20110410 Ver 3_WILMINGTON #89202v1 Marina_Letter_20160729

SNI1 a�� : MOORE
LEATHERWOOD
ATTORNEYS A T L A W
July 28, 2016
VIA FEDEX and E-MAIL: [e-mail]
Karen A. Higgins, Supervisor
N.C. Dept of Environmental Quality - Water Quality
512 N. Salisbury St.
9th Floor, Suite 9424
Raleigh, NC 27604
Re: CAMA Permit Application Submittal for Bailey & Associates, Inc.
Client -Matter No. 05019651.000001
Dear Ms. Higgins:
101 N. Third Street
Suite 400
Wilmington, NC 28401
With regard to the above -referenced hatter, enclosed please find the following:
1. Letter to Braxton Davis, Doug Huggett and Robb Mairs of Division of Coastal
Management responding to the Town of Wrightsville Beach's 3/28/16 letter; and,
2. Report of Charles D. Cazier, P.E. with one (1) 24"06" copy of Cross Section Profiles
for Grand Petiv Cornnlanrify Marina.
If you require any additional information please let nae know. Thank you for your assistance with
this matter.
Sincerely,
Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP
Matthew A. Nichols
MAN/nc
Enclosures
cc: Heather Coats - DCM Wilmington (via hand -delivery)
Matthew A. Nichols I Direct: 410.815.7132 I [e-mail] I www.smithmoorelaw.com
ATLANTA I CHARLESTON I CHARLOTTE I GREENSBORO I GREENVILLE I RALEIGH I WILMINGTON

SNA " -T I NIOORE
LEATHERWOOD
A i, 0 Ii R' E Y '. A i f. A
July 28, 2016
VIA E-MAIL AND FIRST CLASS U.S. MAIL
Mr. Braxton Davis, Director
NCDEQ - Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce AvenVe
Morehead City, NC 28557
braxton.davis(ir�,ncdem .gov
Mr. Doug Huggett, Manager - Magor Permits
NCDEQ - Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557
[e-mail]
Mr. Robb Mairs, Field Officer
NCDEQ – Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
[e-mail]
ncdenr.gov
Re: Response to Town of Wrightsville Beach 3/28/16 Letter
Applicant: Bailey and Associates, Inc.
Grand View Community Marina
202 Summer Rest Road, Wilmington, New Hanover County, NC
Client -Matter No. 05019651.000001
Dear Messrs. Davis, Huggett and Mairs:
141 N. Third Street
Suite 400
Wilmington, NC 28401
We represent Bailey and Associates, Inc.—the property owner and Applicant—with
regard to the above -referenced matter. Please accept this letter as a response to the comments
and objections raised by the Town of Wrightsville Beach ("Town") in a letter to you dated
March 28, 2016, from Town Attorney John C. Wessell, III ("Town's Objection Letter").
Matthew A. Nichols I Direct: 410.815.7132 1 [e-mail] I www,smithmoorelaw.com
ATLANTA I CHARLESTON I CHARLOTTE I GREENSBORO I GREENVILLE I RALEIGH I WILMINGTON

Mr. Braxton Davis, Director
Mr, Doug 1-1riggett, Manager - Major Perinits
Mr, Robb Mairs, Field Officer
NCDEQ-DCM
July 28, 2016
Page 2
I. Issues Raised by Taivn Regarding its Claimed "Easement"
As to the Town's objections, we disagree with a number of legal assertions and
conclusions in the Town's Objection Letter regarding the purported existence and scope of the
Town's "easement."
A. Following Requests for Supporting Documentation, the "Easement" Remains
Unsupported By Fact or B,Law
More than 18 months ago, my client requested that the Town provide us with some basic
information regarding the Town's claimed easement, to which the Town has never responded.
Specifically, on November 14, 2014, we sent a formal public records request to the Town of
Wrightsville Beach Town Manager with a copy to the Town Attorney. A copy of that public
records request is attached to my client's CAMA application in this matter, and we have also
attached a copy of that public records request as Exhibit "1" to this letter for ease of reference.
In that public records request, we asked the Town to provide us with a copy of the
recorded easement or the recording information from the New Hanover County Register of
Deeds Office for the Town's claimed easement (recorded Deed Book and Page Number), This
basic information has never been provided to us by the Town.' To our knowledge, the Town has
also not provided this information to NCDEQ-DCM ("MM"), and no such information is
contained in the Town's Objection Letter to VCM. Our independent search of the New Hanover
County Register of Deeds records revealed that, to the best of our knowledge, the easement has
not been recorded.
We also asked the Town to provide us with any documents (memoranda, correspondence,
emails, maps, surveys, drawings, letters of understanding or refinement, or other documents) that
supplement, amend, modify or supersede the Town's claimed easement. Again, the Town did
not respond.
As to the actual easement claimed by the Town, the only document we have seen is an
unrecorded photocopy of a document from 1982 entitled "Easement" which does not bear any
original signatures. We would also note that no copy of this document was attached to the
' In fact, the Town has never responded to Bailey and Associates, Inc.'s November 14, 2014
public records request, which is not consistent with the requirements of North Carolina's Public
Records statute, Chapter 132 of the North Carolina General Statutes.

Mr, Braxton Davis, Director
Mr. Doug Huggett, Manager - Major Permits
Mr. Robb Mairs, Field Officer
NCDEQ-DCM
July 28, 2016
Page 3
Town's Objection Letter to DCM. For your reference, a copy of that "Easement" document is
attached as Exhibit "A" to the public records that was sent to the Town on November 14, 2Q 14.
We take several issues with this easement document under North Carolina zeal estate law
principles. First, as noted above, the easement document does not bear any original signatures or
copies of original signatures. The Town's Objection Letter states: "The easement was approved
by the Governor and the Council of State on May 4, 1982 and signed by the Governor on May
27, 1982." (Town's Objection Letter, p. 4). We have never seen such a document signed by the
Governor, and the Town has produced no such document.
Without an original signed copy of the easement, it is difficult to assure that this 30+ year
old unrecorded document with unoriginal signatures is the final approved version of the
purported easement. Accordingly, we think it is reasonable and prudent to request that the Town
produce a copy of the original signed document, as this would be expected of any other party
claiming an interest in real estate in North Carolina, and particularly where that party is objecting
to a permit application.
B. The Easement is Unrecorded and is Not a Valid Interest In Land
Second, and more importantly, to the best of our knowledge, the easement is unrecorded.
N,C. GEN. STAT. § 47-27 mandates that the easement be recorded in the New Hanover County
Register of Deeds Office in order to be binding upon third -parties, such as my client.
N.C. GEN. STAT. § 47-27 states:
All persons, firms, or corporations now owning or hereafter acquiring
„ ny
any -deed or agreement for rights-of-way and easements of a
character whatsoever shall record such deeds and agreements in the
office of the register of deeds of the county where the land affected is
situated. Where such deeds and agreements may have been acquired, but
no use has been made thereof, the person, firm, or corporation holding
such instrument, or any assignment thereof, shall not be required to record
them until within 90 days after the beginning of the use of the easements
granted thereby. If after 90 days from the beginning of the easement
granted by such deeds and agreements the person, firm, or corporation
holding such deeds or agreements has not recorded the same in the office
of the register of deeds of the county where the land affected is situated,

Mr. Braxton Davis, Director
Mr. Doug Haggett, Manager - Major Perinits
Mr. Robb Mairs, Field Officer
NCDEQ-DCM
July 28, 2016
Page 4
then the grantor in the said deed or agreement may, after 10 days' notice
in writing served and returned by the sheriff or other officer of the county
upon the said person, firm, or corporation holding such lease or
agreement, file a copy of the said lease or agreement for registration in the
office of the register of deeds of the county where the original should have
been recorded, but such copy of the lease or agreement shall have attached
thereto the written notice above referred to, showing the service and return
of the sheriff or other officer. The registration of such copy shall have the
same force and effect as the original would have had if recorded:
Provided, said copy shall be duly probated before being registered.
Nothing in this section shall require the registration of the following
classes of instruments or conveyances, to wit:
(1) It shall not apply to any deed or instrument executed prior to
January 1, 1910.
(2) It shall not apply to any deed or instrument so defectively
executed or witnessed that it cannot by law be admitted to probate or
registration, provided that such deed or instrument was executed
prior to the ratification of this section.
(3) It shall not apply to decrees of a competent court awarding
condemnation or confirming reports of commissioners, when such
decrees are on record in such courts.
(4) It shall not apply to local telephone companies, operating
exclusively within the State, or to agreements about alleyways.
The failure of electric companies or power companies operating
exclusively within this State or electric membership corporations,
organized pursuant to Chapter 291 of the Public Laws of 1935 [G.S. 117-6
through 117-27], to record any deeds or agreements for rights-of-way
acquired subsequent to 1935, shall not constitute any violation of any
criminal law of the State of North Carolina.
No deed, agreement for right-of-way, oz• easement of any character

Mr. Braxton Davis, Director
Mr. Doug Huggett, Manager - Major Permits
Mr. Robb Mairs, Field Officer
NCDEQ-DCM
July 28, 2016
Page 5
shall be valid as against any creditor- or purchaser for a valuable
consideration but from the registration thereof within the county
where the land Affected thereby lies.
From and after July 1, 1959, the provisions of this section shall apply to
require the Department of Transportation to record as herein provided any
deeds of easement, or any other agreements granting or conveying an
interest in land which are executed on or after July 1, 1959, in the same
manner and to the same extent that individuals, firms or corporations are
required to record such easements.
N.C. GEN. SWAT. § 47-27 (emphasis added). We are not aware of any provisions in the General
Statutes exempting the Town from recording its purported easement, and the Tow cites none.
The burden is on the Town to establish the existence of its easement, particularly where
the Town alleges that its rights are superior to my client's eights. As stated by the North
Carolina Supreme Court more than a century ago, it is an "elementary principle of law that a
party who claims to have acquired the title to property or any easement therein or right to put any
burden thereon by presumption must establish his claim by showing the facts upon which it is
based[.]" Barker u. Southei°n R.R. Co., 137 N.C, 214, 222, 49 S.E. 115, 118 (1904).
In contrast, Bailey and Associates, Inc. has a 50 -year nonexclusive casement from the
State of North Carolina Department of Administration, State Property Office, over the subject
riparian area for the existing dock facility, which ivas mcoi-ded on March 23, 2015, in Book 5875
at Page 2810 of the New Hanover County Registry, a copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit 112".
The Town has not proven the existence and validity of its easement, nor has the Town
otherwise demonstrated that its rights are somehow superior to my client's rights. Contrary to
the assertions in the Town's Objection Letter, an unrecorded easement does not provide the basis
for the Town's assertion of rights superior to the rights of Bailey and Associates, Inc.—the actual
riparian landowner. We strongly disagree with the Town's unfounded assertion that "[t]he
applicant is proposing to work in a riparian area to which it has no rights" (Town's Objection
Letter, P. 3). The Town's assertion that Bailey and Associates, Inc. has "no rights" in this
riparian area is without merit. Furthermore, the Town bears the burden of establishing the
validity of its claimed easement under North Carolina law, which it has failed to do.

Mr. Braxton Davis, Director
Mr. Doug Huggett, Manager - Major Permits
Mr. Robb Mairs, Field Officer
NCDEQ-DCM
July 28, 2016
Page 6
C. The "Easement" is Undefined, Unlocated, and Non -Exclusive
Third, even if the Town's easement was properly executed, acknowledged, recorded, and
indexed in the New Hanover County Register of Deeds Office, the Town's easement document
does not state that the Town's easement is exclusive, and it does not specify its boundaries,
width, or general dimensions.
In the public records request, we asked the Town to provide us with any documents
(memoranda, correspondence, emails, maps, surveys, drawings, letters of understanding or
refinement, or other documents) related to the location, size, scope, length, width, depth and/or
maintenance of the Town's claimed easement. The Town has not provided us with any
information responsive to this request. To our knowledge, the Town has provided no such
information to I7CM, and none is contained in the Town's Objection Letter. We can only
conclude that the Town has no such evidence to support its easement.
Additionally, the Town's reliance on United States v. Seagate, Inc., 397 F. Supp. 1351
(E.D.N.0 1975), is misplaced. A copy of this case is attached as Exhibit "Y' for your reference.
The case involved a dispute over the construction of a residential subdivision on lands adjoining
both sides of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Carteret County. The land at issue was
subject, in whole or in part, to an easement reserved by the United States in 1957. As noted by
the Court, the United States' easement rights are very broad. The Court stated:
This easement gives the Government the right to use the burdened lands
for the purpose of operating and maintaining the Intracoastal Waterway;
the right to cut away and remove any pant of the subject property in order
to widen or otherwise improve the Waterway; the right to construct and
maintain aids to navigation on these lands; the right to use these lands for
the deposit of material dredged from the Waterway; and the right to enter
upon and use the lands for other purposes needful in preserving and
maintaining the Waterway.
Id. at 353. The United States Government sought an order declaring that the construction of
residential dwellings and other permanent improvements on lands subject to the easement is
inconsistent with the terms of the easement and an order enjoining the property owners from
such construction. The Government also sought an order requiring the owners of three existing
dwellings to remove those dwellings if notified that the land they occupy was needed in
connection with operation, maintenance or enlargement of the Waterway. See id..

Mr. Braxton Davis, Director
Mr. Dotig Hr►ggett, Manager - Major Permits
Mr. Robb Mairs, Field Officer
NCDFQ-DCM
hly 2s, 2016
Page 7
Unlike the present LAMA permitting matter, the easement in favor of the United States
in Seagate "was contained in deeds which were duly recorded" when the United States sold its
fee interest in this property in 1957. Id at 135$. Additionally, unlike the present matter, in
Seagate the Court specifically found that the terms of the easement were unambiguous. The
Court stated: "There is nothing ambiguous about the nature or terms of the easement in
question." Id. at 1360.
In contrast, the location and scope of the Town's purported unrecorded/unsigned
easement are ambiguous at best. The general dimensions in the Town's purported easement
document, and particularly the width, are unspecified. It is also unclear where the Town's
easement is located. This is also in complete contrast to the aforementioned recorded easement
granted to Bailey and Associates, Inc. from the Department of Administration, which contains a
precise description of the easement area.
It should also be noted that the Court in Seagate did not rule that all construction should
be stopped. Rather, the Count took a balancing approach, stating in part:
C. For these reasons the Court finds that the construction of
permanent residences and their attendant utilities on both banks of the
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway within the Sea Gate Subdivision would
impair and abridge the rights reserved by plaintiff by easement in 1957.
7. However, the Court further finds that it would not be unreasonable
at the present time to permit the construction of dwellings along the
western side of the Waterway only. Limiting construction to the west
bank only would minimize any interference with dredging operations
by the Corps of Engineers, since dredging contractors would have free
access to the large spoil disposal area located in the Sea Gate vicinity on
the east side of the canal. Moreover, the exclusion of dwellings from the
east bank would also allow reasonable provision for operations to widen
the Waterway channel or to provide passing zones, should either action
prove necessary in the future.
Seagate, 397 F. Supp, at 1359 (emphasis added).

Mr. Braxton Davis, Director
Mr. Doug t-Iuggett, Manager - Major Permits
Mr. Robb Mairs, Field Officer
NCDEQ-DCM
July 28, 2016
Page 8
Based upon the foregoing, and for the additional reasons stated herein, we strongly
disagree with the Town's assertion that "[t]he applicant is infringing on the easement rights
granted by the State of North Carolina to the Town for construction of the NEI." (Town's
Objection Letter, p. 3). An unrecorded, unsigned easement document—which on its face is not
exclusive and is missing important dimensional information—does not somehow confer rights
upon the Town that are superior to all of Bailey and Associates, Inc.'s rights as the riparian
owner and the current holder of a valid, recorded, nonexclusive easement from the N.C.
Department of Administration, State Property Office.
2, Town's Cvncei-tis with NEL
Bailey and Associates, Inc.'s existing pier facility on this site, which was permitted by
ICM, currently crosses the NEI line in two locations. The proposed dock facility does not call
for any additional cross -points with the NEI line. There is no subaqueous construction or other
modifications planned or required below the surface of the water at the points where the existing
pier already crosses the NEI. We understand that within the past approximately two years, the
riparian owner to the immediate north of and adjacent to Bailey and Associates, Inc.'s property
applied for, was granted permission, and performed dredging in this general vicinity without
incident pursuant to a CAMA permit. Furthermore, we understand that this dredging was
permitted by DCM to a depth of -6.0 feet mlw, which is 2.0 feet more than the dredging depth
contemplated by Bailey and Associates, Inc.'s current CAMA application. Did the Town object
to that dredging near what, at that time, was an unlocated NEI?
As to maintenance of the NEI, the Town has not stated with any real specificity how the
proposed dock facility would prevent the Town from maintaining the NEI. The Town states;
"The need to periodically maintain, repair or replace the sewer line will be made impossible by
the existence of the pier and docks." (Town's Objection Letter, p.2 at 1.3) (emphasis added). It
is unclear from the Town how the existing or proposed dock facility makes or will make such
maintenance "impossible." According to statements made by Town Assistant Director of Public
Works Steve bellies to the Board of Aldermen at a Public Meeting on November 13, 2014, we
understand that the pipe was reconditioned in 2007 all the way to Bradley Creek and that the
interior is in good shape. The Town has not provided my client with a regular maintenance
schedule for the NEI. Furthermore, the Town has not explained how the NEI line is inaccessible
or cannot be adequately accessed from the north or south of my client's riparian area for
maintenance purposes, either currently or with the addition of the proposed facility.

Mr. Braxton Davis, Director
Mr. Doug Huggett, Manager - Major Permits
Mr, Robb Mairs, Field Officer
NCDEQ-DCM
July 28, 2016
Page 9
With regard to construction and operation of the proposed facility, please see the attached
report from my client's engineer, Charles D. Cazier, P.E,, with Intracoastal Engineering, PLLC,
dated July 28, 2016.
Also, does the State have any reports, studies or other information from the Town related
to any contingency plans maintained by the Town regarding the NEI in this vicinity?
3. Other Issues Raised by Town.
The Town also raises an issue with what it characterizes as the enlargement of structures
and "the allowance of dredging in areas that are not within the applicant's riparian corridor."
(Town's Objection Letter, p. 4). The Applicant respectfully contends that the Town's analysis is
erroneous, N.C. Administrative Code 71-1,0208(b)(6)(1) states in part: "The line of division of
areas of riparian access shall be established by drawing a line along the channel or deep water in
front of the properties, then drawing a line perpendicular to the line of the channel so that it
intersects with the shore at the point the upland property line meets the water's edge." 15A
NCAC 7H.Q208(b)(6)(1). The riparian line at the eastern end of the property was correctly
drawn perpendicular to the AIWW channel so that it indeed intersects with the shore at the point
the upland property line meets the water's edge (rnhw). The existing permitted pier and docks
support this point. The Applicant strongly disagrees with the Town's position,
The Town also objects on the basis of N.C. Administrative Code 7H.0208(b)(5)(F). This
objection is without merit, There are no leaseholders or owners of submerged land from which
written consent must be obtained.
Last, the Town has no standing or authority to enforce or interpret the New Hanover
County Zoning Ordinance, and likewise, the Town has no standing or authority to raise
purported objections on behalf of NCDOT, which to our knowledge the NCDOT is not raising.
Conclusion
Based upon the foregoing, we respectfully assert that the Town's legal objections are
insufficient to deny Bailey and Associates, Inc.'s CAMA permit application,
Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns regarding the foregoing or if
you require any additional information at this time.

Mr, Braxton Davis, Director
Mr. Doug Huggett, Manager - Major Permits
Mr. Robb Mairs, Field Officer
NCDEQ-DCM
July 28, 2016
Page 10
Sincerely,
Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP
Matthew A. Nichols
MAN/ne
Enclosures
cc: Karen A, Higgins, Supervisor
NCDEQ - Water Quality
(via FedEx and e-mail: Karen,[e-mail])
Heather Coats, NCDEQ-DCM, Wilmington
(via hand -delivery)
Jim Gregson, Regional Supervisor
NCDEQ- Division of Water Resources
(via e-mail: jim.gregson@ ncdenr.gov)
John C, Wessell, 111, Esq.
Counsel for Town of Wrightsi,ille Beach
(via e-mail: [e-mail])
Steve Morrison
Land Management Group, Inc.
(via e-mail: [e-mail])
Charles D. Cazier' P.E.
Intracoastal Engineering, PLLC
(via e-mail: [e-mail])
Christopher W. Bailey
President, Bailey and Associates, Inc,
(via e-mail: [e-mail])

SiHANKLIN & NICHOLS, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
214 MARKET STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 1347.
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1347
TELEPHONE [phone] • TELEFAX [phone]
E-MAIL: SHANKLAW@EARTHLINK,NET
KENNETH A. SHANKLIN4
*BOARD CERTIFIED SPECIALIST IN
REAL, PROPERTY LA%N- RESID5t-MAL. BUSINESS,
COI,IMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL TRANSACTIONS
November 14, 2014
_VIA EMAIL TO towens i0owb.or
AND U.S. MAIL
Mr. Tim Owens
Town Manager
Town of Wrightsville Beach
P.O. Box 626
Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480
Re: Bailey and Associates, Inc.
FIRST PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST
Our File No. 2014060.2
Dear Mr. Owens:
d EXHIBIT
4
MATTHEW A. NICHOLS"
"ALSO AOMI7T£O IN NEW YORK
Pursuant to Chapter 132 of the North Carolina General Statutes, we request on behalf of
our client, Bailey and Associates, Inc., that the following public records and materials be
available for our inspection at a reasonable and convenient time within the next twenty (20)
calendar days at the Town of Wrightsville Beach ("Town") Offices:
1. A recorded copy of that document entitled "Easement" between
the State of North Carolina and the Town dated May 27, 1982, a copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit "A", or in lieu thereof, the recording information from
the New Hanover County Register of Deeds Office (Deed Book and Page
Number) for that instrument (hereinafter referred to as the "Easement"),
2. Any instruments, memoranda, correspondence, emails, maps,
surveys, drawings, letters of understanding or refinement, or other documents that
supplement, amend, modify or supersede the above -referenced Easement.
3. Any memoranda, correspondence, emails, maps, surveys,
drawings, letters of understanding or refinement, or other documents related to the
location, size, scope, length, width, depth and/or maintenance of the above -
referenced Easement.

Mr. Tim Owens
Town Manager
Town of Wrightsville Beach
November 14, 2014
Page -2-
Please consult with N.C. GEN. STAT. § 132-1 et. seq. regarding the scope and extent of the
term "public records." We request the opportunity to copy any document or other responsive
record either in'written or electronic form for compliance with this public records request.
If it is more convenient for you and the Town for Lis to make the copies ourselves or
make arrangements for a third -party copy service to make the copies, please let us know and we
will gladly arrange for the same. Also, we will gladly pay any reasonable administrative or
copying charges associated with this request, and we ask that you 'please let us know in advance
if there are any such charges associated with this public records request.
With best regards, I remain
KAS/pec
Enclosure
Kenneth A. NhanXim
cc: John C. Wessell, III Town Attorney — via email and U.S. Mail
Mr. Christopher W. Bailey

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
A S E M E N T
COUN,ry of NMW HANOVER
TFITS EASUMrNT, made and entered into this the
day orIS82
P-1; , by and between the STATE OF NORTH
CAROLINA, party of the first part, and the TOWN OF WRIGHTS-
VMLE BEACH, Party of the second part;
W I T 11 U. S. S B T It
THAT, WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of
Alm Ln -J ,tration has auj 11ori zed and approved execution of this
i1t-1-trumoliL for the porposos hclraLn set forth, and
WHEREAS, the execution Of this instrument for and on
bphall- Of the State of North Carolina has heen duly approved
bY the Covornor and Coillir -1 of State by re,-;olution adopted
aL a ineeting held to the City -Lf Raleigh, North Carolina, on
the 4th day of may, 1982; and
MIEREAS, the Parties hereto have mutually agreed to
tile terms of this casement as hereinafter set forth,
NOW, THEREFORE, in Consideration of the sum of OtIF
HUNDRED ($IOQ.Qo) DOLLARS paid bs, the party of the second part IIII
to tho party of tlim first part,
the receipt of which is hereby
a0krlowl,2-dgod, Che Val:tY of the first part does hereby q1tre,
grant and convey to tfici said party of the second part, its
successors and assigns, the right., Yrivilego and easement
construct, install, improve, remove, replace, inspect, repair
a-md Maintain a sanitary sewer pipeline as follows:

A. 8611kc- Ch,truiel subaqueously for approximately
750 fl -OL :1100(1 the south :ride of U. S. Highway 74 causeway
alld
B. Ronnans Crook on bent plies along the south side
of tho U. S. Highway 74 causeway and bridge for a disLince
of at -proximately 126 fcot.
AIVAI subairjueou5ly north of the U, S. 74-76 High-
way causeway and bridge for a distance of approximately Boo
1). Bradley Creek tsubaqueously near the U. S. 74-76
Highway causeway and bridge for a distance of approximately
900 feet.
The Purpose of the easement is to provide the Town
or Wrightsvil,le Beach with a connection to the Northeast
111LOrcopLor Crcoatc-1, ;�JlnijjjqLoij Area 201 Facilities Plan. See
clrawiJly_: "ntJtled "Sanitary Sewer Improvements
Vorco Main, Town of Wri.ghtsvi)le Beach, North Carolina".
It is understood and agreed that this conveyance
is made sub�tct to the condition that the party of the second
part shall properly obtain all necessary permits required by
State and rpderal. law. Fiijurt, to obtain such
permits in
a VIA101Y Manner .:hall be deemed an abandonment of said easement;�
TO HAVE AND To HOLD the aforesaid rights, privileges,
kind easement unto the said party of the second part, its
successor.: and assigns, for as long as said pipeline is
utilj2ed by [-he party of the second part, its successors and
a55ignr, for the purposes -set forth herein, and no longer.
IN TESTIMONY WUREOP, the State of North Carolina
has caused this instrument to be executed in its name by JAMES
11. HUNT, JR., Governor, attested by THAI) EURE, Secretary of
St -ate, and the Great Seal of the State of North Carolina hereto
affixed, by virtue of the power and authority aforesaid, as of
the day and year fIrst above written,
N

ATTEn;'V.
rc. ta r } of State
lJ'PR0VFD AS TO POW.I.-
RUFUS L. EDMISTEN
Attorney 03encral
fit ay.>on LU.
A4,sistant. Attorney celloral
I
STATE OF NORTIJ CAROEJNA

STATF OF NORTH CAROUNA
IOMtITI OF MAKE
1, DEBORAH ANN CAJIDLER, a Notary Public in and foe the County and
State aforesaid, do hereby certify that JAMES B. HtMT, JR., Governor of the
State of North Carolina, and 711AD ELM, Secretary of State of North Carolina,
personally came before me this day and being by me duly sworn says each for
himself that he knows the Great Seal of the State of North Carolina and that
tho seal affixed to tha foregoing in8truzaent is the Great Seal of the State;
that JAMES B. MIT, JR., Governor of said State, and MMD EURE, Secretary of
State, subscribed their names thereto, all by virtue of a resolution of the
Council of State; and that said Inscru2ent, is the act and deed of the State
of North Carolina.
IN WITNESS URERC,0F, I have hereunto set ny hand and Notarial Seal,
01 n the c5�)7 day of 198.
Notary Publit
I My commission Expires:
I

74
. - •— CREEK 1 .wM, 'M%LL
BEaCH
Yom`= i �
l4"F. H.tx Y
j h14 P£LE i:2 Ki:) a �I PILE 9 e u
14 FCRCt; M4
KKW EL. 2.0
W. EL. -18
1 r eLE BENT, ace SITE 'n` FOA
S ITE B SPACING 18 C -C. PILE BENT DETAIL.
P LA N PR 0 FFlLE
K ANS CREED GR9_S,9 G
LgrMICAL_OATA S1TE C'
I CVOTH OF $LrS OQ 'OV3 Ct74.3eiNa -too'
0CM1 OF EXCAYATr6" r 6 FVERA4E
'{1'f LUUL OF KATtMAL . 14°J CV.YD4
AL=. OTKFR FACYOAS a CDNOIY10N3 _
T:Ik: ;; LUL' AS SIVE 'A' CPO11(tta. F=U"QuZous J
14` FttRCk fI?J7 N.C. V!!LDLIFE BOAT RAMP
r 'ATJCHOA.bLoco �� c 1 0 E
1, �� 1 , AHcHoR BLGCk
c Sii t3i•i•QLti \ ..L f 1
{ I 1
u %! t, ;IF,DF_ TNASK'MEM. BRIDGE
Pt,A 1A . -CROSSING
i 5
EL 'I APPROX. MIT. °OTTO'N
t) '• \—.-nTM,-".� '.::y3J'7'Z7`•• j'rza'JG;'s`.kava"R1«"TIIL-',.x,�.a..._::+�s—
EL -113 _ 0
'J.z
J 1{ s
ANCHOR
-• [ O
EL. -r<J.2 -
PI CF ILE A.I WW. CRQSSING
DATUM: iiEAw
ll �7I I F 1C' SEA LEVEL -0,00
:!EACH 0JTERCEPToR • •-;I:rrAY XVi OESEN a ASSOCIATES- w)Luttaru, , tic,
FILE ?;}o 2157
a

13R)D
71
ANCIlop BLOCK
S ra. k) 4 55
SP -1 AFTUMO:i
T E AREA S
I
f'REEK CROSSING
wfw cl- (,6
K.
A
PROFILE BRADLEY CREEK CROSSING
i XL:AY41 l.r, m;.7cf,:4, -ACL
UE TEfl-i IGH AU ILT
F F, Ric
-I I.L I P -..0 towl
I,: W t3bM,
(tETUITICM AREA,
ME CAP
Pusr m
MAY
T:E 110ti'Af; (Imc.
+
rEhr-F
SITE V
WV VL. - s 0
ELEV. SECTION
R C—k K N f 10 N
'A - A'
KENNAM CK. PILE BENT
SPOIL WSPOSAL:
ll.J; R CLASS jr.• SILT UETENTION AUAS
-
IL' U. Lo. sop. -ti LOCATEO A^ ShOWN,
"A f13 , U : ,
Y111 V MAI
:Cris Vo or f., t. j- /,I E , J.') 10
U+ I- OF r X '.AVA I I C) PJ
M'ATJ'.f.iA$— 1,U410 c
A

t 10 r�C. S� mr_1Aj
Li
l
IWI A lu
I
TT,
A D L F_ Y c
_,RLE ]�.. C[�O SSI
piLF PDEMT
e--., _. swt,"'v /.-IJ Ij c 1, — - vAL Mr '!5H F ET A,
0
L P,
i -A
t 10 r�C. S� mr_1Aj
Li
l
IWI A lu
I
TT,
A D L F_ Y c
_,RLE ]�.. C[�O SSI
piLF PDEMT
e--., _. swt,"'v /.-IJ Ij c 1, — - vAL Mr '!5H F ET A,
0

a EXHIBIT
a
2015007733
sFOPt EOISTRH£ti1SCN 6EA6LEY of pE£©
M HANOVER COUNTY NC
ppVv 2@#5PG R 2a 04,30
281428v FEE $26 00
16%jig 12flia 7m
Prepared by State Property Office, NC Department of Administration
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1321
SPO File No.: 065 -DX 1 DOJ Pile No.: PC -14.00228
Return to
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
EASEMENT
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER
THIS EASEMENT ("Easement"), made and entered into as of the date set forth in the
notary acknowledgment below, by and between the STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, a body
politic and corporate, ("Grantor") and BAILEY AND ASSOCIATES, INC, a North Carolina
corporation ("Grantee"), P.O. Box 400, Jacksonville, NC 28451
WITNESSETH,
THAT, WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Administration, pursuant to North
Carolina General Statute §146-12, has authorized and approved the execution of this instrument
for the purposes herein expressed.
NOW, 'THEREFORE, in consideration of the public interest in promoting citizen access
to navigable waters and for good and valuable consideration, Grantor does hereby grant unto
Grantee, their heirs and assigns, an easement located in the Harnett Township, New Hanover
County, North Carolina, as more particularly described on Exhibit -A and Exhibit, B, attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Easement Area").
The terms and conditions on and for which this Easement is granted are as fellows.
1. This Easement is appurtenant to and runs with the adjacent riparian or littoral property as
described in Book 5031, Page 1350, New Hanover County Registry (the "Adjacent Property").

2. Grantee shall not exclude or prevent the general public from exercising public trust
rights, including commercial and recreational fishing, shell fishing, seine netting, pound netting,
and ether fishing rights in navigable waters within the Easement Area.
3. This Easement confers upon Grantee no additional rights to interfere with the approval,
issuance, or renewal of shellfish or water column leases or to interfere with the use or cultivation
of existing shellfish leases, water column leases, or shellfish franchises
4. This Easement is subject to all rights conferred in previous conveyances by Grantor in
and to the Easement Area
5. This Easement is granted for a term of fifty (50) years beginning on the 18th day of
February, 2015, and terminating on the 17th day of February, 2065, unless earlier revoked.
6. Subject to compliance with North Carolina General Statute §146-120), this Easement is
eligible for renewal for one (1) additional fifty (50) year term.
7. This Easement covers those structures allowed by CAMA Permit Number 84-01 (the
"Permitted Structures"). The Permitted Structures shall be used for the following purposes:
providing reasonable access for all vessels traditionally used in the main watercourse area to the
Atlantiee Intracoastal Waterway; mooring of vessels at or adjacent to certain areas of the
Permitted Structures and enhancing or improving the value of the Adjacent Property. All terms
and conditions of CAMA Permit Number 84-01 are hereby incorporated in this Easement and
made a part hereof
8. Subject to compliance with Article 7, Chapter 113A of the North Carolina General
Statutes, Grantee shall have the right to repair, rebuild or restore the Permitted Structures located
upon the Easement Area.
9. The exercise of the rights under this Easement shall be contingent upon Grantee
obtaining all necessary permits and authorizations and complying with all federal, state,
municipal and other laws, codes, ordinances, rules and regulations applicable to the Easement
Area. Grantee shall not make or permit any unlawful use of the Easement Area
10. As set forth in the calculation below, the riparian credit exceeds the footprint of the
Permitted Structures; therefore, in accordance with North Carolina General Statute §146-12(h),
no easement purchase payment is owed
The easement purchase payment, of any, has been calculated based upon the following
information
1. Footprint of Permitted Structures: 4,267 square feet.
2 Ripanan shoreline; 420.00 linear feet
3. Fttparian credit 22,692 square feet.

It. Grantee shall not exercise any rights granted herein in any areas outside the
Easement Area without first obtaining a written modification of this Easement in accordance
with North Carolina General Statute §146-12(k).
12 Upon transfer of title of the Adjacent Property during the term of this Easement or
any renewal thereof, the easement rights granted herein shall be transferred automatically to the
subsequent owner of the Adjacent Property, subject to the limitations hereinafter set forth, In the
event the subsequent owner of the Adjacent Property (1) gives written notification to the State
Property Office, pursuant to Paragraph 15 herein, within twelve (12) months of the date of
transfer of title of the Adjacent Property accompanied by a copy of the instrument of transfer,
and (2) remits the easement purchase payment as provided in North Carolina General Statute
§146-12(d , such subsequent owner shall be entitled to receive an easement document
transferring to such owner the easement rights granted herein for the remainder of the unexpired
easement term. Failure to comply with North Carolina General Statute §146-12(4 shall result in
termination of this Easement.
13. It is expressly understood and agreed between the parties hereto that if Grantee
shall neglect to do and perform any matter or thing herein agreed to be done and performed by
him, and shall remain in default thereof for a period of sixty (60) days after written notice from
Grantor to Grantee calling attention to such default, Grantor, with the approval of the Governor
and Council of State, may declare this Easement revoked Said notice shall be given by certified
mail to Grantee at the address set forth in Paragraph 15(a) of this Easement Revocation of flus
Easement shall entitle Grantee to seek administrative review in accordance with the provisions of
Article 3, Chapter 1 SOB of the North Carolina General Statutes.
14 Nothing contained herein shall be construed to prohibit Grantee from granting
other persons rights of use of portions of the Permitted Structures on the Easement Area for
periods not to exceed the term of this Easement. All rights so granted shall automatically
terminate upon expiration or revocation of this Easement.
15. a All notices herein provided to be given, or which may be given, by either
party to the other, shall be deemed to have been fully given when made in writing and deposited
in the United States mail, certified and postage prepaid and addressed as follows.
Grantor- Director/Deputy Director -State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 276991321
Grantee Bailey and Associates, Inc.
PO Box 400
Jacksonville, North Carolina 28541
Nothing herein contained shall preclude the giving of such notice by personal service.
The address to which notices shall be mailed as aforesaid to either party may be changed by
written notice

b, In the event title to the Adjacent Property is transferred subsequent to the
date of this Easement, Grantee agrees to give written notification to Grantor by certified mail at
the above address within twelve (12) months of the date of such transfer of title. Such
notification shall include.
(1) A copy of the title transfer document
(2) The name(s) of the subsequent owner(s) of the Adjacent Property.
(3) The mailing address(es) of such subsequent owner(s).
16. This Easement shall become effective only upon recordation in the Office of
Register of Deeds for New Hanover County. Grantee shall mail a copy of the recorded
Easement to Grantor at the address set forth in Paragraph 15(a).
17. Failure by Grantor to require strict compliance with any term or condition of this
Easement shall not be construed as a waiver of Grantor's right to enforce compliance with such
term or condition or any other term or condition contained herein.
18. Grantee, by acceptance of this Easement, agrees to comply with and be bound by
all terms and conditions set forth herein
REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

IN TJ✓STIMONY WHEREOF, Grantor has caused this instrument to be executed in its
name by the undersigned as of the date set forth in the notary acknowledgement below.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
By: North Carolina Department of Administration
By-
Spee"sFleggas, 8411' r Deputy Secretary,
North Carolina Department of Administration, acting
Director of the State Property Office
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF WAKE
1, a Notary Public for the County of
North Carolina, do hereby certify that Speros Fleggas personally came
before me this day and acknowledged the due execution by him of the foregoing instrument as
Senior Deputy Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Administration, acting Director of
the State Property Office, for the purposes therein expressed
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notarial Seal, this
the gr day of February, 2015.
My Commission Expires: T g
. . -& Olt jedd U-10AXtE
Notary Public
Print Name: 66re-f . .... . LTCA
01 *0 lr'qt�
Lio

EXHIBIT A
Description of Easement Area
Those certain tracts or parcels of land lying and being in the Harnett Township, New Hanover
County, North Carolina and being more particularly described as follows
Commencing at an existing mag nail at the centerline intersection of U.S. Hwy 74 with N.C.S.R.
1417 (Summer Rest Road); thence along the centerline of N.C.S.R. 1417, north 56 degrees 35
minutes 41 seconds east 260.53 feet to an existing survey spike in the centerline of N.C.S.R.
1417 and in the center of a bridge; thence leaving said intersection, south 29 degrees 55 minutes
14 seconds west 64.37 feet to a point on the southern right-of-way line of N.C.S.R. 1417, said
point being THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF A 10' PIER EASEMENT; thence
from the above described point of beginning and leaving said right-of-way line, south 74 degrees
55 minutes 41 seconds east 15 36 feet to a point; south 64 degrees 29 minutes 14 seconds east
55.94 feet to a point; thence south 51 degrees 10 minutes 05 seconds east 144.58 feet to a point,
thence south 51 degrees 10 minutes 57 seconds east 181.38 feet to a point; thence south 48
degrees 39 minutes 40 seconds east 190.04 feet to a point, thence south 51 degrees 49 minutes 44
seconds east 75.70 feet to a point; thence south 47 degrees 51 minutes 16 seconds east 4.89 feet
to a point, thence north 44 degrees 59 minutes 36 seconds east 62 04 feet to a point; thence south
45 degrees 00 minutes 24 seconds east 10.00 feet to a point; thence south 44 degrees 59 minutes
36 seconds west 71.55 feet to a point; thence north 47 degrees 51 minutes 16 seconds west 14.06
feet to a point, thence north 51 degrees 49 minutes 44 seconds west 75.63 feet to a point; thence
north 48 degrees 39 minutes 40 seconds west 190.09 feet to a point, thence north 51 degrees 10
minutes 57 seconds west 181.18 feet to a point, thence north 51 degrees 10 minutes 05 seconds
west 143.42 feet to a point; thence north 64 degrees 29 minutes 14 seconds west 53.86 feet to a
point; thence north 74 degrees 55 minutes 41 seconds west 23.18 feet to a point on the southern
right-of-way line on N C S.R. 1417; thence along said right-of-way line, north 56 degrees 12
minutes 34 seconds east 13 28 feet to the POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING, being shown
on a survey prepared by Johnny J, Williams Land Surveying, P.0 , dated August 25, 2008 (last
revised February 5, 2015), captioned "PIER AS -BUILT SURVEY FOR: BAILEY &
ASSOCIATES, INC." attached hereto as Exhibit B, and reference to which survey being hereby
made for a more particular description.
The above described 10' pier easement crosses that property recorded in Deed Book 5031 page
1350 and extends beyond this deeded property and into the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway It is
the intention of the above easement description to surround the existing pier as actually surveyed
in August 2008 and for the margins of this easement to be located 5 feet on each side of and
parallel to the center of the existing pier and to extend 5 feet beyond the end of the pier.
The above description was prepared by Johnny J. Williams Land Surveying, P.0 from an actual
pier location on August 25, 2008. The actual margins of this easement have not been surveyed
All courses are correct in their angular relationship to North per Map Book 24 page 22 of the
New Hanover County Registry.

\atlslifaIX
'1
TAMMY THEUSCH BEASLEY
REGISTER OF DEEDS, NEW HANOVER
216 NORTH SECOND STREET
WILMINGTON, NC 28401
•####f#Alk**f!#i**kfklki#*i!t##iiiA*r**IAk!###**A!*#A*i}*AAS*#iiAttlMlikf#f#ltl!*!!#*}}f*}***tiitii*Ati kA*Ak AA*kf**k*t*}
Filed For Registration: 0312312015 04:38.29 PM
Book, RE 5875 Page: 2810-2817
Document No : 2015007733
8 PGS $20.00
Recorder: JOHNSON, CAROLYN
State of North Carolina, County of New Hanover
PLEASE RETAIN YELLOW TRAILER PAGE WITH ORIGINAL DOCUMENT.
*2015007733*
2015007733

U.S. v. Sea Gate, Inc., 397 F.Supp 1351 (1975)
397 F.Supp, 1351
United States District Court, E,D. North Carolina,
New Bern Division.
UNITED STATE of America, Plaintiff,
V.
SFA GATE, INC,, et al., Defendants.
No. 74 -20 -CIV -4.
I
July 21,1975
United States brought suit seeking an order declaring
that the Construction of residential dwellings, their
attendant utilities, and other permanent improvements on
lands adjoining the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway was
inconsistent with the terms of the casement reserved by
the Government for the occupation and use of adjoining
lands in connection with the operation, maintenance
or enlargement of the Waterway. The District Court,
Larkins, J., held that (1) construction of permanent
residences and their attendant utilities on both banks
of the Waterway within defendants' subdivision would
impair and abridge the rights reserved by the Government,
but it would not be unreasonable at the present time to
permit the construction of dwellings along the western
side of the Waterway only, (2) the United States was not
estopped from maintaining the action by any course of
conduct followed since 1972 by officers of the Corps of
Engineers with respect to the development, (3) the failure
of the United States to prevent the construction of other
improvements on easement lands elsewhere along the
right-of-way did not estop it from attempting to prevent
the infringement of its rights in the instant case, and (4)
the Government could not be estopped by representations
made prior to the sale of the property in 1967 concerning
uses to which the property could be put.
Judgment for United States.
Attorneys and Law Firms
*1353 Thomas P. McNamara, U.S. Atty., Raleigh, N.C.
by Bruce H. Johnson, Asst, U.S. Atty., Chief, Land
& Natural Resources Section, Charles N. Estes, Atty.,
Land and Natural Resources Div., U.S. Dept, of Justice,
Washington, D.C., for plaintiff.
Q EXHIBIT
Q
4
Herman Wolff, Jr., Andrew S. Martin, of Wolff, Harrell
& Mann, Raleigh, N.C., William W. Staton, of Pittman,
Staten & Betts, Sanford, N.C., for defendants.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW
Opinion
LARKINS, District Judge.
This action was filed on April 19, 1974, by the
plaintiff, the United States of America, and jurisdiction
is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1345. The controversy centers
around the construction of a residential subdivision on
lands adjoining both sides of the Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway in Carteret County, North Carolina. The
defendant Sea Gate, Inc., is the developer of this
residential community, which is called `Sea Gate
Subdivision.' The remaining defendants own lots within
the subdivision.
The lands owned by the individual defendants and upon
which Sea Gate Subdivision is being constructed are
subject, in whole or in part, to an easement reserved
by the United States in 1957. This casement gives the
Government the right to rise the burdened lands for the
purpose of operating and maintaining the Intracoastal
Waterway; the right to cut away and remove any part
of tine subject property in order to widen or otherwise
improve the Waterway; the right to construct and
maintain aids to navigation on these lands; the right to use
these lands for the deposit of material dredged from the
Waterway; and the right to enter upon and use the lands
for other purposes needful in preserving and maintaining
the Waterway.
Plaintiff seeks an order declaring that the construction
of residential dwellings, their attendant utilities and other
permanent improvements on lands subject to its casement
is inconsistent with the terms thereof and seeks an order
enjoining defendants from such construction. Plaintiff
seeks a further order requiring the owners of three existing
dwellings to remove same if notified that the land they
occupy is needed by plaintiff in connection with operation,
maintenance or enlargement of the Waterway.
This matter was heard before the Court without a jury on
July 1-3, 1975. The Court having considered the evidence
VAt'�ILA'N 1OJ6 Ihor� ito iI f-%,eulels, f�jo claiRrn 10 original tJ.S. Car v(. rnr new VVnrt,s. 1

U.S. v. Sea Gate, Inc., 397 F.Supp. 1351 (9975)
presented and the briefs filed by the parties makes the
following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The portion of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
in controversy is a land cut connecting the Neuse
River and Pamlico Sound with Beaufort Inlet and the
harbor at Morehead City. Congress *1354 authorized
the improvement and construction of the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway from Pamlico Sound to Beaufort
Inlet, North Carolina, in 1907 and further authorized the
Secretary of War to enter into such contracts as might be
necessary for the completion of the project, 34 Stat. 1083.
In 1912, Congress authorized the Secretary to contract
with the Chesapeake and Albemarle Canal Co. for the
purchase of the already existing Adams Creek Canal
(hereinafter `Core Creek band Cut') through this area,
along with certain appurtentant lands belonging to that
company.
2. These original lands, which amounted to approximately
583.28 acres, were held by the United States in fee.
The lands formed a strip approximately 800 feet in
width through which this segment of the Waterway was
constructed.
3. By condemnation in 1947, the United States acquired
fee simple title to several other adjacent tracts to be
used for purposes related to the construction, operation,
maintenance, improvement, and enlargement of the
Waterway. One such tract, which is approximately 1,500
feet deep and 13,800 feet in length, is located adjacent to
the eastern boundary of the original right-of-way lands in
the area in question.
4. In 1955, these lands along both sides of the Waterway
in Carteret County, North Carolina, along with lands
similarly situated along other portions of the Waterway
in North Carolina, were reported to the General Services
Administration as being excess to the needs of the United
States Government. After screening by various federal
agencies in an effort to determine whether these lands
could be used for other purposes, it was determined that
the fee interest should be sold to private purchasers subject
to the easement quoted below, with title to be given by
quitclaim deed at an auction sale. Sale of the original right-
of-way lands was held in Morehead City, North Corolina,
on August 1, 1957.
5. Richard Wright was the successful bidder and purchaser
of a portion of the 800 -foot wide right-of-way lands lying
in Carteret County. The fee interest in these lands was
conveyed by the United States of America to Wright in
1957 by quitclaim deed. Contained in the deed was a
reservation in (lie following language, to wit:
... there is reserved to the Government and its assigns
the perpetual right and casement to maintain the said
Intracoastal Waterway and to enter upon, dig or cut away,
and remove any or all the hereinbefore described tract of
land as may be required at any time in the prosecution of
the aforesaid work of improvement, or any enlargement
thereof, and maintain the portions so cut away and
removed as a part of the navigable waters of the United
States; and the further right to maintain aids to navigation
presently established by the United States on the land
herein described with the rights of ingress and egress
thereto; and the further perpetual right and easement to
enter upon, occupy and use any portion of said tract of
land, not so cut away and converted into public navigable
waters as aforesaid, for the deposit of dredged material,
and for placement thereon of such aids to navigation
deemed necessary by the Government, and for such other
purposes as may be needful in the preservation and
maintenance of said work of improvement; provided,
however, that the party of the second part, his heirs and
assigns, shall enjoy all rights and privileges in said tract
of land as may be used and enjoyed without interfering
with or abridging the exceptions and reservations herein
contained.
The deed from the United States to Wright containing this
language was duly recorded.
*1355 G, Sale of the 800 -foot wide right-of-way lands
was conducted for the General Services Administration by
J. L. Todd Auction Company. Circulars and newspaper
advertisements which were distributed prior to this
sale indicated that recreational developments such as
`commercial marinas, lodges and fishing installations'
were permissible on the subject property. However, there
was no evidence that such circulars and advertisements
were issued with the authority of the United States. The
auction sale agreement between the United States and the
Todd Company expressly provided that the property was
to be sold subject to (lie easement quoted above.
VA."; f LAIN ?01k-)�thwlll ion t��:�i#f�,i.,. No chim lea OIlgillal U.S. C'ov(�rnflv.nt V'liws,

U,S. v. Sea Gate, Inc., 397 F.Supp. 1351 (1975)
7. The tracts adjacent to the right-of-way lands which had
been acquired in 1947 were subsequently sole to other
purchasers, subject to the same easement,
8. The approximate location of the property subject to the
easement quoted above insofar as relevant here is shown
with a solid fine on [lie map attached to these findings as
Exhibit A.
9, The 800 -fool wide right-of-way land was subsequently
conveyed by Wright and ultimately acquired by Charles
M. Reeves, Jr., a defendant herein, in 1972. Reeves
subsequently formed Sea Gate, Inc„ the corporate
defendant herein, to retain ownership.
10. Prior to purchase of this right-of-way land, Reeves
had both actual and record notice that the property was
subject to the easement quoted above. Before purchase of
this property, neither Reeves nor any other officer or agent
of Sea Gate, Inc., had knowledge of any representations
concerning its possible development made prior to the
auction sale in I957. At the time Reeves purchased the
property subject to the Government's easement in 1972, it
was not occupied by any substantial permanent structures.
11. In 1972, Sea Gate, Inc., began the development of
'Sea Gate Subdivision' with a plan partially to subdivide
the right-of-way lands, together with certain adjacent
properties not subject to the Government's easement, into
single family residential lots with certain amenities, such
as a small -boat marina, clubhouse and swimming facilities
and park and playground areas. With the exception of
a portion of the park and playground areas and the
access channel to the Marina, the amenities described
are not located within the Government's easement, The
boundaries of the Sea Gate Subdivision are shown on
Exhibit 'A' in a dashed line.
12. Sea Gate Subdivision consists of over 700 individual
lots, 243 of which are waterfront lots which are located
in whole or in part within the 800 -foot wide right-of-
way easement retained in 1957. These waterfront lots are
subject to restrictive covenants which limit their use to
sites for permanent homes with a minimum interior floor
space of 1,000 square feet. The President of Sea Gate,
Inc. testified that a house of this size would cost at least
$22,000 to construct at prevailing prices, Use of these
waterfront lots for house trailers is expressly forbidden by
the covenants,
13. The Sea Gate waterfront lots are located along both
banks of the Waterway for a distance of approximately
three miles. The average width of these lots in 120 feet and
they range in depth from 90 fect to 265 feet.
14. At the time of trial only three houses had actually been
constructed within the waterfront lots.
15. The Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway is operated
and maintained by the United States Army Corps of
Engineers, which has its District office for eastern North
Carolina in Wilmington, North Carolina.
16. Plans for the development of the Sea Gate Subdivision
first came to "1356 the attention of the Corps of
Engineers in August of 1972. At that time representatives
from Sea Gate, Inc., made preliminary inquiries at
the Wilmington District concerning the application
procedures necessary to acquire a permit from the Corps
to connect a small -boat marina, to be located on the west
side of the Waterway behind the Government's easement
lands, with the Waterway. A formal application for such
a permit was filed with the District on October 13, 1972,
17. At a meeting held in January, 1973 representatives of
Sea Gate, Inc., were informed that the Corps of Engineers
was concerned that the development proposed the
construction of numerous dwellings along the Waterway
on lands subject to the Government's easement. The Sea
Gate representatives were informed that the Charleston
District Office of the Corps had recommended that
litigation be commenced to remove a trailer park from
easement lands in the Myrtle Beach, South Carolina,
area and that a uniform policy concerning the location
of structures within the Waterway easement was being
formulated at higher levels in the Corps.
18. In a latter dated April 18,1973 directed to the President
of Sea Gate, Inc., Mr. David C. Reeves, the Wilmington
District Engineer advised Mr. Reeves that lie had been
advised by higher authority that 'it would be incompatible
with the Government's interest to support in any way
your development plans which include encroachment
onto lands subject to our casements along the AIWW.'
Mr. Reeves was informed that because the Sea Gate
development involved the construction of permanent
improvements on easement lands, Sea Gate's request for a
marina permit could not be granted by the District Office
but would have to be referred to the Office of the Chief of
Engineers.
-- --- —
--------------------
0
-.--- ---_ 0 2016 Thojwion Nr,uleis. iNo daim to orjoin� l U.S. C3o+,rp.mwent

U.S. v, Sea Gate, Inc., 397 F.Supp. 1351 (1975)
19. By letter dated October 15, 1973, the District Engineer
advised Mr. David Reeves that the request for a marina
permit was denied on the grounds that granting the permit
would be inconsistent with the Corps' policy of opposing
permanent construction within the Waterway easement.
20. The Corps of Engineers is currently authorized to
maintain this portion of tine Waterway to a 12 -foot depth,
a 9040ot bottom width, and 1 to 3 side slopes.
21, Evidence indicates that the total width of this segment
of the Waterway when first constructed to the present
I2 -foot depth in 1922 varied between 150 and 250 feet.
At present the Waterway width betwccn banks varies
between 300 and 400 feet. The difference represents
erosion of the Waterway banks which has taken place
over this period. Soils in this area are sandy and quite
susceptible to erosion.
22. Mr. William Sanderson, Chief of the Operations
Division of the Corps' District Office, testified that
dredging on nearly an annual basis has been required
to maintain the channel of the Waterway in the Core
Creek Land Cut to its authorized dimensions. On the
average, 100,000 cubic yards of material has annually been
removed from the segment of the Waterway in the vicinity
of Sea Gate.
23. In the past it was the practice of the Corps
of Engineers to pert -nit contractors performing the
maintenance dredging to discharge the material directly
onto the toe of the Waterway banks at the water's edge.
The evidence indicates that this practice had a stabilizing
effect on bank erosion. However, in I973 the Bureau
of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife of the United States
Department of the Interior strongly recommended that
this practice be abandoned for environmental reasons
and that the spoil be pumped instead into diked areas
located on the high ground adjacent to the Waterway.
The purpose is to minimize the turbidity which is *1357
caused by sidecast dredging and which has an adverse
environmental impact on fish in the area. Starting with the
annual maintenance dredging operations in the summer
of 1974, it has been necessary to utilize diked disposal
areas located on the Government's easement lands. The
material is pumped into dreged areas, the sand and silt are
permitted to settle and then clear water is allowed to run
back into the Waterway. In 1974 approximately 186,000
cubic yards of material were removed from the Waterway
in the vicinity of Sea Gate and placed in two disposal areas
on easement land on the east bank of the canal.
24. Mr. Sanderson testified that in general it is more
convenient and less expensive to locate spoil disposal
areas relatively near the Waterway banks and as close as
possible to the segment of the canal to be dredged. Because
its depth permits disposal sites of adequate dimensions to
be laid out, the large rectangular easement area on the
Waterway's east bank, and adjacent portions of the right-
of-way lands, are well situated for the placement of spoil
dredged from the canal in the Sea Gate vicinity. This large
tract is not part of the Sea Gate property, as indicated
on Exhibit A. In contrast, the narrow strips of right-of-
way land on the west bank-- and on both banks where
the Government has only its 800 -foot right-of-way--- are
less desirable for spoil placements, but could be used if
necessary. These narrow strips might be used for spoil
disposal if dredging were necessary at a point in the canal
some distance from a larger disposal tract,
25. Testimony further indicated that the large rectangular
tract on the east bank and adjoining right-of-way land
could accommodate the spoil expected to be removed
from this segment of the Waterway for many years into
the future.
26. Mr. Sanderson's testimony further indicates, however,
that the presence of numerous dwellings along the east
bank of the Waterway in the vicinity of spoil disposal
areas would greatly complicate the process of dredging
and spoil disposal and create a substantial safety hazard,
even if the lands occupied by houses were not themselves
required for spoil placement. Among the dangers cited as
associated with the dredging and disposal process were
the operation of heavy machinery, the possibility of pipes
bursting from the heavy pressures involved in pumping
spoil, the danger of retention dikes giving way, and the
danger of children getting into disposal areas themselves,
It is clear that substantially greater precautions would
have to be employed in conducting these operations in
the vicinity of dwellings and that the necessity of such
precautions would add significantly to the Government's
expense in maintaining the Waterway.
27. Should houses be constructed in areas actually
required for spoil disposal, the removal of such houses
would greatly complicate the Government's dredging
operations. Testimony also indicated that the presence of
houses near the Waterway banks would make it more
4'1t:`3thtnV�! ? 2816'I'homson No denim to oli(tinaf t1. ;. C,ovnfnrllf.111 t -Vo: k','. t

U.S. v. Sea Gate, Inc., 387 F.Stipp. 1351 (1975)
difficult to use the banks as staging areas for dredging and
for securing the anchors used to pull the dredges from side
to side across the canal.
28. Figures kept by the Corps of Engineers indicate
traffic oil this segment of the Waterway has recently
increased significantly. However, it appears unlikely that
the navigation channel of the Core Creek Land Cut will
need to be widened beyond its existing bottom width
within the next 20 years. Testimony did indicate that
limited widening to provide passing zones might well
be considered at a sooner time. Since the three-mile
waterfront of the Sea Gate development is located near
Hie center of the seven -mile long land cut, it was sitggestcd
that a passing zone might well be constructed within the
Sea Gate area.
*1358 29. Should numerous dwellings be constructed
along both banks of the Waterway within the three-
mile reach of Sea Gate Subdivision, problems similar
to those expected in dredging in a densely populated
area would be encountered. Where necessary, removal of
such houses would complicate any widening operation
and the presence of houses along the banks would rule
out their use as staging areas. Removal and disposal of
the spoil involved in such an operation would pose the
same hazards discussed above in connection with regular
maintenance dredging.
30. The difficulties which can be anticipated in conducting
either normal maintenance dredging or operations to
widen the Waterway channel should dwellings be
constructed Oil all Sea Gate waterfront lots, could be
mitigated by the following measures:
(a) permitting the construction of houses solely on lots
located on the western bank of the Waterway; and (b)
requiring any houses constructed oil said western bank to
be set back from the top of the existing bank a minihnum
of forty feet.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
[11 1. The easement in favor of the United States, plaintiff
herein, is binding oil all the defendants joined in this
proceeding to the extent that their property falls within its
bounds. The easement was contained in deeds which were
duly recorded when the United States sold its fee interest
in this property in 1957, and the parties have stipulated
that the principals of Sea Gate, Inc., had actual knowledge
of the existence and terms of the easement before their
purchase of the subject property and that all individual
lot owners were advised of its existence and terms in the
H.U.D. Property Report on this development.
2. The terns of the easement in question are unambiguous
and give the United States the right to maintain the
Intracoastal Waterway; to `dig, cut away and reinove'
the land if needed in order to enlarge the canal; to enter
upon and use any part of the land for the disposal of
material dredged from the Waterway; and to enter upon
and use the land for the placement of navigation aids
and for 'such other purposes as may be needful in the
preservation and maintenance' of the Waterway. In the
face of ail easement giving the Vnited States rights of such
magnitude, defendants cannot complaint should their
property be used by the Government for the purposes
enumerated at some future time. Should permanent
improvements be constructed on land subject to the
Government's casement, the owners cannot complain
should use of the easement rights require the alteration or
destruction of such improvements.
121 131 3. The owner of an estate subject to an easement
cannot use the fee in a fashion that obstructs or materially
impairs the easement holder's use and enjoyment of his
right under the easement. Any activity by the fee owner
which would result in increased cost or inconvenience
to the easement holder in exercise of his rights or
which would created a safety hazard should those rights
be exercised amounts to a material impairment of the
easement interest. In Carolina Power and Light Co. v.
Bowman, 229 N.C. 682, 51 S.E.2d 191 (1949), ail electric
utility was granted a mandatory injunction requiring the
removal of a theater from lands subject to a right-of-way
easement for its power lines. The building did not actually
touch the lines nor make servicing them impossible.
However, the court granted an injunction because of the
safety hazard created and because servicing the liens was
made more difficult and costly by the presence of the
building. See also, Collins v. Alabama Power Co., 214 Ala,
643, 108 So. 868 (1926); Arkansas -Louisiana Gas Co. v.
Cutrer, 30 So.2d 864 (La.App.1957),
*1359 [41 4. An injunction is the proper remedy to
prevent interference of this type by the fee owner with the
easement holder's property rights. Carolina Power Co. v.
Bowman, supra; see also 25 Am.Jur.2d, Easements and
Licenses § 120.
151 5. Plaintiff reserved the rights enumerated in its
easement in 1957 not only to meet certain immediate needs
VlISt1 AVI lc) M16 l homson INlouters. f Jo c1dirn to oii(linA 0-S, Goveriimeot VVolhti. 5

U.S. v. Sea Gate, Inc., 397 F.Supp. 1351 (1976)
but to provide a means to deal with future contingencies
which could not then be entirely foreseen. The easement
retained thus gives the Government both the right to
make immediate use of the subject property, as for spoil
disposal, and certain rights which plaintiff may choose
to exercise should future conditions warrant. Plaintiff
is therefore also entitled to prevent activities by the
fee owners of this property which would unreasonably
increase the cost, complexity, or difficulty of exercising
these rights at some future time, even though the necessity
for exercise of these rights may not be entirely foreseeable
at present. In Midland Valley Ry. Co. v. Jarvis, 29 F.2d
539 (8th Cir., 1928), the court granted an injunction
prohibiting the use of a railroad right-of-way for the
construction of buildings and other structures, even
though the railroad had no plans to put the property
to immediate use. The court stated that `the necessity of
immediate use is not essential to preserve the rights of the
railroad .... It can never be stated with certainty at what
time any particular part of a right-of-way may become
necessary for railroad uses.' Id. at 541. See also, Seaboard
R.R. Co, v. Banks, 207 Ala. 194, 92 So. 117 (1922) and
Olive v. Sabine & L.T.R.R. Co., I I Tex.Civ.App. 208, 33
S.W. 139 (1895).
[61 6. For these reasons the Court Finds that the
construction of permanent residences and their attendant
utilities on both banks of the Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway within the Sea Gate Subdivision would
impair and abridge the rights reserved by plaintiff by
easement in 1957. No question has been raised in this
lawsuit concerning plaintiffs legal power to require the
destruction or removal of such improvements should
use of the property for the purposes enumerated in
the easement be reasonably necessary. Nevertheless,
the Court finds that the mere existence of numerous
substantial dwellings along both banks of the Waterway
in this area would so greatly complicate and burden
plaintiffs exercise of its easement rights, whether exercised
now or at some future time, that their construction
would very materially impair plaintiffs rights under the
casement.
7. However, the Court further finds that it would
not be unreasonable at the present time to permit
the construction of dwellings along the western side
of the Waterway only. Limiting construction to the
west bank only would minimize any interference with
dredging operations by the Corps of Engineers, since
dredging contractors would have free access to the large
spoil disposal area located in the Sea Gate vicinity on
the cast side of the canal. Moreover, the exclusion of
dwellings from the east bank would also allow reasonable
provision for operations to widen the Waterway channel
or to provide passing zones, should either action prove
necessary in the future.
8. The Court further finds that the construction of
residential dwellings on the west side of the Waterway
should not be permitted closer than forty feet from the top
of the existing bank. Exclusion of dwellings from such a
forty -foot wide strip would leave such land available for
use by the Corps of Engineers for staging operations in
dredging and for widening the channel and would provide
an area for the location of anchors used in maneuvering
the dredges. Moreover, a set -back restriction of this sort
would take account of existing bank erosion and prevent
the construction of houses on potentially precarious sites.
*1360 171 181 9. The Vnited States is not estopped
from maintaining this action by any course of conduct
followed since 1972 by officers of the Corps of Engineers
with respect to the Sea Gate development. The principle
is Firmly established that the Government cannot be
estopped by any unauthorized representations made by
its agents concerning uses to which Government property
can be put. Utah Power and bight Co. v. United
States, 243 U.S. 389, 409, 37 S.Ct. 387, 61 L.Ed. 791
(1917); United States immigration and Naturalization
Service v. Hibi, 414 U.S. 5, 8, 94 S.Ct. 19, 38 L.Ec1.2d
7 (1973). Moreover, the record clearly reveals that
soon after their development plans came to the Corps'
attention, representatives of Sea Gate were advised
that the construction of permanent improvements on
the Government's easement land posed serious policy
problems which the District Engineer was taking up with
higher levels of authority. Under these circumstances, Sea
Gate, Inc., had no right to assume that it plans would not
ultimately be opposed by the Government,
191 [101 10. Likewise, failure of the United States
to prevent the construction of other improvements
on easement lands elsewhere along the Intracoastal
Waterway cannot estop plaintiff from attempting to
prevent the infringement of its rights in this case. The
Supreme Court recently stated that:
As a general rule laclics or neglect of duty on the part of
officers of the Government is no defense to a suit by it
Y1t I t,3aY< �) 2016 Thomson Rer lou> , No clarrii to oij(c incl US. GDveri1111P.nt Vsiorl.s. ii

U.S, v. Sea Gate, bac., 397 f=.Supp. 1351 (1975)
to enforce a public right or protect a public interest .... deed, and parole evidence is inadmissible to vary or
A suit by the United States to enforce and maintain its contradict the instrument's plain meaning or to show
policy respecting lands which it holds in trust for all the that the parties intended something other than what they
people stands upon a different plane in this an sonic other wrote. Weyerhaeuser Company v. Carolina Power and
respects from the ordinary private suit to regain the title to Light Company, 257 N.C. 717, 127 S.E.2d 539 (1962).
real property or to remove a cloud from it. United States There is nothing ambiguous about the nature or terms
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Hibi, 414 U.S. of the easement in question. Parole evidence that an
5, 8, 94 S.Ct, 19, 21, 38 L.> (1.2d 7 (1973). `understanding' in derogation of the Government's rights
under the easement had previously been reached clearly
This principle unquestionably applies to the present case. cannot be considered by this Court to vary or contradict
[11] [12] 1131 [141 [15] 11. Plaintiff finally camidbe final written terms. Finally, the firm of auctioneers
be estopped by representations made prior to the sale hired by plaintiff to dispose of this property was not
of this property in 1957 concerning uses to which this authorized to mace representations in contravention of
property could be put. In the first place no evidence was the easement terms. The contract between the United
adduced at trial to suggest that Sea Gate, Inc., or any States and the firm expressly stated that the property
of its officers relied upon, or indeed had any knowledge was to be sold subject to the easement in question. The
of such representations prior to its purchase of this auctioneers had no authority to offer the property on
property in 1972, Moreover, a deed creating an casement any other terms and plaintiff cannot be '1361 bound by
by express reservation is a contract, and by fundamental any actions they may have taken beyond their authority,
principles of contract law, where the language of a deed United States v. Stewart, 311 U.S. 60, 70, 61 S.Ct, 102, 85
is clear and unambiguous, the intent of the parties can L.Ed. 40 (1940); Federal Crop Ins. Corp. v. Merrill, 332
be shown only by the terms of the instrument itself. U.S. 380, 384-385, 68 S,Ct, 1, 92 L.Ed. 10 (1947).
All prior and contemporaneous agreements between the
parties are considered merged into the final written
'lvt.`>' ILA'Al 2016 Thai--;ois No to or€ts wfl tJ

U.S. v. Sea Gate, Inc., 397 F.Supp. 1351 (1975)
C -
r
-,--CORL CRLLK
a R I VII G LI
-XHTR17 -A-
All Citations
397 F.Supp. 1351
rnd of Document
2016 Thomson Reuters. No diia) to original U.S. Government Works.
1, A'Y%' 16 Thom -'01 I N(-!ut(:I c; IN)o 0r-Ihn 1(; origin d 0.!." ( ovef flim'.0 'Afor};t��

Intracoastal
Engineerin.'
July 28, 2016
NCDEQ
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Attn: Karen Higgins
Re: Grand View Community Marina
DWR# 2011-041ov3
Wilmington, NC
PN 2014-036
Dear Ms. Higgins,
We are writing in response to the request for additional information dated May
10, 2016. Within this request, item No. 2 calls for "an engineering analysis
demonstrating the construction and future operation of the proposed facility will not
negatively impact or damage the NEI".
In review of the proposed facility we do not feel the construction or operation of
this facility will negatively impact or damage the NEI. The proposed construction of
dredging or proposed pilings is shown to be a minimum of approximately 15ft away
from the NEI. This should be an acceptable distance with the use of normal jetting of
piles and bucket to barge dredging. The operation of this facility as represented within
the attached cross section profiles shows the depth of the vessels within these areas not
in conflict with the NEI. Please note that these areas are open for vessel operation at the
current time with no limitations. The limitation of a maximum draft depth of 44"
should maintain no conflict or damage. This analysis is based on the lowest tide reading
in the last 5 years. This reading was taken from NOAA Station 8658163 Wrightsville
Beach, Johnny Mercers Pier October 4, 2015 and measured -2.46' in relation to MLW @
0.0.
Please contact us with any questions, comments or additional information needed.
Sincerely,
Intracoastal Engineering PLLC
Charles D. Cazier, P.E.
5725 Oleander Dr. Unit E-7 Wilmington, NC 28403 [phone]

fTl
_AL
o o� ` p/
os D o°�
v�/
Open
Deck
o o
GRAND VIEW COMMUNITY MARINA PLAN VIEW
30 15 o 30' 6o'
Scale: 1"=30'
wz
o
wZ
o�
aA
zW
w�
�o
QQ
378
ww
PROPOSEDZ
°
v
DREDGEJ
PROPOSED PILINGS -\
0
-5
-5
-10
IA
-15
EXISTING BO
OM
-0+20 0+00 0+20
'*LOW TIDE READING
TAKEN FROM NOAA STATION 8658163, WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH
JOHNNY MERCERS PIER (16.7'). LOWEST TIDE LEVEL RECORDED IN THE PAST FIVE
YEARS, OCTOBER 4th, 2015 (CONVERTED VS MLW ELEVATION -2.46').
PROFILE 2-2
HORIZ. 1" = 1o'
VERT. 1" = 5'
-10
3.2
-15
-0+40
-0+20
0+00 EXISTING FM 0+20
PROFILE
1-1
HORIZ. 1" =
lo'
VERT. 1" =
5'
30 15 o 30' 6o'
Scale: 1"=30'
00
18)
QQ zw
Q� Wo
A Hw
a � W z *LOWEST TIDE
U
� 22.48'
P.
PROPOSED
DREDGE EXISTING BO OM
,
_.
MAXIMUM VESSE 3.53'
DRAFT' OF 44" COVER
EXISTING F
d'
X666
>>th
NOTES:
1) TOPOGRAPHY IS SHOWN RELATIVE TO MEAN LOW WATER. MEAN LOW WATER = o.o'
2) CONTRACTOR TO PHYSICALLY VERIFY DEPTH OF ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. ENGINEER TO
BE NOTIFIED OF ANY CONFLICTS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
3) INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS PLAN IS A COMPILATION OF SEVERAL SURVEYS.
A. DEPTH CONTOURS WERE PROVIDED BY TI COASTAL SERVICES INC. SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 SURVEY.
Horizontal Datum: NC State Plane NAD83
Vertical Datum: MLW Beaufort Datum
Data collected by TI Coastal on September 15, 2014 shown and represent
conditions at that time.
Soundings indicate conditions at the time of survey and are subject to change.
B. SPOT DEPTHS ALONG SOUTHERN PROJECT EDGE BY GAHAGN & BRYANT 2-19-2007;
TAKEN FROM MARITECH DREDGING LLC 2-16-2009 PLAN. DEPTHS ARE RELATIVE TO NGVD29.
MEAN LOW WATER IS -1.54 FT CONTOUR RELATIVE TO NGVD29.
C. NORMAL HIGH WATER FLAGGED BY LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.
AND SURVEYED BY TI COASTAL SERVICES INC. SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 SURVEY.
D. WATERWARD EDGE OF MARSH GRASS DIGITIZED BY TI COASTAL SERVICES INC.AND LAND
MANAGEMENT GROUP INC., WITH 2012 AND 2010 NC OneMap PHOTOS.
E. EXISTING PIER, SEWER FORCE MAIN LOCATION, AND SUMMER REST ROADRIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATIONS
PROVIDED BY JOHNNIE J WILLIAMS LAND SURVEYING PC WITH PIER LOCATION ON 4/20/07 AND FORCE
MAIN LOCATION ON 12/10/07.
F. REMAINING PROPERTY BOUNDARIES, ADJACENT FEATURES AND AIWW SETBACKS PROVIDED BY
MCKIM AND CREED FROM A MAY 1, 2014 SURVEY COMPILED FROM PREVIOUS SURVEYS WITH LIMITED
FIELD WORK. MCKIM AND CREED MAY 2014 SURVEYFIELD-LOCATED BULKHEAD ON EASTERN SIDE OF
AIWW.
REFERENCES PROVIDED BY MCKIM AND CREED INCLUDE:
• BOUNDARY ITEMS IN BLUE FROM A MAP RECORDED IN MB 24 PG 22 BY SHERWIN D. CRIBB TITLED
"MAP OF SURVEY FOR SUMMER -REST ASSOCIATES" DATED OCTOBER 1984, AND DEED BOOK 5031
PAGE 1350•
• HIGH WATERLINE AND LOW WATERLINE FROM A PIER AS -BUILT SURVEYFOR BAILEY &
ASSOCIATES, INC. BY JOHNNY J. WILLIAMS LAND SURVEYING, PC DATED AUGUST 25, 2oo8.
• ALL OTHER INFORMATION, MARSH AREA EDGE OF MARSH, PIERS, DOCKS, FROM VARIOUS MAPS
FROM MARITECH DREDGING, LLC TITLED "BAILEY PROJECT" DATED DECEMBER 15, 20o9, AND CGRS
ENTERPRIZES, LLC MAP TITLED "LAMA MAJOR PERMIT PLAT" BY QUIBLE AND ASSOCIATES P.C.
DATED DECEMBER 11, 2000.
�Q••Q�oFESS� 'yl,•� ��
SEAL y -
CLIENT INFORMATION:
BAILEY &ASSOCIATES
P.O. BOX 400
JACKSONVILLE, NC 28541
[phone] Office
[phone] Fax
DRAWN: JAE SHEET SIZE: 24X36
CHECKED: CDC DATE: 7/28/201
6
APPROVED: CDC SCALE:
PROJECT NUMBER: 2014-036
DRAWIN
G NUMBER:
1 OF 1
wz
o
0
-5
-10
IA
-15
-0+20 0+00 0+20
'*LOW TIDE READING
TAKEN FROM NOAA STATION 8658163, WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH
JOHNNY MERCERS PIER (16.7'). LOWEST TIDE LEVEL RECORDED IN THE PAST FIVE
YEARS, OCTOBER 4th, 2015 (CONVERTED VS MLW ELEVATION -2.46').
PROFILE 2-2
HORIZ. 1" = 1o'
VERT. 1" = 5'
00
18)
QQ zw
Q� Wo
A Hw
a � W z *LOWEST TIDE
U
� 22.48'
P.
PROPOSED
DREDGE EXISTING BO OM
,
_.
MAXIMUM VESSE 3.53'
DRAFT' OF 44" COVER
EXISTING F
d'
X666
>>th
NOTES:
1) TOPOGRAPHY IS SHOWN RELATIVE TO MEAN LOW WATER. MEAN LOW WATER = o.o'
2) CONTRACTOR TO PHYSICALLY VERIFY DEPTH OF ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. ENGINEER TO
BE NOTIFIED OF ANY CONFLICTS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
3) INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS PLAN IS A COMPILATION OF SEVERAL SURVEYS.
A. DEPTH CONTOURS WERE PROVIDED BY TI COASTAL SERVICES INC. SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 SURVEY.
Horizontal Datum: NC State Plane NAD83
Vertical Datum: MLW Beaufort Datum
Data collected by TI Coastal on September 15, 2014 shown and represent
conditions at that time.
Soundings indicate conditions at the time of survey and are subject to change.
B. SPOT DEPTHS ALONG SOUTHERN PROJECT EDGE BY GAHAGN & BRYANT 2-19-2007;
TAKEN FROM MARITECH DREDGING LLC 2-16-2009 PLAN. DEPTHS ARE RELATIVE TO NGVD29.
MEAN LOW WATER IS -1.54 FT CONTOUR RELATIVE TO NGVD29.
C. NORMAL HIGH WATER FLAGGED BY LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.
AND SURVEYED BY TI COASTAL SERVICES INC. SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 SURVEY.
D. WATERWARD EDGE OF MARSH GRASS DIGITIZED BY TI COASTAL SERVICES INC.AND LAND
MANAGEMENT GROUP INC., WITH 2012 AND 2010 NC OneMap PHOTOS.
E. EXISTING PIER, SEWER FORCE MAIN LOCATION, AND SUMMER REST ROADRIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATIONS
PROVIDED BY JOHNNIE J WILLIAMS LAND SURVEYING PC WITH PIER LOCATION ON 4/20/07 AND FORCE
MAIN LOCATION ON 12/10/07.
F. REMAINING PROPERTY BOUNDARIES, ADJACENT FEATURES AND AIWW SETBACKS PROVIDED BY
MCKIM AND CREED FROM A MAY 1, 2014 SURVEY COMPILED FROM PREVIOUS SURVEYS WITH LIMITED
FIELD WORK. MCKIM AND CREED MAY 2014 SURVEYFIELD-LOCATED BULKHEAD ON EASTERN SIDE OF
AIWW.
REFERENCES PROVIDED BY MCKIM AND CREED INCLUDE:
• BOUNDARY ITEMS IN BLUE FROM A MAP RECORDED IN MB 24 PG 22 BY SHERWIN D. CRIBB TITLED
"MAP OF SURVEY FOR SUMMER -REST ASSOCIATES" DATED OCTOBER 1984, AND DEED BOOK 5031
PAGE 1350•
• HIGH WATERLINE AND LOW WATERLINE FROM A PIER AS -BUILT SURVEYFOR BAILEY &
ASSOCIATES, INC. BY JOHNNY J. WILLIAMS LAND SURVEYING, PC DATED AUGUST 25, 2oo8.
• ALL OTHER INFORMATION, MARSH AREA EDGE OF MARSH, PIERS, DOCKS, FROM VARIOUS MAPS
FROM MARITECH DREDGING, LLC TITLED "BAILEY PROJECT" DATED DECEMBER 15, 20o9, AND CGRS
ENTERPRIZES, LLC MAP TITLED "LAMA MAJOR PERMIT PLAT" BY QUIBLE AND ASSOCIATES P.C.
DATED DECEMBER 11, 2000.
�Q••Q�oFESS� 'yl,•� ��
SEAL y -
CLIENT INFORMATION:
BAILEY &ASSOCIATES
P.O. BOX 400
JACKSONVILLE, NC 28541
[phone] Office
[phone] Fax
DRAWN: JAE SHEET SIZE: 24X36
CHECKED: CDC DATE: 7/28/201
6
APPROVED: CDC SCALE:
PROJECT NUMBER: 2014-036
DRAWIN
G NUMBER:
1 OF 1
d'
X666
>>th
NOTES:
1) TOPOGRAPHY IS SHOWN RELATIVE TO MEAN LOW WATER. MEAN LOW WATER = o.o'
2) CONTRACTOR TO PHYSICALLY VERIFY DEPTH OF ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. ENGINEER TO
BE NOTIFIED OF ANY CONFLICTS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
3) INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS PLAN IS A COMPILATION OF SEVERAL SURVEYS.
A. DEPTH CONTOURS WERE PROVIDED BY TI COASTAL SERVICES INC. SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 SURVEY.
Horizontal Datum: NC State Plane NAD83
Vertical Datum: MLW Beaufort Datum
Data collected by TI Coastal on September 15, 2014 shown and represent
conditions at that time.
Soundings indicate conditions at the time of survey and are subject to change.
B. SPOT DEPTHS ALONG SOUTHERN PROJECT EDGE BY GAHAGN & BRYANT 2-19-2007;
TAKEN FROM MARITECH DREDGING LLC 2-16-2009 PLAN. DEPTHS ARE RELATIVE TO NGVD29.
MEAN LOW WATER IS -1.54 FT CONTOUR RELATIVE TO NGVD29.
C. NORMAL HIGH WATER FLAGGED BY LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.
AND SURVEYED BY TI COASTAL SERVICES INC. SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 SURVEY.
D. WATERWARD EDGE OF MARSH GRASS DIGITIZED BY TI COASTAL SERVICES INC.AND LAND
MANAGEMENT GROUP INC., WITH 2012 AND 2010 NC OneMap PHOTOS.
E. EXISTING PIER, SEWER FORCE MAIN LOCATION, AND SUMMER REST ROADRIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATIONS
PROVIDED BY JOHNNIE J WILLIAMS LAND SURVEYING PC WITH PIER LOCATION ON 4/20/07 AND FORCE
MAIN LOCATION ON 12/10/07.
F. REMAINING PROPERTY BOUNDARIES, ADJACENT FEATURES AND AIWW SETBACKS PROVIDED BY
MCKIM AND CREED FROM A MAY 1, 2014 SURVEY COMPILED FROM PREVIOUS SURVEYS WITH LIMITED
FIELD WORK. MCKIM AND CREED MAY 2014 SURVEYFIELD-LOCATED BULKHEAD ON EASTERN SIDE OF
AIWW.
REFERENCES PROVIDED BY MCKIM AND CREED INCLUDE:
• BOUNDARY ITEMS IN BLUE FROM A MAP RECORDED IN MB 24 PG 22 BY SHERWIN D. CRIBB TITLED
"MAP OF SURVEY FOR SUMMER -REST ASSOCIATES" DATED OCTOBER 1984, AND DEED BOOK 5031
PAGE 1350•
• HIGH WATERLINE AND LOW WATERLINE FROM A PIER AS -BUILT SURVEYFOR BAILEY &
ASSOCIATES, INC. BY JOHNNY J. WILLIAMS LAND SURVEYING, PC DATED AUGUST 25, 2oo8.
• ALL OTHER INFORMATION, MARSH AREA EDGE OF MARSH, PIERS, DOCKS, FROM VARIOUS MAPS
FROM MARITECH DREDGING, LLC TITLED "BAILEY PROJECT" DATED DECEMBER 15, 20o9, AND CGRS
ENTERPRIZES, LLC MAP TITLED "LAMA MAJOR PERMIT PLAT" BY QUIBLE AND ASSOCIATES P.C.
DATED DECEMBER 11, 2000.
�Q••Q�oFESS� 'yl,•� ��
SEAL y -
CLIENT INFORMATION:
BAILEY &ASSOCIATES
P.O. BOX 400
JACKSONVILLE, NC 28541
[phone] Office
[phone] Fax
DRAWN: JAE SHEET SIZE: 24X36
CHECKED: CDC DATE: 7/28/201
6
APPROVED: CDC SCALE:
PROJECT NUMBER: 2014-036
DRAWIN
G NUMBER:
1 OF 1
G NUMBER:
1 OF 1

I, DANIEL S. NORMILE, REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR, CERTIFY THAT
THIS MAP WAS PREPARED FROM AN ACTUAL SURVEYED LOCATION OF THE
SEWER FORCE MAIN UNE, AND PIER AND THAT ALL OTHER INFORMATION
SHO REON RE TAKEN FROM SOURCES AS NOTED HEREON.
H.cARo�,
DANIELS. NORMILE, P.L.S., L-4589 O�•'FES S%D.�y%
4 SEAL
';y L-4589 C; C
9y0 SURF'
LEGEND:
OF = EXIBTING IRON PIPE
EIS EXISTING IRON STAKE
ERR EXISTING RAILROAD SPIKE
ISS = IRON STAKE SET
PKS = P.K. NAIL SET
AG = TOP ABOVE GROUND SURFACE
BG = TOP BELOW GROUND SURFACE
R/W = RIGHT—OF—WAY
f = CENTERUNE
It = PROPERTY UNE
O = NONMONUMENTED POINT
ZULU MARINE SERVICES
1
LOCATION SURVEY FOR:
BAILEY cPc ASSocfATrS, INC.
INDIVIDUAL TRACT AT THE INTERSECTION OF N.C.S.R. 1417
NOTES: REFERENCES: (SUMMER REST ROAD), U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 74 AND
ii THE INTENT OF "' SURVEY SEWER LOCATIIXJ AND EPTN AND IiS RElAT10NSHIP TO THEFEXISTINGORCE AINS DEED BOOK 5037, PAGE 1350 N C CITY 10F5WILM WILMINGTON
CANAL DRIVE)
PIER AND DOCK, THIS MAP IN R WAY IMPLIES THE LOCATION OF HARNETT TOWNSHIP, NEW HANOVER COUNTY, N.C.
ANY ROADS, UTILITIES OR PROPERTY BOUNDARIES,
DATE: AUGUST 15, 2015 10 R0 w• eo
SCALE: V = 40'
✓OIINNY J. ArlZL14JfY LAND SfIRt'LYINC P.C.
P.O. BOX 778, BEULAVILLE, N.C. 28518
PHONE: [phone] FAX: [phone]
EMAIL JWILLIAMS 0 JWSURVEY.COM