20061488 Ver 1_Complete File_20060913

---Zocc --,
'JA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. E_nsley, Governcr Charles S. Jones Director
VtiNtm G Fcss Jr., Secretary
September 11, 2006 SEP'
y ?ox
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Noelle Lutheran
401
Div. of Water Quality
FROM: Doug Huggett, Major Permits Coordinator
SUBJECT: CAMA Application Review
Applicant: H. Johnson Sifly
Project Location: 1713 Canady Road, adjacent to Pages Creek, in Wilmington,
New Hanover County
Proposed Project: To construct a pier, platform, gazebo, floating docks, boatlifts, & boathouse
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return t
his form by October 4, 2006. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please
contact Robb Mairs at [phone], when appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting
data is requested.
REPLY: X This agency has no objectiPin t the proje//ct as proposed.'/f / r
??- /f /C"! '/rCt??iG./ /'S r"lc r'c r/;i:r c"(:?
This agency has no comment on the proposed project. /
This agency approves of the.project only if the recommended changes are
incorporated. See attached.
-his agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached
comments.
DATE Off , / ' s'.
SIGNED
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilminglon, North Carolina 28405-3845
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Cpportunity l Afrmat;ve Action E;,, .^' Dyer -
s
': Recycled 1 100,b Post consumer Facer
1
Re: WiRO Tracking and Tardy Projects
No 401 required, entered BIMS 10/18/06.
*06-1129, *Willow Woods SD,* *Brunswick Co, NW39 9/15/06 11/13/06
Issued 11/1/06.
*06-0197, *Helmsdale At Landfall,* *New Hanover Co, IP Due 11/13/06 **
*06-1488, *H. Johnson Sifly, New Hanover Co, CAMA 9/1306 11/11/06
No 401 required, entered BIMS 10/18/06.
*05-0813, Ver. 2, *Mimosa Bay SD, Onslow Co, NW39 9/13/06 11/11/06
Additional information receivedll/1/06.
2 of2 11/14/2006 8:50 AM
Re: WiRO Tracking and Tardy Projects
Subject: Re: WiRO Tracking and Tardy Projects
From: Noelle Lutheran <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 10:35:07 -0500
To: Ian McMillan <[e-mail]>
Yes, it was concerning whether or not you (Raleigh Office) needs complete CAMA
applications? Question came up because I realized that DCM has not been providing
your office with revised CAMA Major applications. Sometimes, due to multiply
agency concerns, the applicant makes revisions and DCM circulates them to the
agencies, but not you. I became aware when some projects were not appearing on my
tracking list but were close to the deadline. I asked DCM to provide you with
copies also. Morehead City does not seem to have an issue with this, but our DCM
office does. They do not see the need to provide two copies to one agency. They
already have to provide many copies.....
I can copy it and send it to you, but sometimes full plan sheets are involved. My
supervisor wants to know if you really need a full copy of the revisions. I say
"yes".
Ian McMillan wrote:
Hey! You left me a message Friday and I forgot what it pertained to... do you
remember? Thanks, Ian
Noelle Lutheran wrote:
Listed below are status reports on the listed projects. For some projects, we
have been entering "no 401, deemed issued" which, we have learned does not
close out a project on BIMS. So, I plan to discuss with Reeder and Beverly to
find out the preferred way of entering the data, but for now... it is not as
bad as it looks!
*
*
*Wilmington **
-Tracking: _
206-1699, *St. James By The Sea, Brunswick Co, CAMA EXP 10/30/06 11/28/06
No 401 Required, entered BIMS 11/1/06
*06-1581, *New Hanover County Well Field & Water Tx Plant, New Hanover Co,
CAMA 9/29/06 11/27/06
USACE IP, No Public Notice yet as far as I know.
*06-1568, *Live Oak Community Docks, Onslow Co, CAMA 9/27/06 11/25/06
Issued... Deemed issued under 3402 and 3494, copy GC sent.
*99-1035, Ver. 2, *Forest Sound Breakwater, Pender Co, CAMA 9/20/06 11/18/06
*06-1274, *The Villages At Turtle Creek - Phase I, PPender Co, NW39 9/18/06
11/16/06
Issued 11/3/06.
Tardy:
*06-1571, *Yopp:* *7510 River Road, Tract* *3, New Hanover Co, NW18 9/28/06
10/26/06
Deemed issued after 30 days 10/26/06. Copy GC sent 11/1/06.
*06-1402, *CHC Excavation Site, Brunswick Co, NW44 9/0806 11/06/06
Issued 11/1/06.
*06-1510, *TOPine Knoll Shores, Carteret Co, CAMA 9/15/06 11/13/06
1 of 2 11/14/2006 8:50 AM
Ala
NC®ENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Charles S. Jones, Director
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
September 11, 2006
MEMORANDUM: 2 0 0 6 1 4 8 8
TO: Cyndi Karoly, Supervisor
401 Oversight & Express Permits Unit
Division of Water Quality-Surface Water Protection
FROM: Doug Huggett, Major Permits Coordinator LY
`''?° : ? 2006
SUBJECT: CAMA Application Review
Applicant: H. Johnson Sifly
Project Location: 1713 Canady Road, adjacent to Pages Creek, in Wilmington,
New Hanover County
Proposed Project: To construct a pier, platform, gazebo, floating docks, boatlifts, & boathouse
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return t
his form by October 4, 2006. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please
contact Robb Mairs at [phone], when appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting
data is requested.
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are
incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached
comments.
SIGNED DATE
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3845
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer - 50°o Recycled 110°a Past Consumer Pacer
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
2.
3.
4.
5.
APPLICANT'S NAME: 1-1. Johnston Sitly
LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE: 1713 Canacly Road adjacent to Pages Creek, in New ] lanover County.
Photo Index - 2000: 22-277, F-11,12 1939: 4-175-14, N,0-22, 23 1984: 15-231, G-10, 11
State Plane Coordinates - l: 58505 Y: 722474
LAT:34°16'15.97822"N LONG: 77°46'27.51461"W
INVESTIGATION TYPE: CAIVIA ROVER PILE # - 0090519A
INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE: Dates of Site Visit - 6-07-05 and 9-05-06
Was Applicant Present - No
PROCESSING PROCEDURE: Application Received - 5-31-06 (Completed)
Office - Wdillington
6. SITE DESCRIPTION:
(A) Local Land Use Plan - New Hanover Comm,
Land Classification From LUP - Resource Protection
(13) AEC(s) Involved: CW, PT, EW
(C) Water Dependent: Yes
(D) Intended Use: Private
(1:) ?Vastcwatcr'I'rrttment: Existing - Septic
Planned - N/A
(F) Type of Structures: Existing - Single family home
Planner! - Fixed pier, platform. gazebo
(G) Estimated Annual Rate of Erosion: N/A
Source - N/A
7
8
11A13ITAT DESCRIPTION: [AREA]
DRFDGFD
floating clocks, boathouse and boatliitS.
1:I1_I.ED 0"1I-IC-.R
(A) Vegetated Wetlands (coastal wetlands) 240 sq. it
(shaded)
(13) Non-Vegetated Wetlands (Incorpolatc(l)
(Open water) 1.101 Sq. tt.
(C) Other (1-li«huround)
(D) Total Area Disturbed: 1,341 sq. ft.
(E) Primary Nursery Area: No
(F) Water Classification: SA Open: No
PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant requests authorization to build a private pier, platform, gazebo. Iloatin(r
clocks. boatliits and boathouse into Pages Creek.
H. Johnston Sifly
Paee 2
9. PROJECT DESCIZll'TION:
The project site is located at 1713 Canady Roacl, adjacent to Pages Creel:, in New Hanover County. TO locate the
property from Market Street (NC Higlnvayl7), turn onto Middle Sound Loop Road and travel east past Ouden
Elementary School approximately 2 miles. Turn left on Mason Landing IZoad and travel approximately 02 miles
jLlSt Ulltll it n2aches Canady Road. Turn left onto Canady Road and the property of interest will be located on the
right down a shared private gravel driveway. There is an existing driveway to access the property and project site.
There are approximately 0.98acreS of highground, which averages approximately 10' above mean sca Icvel. There
is approximately 243' Of shoreline on the site that overlooks Pages Creek. There is an existin, similc-I;Imil\
residence located on the property. Existing high around vegetation on this tract consists Of la\vn grasses, and
hardwoods including Oak. Waterward of the hiI'll ground towards Pages Creck the vegetation on the tract
transitions to all area of high marsh consistim,, of mixed coastal wetlands and "404 tvpe" vegetation. which I11CIUde:
Marsh Elder (JlU fi•1Nescel)s), Wax Myrtle (lllyrica cerifera), Cattail (7j?p/lu sp.), Salt Nleaclow Grass (S/)(rrlina
patens) and Black Needle Rush (J1111CnS 1"0ellm-icums). Tile high marsh then transitions to an area of low marsh,
approximately -10' in width, consisting primarily of Smooth Cordgrass (Spcn-lina ollcl•niflora). There also exists an
isolated area of Smooth Corcigrass (SPaI•lina (1llerniJlolra) approximately 40' in length by 30' in \\ idth located
approximately 30'waterward of the shoreline. Surrounding the low marsh areas are several oyster reefs visible in
the Illud flat at low \vater.
The New I-Ial1OVel- County Land Use Plan classifies adjacent \vaterS as Conservation, and the adjacent high ,round
portion of the project area as Resource Protection. The waters of the Pages Creek are classified SA by the Division
Of Water Quality. They are NOT designated as a Primary Nursery Area by the N.C. Division of ?1arine I fisheries
and they are Conditionally Approved-CLOSED to the harvest Ot shellfish by the N.C. Division of Environmental
Health.
PROPOSED 131ZOJECT:
The applicant requests authorization to build a private pier, platform, gazebo, floating dock, bWtIIIIS and boathouse
into I'ages Creel:. A new pier 385' in length by 6' in width \\ould extend fi-onl the Shoreline to the edge of deep
\vater of Pages Creek. The alignment of the pier \vould be located on the western side of the isolated area of
Smooth Corclgrass (Sp(n•lilm allenliji era). The pier would then terminate in a 14' in length by 14' in \\ idth
platform located on the east side of the pier and also a 20' in length by 16' in width gazebo on the w est side of the
pier. An access ramp would then lead to a 14' in length by 12' in width floating CIOCk landing, \\ hich \vould then
terminate in a 62' in length by 4' in width floating clock. This wOUld create a "T-head" configuration parallel to
the shoreline. Located on the land\vard side of the floating clock would be two 13' in length by I3' ill \\ Idth
boatlifts, one on each side of the floating clock landing. This boatlift located on the western side \vould be then
covered by a 33' in length by 12' in \vidth roof. The application states these proposed structures would provide
clocking space for four vessels.
10. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS:
The proposed floating docks, platform, boathouse and boatlifts would incorporate approximately 1.101 sq. ft. of
Estuarine Waters and Public Trust. The proposed fixed pier would shade approximately 240 sq. ft. of Coastal
Wetlands. The structures would extend approximately 390'into a waterbody mcaRlrlilg approximately 690' across,
which would not conform with the 1/4 width rule and the established pier lengths. The structure would Cross into the
adjacent riparian property owner's corridor to the south; however, the applicant has received authorization from the
adjacent riparian property owner for the construction. Minor increases in turbidity should be expected drlrin?,
construction.
Submitted by: Robb Mairs Date: 9/06/06 011-ice: Wilmington
Form DCM-MP-1
2 0 0 6 1 4 8 8
RECEIVED
. I?CN1 WILP?IINGTO?J. ;?!C
RI-LICA,? II 'i L 9
11 2006
(To be completed by all applicants)
1. APPLICANT
a. Landowner:
Name y??1h5??.'"f?7
Address CGv?G`.?,
City ?l ll'lll?c"` State !vim
Zip Day Phone ?lD"?Z-yGZ-r
Fax
b. Authorized Agent:
Name
Address
City
Zip _ Day Phone
Fax
State
c. Project name (if any)
i,'OTE: F-emdt will be issued in name of landowrur(s), end/or
project nark.
2. LOCATION OF PROPOSED
PROJECT
a. County V 1,

b. City, town, community or landmark
c. Street address or secondaaryry
s road,?umber
1 ?l C- ?.s??
d. Is proposed work within city limits or planning
jurisdiction? Yes / No
e. Name of body of water nearest project (e.g. aver,
creek, sound, bay) P4 1 --s ?= ?-
3. DESCRIPTION AND PLANNED USE
OF PROPOSED PROJECT
a. List all development activities you propose (e.g.
building a home, motel, marina, bulkhead, pier, and
excavation and/r filling activities.
b. Is the proposed activity maintenance of an existing
project, new work, or both? e, J
c. Will the project be fo public, private or commercial
use? 2 ,
d. Give a brief description of purpose, use, methods of
construction and daily operations of proposed
project. If more space is needed, please attac
additional,pages. Zl :511`0 ,15
_ r
^.z, ?cd 0135
17,
RECEIVEC;
0 t' 200i 0C1i1 WILMINGTON. NC
Form DCM-1•iP-1
2 1 2006

m. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities.
4. LAND AND WATER ?-`?-
CHARACTERISTICS
a. Size of entire tract n., Describe location and type of discharges to waters
of the state. (For example, surface runoff, sanitary
b. Size of individual lot(s) wastewater, industrial/commerce a uent, "wash
down" and residential discharges.)
c. Approximate elevation of tract above MEW or
NWL / ") t
d. Soil type(s)?and texture(s) of tract o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.

C. Vegetation o tract I Crw ?s5

J ``(
f. Man-made features ow on tr ct
w 5. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
,
1
g. What is the CAMA Land Use Plan land In addition to the completed application form, the
classification of the site? (Consult the local land use plan.) following items must be submitted:
Conservation Transitional
Developed Community
° A copy of the deed (with state application only) or
`._
Rural Other other instrument under which the applicant claims title
-? to the affected properties. If the applicant is not
h. How is the tract zoned by local government? claiming to be the owner of said property, then
2U 5 forward a copy of the deed or other instrument under
which the owner claims title, plus written permission
i. Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable from the owner to carry out the project.
< Yes No
zoning?
_
(Attach toning compliance certificate, if applicable) © An accurate, dated work plat (including plan view
and cross-sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black
j. Has a professional archaeological assessment been ink on an a 1/2" by 11" white paper. (Refer to
done for the tract? Yes _ ' No Coastal Resources Commission Rule 7J.0203 for a
If yes, by whom? detailed description.)
1:. Is the project located in a National Registered Please note that original drawings are preferred and
Historic District or does it involve a National only high quality copies will be accepted. Blue-line
Register listed or eligible property? prints or other larger plats are acceptable only if an
Yes No Mequate number of quality copies are provided by
applicant. (Contact the U.S. Army Corps of
1. Are there wetlands on the site? Yes No Engineers regarding that agency's use of larger
Coastal (marsh) Other drawings.) A site or location map is a part of plat
If yes, has a delineation been conducted? requirements and it must be sufficiently detailed to
(Attach documentation, if available) guide agency personnel unfamiliar with the area to the
serf,ed 03195
Form DCNi-N P-1
site. Include highway or secondary road (SR)
numbers, landmarks, and the like.
° A Stormwater Certification, if one is necessary.
A list of the names and complete addresses or the
adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners and
signed return receipts as proof that such ovvners
ha.-2 reccived t: copy cf the application and plats
by certified mail. Such landowners must be advised
that they have 30 days in which to submit comments
on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal
Management. Upon signing this form, the applicant
further certifies that such notice has been provided.
Name ) -Yv, 5 J n / Ue c.
Address k-
Phone `1/00 - 6- ?-G - ?o
}? -?
Name
Address I-2-C551 Phone (0 4L 7
idame
Address
Phone
A list of previous state or federal permits issued for
work on the project tract. Include permit numbers,
permittee, and issuing dates.
0 A check for $250 made payable to the Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
(DEHNR) to cover the costs of processing the
application.
° A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in
oceanfront and inlet areas.
° A statement of compliance with the N.C.
Environmental Policy Act (N.C.G.S. 113A - 1 to
10) If the project involves the expenditure of public
funds or use of public land's, attach a statement
documenting compliance with the North Carolina
Envirorunental Policy Act.
RECEIVEC
IDCI'.>> I?VILMINGTON. i,,'c
L 2, 1 2006
)i
i°i? i 1 LUIJC
6. CERTIFICATION AND PERMISSION
TO ENTER ON LAND
I understand that any permit issued hi response to this
application will allow only the development described in
the application. The project will be subject to conditions
and restrictions contained in the permit.
I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the proposed
activity complies with the State of North Carolina's
approved Coastal Management Program and will be
conducted in a manner consistent with such program.
I certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in fact,
grant permission to representatives of state and federal
review agencies to enter on the aforementioned lands in
connection with evaluating information related to this
permit application and follow-up monitoring of the
project.
I further certify that the information provided in this
application is truthful to the best of my knowledge.
This is the 2 day o L y , -ll ?.
Print Name :S csJ
Signature r
I=-101* gtr or ? horiztd Agav
Please indicate attachments pertaining to your proposed
project.
_ DCM MP-2 Excavation and Fill Information
_ DCM MP-3 Upland Development
Y DCM MP-4 Structures Information
_ DCM MP-5 Bridges and Culverts
_ DCM MP-6 Marina Development
NOTE. Please sign and date each attachment in the
space provided at the bottom of each form.
Revised G3195
Form DCNI-MP4

(Construction within Public Trust Areas)
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major
Permit, Form DCM-NIP-1. Be sure to complete all
other sections of the Joint Application which relate to
this proposed project.
Dock(s) and/or Pier(s)
(1) _ Commercial -Community Private
(2) Number 1
(3) Length
(4) Width
(5) Finger Piers ? Yes No
(i) Number 2
(ii) Length K
(iii) Width J Z
(6) Platform(s) Yes No
(i) Number 2
(ii) Length / Z J
(iii) Width /
(7) Number of slips proposed q
(g) Proximity of structure to adjacent riparian
property lines 3 ? (
(9) Width of water body *3 -7 5-
(10) Water depth at waterward end of pier at
MLW or NWL
Boathouse (including covered lifts)
(1) Commercial Private
(2) Length
(3) Width -?-'F- L
C.
Groin (e.g. wood, sheetpile, etc.)
(1) Number
(2) Length(s)
Breakwater (e.g. wood, sheetpile, etc.)
(1) Length O
(2) Average distance from MHW, NWL or
wetlands
(3) Maximum distance beyond MHW, NWL or
wetlands

e. Mooring buoys
(1) _ Commercial -Community _ Private
(2) Number
(3) Description of buoy
(Color, inscription, size, anchor, etc.)
(4)
(5)
Width of water body _
Distance buoy(s) to
shoreline
be placed beyond
f. Mooring structure (boatlift, mooring pilings, etc.)
(1) _ Commercial _Community Private
(2) Number
(3) Length 13 i
(4) Width j t 3
g. Other (Give complete description)
?% ] 11 ?Tc1.? ? t ???
Applicant or Proj t ame
Signature
Date
Revised 03195
Johnston Sifly
1713 Canady Rd
`,Vilmington, NC 28411
910-520-4624
[e-mail]
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Re: Pier application for 1713 Canady Rd., Wilmington
Dear Sir/Madam:
This application is for a major permit to construct a pier at my residence on Pages Creek in Wilmington.
First, I'd like to sincerely thank all of the people with CAMA that have truly gone the extra mile to help
me with this, process over the last two years. The field agent, Mr. Jason Dale, and the District Manager,
Mr. Jim Greggson, visited my property numerous times when I was first applying for a General Permit for
a 400' pier. Furthermore, the Assistant Director of Permitting, Mr. Ted Tyndall was even kind enough to
take time out of his schedule to visit my property. And although I was disappointed that I was requested to
complete a Major Permit Application, I am still very thankful for Mr. Greggson's continued assistance.
Ile not only recommended the surveyor of the enclosed survey but Mr. Greggson also took the time to
personally a line parallel to the channel to help us survey my riparian corridor.
Keep in mind that the above-mentioned appreciation is not simply superficial patronage. These gentlemen
deserve some gratitude, for which I'm sure they'll agree has been a volume of persistent questions, many
of them "advocating the devil", and a multitude of field visits. But I also think they'll attest to the fact
that I have always driven for this project not on emotional reasons or false beliefs but on both the spirit
and the letter of the rules. It is solely on these grounds that I'd like to apply for a major permit.
You may think this is an obvious statement, but it's surprising the variance of opinions I've gotten on this
project - from consultants and within regulatory departments alike. It seems that rules of thumb formed
from working simple projects can actually be different than the written regulations when they are applied
to complicated situations. It is my sincere belief that everyone reviewing this case has the best intentions.
As a citizen I only hope that those intentions are exercised using the written regulations and not rules of
thumb.
For example, this project has garnered some discussion due to the fact that the proposed pier extends out
further than any of the other piers up and down the creek. Rule of thumb says that the permit should
therefore be denied. However, close inspection and objective application of the statues says otherwise.
First, close inspection of the rules (15 NCAC 7H.0208 J (i) ) reads: "Pier length sliall be limited by not
extending beyond the established pier length along the same shoreline for similar use; (this restriction

shall not apply to piers 100 feet or less in length unless necessary to avoid unreasonable interference with
navigation or other uses of the waters by the public.)" Looking at the other piers closer, however, reveals
that every pier in sight along the shoreline, except one, accesses man-made canals. This makes one have
to consider the phrase "for similar use". Granted, all piers provide some sort of access to water but what
other differences in use could they have? Well, most people would agree that piers going to different
channels are not for the same use.
It is this exacting, objective application of the law that I encourage you to use on this application. It is
human nature to psychologically doubt a project's overall potential if it is challenged on multiple issues.
However, quality administering of the regulations only looks to see if a project passes every requirement-
not by what cumulative margin it passes all of them. Objectivity will also ensure that a close call on one
limitation doesn't result in a tighter interpretation of the rules on another issue. It is my belief, and one I
expect to soon be yours, that the proposed pier is most definitely allowed by the applicable regulations as
they are written and intended.
The proposed pier is a four slip pier for my personal use on land that I have clear title to. This project is
not in a city or township limits but is in New Hanover County. Said county allows for piers with up to
four slips without question.
As for any riparian property issues, the proposed pier falls within my riparian corridor as surveyed with,
the aforementioned help of CAMA officials. Neither of my neighbors object to the proposed pier and
both have been notified in writing. Mr. James Spivey (the neighbor to the southeast, or right hand
neighbor looking out to the water) has not only waived the fifteen (15) foot setback, but he's also provided
written permission allowing me to build across his riparian property. If you accept this written
permission, then I hope you find my T-deck's 15' extension into his corridor acceptable.
The proposed pier width is six (6) feet wide.
The property the pier is proposed for has over two hundred and forty three (243) linear feet of surveyed
high water shoreline. The combined area of all proposed "T"s, finger piers, platforms and decks is nine
hundred and thirty-two (932) square feet. Although this is a large amount of area, it is below the nine
hundred and seventy two (972) square feet the regulations allow for such a property.
There is one roof proposed over one of the decks. One of the boat lifts also is roofed but the slip size is
only three hundred (350) square feet. There is no second-story use designed or intended anywhere on the
pier.
None of the proposed decks or platforms extends over any coastal wetlands. The parts of the main body
of the pier that do extend over coastal wetland are higher than three (3) feet from the wetland substrate.
The proposed pier also falls well with-in the one-fourth (1/4) Water Body limitation. The regulations state
(NCAC 7H.0208.6(J)iii):"Pier length shall be limited by not extending more than one-fourth the width of
the natural water body, or human-made canal or basin. Measurements to determine widths of the water

body, canals or basins shall be made from the waterward edge of any coastal wetland vegetation which
borders the water body." Following these guidelines, if you start at the end of the proposed pier and back-
track away from the water, you first encounter vegetation at around ninety-eight (98) feet back from the
end of the proposed pier. Measuring the other direction, across the creek, perpendicular to channel, you
next encounter vegetation about three hundred and ninety-five (395) feet from the previous vegetation.
Thus, the proposed pier extends ninety-eight (98) feet into a water body that is three hundred and ninety
five (395) feet wide. This is within the limitation.
Surprisingly, this measurement has garnished much discussion. To better understand this issue, let me
take a moment to better describe the existing channel, canals, and vegetation in my vicinity. This part of
Pages Creek is a salt estuary that is over twelve hundred feet across from high water mark to high water
mark. Within this there are two natural, roughly-parallel channels: a smaller channel that runs tight along
the northern high water mark and the main channel - Pages Creek proper- that runs on the southern side of
the estuary in my vicinity. Furthermore, the natural channels have numerous man-made canals fingering
off of them although none of the canals are on my riparian property. All of the water bodies (natural or
man made) are bordered on both sides by significant amounts of coastal vegetation but there are lots of
mud/oyster flats containing no vegetation that are in the estuary as well. Most parts of these flats are
separated from the channels and canals by stands of vegetation, but in some areas there is no vegetation
separating the mud flats from the channels, only live oyster beds.
One topic of concern has been the small size of the stand of vegetation marking the natural water
boundary on my side of the creek, the southern side. First, it's important to note that the stand only
appears small when viewing it in a satellite photo. Up close, one realizes it is quite sizeable (sixty feet
across) and contains thousands of grass stalks. In fact, if it were centered perfectly on my riparian
corridor, it would cover the majority of the corridor's width. However, some people propose that the
point of measurement should be farther back where there is a larger stand. It is important to note,
however, that the vegetation measured from on the other side of the creek is an even smaller stand of
grass. The far stand only appears larger because it is nearby other small stands of grass.
Another reason some people doubt the validity of using the small stand of my side of the channel is
because it is not contiguous (i.e., it's separate) from other stands. Again I'll point out that the grass stands
on the other side of the creek are not contiguous with any other vegetation because further back from the
channel those stands quickly peter out and give way to a huge mud and oyster flat void of any vegetation
that carries all the way to the northern natural channel which is sparsely bordered by grass.
The bigger issue is that if you're going to skip over smaller stands of vegetation on one of the creek, then
to be consistent you have to do it on the other side of the creek. Once you skip small stands of vegetation
on both sides of the creek, then you're only left with the vegetation along the high water marks. Then we
find ourselves at a point where our "water body" includes two natural water channels and multiple man-
made canals. Having multiple natural water bodies and canals in one "natural water body" measurement
obviously negates the rule's intended purpose: limiting the development along a single water body's
interior fifty (50) percent. For example, such a large, inclusive determination of the natural water
boundary in my vicinity would allow piers along the northern channel extend as far as they like until they

begin blocking the channel; this entire creek would be considered within the larger one-forth (1/4) natural
water body . The only way to avoid all of this confusion is to apply the law exactly as it was written:
measurements must be made from "the waterward side of any coastal vegetation which borders the water
body." Use of any other rule of thumb unfairly limits citizens more than the rules were written.
Finally, some people worry about the fact that there is an area of open water, (i.e., no grass) behind the
small patch of vegetation on my side of the creek as if the regulations do not allow a pier to cross open
water. To my knowledge, the regulations only limit pier construction in open water that is along a water
body. This is exactly what the "V4 water body" limitation does. The regulations make no limitations
regarding open water that does not include a channel. A few examples of such open water may include
extremely small creeks, mud flats, and pockets within large stands of marsh grass. There are regulations
however that prevent piers from interfering with navigation or blocking channels. For example, if a small,
marsh-bound creek is too small to be deemed a "natural water body", regulators will allow a pier to
entirely cross that bit of open water but may require the pier to be elevated higher over the open water if
there is a concern about interfering with the navigation of small craft such as canoes and kayaks. The
important point is that it is a commonly accepted interpretation of the law to allow piers to entirely cross
open water assuming it is not a boating "waterbody".
Using: ".'any" vegetation to apply to this small stand of grass is the obvious way to apply the "letter of the
law". But it is also a great application for the "spirit" of the rules. The aforementioned small stand on
my side of the creek is in line with the other vegetation on the same side of the creek. These other stands,
being sometimes larger and more contiguous, leave little doubt where the water body boundaries are.
This stand of grass also marks where the bottom changes in both composition and elevation. In front of
this grass, the bottom is sandy and hard with an average elevation several feet below the mean low water
mark. Behind the grass the bottom is totally different: it is soft and muddy, littered with both dead and
living shellfish and is many feet higher than the water body bottom. Finally it is important to point out
that there is no natural channel, man made canal or basin between this grass and the high water mark. In
fact, fisherman, giggers, netters and general boaters alike, all stay to the outside of the outer stand of
vegetation. Obviously, many of these details are not required by the regulations, but I include them so
there is no doubt to the fact that the one-fourth (1/4) limitation is being applied exactly as the rule was
intended.
I apologize for the length of discourse on the one-fourth (1/4) limitation but I feel I have good reason. Not
only is it a very important limitation in itself but it also affects any limitation that is conditional on the
length of a pier. According to the regulations (NCAC 7H.0208.6 (K)): "Measurements to determine pier
lengths shall be made from the waterward edge of any coastal wetland vegetation which borders the water
body." This is the only method of measurement provided in all of the statues regarding piers applying for
a major permit. Thus it's only logical to paraphrase that a pier's official length measurement begins
where it enters the natural water body.
Therefore according to the regulations, I must state the length of this proposed pier as ninety-eight (98)
feet. This is with-in the three hundred ninety-five (395) foot limit allowed. (In fact, regardless of where
you measure the proposed pier from, the fact that it gains over three feet of depth in the last eighty feet
makes the overall length a moot issue.)
The other limitation that is conditional on a pier's length is the "established pier length" limitation. Earlier
I briefly used this limitation as an example on why it is so important to carefully read the regulations so as
not to disregard small, important phrases such as "similar use." As we now know, this truly was just an
example; by the proposed pier measuring less than one hundred (100) feet, the letter of law says the
"established pier length" limitation does not apply to this project (unless of course one makes an argument
that the proposed pier impedes navigation or public access)
In the event that anyone is still concerned with the spirit of the law on the "established pier length"
limitation, let me make several points. First, the very existence of the spirit of the law to allow the
exclusion of some piers is made plain by the mere inclusion of the phrase "similar use along the same
shoreline"; this phrase could have been left out of the regulations but wasn't. Any interpretation of this
phrase almost has to exclude piers that gain access to different water bodies as defined by the regulations
in the '/4 limitation section (NCAC 7H.0208.6 (J)iii.) It just makes sense on the most basic level that if
one person chooses to dredge a channel in order to facilitate a shorter pier, that they then lose the right to
limit their neighbors' pier length if that neighbor can't, or chooses not to, dredge a channel. Excluding all
of the piers that access human- made canals only leaves one particular pier accessing the same body of
water. Not only is this one pier too few to constitute an "established pier length line" but this pier is even
dissimilar in its inherent use. It was built and is used only as a fishing and crabbing pier evidenced by the
fact that there are no cleats anywhere on the pier nor are there any pilings anchoring the floating section.
My proposed pier's purpose is to moor motorized vessels. Again, I only include these details to give
confidence to those that are searching for the "spirit of the law" in conjunction with the "letter of the law".
Thus far I have addressed all of the regulations concerning "Docks and Piers" outlined in section NCAC
7H.0208.6. Throughout the regulations, however, there are other broadly-worded limitations that apply to
docks as well as all other coastal development. These limitations safeguard against such injustices as
blocking navigation, preventing public use or destroying public trust areas. Considering that this
proposed pier is completely normal in its design and neighboring area, it's hard to imagine that any of
these broad limitations would apply. The proposed pier no more blocks navigation, obstructs access, or
destroys habitat than any other pier of its size. For example, any pier with a series of pilings in open water
could be construed as a blockage of navigation for certain shallow-water fisherman. However, piers with
such characteristics are rightfully approved for good reason: NCAC 7H.0208.6 grants the right for piers
within its limitations to be built given the obvious knowledge that those piers' pilings will block some
small amount of navigation.
My purpose in systematically addressing all of the code as I have done so far is not to bore anyone to
death or doubt anyone's knowledge of the regulations. It is simply to exhaust any doubt to the fact that
this project is 100% within both the letter and also the spirit of the law. People on both sides of issues
such as coastal development applications will inherently have their own ideas of what the rules should and
should not allow. The supreme responsibility of regulators, however, is to disregard those self conceived
notions and only focus on the rules themselves. Granted, regulators need, and possess, the authority to

make up rules for circumstances not specified in the regulations. However, administering the rules in
direct opposition to how they are clearly written seems a stark injustice. Private citizens, such as myself,
need to know that official regulations that are plainly written will be enforced and upheld.
Reading the regulations on pier development and applying them to this project, I do not see how any
objective regulator could come to any conclusion other than the fact this application proposes a ninety-
eight (98) foot pier that does not break the limitations of NCAC 7H.0208.6 or any other part the code.
The code states exactly how to measure this length and what the implication on that length is. It also
states that water body measurements begin at "any coastal vegetation" and not "any coastal vegetation
[with certain characteristics]". Furthermore, I expect that any regulator would see that the ultimate effect
is concurrent with the intent of the rules conveyed by such terms as "similar use" and the fact that it
specifies "natural water body, or human-made canal, or basin" as areas to have there own individual
boundaries.
Finally, I wanted to state one obvious implication of all of the regulations that I've thus far discussed: that
they are exactly written. I have had several officials express the notion that this project may be a good
candidate for a variance - useful when a project has issues that are not addressed by the rules or when the
regulations were too strictly enforced. Given what I currently know, I do not see how this could be a
candidate for a variance at all. All of the issues are clearly addressed in the regulations with exact
instructions. The only thing that jeopardizes this project, is not applying the regulations as they are plainly
written. I realize that it is sometimes easier to pass a decision off to another committee but I humbly and
respectfully ask you to administer the regulations as they are clearly written and intended.
I'm just a guy that runs a restaurant trying to get a dock for my own house.
Thank you again for your consideration. If I can be of any other help, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Furthermore, if there is any more light shed on this application that I was not aware of, I would be most
appreciative to be included in those memos. My contact information is included on my application and
above.
With Great Respect,
Jdhnston Sifly
Fa
0004-
s
000
9
o?
i

0
x
.o
x
`ro
x
'c'am
x
X
"1
X
err
x
\?S
x
L?o
x 00 4??
x
o?
x
x
x
ms
O
2
O?
x
x
X `{
X
X

O?
ur= -9
x Ifil EDGE OF
41 <., CHANNEL
o TAKEN FROM
(d' AERIAL PHOTO

x
x
X?,
X' FLOATING
? DOCK
F?
?i? ? f 62
,J on-
EDGE OF
CHANNEL
TAKEN FROM
AERIAL PHOTO
40- - -_0
x 0 ' BOAT UFf ?i
33' 2')
A COVERED
DOCK (FIXED)
C-9o'x I .
1?00 )
/NNC
DCM WILMING2016
G
AU G < x p
x
C:?ir M WILMI(`JGTON, M
AUG tl 9 ZOOG
\ J6
9
4P
x /
\1?o
k ?o
n 'r8
r `r
O,
5 `BOAT LIFE
Cl-?--r..ANG WAY o
OPEN x ` \a
DOCK

v /
r?
40 80 120
Scaler 1' = 4

EDGE OF DEEP WATER
MARKED 06/07/2005 BY CAMA
FOR RIPARIAN LINES
EVERE=TT'S CREEK
?? S?.P 1 0 X006
Ell
, A ?i IZ ?K. ? I?I?J
x
PROVOSED PIER HEAD
FOR
r _ IIALL JoHNSTON SIFLY
PART LOT 4, WILLIAMS LAND
NETT TOWNSHIP NEW HANOVER COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
SCALE 1 = 40 AUGUST 2, 2006
F,r
,;, 4a1
Gam. ,

J SHER`VIN D. CRIBB
v OE
( ESSIONAL. LAND SURVEYOR L-1099
1144 SHIPYARD BLVD.
WILMINGTON, NO 28412
910--701-0080

2 n n R i 4 9 8

r,
c:
?a
c^?
l
X71
C,
t/ ?)

• q y_-

lJ?

0
C>
Z
d
1.
C`
O r' :1=

r,
c:
?a
c^?
l
X71
C,
t/ ?)

• q y_-

lJ?

0
C>
Z
d
1.
C`
O r' :1=