20110410 Ver 3_Other Agency Comments_20160329

Strickland, Bev
From:Mairs, Robb L
Sent:Tuesday, March 29, 2016 8:08 AM
To:Coats, Heather; Wilson, Debra
Subject:FW: Bailey and Assoc. permit application
Attachments:Bailey permit app.PDF
Fyi. Comments from the Town of Wrightsville Beach.

From: William A. Raney Jr. \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 4:49 PM
To: Davis, Braxton C <[e-mail]>; Huggett, Doug <[e-mail]>; Mairs, Robb L
<[e-mail]>
Subject: Bailey and Assoc. permit application

Dear Sirs,
Attached are comments or the Town of Wrightsville Beach on the above referenced CAMA Major Permit
application. The originals are being mailed today.
Bill Raney

William A. Raney, Jr.
Wessell & Raney, L.L.P.
nd
107-B N. 2 Street
PO Box 1049
Wilmington, NC 28402-1049
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

1

WESSELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
POST OFFICE Box 1049
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1049
JOHN C. WESSELL, III
W ESSELL(§SELLS OUTH.NET
WH.I.IAM A. RANEY. JR.
WARANEYQCEELLSOUTH.NET
March 28, 2016
VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL
Mr. Braxton Davis
400 Cormnerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557
Mr. Doug Huggett
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557
Mr. Robb Mairs
127 Cardinal Dr. Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Re: CAMA Major Permit Application
Bailey & Associates, Inc., Applicant
Grand View Community Boating Facility
202 Summer Rest Road, Wilmington, NC
Dear Messrs. Davis, Huggett and Mairs:
STREET ADDRESS:
107-B NoRTH 2"a STREET
WILMINGTON, NO 28401
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAcss mn: 910-762-7557
We represent the Town of Wrightsville Beach ("Town"). This letter is written to express the
objection of the Town to the issuance of a CAMA Major Development Permit to Bailey & Associates,
Inc. for a proposed marina project called Grand View Community Boating Facility at 202 Sumner Rest
Road, Wilmington, NC. The application is dated February 18, 2016. The notice to adjacent riparian
owners is dated February 28, 2016, but there is no indication of when it may have been received by the
adjacent riparian owners.
The Town provided comments to DCM objecting to prior applications for this site. The comment
letters were dated July 2, 2015; March 28, 2011; October 1, 2008; May 9, 2008; and July 22, 2007.
The Town is adamantly opposed to issuance of a permit for this proposed project. The Town's
opposition has been expressed several times in the past when other proposals have been made for changes
to the existing facilities at this site. The Town's opposition is based primarily on the fact that the
proposed facilities are located on, over and around the Town -owned sanitary sewer force main which
carries all of the raw sewage from the Town to a wastewater treatment plant on the mainland owned and

Mr. Braxton Davis
Mr. Doug Huggett
Mr. Robb Mairs
March 28, 2016
Page Two
operated by the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority. The sewer line is known as the Northeast Interceptor
or NEI.
The Town commented on a prior proposal by the applicant in a letter dated October 1, 2008.
Excerpts from that letter are as follows:
11
1. Unreasonable danger to Town of Wrightsville Beach sewer line -
There is a main sewer line known as the Northeast Interceptor which carries all
of the sanitary sewage fi-om the Town of Wrightsville Beach to a regional
wastewater treatment plant. If this line were to be damaged during pier
construction, pier maintenance, dredging or operation of vessels, the damage to
public health and the environment would be catastrophic. The plan discloses
many reasons why this concern is real and immediate.
1.3. Maintenance — The need to periodically maintain, repair or
replace the sewer line will be made impossible by the existence of the pier and
docks.
1.4. Emergency Repairs — The need for emergency repairs is even
more problematic as every minute that repairs are delayed could result in
hundreds of gallons of raw sewage entering the water. Removal of the vessels
and structures would surely take hours to accomplish before repairs could begin.
Recent experience with other portions of the Northeast Interceptor sewer line in
the vicinity of Hewlett's Creek shows that sewer lines of this vintage have a real
possibility of failure.
2. Violation of Town's easement rights - The Town obtained an easement
from the State of North Carolina to locate this sewer line on state owned
submerged lands. The Town also acquired a CAMA Major Permit with renewals
and modifications for installing the sewer line...
The permit application in paragraph X.D. indicates that all work was to
be done in DOT right-of-way and waters owned by the State of North Carolina.
The current application of Bailey & Associates shows that the sewer line crosses
the high water mark at a point on the DOT right -of way. The sewer line then
proceeds into the riparian area of the DOT right-of-way property. The DOT
(State of North Carolina) riparian area is established by extending the riparian
line from the high water mark perpendicular to the channel of Motts Creek.

Mr. Braxton Davis
Mr. Doug Huggett
Mr. Robb Mairs
March 28, 2016
Page Three
The easementfirom the State ofNorth Carolina to the Town of Wrightsville
Beach gives the Town property rights in the area over which the pier[is] built. It
is fundamental real estate law that the owner of the land over which an easement
is granted cannot "use his land in such a way as to obstruct or interfere with the
exercise of the easement or inconsistent with its purposes... ". Webster's Real
Estate Law in North Carolina Yh Edition, Hedrick & McLaughlin, §15.23. The
construction of piers and docks within the easement granted by the State of North
Carolina to the Town of Wrightsville Beach obstructs and interferes with the
Town's exercise of its easement rights and should not be allowed. "
(copy of 2008 letter is enclosed)
The Town would like to elaborate on those objections and draw attention to certain rules and legal
principles that the Town believes require denial of the application.
The principal objections relate to property rights and public safety and can be summarized as
follows:
The applicant is proposing to do work in a riparian area to which it has no rights.
2. The applicant is infringing on the easement rights granted by the State of North Carolina to
the Town for construction of the NEI.
3. The construction and use of the marina will increase the risk of damage to the sewer line
and the existence of the pier and dock and docked vessels will delay emergency response to a catastrophic
spill caused by damage or normal deterioration.
The Town would like to supplement its prior comments regarding riparian area and easement
rights as follows:
Riparian Area
The applicant's ownership extends only to the mean high water line. A Declaration of Final
Resolution of Claim to Submerged Land recorded in Book 2317 at Page 398 of the New Hanover County
Registry denies the applicant's claim to any areas below mean high water. At the eastern end of the
applicant's property where applicant's property line intersects the North Carolina DOT right of way
property line the applicant's shoreline faces Motts Creek. A line perpendicular to Motts Creek channel is
the appropriate delineation of the riparian area allocated to the applicant. The issuance of prior permits
and permit modifications allowing construction of a pier and docks in the NCDOT riparian area were

Mr. Braxton Davis
Mr. Doug Huggett
Mr. Robb Mairs
March 28, 2016
Page Four
made in error. This error should not be compounded by a significant enlargement of these structures and
the allowance of dredging in areas that are not within the applicant's riparian corridor.
Encroachment on Town Easement
The Town was granted an easement by the State of North Carolina "to construct, install, improve,
replace, inspect, repair and maintain a sanitary sewer pipeline" as depicted on drawings attached to the
easement. The easement was approved by the Governor and Council of State on May 4, 1982 and signed
by the Governor on May 27, 1982.
This easement grants rights that are superior to any rights purportedly conferred by a CAMA
Permit for construction of a pier and docks in the same location. The State has no right to grant an
easement or other authorization for any person to utilize the same easement area already conveyed to the
Town if the additional use impairs the authorized use by the Town. (See US v. Seagate, Inc., 397 F Supp.
1351 .(EDNC 1975). An owner can grant easements to third parties allowing third parties to use an
easement area previously granted, but only if "such additional easements do not unreasonably interfere
with the original easement holder's usage of the original easement." Webster's Real Estate Law in North
Carolina, 61' edition, Section 15.23. The location of pier and dock structures within the Town's easement
constitutes an unreasonable interference with the Town's right to construct, maintain and repair its sewer
line.
Application Errors
1. Plan. The plans attached to the application have an inaccurate depiction of the riparian
corridor of the applicant. The plan shows a line from the easternmost point on the mean high water line
of applicant's upland property extending eastwardly and perpendicular to the channel of the Intracoastal
Waterway. .The proper delineation of the applicant's riparian corridor is to extend the riparian corridor
line from this same point to the channel of Mott's Creek rather than the Intracoastal Waterway. The area
in which all of the changes to the existing dock are proposed is within the riparian corridor of the North
Carolina DOT right-of-way for Highway 74/76. As noted in the prior comments, the State of North
Carolina granted an easement to the Town for construction of the NEI within this DOT riparian corridor.
2. Narrative.
a. The applicant's property does not abut the AIWW on the east end as stated in
paragraph 1 of the narrative.

Mr. Braxton Davis
Mr. Doug Huggett
Mr. Robb Mairs
March 28, 2016
Page Five
b. The Northeast Interceptor (NEI) is not "buried within the riparian corridor of this
[the applicant's] property" as stated in the third paragraph of the narrative. Rather, the NEI is located
within the riparian corridor of the NCDOT right-of-way for Highway 74/76.
C. The applicant states that "all structures would remain outside the right-of-way
identified by NCDOT" in paragraph 6 of the narrative. However, the narrative fails to disclose that the
structures would be within the DOT riparian corridor adjacent to the DOT upland property.
3. Form DCM MP -1 (references are to numbered paragraphs within the Fon-n).
4.b. - The actual size of the area above mean high water is much less than .85 acres. A
submerged land claim was filed by a prior owner of applicant's property pursuant to G.S. 113-205. The
claim to any area below mean high water was denied in a Declaration filed in Book 2317 at Page 396 of
the New Hanover County Registry. The upland area above the mean high water line appears to be no
more than .2 acres.
41 - The zoning by New Hanover County requires a special use pen -nit for a community
boating facility in a B-1 zone. To the Town's knowledge, no special use pen -nit has been issued by New
Hanover County.
4. Form DCM MP -4.
7.a. - The applicant incorrectly states that the structure is located 164' to the northern
riparian corridor limit. Conversely, the structure actually encroaches into the riparian corridor of DOT's
upland property for about 450 feet.
7.c. - The applicant measures the water body width to the east side of the AIWW. The
correct water body for applicant's upland property is Mott's Creek, not the AIWW.
Violation of Specific CRC Rules
The applicant's proposal violates the following CRC rules:
1. 15A NCAC 7H.0208(b)(5)(F). "Marinas shall not be located without written consent from
the lease holders or owners of submerged lands that have been leased from the State or deeded by the
State." The proposed structures are located in an area where the State has deeded an easement to the
Town of Wrightsville Beach for construction of a sewer line, and a sewer line is in fact located within the
deeded easement.

Mr. Braxton Davis
Mr. Doug Huggett
Mr. Robb Mairs
March 28, 2016
Page Six
2. 15A NCAC 7H.0208(b)(6)(I). This rule establishes the method by which riparian
corridors for waterfront properties are determined. It further requires a 15' setback of structures from the
riparian corridor boundary. The applicant in this case is proposing structures within the riparian corridor
of NCDOT. The NCDOT riparian corridor lies adjacent to the NCDOT right-of-way for Highway 74/76.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, the Town of Wrightsville Beach respectfully requests that the permit
application of Bailey & Associates be denied.
Yours very truly,
WESSELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
C , LJ,-wL4Jt a -
John Wessell, III
JCW:ktw
Enclosure
JC W\W RBCH\WOM97-C101

Jom C. WssS ' III
w 8SX1 A@B=.r SoDTR.i
WDa.IAn[A. RA Y, JR.
WARANaY@Barr Oo .Nsm
WmsELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
A'1TORNEYs AT LAW
PosT OFFICE Box 1049
Wn nmvamoN, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1049
October 1, 2008
VIA U.S. MAIL AND FAX [phone])
Mr. Steve Everhart
Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Re: CAMA Major Permit #84-01
Bailey & Associates, Inc.
Modification application
Dear Mr. Everhart:
Sm x ADDREss:
107-B NoxmR 2`® 6TRE®P
WDamva w, NC 28401
TSL HoR :910-702-7475
FACS.I : 910-702-7557
We represent the Town of Wrightsville Beach. The Town has
received notice of an application for an additional modification of
Permit 84-01 now held by Bailey & Associates, Inc. The modification
request was mailed to the Town by letter dated September 15, 2008
from Jim Hundley of Waterline, a marine contractor. The Town submits
the following comments on the application and objects to the permit
modification for the following reasons:
APPLICATION ISSUES
MP -1 Form
4.a. - The total length of shoreline along the high water
line is only about 4001, not the 850+/- claimed. The applicant
apparently measured the shoreline length either along the low water
line or a combination of the low water line and an arbitrary line
through the marsh.
4.b. - The size of the tract should be calculated as the
area above mean high water. This area appears to be in the
neighborhood of 8,000 square feet rather than the 43,877 square feet
claimed by the applicant. Most of the square footage claimed by the
applicant is submerged land.

Mr. Steve Everhart
October 1, 2008
Page 2
MP -4 Form
2. - Section 2 of MP -4 relating to docking facility and
marina operations is marked "this section not applicable". Although
the amount of dock space appears to qualify this for a marina
designation, the applicant contends that it is limited to 10 slips.
Nonetheless, it is a docking facility that will have the capability
of docking large vessels and the form should be completed. In
particular, the Town of Wrightsville Beach has concerns about
uncontrolled discharge of waste from marine heads and the applicant
should provide information on this issue.
7.a. - The location of the riparian property line is
represented to be 15' south of the proposed structures. However, the
bulk of the structures are located within the riparian area of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation. This issue will be
addressed in subsequent parts of this letter.
OBJECTIONS AND GROUNDS FOR PERMIT DENIAL
1. unreasonable danger to Town of Wrightsville Beach sewer
line - There is a main sewer line known as the Northeast Interceptor
which carries all of the sanitary sewage from the Town of
Wrightsville Beach to a regional wastewater treatment plant. If this
line were to be damaged during pier construction, pier maintenance,
dredging or operation of vessels, the damage to public health and the
environment would be catastrophic. The plan discloses many reasons
why this concern is real and immediate.
1.1. Construction - The location of the sewer line is not
shown on the plan beyond the first finger pier. The gazebo and all
four finger piers are proposed to be built over the line, but it is
unclear where the pilings to which the finger piers are attached will
be located. The driving or jetting of pilings has the real potential
of damage to the sewer line during construction.
1.2. Dredging - The plan is not clear regarding the extent
of dredging but it appears that the dredging is proposed up to and
perhaps beyond the sewer line where the line goes under the
westernmost finger pier. The dredging is proposed to a depth of -6'
MLW. At least part of the line near the low water mark is only -2
below the ground surface. As the line proceeds under the proposed
gazebo into the area proposed for dredging, the notation on the plan
indicates that the sewer line is 2' below the mud line. The water
depth in this area is about -3' MLW, thereby putting the sewer line
at -5' MLW. This results in dredging to a depth below the sewer
line. Obviously it is impossible to dredge to -6' MLW in this area
without damaging or affecting the integrity of the line. Even if the

Mr. Steve Everhart
October 1, 2008
Page 3
dredging stops short of the line, the sloughing of the soil could
cause the line to become exposed or to be unsupported.
1.3. Maintenance - The need to periodically maintain,
repair or replace the sewer line will be made impossible by the
existence of the pier and docks, including the fixed structures such
as the gazebo. Bolting the floating section is not adequate
accommodation for maintenance or repair as the entirety of the finger
piers and associated pilings would have to be removed to accommodate
construction barges.
1.4. Emergency Repairs - The need for emergency repairs is
even more problematic as every minute that repairs are delayed could
result in hundreds of gallons of raw sewage entering the water.
Removal of the vessels and structures would surely take hours to
accomplish before repairs could begin. Recent experience with other
portions of the Northeast Interceptor sewer line in the vicinity of
Hewlett's Creek shows that sewer lines of this vintage have a real
possibility of failure.
2. Violation of Town's easement rights - The proposed gazebo and
all four finger piers are constructed over the Town's sewer line.
The Town obtained an easement from the State of North Carolina
("Easement" attached as Exhibit A) to locate this sewer line on state
owned submerged lands. The Town also acquired a CAMA Major Permit
with renewals and modifications for installing the sewer line.
(Permit and application attached as Exhibit B). Exhibit B consists
of the renewal modification permit issued in March 1982 and a further
modification issued in July 1982. The Town records did not include
the original permit apparently issued in 1978.
The permit application in paragraph X.D. indicates that all work
was to be done in DOT right-of-way and waters owned by the State of
North Carolina. The current application of Bailey & Associates shows
that the sewer line crosses the high water mark at a point on the DOT
right -of way. The sewer line then proceeds into the riparian area of
the DOT right-of-way property. The DOT (State of North Carolina)
riparian area is established by extending the riparian line from the
high water mark perpendicular to the channel of Motts Creek.
The easement from the State of North Carolina to the Town of
Wrightsville Beach gives the Town property rights in the area over
which the pier, the gazebo and all of the finger piers are proposed
to be built. It is fundamental real estate law that the owner of the
land over which an easement is granted cannot "use his land in such a
way as to obstruct or interfere with the exercise of the easement or
inconsistent with its purposes...". Webster's Real Estate Law in
North Carolina, 5"' Edition, Hedrick & McLaughlin. The construction

Mr. Steve Everhart
October 1, 2008
Page 4
of piers and docks within the easement granted by the State of North
Carolina to the Town of Wrightsville Beach obstructs and interferes
with the Town's exercise of its easement rights and should not be
allowed.
3. Violation of CAMA and CRC Rules
3.1 G.S. 113A -120(a)(2) - The proposed development is in
the estuarine waters AEC and must meet the standards in G.S. 113-
229(e) which are incorporated by reference in G.S. 113A -120(a)(2).
G.S. 113-229(e) provides, inter alia, that a permit application can
be denied if "there will be a significant adverse effect on the
public health, safety or welfare...". In this case the expanded
docking facilities/marina will extend into an area that is heavily
used at times as a safe navigation/waiting area for vessels waiting
to use the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission boat ramp at
Wrightsville Beach. The proposed docking facility is also located in
the navigation area for vessels waiting for periodic bridge opening
of the Wrightsville Beach drawbridge. This is an extremely congested
area and further obstruction of navigable water constitutes a
significant adverse effect on the public health, safety and welfare.
The safety issue is compounded by the applicant's indication
that the typical size of the vessels using the facility will be 65
feet. Vessels of this size will have a difficult time maneuvering
into the slips proposed even if the area were not congested by other
boats. Navigation in and out of the slips will be further
complicated by the fact that there is a significant current in the
entire area of the proposed docks.
The public health, safety and welfare will also be significantly
adversely affected by the construction of the pier and docking
facilities over the main sewer line for the Town of Wrightsville
Beach. (See previous comments).
3.2. - G.S. 113A -120(a)(5) - Public trust waters
The proposed development is in the Public Trust Water AEC.
The statutory standard for this AEC requires the development to be
denied if it will jeopardize the public rights or interests specified
in G.S. 113A -113(b)(5). Among public trust rights is the right of
navigation. The extended proposed docking facility is located in an
area heavily used for public navigation. The slips extend across the
deepest water leading to the docking facilities located along Summer
Rest Road. The 5 outermost slips are over the deepest water
providing navigation to and from Motts Creek. The docks occupy the
channel leading from the private boating facilities along Summer Rest
Road to the channel of the AIWW.

Mr. Steve Everhart
October 1, 2008
Page 5
3.3. - G.S. 113A -120(a)(8) - State Guidelines and Local
Land Use Plans - The proposed project is inconsistent with
State guidelines found in 15A NCAC, subchapter 7H and within the
Local Land Use Plan for New Hanover County and Wilmington.
3.3.1. - 7H.0207(c), (d).
The proposal is inconsistent with the management objective of
protecting public rights of navigation and recreation set forth in
.0207(d) which states:
"In the absence of overriding public benefit, any
use which significantly interferes with the public
right of navigation or other public trust rights
which the public may be found to have in these
areas, shall not be allowed."
While piers and even marinas are examples of the uses acceptable
in public trust areas, they are subject to the proviso that "such
uses will not be detrimental to the public trust rights."
For the reasons stated above, the public has an intense and
necessary navigational use of the area which should not be preempted
by the construction of the docking facility. The above -referenced
rules specifically provide that "projects which would directly or
indirectly block or impair existing navigation channels, ... are
generally considered incompatible with the management policies of the
public trust areas."
3.3.2. - 7H.0208(a)(2)(H)
Among the general use standards applicable to coastal
wetlands, estuarine waters and public trust areas is the following:
"Development shall not impede navigation or
create undue interference with access to, or
use of, public trust areas or estuarine
waters."
3.3.3. - 7H.0208(b)(5)
This facility should be considered a marina because the
extent of the dockage space readily accommodates in excess of 10
boats for permanent dockage.
3.3.4. - 7H.0208(b)(5)(B)

Mr. Steve Everhart
October 1, 2008
Page 6
This rule provides that for marinas associated with
residential development are allowed no more than 27 square feet of
public trust area for every linear foot of the shoreline. An
accurate measure of the applicant's shoreline along the normal high
water mark is only about 4001. This allows the use of 10,800 square
feet of public trust area. The public trust area occupied by the
proposed docks, not including the access pier, is roughly 16,000
square feet.
3.3.5 - 7H. 0208 (b) (5) (F)
This rule requires approval of controlling parties in areas
which have been deeded by the State. The State has granted a deed of
easement to the Town of Wrightsville Beach for the Town's sewer line
which is located where the pier and docking facilities are proposed.
3.3.6 - 7H.0208(b)(5)(H), (I)
The applicant's proposal does not "minimize
on navigation and public use of public
applicant "avoid adverse impacts on
maintained channels and their immediate
the above -referenced rule. The applicant
size of the facility and to navigation
money at the expense of public uses.
3.3.7 - 7H.0208(b)(6)(D)
adverse effects
trust areas" nor does the
navigation in federally
boundaries" as required in
has no right to expand the
areas simply to make more
The above -referenced rule limits the square footage of
docking facilities based on the applicant's shoreline length. As
previously set forth, the length of the applicant's shoreline is
about 400' rather than the 850' claimed by the applicant. The
applicant is allowed 4 square feet per linear foot of shoreline or
1,600 square feet for the combined area of "T"s finger piers,
platforms and decks. The combined area for these facilities proposed
by the applicant is 4,004 square feet if all of the floating docks
are considered finger piers, or 3,304 square feet if the main
floating dock is considered a part of the pier. In either case the
combined total area greatly exceeds the area allowed by the rule.
3.3.8 - 7H.0208 (b) (6) (J) (ii)
The applicant's proposal extends the pier, including the
finger piers, into the channel of Motts Creek. The above -referenced
rule prohibits structures which extend into the channel portion of a
water body.

Mr. Steve Everhart
October 1, 2008
Page 7
3.3.9 - 7H.0208(b) (6) (J) (iii)
The proposed docking facility extends more than 1/4 Ch the
distance across the body of water. The applicant indicates that the
width of the water body is 485' measured from the edge of the marsh
on the west side of the Intracoastal Waterway to the high water mark
on the east side. This allows a facility to extend 121.25' from the
edge of the marsh into the body of water. The floating dock
structures extend about 160, from the edge of the marsh, thus
exceeding the 1/4`h rule by a significant amount.
In addition, when a creek or channel comes into a larger
body of water such as is the case here, the 1/4`h rule should use the
equidistant method of establishing a center line for the body of
water so that a 1/4`h width can be established as the smaller channel
enters the larger body of water. This assures that the center % of
the body of water remains open for public use. Although the Motts
Creek area in this location consists of a complicated shoreline, it
appears that the finger piers extend well into the middle 34 of Motts
Creek Channel as it connects to the Intracoastal Waterway, thereby
violating the 1/4`h rule.
3.3.10. - Wilmington/New Hanover County Land Use Plan, Part
III, Section A, Policy 3.20
In relevant part the above -referenced policy states:
"Prohibit new dredging activities in shell fishing waters (SA)...".
There are exceptions to this policy for certain activities and for
areas previously dredged, none of which are applicable to this
application. This prohibition is similar to, but much broader than,
the CRC rule that prohibits new dredging in primary nursery areas
(PNAs). The City/County policy applies to outstanding resource
waters and SA waters in addition to PNAs. The prohibition extends to
all SA waters whether open to shell fishing or not. When I
questioned the City and. County staff during the development of the
plan concerning the breadth of the SA dredging prohibition, they
responded that they intended the policy to apply to both open and
closed shell fishing waters. Accordingly, the dredging portion of
the project is inconsistent with the City/County Land Use Plan.
3.3.11. - Wilmington/New Hanover County Land Use Plan, Part
III, Section A, Policy 3.4 and Strategies 3.4.5 and 3.4.6
These policies relate to eliminating pollution from
municipal wastewater treatment systems by assuring continuing
inspection, maintenance and repair. The location of the fixed parts
of the proposed pier and the floating docks and associated pilings
directly over the City/County main sewer line serving all of
Wrightsville Beach will provide a significant obstacle to inspecting,

Mr. Steve Everhart
October 1, 2008
Page 8
maintaining and repairing the sewer line in accordance with this
policy.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein the Town of Wrightsville Beach
respectfully requests that the permit modification requested by
Bailey & Associates be denied.
WAR: dc
CC: Mr. Bob Simpson
Mr. John C. Wessell, III
Mr. Mike Vukelich
JCW\.itch\W08-097-0O3
Sincerely,
WESSELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
Attorneys for Town of
Wrightsville Beach
William A. Rane Ar.