbag revetment to 20 feet and its height to six feet. The sandbag
revetment was to be placed no further waterward than twenty feet from the water ward pilings
The permit and photos of the alignment conditions at the time of the 2012 application were
provided to the Commission in the Stipulated Exhibits attached to the DCM Staff
Recommendation.
9. The HOA requested an expedited variance from the permit to allow for an
expanded sandbag revetment with a bottom width of 45 feet and a maximum crest elevation of
3

+12 feet NAVD, to allow placement of the sandbags a maximum distance of 29 feet seaward of
the waterward most pilings of each building, and to allow the sandbags to remain for up to eight
years On May 24, 2012, the Commission granted the variance request in part and allowed
placement of the expanded revetment in front of Buildings 1 through 5 to extend a maximum
distance of twenty -nine feet seaward from the most waterward piles The Commission denied the
request to place the larger revetment in front of Buildings 6, 7 and 8 The Commission also
denied the request that the sandbags be allowed to remain for eight years instead of five years A
copy of the CRC's final order issued May 29, 2012 was provided to the Commission as a
Stipulated Exhibit attached to the DCM Staff Recommendations. DCM issued a permit pursuant
to the variance that included conditions limiting the sandbag alignment in front of Buildings 6, 7
and 8 to the six foot by twenty foot revetment contemplated by a general permit. The permit (No
39 -12 as amended pursuant to the variance granted by the Commission on May 24, 2012) was
provided to the Commission as a Stipulated Exhibit attached to the DCM Staff Recommendation
10. On October 10, 2012, the revetment constructed pursuant to the 2012 variance
and repairs to the existing revetment in front of Buildings 6, 7 and 8 were completed Hurricane
Sandy impacted the North Carolina coast on October 28, 2012 creating strong winds, swells, and
storm surge, and causing the near shore flood channel to be pushed up directly against the
revetment on the shoreline from the northeast corner of Budding 1 to the northeast comer of
Building 6 The flood channel ran south of the Properly towards the St Regis Condominiums
By October 31, 2012, the channel was three or four feet deep at low tide along the Property
Photos depicting the flood channel in 2012 before the beach nourishment were provided to the
Commission in the Stipulated Exhibits attached to the DCM Staff Recommendation.
rd

11 Inlet Dredging and Beach Nourishment. In November 2012, dredging for
relocation of the New River Inlet channel began with the dredged sand placed on the beach south
of the inlet, including on the beach front area ocean ward of the Property. The information in this
paragraph is provided by the Phase 1, New River Inlet Channel Realignment and Beach
Restoration, Post Construction Report (CP &E, May 2013). Material removed from the inlet was
placed along 7,735 feet of shoreline to widen the beach berm ( +6.0 ft. NAVD) approximately
135 feet. The project extended south from New River Inlet to Shipwatch Villas, or from USACE
reference station 1163 +00, on the north end of Topsail Island, to station 1090 +00 (See
information included in Stipulated Exhibit 27 on Bearing Point Drawing 02 for stations adjoining
Topsail Reef which was provided to the Commission as an attachment to the DCM Staff
Recommendations). Approximately 592,000 cubic yards were removed from the 3,500 ft. long
channel and placed on the shoreline of North Topsail Beach. The fill area experienced a
waterline extension ( +1.4 ft NAVD) an average distance of 170 feet. The in -place volumetric
calculations reflect the beach received approximately 566,244 cubic yards, or an average fill
density of 73 cubic yards per linear foot (See information included in the CP &E Presentation of
Feb 2013 which was provided to the Commission as a Stipulated Exhibit attached to the DCM
Staff Recommendations) The seaward extent of the post- nourishment berm, the 6 foot elevation
contour, is shown in the Stipulated Exhibits attached to the DCM Staff Recommendation Future
re- nourishment of the shoreline in front of Topsail Reef is proposed. The Town indicated in a
letter dated August 29, 2014, which was provided to the Commission as a Stipulated Exhibit to
the DCM Staff Recommendation, that "[i]n 2016 we have scheduled a large -scale maintenance
of the entire phase 1 area," which includes the area in front of the Property.
5

12. Minor Modification. On August 22, 2014, the HOA submitted a request for a
minor modification to CAMA Major Permit No. 39 -12, the permit issued pursuant to the 2012
variance The HOA requested permission to enlarge the existing sandbag structure in front of
Buildings 6 through 8 so that it would be the same size as the sand bag revetment permitted and
installed on front of Buildings 1 through 5 to 2012. See first paragraph of the Project Description
— Modification, provided to the Commission in the Stipulated Exhibits attached to the DCM
Staff Recommendation DCM denied this request on August 29, 2014 because it was not
consistent with 15A NCAC 07H 0308(a)(2)(K).
13 Condition of the Property. According to the HOA's coastal engineer, who has
analyzed beach profiles from surveys performed in May 2013 and April 2014 at beach
monitoring stations 11 +40, 11 +45, 11 +50 and 11 +55 (the stations along the beach at the
Property) the face of the berm (an approximate six -foot elevation contour) has receded from 105
feet at station 11 +40 to 167 feet at station 11 +55. (Survey data is depicted in the Stipulated
Exhibits provided to the Commission as attachments to the DCM Staff Recommendation )
14 Diagrams in the Stipulated Exhibits show the progressive movement of the face of
the berm from May 13, 2013 through August 21, 2014 These measurements were made by Don
Street (a member of the HOA) and ECS and are based on the horizontal distance from the end of
walkways in front of each building to the edge of the escarpment (the six -foot elevation contour)
The measurements are provided in Tables 1 and 2, below The measurements show a high rate of
erosion of the berm in front of the Property since the beach nourishment project
15 The end of the expanded bag section in front of Building 5 is exposed. According
to the HOA's engineer, loss of the berm would result in a limited work window of 2 to 4 hours
CI

per day during periods of low tide Pictures showing this condition were provided to the
Commission as Stipulated Exhibits attached to DCM's Staff Recommendation
16. According to an analysis of the August 2014 survey compared to the April 2014
survey by the HOA's engineer, the rate of loss of the berm along the Property beach front is from
eight to twelve feet per month for the period from May 2013 to August 2014. Over 58 days, from
June 25 to August 28, 2014, the rate of berm recession has been from 0 5 to 1.1 feet per day, i e ,
approximately fifteen to thirty -three feet per month. The rate of change at Building 5 through 8 is
at the low end of that range but the accelerated rates of erosion are continuing
Table 1 Measurement to Edge of Berm from Edge of Walkways, May 13, 2013 to
August 28, 2014 (from ECS)
bldg
;
C14
o
i
i
C9
i
i
i
t
C>
C11
i
all
CN
i
o
00
8
195'
106'
102'
99'
92'
92'
85'
83'
82'
82'
77'
61'
7
190'
96'
92'
90'
82'
81'
74'
71'
71'
71'
63'
41'
b
190'
85'
80'
76'
72'
70'
63'
57'
56'
56'
49'
34'
5
190'
74'
67'
63'
60'
58'
53'
48'
47'
46'
30'
27'
4
185'
61'
S7'
S 1'
48'
46'
42'
39'
38'
33'
12'
0'
3
180'
42'
40'
20'
20'
18'
15'
12'
17'
16'
-20'
-20'
2
170'
19'
16'
6'
6'
1'
0'
-11'
-24 '
-24'
-24'
1
170'
3'
-S'
-10'
-14'
-1 b'
-24-24'
�-2
-24'
-24
-24'
Table 2 Total Berm Retreat Distances, During July and August 2014 and from May 2014 to
August 2014 (from ECS)
Building Number.
8
7
—T-r-5
4
3
2
1
Loss from June 25 to August 21, 2014
45'
33'
51'
47'
61'(1)
62'(2)
43'(2)
27'(3)
Loss from May 2013 to Aug. 2014
(17 months)
134'
149'
156'
163'
185'
200'
194'
194'
(1) Total berm retreat in 51 days, shoreline at toe of revetment
(2) Total berm retreat in 40 days, shoreline at toe of revetment
(3) Total berm retreat in 20 days, shoreline at toe of revetment
7

17 Petitioner obtained additional beach profile surveys during the week of August
28, 2014. Those beach profiles, along with previous survey profiles, extend from the buildings
seaward to approximately -10 0 (NAVD). Graphs displaying profiles from November 2012,
January 2013, May 2013, April 2014 and August 2014, extending from baseline stations 11-+-30
to 11 +60, were provided to the Commission in the Stipulated Exhibits attached to the DCM Staff
Recommendation
18 An aerial photo depicting the North Topsail Beach shoreline shows the Baseline
Stations for the New River Inlet Channel Realignment and Beach Restoration Project and
provides assistant in evaluating beach profile information. This photo was provided to the
Commission in the Stipulated Exhibits attached to the DCM Staff Recommendation.
19 James W. Forman, Jr., Y.E. provided a letter to clarify the relationship between
the escarpment and the water ward edge of the existing sandbags in front of Buildings 6, 7, and
8. His letter was provided to the Commission as one of the Stipulated Exhibits attached to the
DCM Staff Recommendation
20 An evaluation of the erosion along the shoreline fronting Topsail Reef was
undertaken by Theodore J. Sampson, one of the HOA's environmental consultants, and was
provided to the Commission as a Stipulated Exhibit to the DCM Staff Recommendation
21 An evaluation of the erosion conditions along the shoreline fronting Topsail Reef
was undertaken by Yogi Harper, Erosion Control Specialists of North Carolina, Inc., and was
provided to the Commission as a Stipulated Exhibit attached to the DCM Staff Recommendation.
22. The Town of North Topsail Beach stated in the notice to adjacent landowners
dated August 18, 2014 that the area of the shoreline to the north of the Property is experiencing
8

inordinate erosion A copy of that notice was provided to the Commission in the Stipulated
Exhibits attached to the DCM Staff Recommendation.
23. The shoreline upon which to construct a sandbag erosion protection structure is
receding at a rate of eight to ten feet per month in front of Buildings 6, 7 and 8
24 Variance Request. On September 9, 2014, Petitioner submitted a variance
request letter to DCM and requested that the Commission hear the matter at an expedited hearing
before the next regularly - scheduled Commission meeting Petitioner later withdrew the request
for the expedited hearing due to fact that the HOA voted not to undertake a special assessment to
fund the sandbags at that time. Petitioner requests a variance in order to construct a sandbag
structure in the location and in the dimensions proposed in their application and further requests
that the sandbag structure remain in place for up to eight years from the date of the variance.
25. The proposed development sought by this variance petition is inconsistent with
the Commission's rules relating to the width and height of sandbag revetments allowed for
temporary erosion control structures, and the length of time such structures may remain in place.
The application for a modification to the current Permit to allow an oversized revetment for the
protection of Buildings 6, 7, and 8 was denied by DCM on August 29, 2014
26. Petitioner and DCM stipulated that the drawings submitted with the permit
modification application on August 22, 2014 govern this variance request even though updated
revisions to these drawings were provided as part of the variance application package in order to
illustrate current conditions The August 22, 2014 drawings were provided to the Commission as
Stipulated Exhibits attached to the DCM Staff Recommendation.

27. The August 22, 2014 drawing labeled 03 in the lower right corner (which was
submitted with the application requesting a permit modification) was intended to show the layout
of existing sandbags in front of Buildings 6 through 8 relative to an alignment that was approved
in compliance with a twenty -foot width and six -foot height limitation pursuant to the existing
permit A copy was provided to the Commission as a Stipulated Exhibit
31 The drawing labeled 04 in the lower right corner (which was submitted with the
modification application) is intended to depict the proposed layout of sandbags in front of
Buildings 6 through 8 relative to the alignment sought by the variance request; i.e., an alignment
with a base width no greater than forty -five feet, extending up to +12 feet NAVD high, and with
a waterward extension of no more than twenty -nine feet beyond the most seaward building
piling. This original drawing does not reflect the existing grade after beach nourishment and the
subsequent erosion The current grade at the seaward extent of the proposed alignment is
approximately +6 feet NAVD. Excavation for placement of the bottom row of new sandbags
proposed for the oversized alignment would extend to approximately -3 feet NAVD. By
agreement with DCM staff on September 15, 2014, this drawing has been revised to reflect the
existing grade and to show the area that would need to be excavated to allow for bag placement
The exact location that would be excavated is not indicated on this drawing as conditions at the
time of the installation will determine what will be needed However this drawing does reflect,
by indication of the elevation of the bottom of the alignment, that excavation may be necessary
to approximately -3 feet NAVD
32 The erosion rate depicted in the table submitted with the permit modification
application reflects erosion based on data available at the time the application was made, and
10

forms documents accelerated erosion. Additional erosion has occurred since the time that data
was provided Tables from the Permit Modification application were included in Stipulated Fact
16 set forth above.
33 Finally, the HOA also seeks a variance from the permit condition allowing the
sandbags to remain for 5 years pursuant to 15A NCAC 07H.0308(a)(2)(G) Petitioner requests
that any sandbags installed (under either the prior permits or this proposed variance) be allowed
to remain for up to eight years from the date of the issued variance
STIPULATED EXHIBITS
Included for the Commission's review were the following Stipulated Exhibits•
a DCM General Permit No. 57562 -D, issued on April 1, 2012
b DCM General Permit No 59165 -D, issued on March 2, 2012
C. DCM General Permit No. 57533 -D, issued on February 3, 2012
d. DCM Exemption Number — NTB 11 -03, issued on November 17, 2011
e. DCM Emergency Major Permit Number 39 -12, issued on May 4, 2012
f. CRC- VR -12 -04 Final Order on Topsail Reef HOA's 2012 Variance Request
g. DCM Major Permit Number 39 -12 as amended by variance
h DCM Denial Letter to Topsail Reef HOA dated August 29, 2014
1 Notices to Adjacent Property Owners of the Variance Petition
j Photographs.
a. Vicinity map;
b Aerial of the New River Inlet;
c. Aerial showing the area surrounding Topsail Reef,
d. Area Near Topsail Reef Aerial with Nourishment Survey Stations;
e. Aerial showing Topsail Reef Buildings;
f. View looking north from Topsail Reef Building 1 showing the Flood Tide
Channel taken May 7, 2012,
g Showing the sandbag transition from the six by twenty foot alignment to
the enlarged revetment,
h Photos taken September 9, 2014 (8 photos),
i. Photos taken September 24, 2014 (3 photos).
k. Topsail Reef's Application for Emergency Modification dated August 22, 2014;
11

I Ocean Hazard AEC Notice dated May 1, 2012,
m Dune and Sandbag Revetment Drawings 03, 04, 05;
n Aerial Photo - Graphic of Town of NTB Proposed Channel Realignment,
o Alignment Drawing 04, Rev 1, dated September 14, 2014;
p Beach Profiles for Baseline Stations 11 +35 to 11 +55;
q CP &E Figure 1 Aerial Graphic - Shoreline Baseline Stations dated April 3, 2013;
r. September 10, 2014 letter to Chair Gorham from James Forman, PE and resume,
S September 13, 2014 Letter to HOA from Theodore J. Sampson and resume,
t September 10, 2014 Letter to HOA from Yogi Harper and resume,
U. Pictures (7) dated May 8, 2012 of Sandbag Alignment Repair Areas;
V. Pictures (13) dated October 31, 2012 of Flood Channel along Sandbag Alignment;
W. Bearing Point Site Plan Drawing 02, Rev 1 dated August 29, 2014;
X. Graphics of data for baseline stations 1140 +00, 1145 +00, 1150 +00, and 1155 +00,
y CP &E February 7, 2013 presentation,
z Town of NTB CAMA Riparian Notification August 15, 2014,
aa. Town of NTB Letter dated August 29, 2014 to Topsail Reef HOA;
bb. Powerpoint Presentation presented to Commission at October 22, 2014 meeting.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 The CRC has iunsdiction over the parties and the subject matter
2 All notices for the proceeding were adequate and proper
3 Petitioner has met each of the requirements set forth in Statute § 113A -120 1(a)
and 15 NCAC 07J 0703(f) which must be found before a variance can be granted as set forth
more specifically below.
a. Petitioner has shown that strict application of 15A NCAC 07H. 0308(a)(2)(E)
will cause unnecessary hardships.
Strict application of Rule 15A NCAC 7H 0308(a)(2)(E) and (K) would cause an
unnecessary hardship because there is an increased risk of imminent damage to the condominium
12

buildings due to the accelerated erosion at the Site. Specifically, the Town of North Topsail
Beach completed its Inlet Realignment and Beach Nourishment Project in approximately 2012
However, positive impacts to the shoreline in front of the HOA may take five to fifteen years to
develop. The next anticipated beach renourishment project to maintain this location is not
expected until 2016. Petitioner has argued that without a variance, the HOA would suffer an
unnecessary hardship because while the HOA is waiting the benefits of the inlet realignment and
beach nourishment project, the conditions have worsened to the point where a sandbag revetment
of the size allowed under the rules is inadequate to protect the buildings from the accelerated
erosion at the site
DCM agreed in the Staff Recommendation that strict application of the Commission's
rules will cause unnecessary hardships based on the data reflecting accelerated erosion at the site
and the increase in the inlet flood channel near Buildings 6 through 8 DCM notes that the six
foot by 20 foot sandbags authorized and installed waterward of Buildings 6 through 8 in 2012
appear to be protecting the buildings and are partially covered by sand and dune vegetation
However, DCM does not dispute that the existing sandbag revetment may not be sufficient to
protect the buildings if the flood channel encroaches on this area. DCM also noted that any rapid
change to the Site conditions may hinder or prevent the proposed expansion of the existing
sandbag structure
Based on this information and data provided by Petitioner regarding the accelerated
erosion and the flood channel impacting the shoreline by the HOA and given DCM's
concurrence, the Commission affirmatively finds that Petitioner has met the first factor required
mN.C.G.S § 113A -120 1(a)(2)
13

b. Petitioner has demonstrated that any hardships result from conditions
peculiar to Petitioner's property.
The Commission affirmatively finds that Petitioner has demonstrated that the hardship
results from conditions peculiar to the property. Specifically, the long term average annual
erosion rate for the Property is two feet per year according to the DCM erosion rate maps which
were last updated in 2011. However in a 127 -hour period between April 12 and April 18, 2012
the elevation of the sand on the beach and under the property eroded approximately 51 inches
(4 3 feet) In addition, from May 2013 to August 2014, the rate of loss of the berm along the
Property beach front was from eight to twelve feet per month Over the fifty -eight days from
June 25 to August 28, 2014, the rate of berm recession has been from 0.5 to 1.1 feet per day, i.e.
approximately 15 to 33 feet per month. The rate of erosion at Buildings 5 through 8 is at the low
end of that range but that area is still experiencing accelerated rates of erosion.
In addition, the Property has been negatively impacted by the Town's Inlet Relocation
Project Since the project was completed an inlet flood channel adjacent to the Property has
shifted landward in response to changing dynamics in the nearby New River Inlet. To date the
inlet realignment has not resulted in natural accretion of the shoreline which was an anticipated
result of the project. Moreover, as a result of accelerated erosion, beach nourishment of the Site
which was completed during the Inlet Realignment Project has failed to the extent that the sand
placed on the shoreline has not remained on the shoreline and the next planned beach
nourishment is not until 2016.
In its recommendation, DCM argued that Petitioner's hardships were not caused by
conditions peculiar to the property as shorelines adjacent to an inlet experience volatile
14

conditions including both erosion and accretion in the normal course and such erosion is,
therefore, not a condition peculiar to Petitioner's property
In this case, and without prejudice to any future consideration of this property or any
other property located in or near an Inlet Hazard AEC, the Commission affirmatively finds that
insofar as the subject property is not located within the currently applicable Inlet Hazard AEC
for the New River Inlet, the aggressive shifting of the inlet flood channel landward along this
shoreline and the accelerated erosion are conditions peculiar to the Property. Thus, the
Commission affirmatively finds Petitioner has met the second factor set forth in N.C.G.S
§ 113 A -120 1(a)(2).
C. Petitioner has demonstrated that the hardship does not result from actions
taken by Petitioner.
The Commission affirmatively finds that Petitioner has demonstrated that the hardship
does not result from actions taken by the Petitioner Specifically, Petitioner states that it has done
nothing to accelerate or otherwise aggravate the erosion problem at the property. Furthermore, in
its recommendation to the Commission, DCM agreed that Petitioner has done nothing to
accelerate the erosion affecting the shoreline at the Property. Moreover, DCM noted that when
the structures were built Petitioner complied with the erosion setbacks established by the Coastal
Resources Commission.
For these reasons, the Commission affirmatively finds that any hardships are not caused
by actions taken by the Petitioner Therefore, Petitioner has met the third factor set forth in
N C.G S §113A- 120.1(a)(2)
15

d. Petitioner has demonstrated that the requested variance is consistent with
the spirit, purpose and intent of the Commission's rules, will secure public
safety and welfare, and will preserve substantial justice.
The Petitioner has demonstrated (a) that the requested variance is consistent with the
spirit, purpose and intent of the Commission's rules, (b) that it will secure public safety and
welfare, and (c) that it will preserve substantial ,justice. Specifically, the sandbag rules are, in
effect, an exception to the General Assembly and the Commission's ban on permanent erosion
control structures, and allow the temporary use of sandbags for "imminently threatened
structures " While the Commission's rules set limitations for use of sandbags which are
sufficient in most cases, in some situations the allowed sandbags may not be of sufficient size to
offer temporary protection as intended by the rules. In this case, if the accelerated erosion
described by Petitioner's engineer continues to move landward, it may preclude or hinder later
expansion of the existing sandbag structure. Accordingly, in its recommendation to the
Commission, DCM agreed that a larger sandbag revetment in front of Buildings b through 8 was
needed as temporary protection while the Town of North Topsail Beach's inlet relocation project
continues to be implemented Given the agreement on this issue and based on the facts presented,
the Commission affirmatively finds that the requested variance is consistent with the spirit,
purpose and intent of the Commission's rules,
The second assessment to be made is whether the variance proposed by Petitioner will
impact public safety and welfare. Petitioner submits that without a variance, at least one and
probably more of the Buildings located on the property could soon be damaged by accelerated
erosion on the shoreline. In its Staff Recommendation DCM notes that if the accelerated erosion
described by Petitioner's engineer continues to move landward, it may preclude or hinder later
[L.

expansion of the existing sandbag structure For this reason, DCM did not disagree with the
conclusion that such measures are needed as temporary protection while the Town of North
Topsail Beach's inlet relocation project continues to be implemented. Given the agreement on
this issue and based on the facts presented, the Commission affirmatively finds that the requested
variance will serve to protect public safety and welfare
The third assessment to be made as part of the analysis of the fourth variance factor is
whether by granting the requested variance, the Commission will preserve substantial justice. In
this case, Commission affirmatively finds that granting Petitioner's request will preserve
substantial justice. Specifically, at the time the permit was initially granted in 2012, the
Commission's rules provided that sandbags were allowed to remain in place for five years Since
that time, the Commission's rules have been changed Sandbags are now allowed to remain in
place for eight years Therefore, it would preserve substantial justice to allow the sandbags
protecting the Property to remain in place for eight years from the date the permit to install the
sandbags was issued
For these reasons, the Commission has found that Petitioner has shown that the requested
variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the Commission's rules, will secure
public safety and welfare and will preserve substantial justice. Therefore, Petitioner has met the
fourth factor in N C.G.S §113A-1201(a)(2).
ORDER
THEREFORE, the variance from 15A NCAC 7H 0308(a)(2)(E) is GRANTED subject to
the following conditions.
1. All sandbags installed in front of Buildings 1 through 8 on the Property in
17

conformance with a permit or permit modification issued pursuant to variances from the
Commission's Sandbag Rules are temporary and may only remain in place for eight years up to
May 4, 2020.
2. Petitioner must provide the following documentation to DCM no later than
August 21, 2015 (nine months from the date of this Final Agency Decision)
a Verification of the cost to construct the proposed sandbag
revetment;
b Minutes from an HOA Board meeting authorizing the HOA
to borrow an amount required to finance the proposed
development and/or documentation demonstrating that the
HOA members approved the project cost and means of
financing the protect;
C. A copy of the HOA Bylaws providing authority for the
HOA president to sign loan document
If the required proof is not provided within this nine month timeframe, the variance will be null
and void and the proposed development will no longer be approved or permitted.
3 The granting of this variance does not relieve Petitioner of the responsibility for
obtaining a CAMA permit from the proper permitting authority and all other required permits
This variance is based upon the Stipulated Facts set forth above The Commission
reserves the right to reconsider the granting of this variance and to take any appropriate action
should it be shown that any of the above Stipulated Facts is not true or has substantially changed
This the 21S` day of November, 2014. ��r!�•� /�
Frank D. Gorham, III, Chairman
Coastal Resources Commission
18

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that I have this day served the foregoing FINAL AGENCY DECISION
upon the parties by the methods indicated below.
Topsail Reef Homeowners Assoc, Inc. Certified Mail / Return Receipt Requested
c/o Community Association Management of
NC, Inc , Registered Agent
P.O. Box 79032
Charlotte, NC 28271
I. Clark Wright, Jr., Esq,
209 Pollock Street
New Bern, NC 28560
Christine A Goebel, Esq
Assistant Attorney General
N.C. Department of Justice
P O Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27603
Braxton C Davis
Angela Willis
Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557
This the 21" day of November, 2014
US Mail and electronically at
icw a,dhwle .gal com
Electronically at
[e-mail]
Electronically at
braxton davisancdenr.gov
angela will►s@ncdenr gov
�V, � MXA�
M ucasse
Speci C Deputy Attorney General and Commission Counsel
N.0 Department of Justice
P.O. Box 629
Raleigh, N. C 27602
19