STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA INTHE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE

Superior COURT DIVISION

COUNTY OF Brunswick FILE NO. 25CV001870

Joseph Cantoni,
Ignacio Marino, Fre St
Anthony Covino, REVISED AND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Leeland Helms, AND REQUEST FOR PERMANENT
Steve Williamson, INJUCTION AND ORDER VOIDING THE
Kevin Armstrong, SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AND
Reid Watson ORDERING THE DEFENDANT TO
DISTRIBUTE THE COST TRHOUGH
GENERAL TAXATION
Plaintiffs
FILED
DATE: March 26, 2025
TIME: 2:11:15 PM
Town of Sunset Beach BRUNSWICK COUNTY
CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT
Defendant BY: T. Edwards

Plaintiffs complaining of Defendant, alleges and says:

PARTIES
1. Plaintiffs all reside in the town of Sunset Beach (Defendant) and have homes that
border one of the canals on the Sunset Beach barrier island.

2. Plaintiffs are seven(7) of the approximately 320 homeowners with frontage on the

canal that have been "specially assessed" a tax for the canal dredging project
undertaken by the Defendant.

3. Defendant is the Town of Sunset Beach, North Carolina. The Town of Sunset
Beach, possesses all the corporate powers and is subject to all the provisions

1
 contained in Chapter 160 of the General Statutes of North Carolina. For the

purposes of this complaint, Defendant may be referred to as Town, Sunset

Beach, or the Town of Sunset Beach, and Defendant.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. The Superior Court is the proper venue for this action due to multiple state

statutory violations governing special assessments, pursuant to North Carolina

General Statute Article 10 § 160A, and Public Policy. Plaintiffs have standing to

bring this suit as they are the specially assessed group, and their combined
damages are far more than $25K.

BACKGROUND
5. Sunset Beach is a popular tourist destination located along the southeastern
North Carolina coastline. The town is split by the Intracoastal Waterway, with both
mainland and a barrier island. The town is home to nearly 5,000 residents living
in over 3000 homes, and is growing rapidly. On the barrier island there are about

1,200 homes with about 320 of those homes located along the canals.

6. The town's beach is a crucial habitat for a vibrant nesting turtle population and is

home to Bird Island, a protected wildlife sanctuary. Sunset Beach thrives on

tourism, drawing visitors with its beaches, fishing pier, wildlife, and canals that
offer water sport recreation and navigational access to the Intracoastal

Waterway.

7. The canals provide Sunset Beach residents-both on the island and the
mainland-as well as visitors and tourists, with unrestricted access to activities
such as fishing, boating, kayaking, swimming, wildlife viewing, and biking.

2
 Commercial fishermen frequently use the canals and surrounding waters to catch
bait fish, drum, crabs, and flounder. Island rental homes can command as much
as $10,000 per week, and the island's appeal depends on a healthy natural
environment to attract the large number of tourists that generate millions of
dollars annually for the town, island property owners, and local businesses. The
mainland also relies on tourism, offering shopping centers, grocery stores, dining

options, golf courses, the Ingram Planetarium, and more.

8. Over time, the canals become filled with sedimentation due to the natural ebb
and flow of tides, as well as runoff from the island's water systems (See Exhibit

3). Dredging is essential to maintain navigability and to preserve a healthy

environment that supports wildlife and recreational activities. Without regular

dredging, the canals would fill with sedimentation, causing them to be non-
navigable and harming the environment. Environmental harm would result in
low oxygen levels in the water, the death of fish and birds, foul odors, and the

spread of diseases among wildlife and humans. Moreover, without navigable and
environmentally sound canals, the citizens and visitors of Sunset Beach, along
with businesses that depend on tourism, would face catastrophic financial and

economic losses.

9. To improve public canal navigability, to avoid environmental damage, and to

prevent harm to both citizens, visitors, and businesses, the Town of Sunset
Beach (Defendant) authorized a canal dredging project.

10.Upon the completion of the canal dredging project the Defendant specially
assessed only a small group of homeowners with canal frontage for the entire
cost of the dredging project.

3
 KEY FACTS AND DATES

11. In or around January 2019, the Sunset Beach (Defendant)(Defendant)'s town

council approved a dredging project for the navigable Public Area of the canals.

12. The Public Area of the canal is defined as the center of the canal. The dredging
project was to specifically avoid areas within 5-10 feet of the Plaintiff's boat docks
and any canal grass.

13.Of the 320 homeowners on the canal the majority have lots that have the
standard fifty(50) feet of canal frontage; several lots have 100-200 feet or more of
canal frontage; the town of Sunset Beach (Defendant)has two parks and several
streets totaling well over 1000 feet of canal frontage.

14.November2021-March 2024: The dredging project begins in November 2021

and is completed in March 2024.

15. The total cost for the dredging project submitted to the Defendant is
approximately $2.5M. Defendant specially assessed only a small group of
homeowners (320) with canal frontage each $7,710.31 for the entire dredging

project.

16. February 2025: The Defendant sends tax bills to the 320 specially assessed

homeowners.

5
 17.March 2025: The specially assessed homeowners attend the Defendant town

meeting and voice concern regarding the quality of the dredging, the potential
statutory and ordinance violations, and the cost being limited to only the 320
assessed homeowners when the canals benefit the entire town.

18.March 2025: the Defendant town council tables the approval of the special
assessment to evaluate the concerns voiced by the assessed homeowners until
the April 2025 town council meeting where Defendant town council are expected
to approve the special assessment.

Statutory Violations
Defendant Committed Multiple Violations of North Carolina General Statute Article
10 § 160A Special Assessments
-

19. Defendant recognized during its October 15, 2019, Town Council meeting

(Exhibit 5) that any special assessment must be done in accordance with NGCS
Chapter 160A Article 10 -
Special Assessments. The meeting minutes state "the
Council will then need to begin the process required to assess the benefitted
property owners as outlined in NCGS Chapter 160A Article 10". (See Exhibit 5 -

Note A).

20. North Carolina General Statute Article 10 § 160A-217(a). "Petition for street or
sidewalk improvements" states:

6
 (a) A city shall have no power to levy special
assessments for street or sidewalk improvements
unless it receives a petition for the improvements
signed by at least a majority in number of the owners
of property to be assessed, who must represent at least
a majority of all the lineal feet of frontage of the lands
abutting on the street or portion thereof to be
improved. Unless the petition specifies another
percentage, not more than fifty percent (50%) of the
cost of the improvement may be assessed (not
including the cost of improvements made at street
intersections).

21.in violation of the North Carolina General Statute Article 10 § 160A-217(a),

Defendant never received the statutorily required signed petition by the majority
of the owners, who represent at least a majority of all lineal feet of frontage ...to
be improved". Therefore, as a matter of law, Defendant's special assessment
must be voided.

22.North Carolina General Statute§ 160A-218. "Basis for making assessments"

specifically enumerates five(5) methods for making special assessments. It

states:

7
 Assessments may be made on the basis of:
(1) The frontage abutting on the project, at an
equal rate per foot of frontage, or
(2) The area of land served, or subject to being
served, by the project, at an equal rate per
unit of area, or
(3) The value added to the land served by the
project, or subject to being served by it,
being the difference between the appraised
value of the land without improvements as
shown on the tax records of the county,
and the appraised value of the land with
improvements according to the appraisal
standards and rules adopted by the county
at its last revaluation, at an equal rate per
dollar of value added; or
(4) The number of lots served, or subject to being
served, where the project involves
extension of an existing system to a
residential or commercial subdivision, at
an equal rate per lot; or
(5) A combination of two or more of these bases.

23.In violation of North Carolina General Statute Article 10 § 160A-218, Defendant

did not use any of the required statutory bases for determining the special
assessment. Instead, Defendant created its own unlawful and arbitrary basis
and assessed each parcel the same amount regardless of the size of the parcel
or the benefit conferred. The result of this flawed basis was that canal lots with

50 linear feet of frontage were specially assessed the same cost as one of the

Defendant lots having over 500 linear feet of canal frontage, or other
homeowners having 100-200 feet or more of linear canal frontage. This unfair
and non-proportional standard is in direct contradiction with the intent of the
statute which seeks to align the benefit rendered with the cost of the special
assessment. Therefore, as a matter of law, Defendant's special assessment
must be voided.
Ordinance Violations

8
Defendant Violated Town Ordinance Chapter 97. Section 32 titled "Petition for
Street Improvements."

24.Defendant, Sunset Beach, during its town Council meeting of October 15, 2019,
(See Exhibit 5 -
Note A), acknowledged that it had to abide by its own ordinance,
Town Ordinance Chapter 97. Section 32 titled "Petition for Street Improvements."
The ordinance states:

§ 97.32 PETITION FOR STREET

-

IMPROVEMENTS.

(A)From and after the effective date of this

subchapter, the town will not consider paving or
otherwise improving any street or alley unless a
petition is presented to the Town Council on
forms provided by the town, signed by a majority
of the property owners who represent a majority
of the lineal feet of frontage on the street
proposed to be improved.

25. In violation of its own ordinance, Defendant's town council, never received a

petition on forms provided by the town, signed by a majority of the property

owners (Plaintiffs) who represent a majority of the lineal feet of frontage on the
street proposed to be improved. Therefore, as a matter of law, Defendant's
special assessment must be voided.

9
 Defendant committed multiple Public Policy Violations when it ignored
commonly accepted Doctrines.

26. The Public Trust Doctrine. Canals in North Carolina are public waterways to be

enjoyed by the entire community. Under the public trust doctrine, the state holds
navigable waters in trust for public use and, as such, maintenance costs should
be borne by the broader public, not just adjacent property owners. Everyone in
the town of Sunset Beach (Defendant), whether living on the mainland or island,
and visitors alike enjoy and benefit from the canal. See Exhibit 4: Visitors fishing
with poles and cast nets in the canal. Of note: Defendant's town water sewers

dump sediment and debris into the canal. It is unfair to have only a small group
of specially assessed Plaintiffs have to pay to remove the canal sedimentation
when it source is the entire island and the removal benefits the entire island

community. See Exhibit 3: Sediment and debris from the island's streets is filling
the canal. As such, Defendant's special assessment must be voided.

27.The Special Benefit Doctrine. Special assessments are valid only if the

assessed property received a direct, unique and measurable benefit from the
improvement. The legality of special assessments hinges on the principle that
such assessments should correspond proportionally to the benefit received by
the assessed properties. When the project benefits the general community, the

special assessment must be voided. "If the dredging project benefits the entire

town, the cost should be borne by general taxation rather than special
assessment on a small group." Cape Development Co. v. City of Cocoa Beach"
(192 So. 2d 766. Everyone in the town of Sunset Beach (Defendant), whether
living on the mainland or island, and visitors alike enjoy and benefit from the
canal. See Exhibit 4: Visitors fishing with poles and cast nets in the canal

enjoying the canal. Additionally, it is unfair to have only a small group of specially
assessed Plaintiffs have to pay to maintain the canal and remove sedimentation
from the Defendant's water sewers when the source of the sedimentation is the
island's streets, and the removal benefits the entire island community. See
10
 Exhibit 3: Sediment and debris from the island's streets is filling the canal. As
such, Defendant's special assessment must be voided.

28.The Principles of Proportionality and Fairness Doctine. Special

Assessments must be Proportional to the benefits conferred. In McNally v.
Township of Teaneck (379 A.2d 446) the court invalidated special assessments
that were not proportional to the benefits received. A special assessment must
be invalidated when it disproportionately burdens a specific group without a
corresponding benefit. As is the case here where Defendant town owns a parcel
having over 500' feet of linear canal frontage that was specially assessed the
same amount as a Plaintiff with just 50 feet of linear canal frontage though the
Defendant received a much greater benefit. As such, Defendant's special
assessment must be voided. Please note: There are several similar non-
proportional benefits and costs that Plaintiff can provide upon request

11
 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, due to multiple violations of North Carolina's State statute, violation of

Defendant's own Town ordinance, and for failing to consider and follow accepted Public

Policy Doctrine, the Defendant improperly specially assessed a small group of

homeowners
for the entire costs of the dredging project,

Plaintiffs respectfully request relief as follows:

1) Apermanent injunction enjoining Defendant from collecting the improper special

assessment tax from the Plaintiffs and small group of canal frontage
homeowners.

2) Void the Defendant's' special assessment of $7,710.31 per specially assessed

Plaintiff and small group of homeowners and order it to distribute the entire canal

dredging cost through general taxation.

3) The sum of $10000 for filing fees and for Plaintiff's hours and effort to prosecute
this action; and,

4) Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

This the 26th day of March 2025.

By,

Joseph Cantoni
Pro se Plaintiff

12
Exhibit 1: NCGS Article 10 of Chapter 160A -
Special Assessments
Article 10.

Special Assessments.
§ 160A-216. Authority to make special assessments.
Any city is authorized to make special assessments against benefited property within its
corporate limits for:
(1) Constructing, reconstructing, paving, widening, installing curbs and gutters, and
otherwise building and improving streets;
(2) Constructing, reconstructing, paving, widening, and otherwise building or
improving sidewalks in any public street;
(3) Constructing, reconstructing, extending, and otherwise building or improving
water systems;
(4) Constructing, reconstructing, extending, or otherwise building or improving
sewage collection and disposal systems of all types, including septic tank
systems or other on-site collection or disposal facilities or systems;
(5) Constructing, reconstructing, extending, and otherwise building or improving
storm sewer and drainage systems. (1971, c. 698, s. 1; 1975, c. 664, s. 8; 1979,
c. 619, s. 12.)

§ 160A-217. Petition for street or sidewalk improvements.

(a) A city shall have no power to levy special assessments for street or sidewalk
improvements unless it receives a petition for the improvements signed by at least a majority in
number of the owners of property to be assessed, who must represent at least a majority of all the
lineal feet of frontage of the lands abutting on the street or portion thereof to be improved.
Unless the petition specifies another percentage, not more than fifty percent (50%) of the cost of
the improvement may be assessed (not including the cost of improvements made at street
intersections).
(b) Property owned by the United States shall not be included in determining the lineal feet
of frontage on the improvement, nor shall the United States be included in determining the
number of owners of property abutting the improvement. Property owned by the State of North
Carolina shall be included in determining frontage and the number of owners only if the State
has consented to assessment in the manner provided in G.S. 160A-221. Property owned by
railroad companies shall be included in determining frontage and the number of owners to the
extent that the property is subject to assessment under G.S. 160A-222. Property owned by
railroad companies that is not subject to assessment shall not be included in determining frontage
and the number of owners. If it is necessary to exclude property owned by the United States, the
State of North Carolina, or a railroad company in order to obtain a valid petition under
subsection (a), not more than fifty percent (50%) of the cost (not including the cost of
improvement at street intersections) may be assessed unless all of the owners subject to
assessment agree to a higher percentage.

14
 (c) No right of action or defense asserting the invalidity of street or sidewalk assessments on
grounds that the city did not comply with this section in securing a valid petition shall be
asserted except in an action or proceeding begun within 90 days after publication of the notice of
adoption of the preliminary assessment resolution. (1915, c. 56, ss. 4, 5; C.S., ss. 2706, 2707;
1955, c. 675; 1963, c. 1000, s. 1; 1971, c. 698, s. 1; 1973, c. 426, s. 33.)

§ 160A-218. Basis for making assessments.

Assessments may be made on the basis of:
(1) The frontage abutting on the project, at an equal rate per foot of frontage, or
(2) The area of land served, or subject to being served, by the project, at an equal rate
per unit of area, or
(3) The value added to the land served by the project, or subject to being served by it,
being the difference between the appraised value of the land without
improvements as shown on the tax records of the county, and the appraised
value of the land with improvements according to the appraisal standards and
rules adopted by the county at its last revaluation, at an equal rate per dollar of
value added; or
(4) The number of lots served, or subject to being served, where the project involves
extension of an existing system to a residential or commercial subdivision, at
an equal rate per lot; or
(5) A combination of two or more of these bases.
Whenever the basis selected for assessment is either area or value added, the council may
provide for the laying out of benefit zones according to the distance of benefited property from
the project being undertaken, and may establish differing rates of assessment to apply uniformly
throughout each benefit zone.
For each project, the council shall endeavor to establish an assessment method from among
the bases set out in this section which will most accurately assess each lot or parcel of land
according to the benefit conferred upon it by the project. The council's decision as to the method
of assessment shall be final and conclusive and not subject to further review or challenge. (1971,
c. 698, s. 1.)

§ 160A-219. Corner lot exemptions.

The council shall have authority to establish schedules of exemptions from assessments for
corner lots when a project is undertaken along both sides of such lots. The schedules of
exemptions shall be based on categories of land use (residential, commercial, industrial, or
agricultural) and shall be uniform for each category. The schedule of exemptions may not
provide exemption of more than seventy-five percent (75%) of the frontage of any side of a
corner lot, or 150 feet, whichever is greater. (1971, c. 698, s. 1.)

§ 160A-220. Lands exempt from assessment.

15
Exhibit 2: Town Ordinance: Sunset Beach (Defendant)Chapter 97 Streets and
Improvements
IMPROVEMENT, ACCEPTANCE OF PUBLIC STREETS
§ 97.30 POLICY ESTABLISHED.
-

The policy of the town for the acceptance of streets dedicated for public use and the
policy for improving all streets shall be as hereinafter prescribed in this subchapter.

(Res. 70.11.2, passed 11-2-70)

§ 97.32 PETITION FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS.
-

(A)From and after the effective date of this subchapter, the town will not consider paving
or otherwise improving any street or alley unless a petition is presented to the Town
Council on forms provided by the town, signed by a majority of the property owners who
represent a majority of the lineal feet of frontage on the street proposed to be improved.

(Res. 70.11.2, passed 11-2-70)

(B)Unless the petition specifies another percentage, not more than 100 percent of the
cost of the improvement may be assessed (not including the cost of improvements
made at intersections).

(G.S. § 160A-217(a))
§ 97.34 -
PROJECT PROCEDURE.
(A)Upon the receipt of a petition for street improvements, the Town Clerk shall examine
the petition and certify as to its sufficiency to the Town Council. No petition shall be
considered for street improvements where streets have been opened after the effective
date of this subchapter in violation of § 97.31 and § 98.22. In addition, no petition shall
be considered for a street less than one normal block in length.(B)If the petition from the
property owners is found to be sufficient, the Town Council shall direct the Town
Administrator to estimate the total cost of the street project in accordance with street
specifications, to determine the total cost per foot of property frontage and the total cost
to the town for intersections and other improvements the cost of which is to be borne by
the town.(C)When cost estimates are received, the Town Council shall consider the
availability of funds for street improvements, the degree of development along the street
proposed to be improved, and may approve the street improvement project as they
deem best.(D)When the street improvement project is approved, the street improvement
assessment procedure as authorized in G.S. § 160A-218 through § 160A-237 shall be
followed.
Exhibit 3: Sediment and debris from the island's streets fills the canal
17
 :

:
: :

va :

18
Exhibit 4: Visitors fishing with poles and cast nets in the canal

:
:

WE +

3;

19
Exhibit 5: Town Meeting Notes: Dredging Project Special Assessment -
Page 1

:
:

Mayer :

Dredging Requirements

NC General Assembly has specific regulations concerning special

by propery NC Gneral Assembly Tows ths
navigation
:
for 1985 Session when Chaptes 5 House BEB
:
2175 was July 12 1985. :
:

and process for property owaers to requesis a dredging project be :

by the Town and for the benefited property owners to be the acteal project
A *yenets, missons the street improvements process as outlined in Ordinance Chapecs 97
hy and
both
and Spocial
attached
Events, 160A Antiche 0
tied :

+
fa Derrmber mi? the Council began descussions
comcurniug, the
the cotablithment of a pict hcad alignment and the exiah «fin :

2013, 130.08 (C) amended to establinh a set-back line of S

:
4:
hnead alignmem. In March 2014, this Ordinance moved toS555
to be placed,
a
within frve fost of tho navigation| channel

20
Exhibit 5: Town Meeting Notes: Dredging Project Special Assessment -
Page 2

foe the avait of the foadur channel as

Ra carty 2014, the approved adredenng
in fuse 2015, the Council rekeased a REP for a dredgeng
wean nearly impasuanke at tow tide

pregect analyws.

hegre with Moffatt &

icy
tn Deember NHS,
awarded the Shorchae
Management ami Pre Dredging Amalyes ba Feteuan
ube

Management ami Pre Dredging

Analysis comiract 4 & Nico,

& Nite performed a

fee the remainder of NHA, and vears 2017, SOC amd
wake grant apple
fraumiies anaion prepared the pene descr. anal prepared
tweet
ti

wher Commun. stony and ath ccs {tee tederal ural vaste

cur
a permit

ln fone SHY, tke CAMA Permit Apple ation was accepted completed

Oove the Perit Application fram the and Male ageteace, iaown, the varkance
ats obtained ft scgurteed, and tiw estienatenad cats see acquired, the
wail chen gerd to begin dhe persons raquited asecns Uae benefieed property cwners as outlined
we NUON Chapecr Arti d 1

A the od the propect. the Commu rt can then

and
maznicnans deat by SUS 150A Anak 7) Mumm i Secreted Oastrn by as
attahed Yio SO General Ascobls granted the Pown the : impasse edging
c fee dunag the whem Senaae Hill «as ratified 2s Season Lae
Mito an Jane tO, WN

The perc required to lewy a special assessment of the bem properly rynets
frotherws

Comseder the of funds for the project and approve deny the progect.
" the Town Count] dewades te gu wah Use pevpoct, and the Canc
ad

decides to
the pray ty ft vhadl first adapt a prchmenary nceoluteon that
shall comtasn the folowing
a A sateen attics medettake the
b. A peneel of the mature and bocaticnt of the progect:
©. A Musetnest as to the peapused bans for making which shall inchade
a general description of the boundaries of the seca boweftted if the basin of
ve cote area or vabue added:

4. A as bo thes percentage of the cost of the work in to he assessed:

21
Exhibit 5: Town Meeting Notes: Dredging Project Special Assessment -
Page 3

22
Exhibit 6: Town Meeting Notes: Resolution Approving Dredging Project

Resolution Directing (hat the Dredging be

AS

the ave
SMe a a

B ag [rive
birpes t
abear Marte &
and
Street ene
Mate strech op. forthe ¢ reek

Ld

>

WHEREAS
;

: :

NOW THEE SORE tb rT FD

©
we
what, :

:
1

23
 Exhibit 7: The Brunswick Beacons account of the citizen concerns of the
dredging project
In response to numerous citizens' concerns that the recent dredging project did not provide any benefits to
their properties, the Sunset Beach (Defendant}Town Council moved to table its vote on accepting the
preliminary assessment role that calls for charging the 321 affected property owners $7,710.31 each to cover
the town's $ $2,475,010.97 share of the $7,681,194.15 project.
The town reported the total actual project cost was $7,681,194.15, less than the November 2022 estimate of
$8,352,172.65 when the mechanical dredging contract was awarded to RE. Goodson Construction Company
Inc, out of Darlington, South Carolina.
The town received $5,235,134.18 in grant funds from the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) Shallow Draft Navigation Channel Dredging and Aquatic Weed Fund.
So, the town had to provide $2,446,059.97 in matching funds plus another $28,951 for costs outside the
dredging fund prior to receiving the grant for a total of $2,475,010.97, per the agenda item. The town match
has been split among the 321 properties affected by the dredging, breaking down to $7,710.31 per property.
The project, which was initially started in 2012, faced numerous delays due largely to citizens who opposed
the project working to halt it.
Mayor Pro Tem John Corbett said the dredging project started as a maintenance project "and then switched to
a navigation project." Town Administrator Lisa Anglin said that was "due to the grant funding that came
became available."
"The council at that point chose to make it a navigation project instead of a maintenance project." Anglin said.
A
"In addition, South Jinks and the bay have never been dredged. so they were not maintenance projects."
The mechanical dredging project, which was managed by Moffatt & Nichol, occurred between November 2021
and March 2024, when it was completed
Anglin said, "Initially, the project was only permitted to a depth of minus 2 feet mean low water, but the town
applied for and received a variance from the Coastal Resources Commission to permit a dredge depth to
minus 5 feet mean low water."
"The dredge project included the navigation of water of South Jinks Creek, the Bay area. the feeder channel.
the four finger canals and Mary's and Turtle Creeks on the mainland." the town administrator added.
The town council last Monday was set to confirm the preliminary assessment roll that outlines the 321
property owners who owe the $7,710.31 to the town, but numerous affected property owners turned out to
share concerns about the project's lack of benefit to them.
Ed and BJ Huggins, of 6th Street, said their property is located at the furthest west finger canal, referred to as
Canal A.
"We were expecting the dredging project to deepen the canal so that our dock would be able to float at all
tides and would still open the end ofthe canal for a safer and better boating area." Ed Huggins said. "But it
appears that the dredging did not deepen the canal for our property and that the dredging occurred at just a
few feet in the middle of the canal at our end."
The project. as a result. has provided "minimum improvement" to the Huggins' property. Huggins added.
Ignacio Marino. resident of Riverside Drive. which borders the canal, said the dredging process for the
navigational project. as he observed it. was "orthodox and inconsistent in the application. not to mention
inefficient."
"This has resulted in my opinion in canal navigational depth apparently being up to two fect in variance in
spots as navigate out." Marino said. "Jinks Creek remains largelv non-navigational anytime near low tide.
|

There remain multiple hazards for running aground whether on a motorboat or on a kayak."
Marino also expressed concerns with the town's per parcel assessment that is irrespective of "the linear feet
or the amount of work time spent near our property."
"In fact, the proposal appears to adversely penalize small lot owners through application of a per parcel
assessment rather than by linear feet," he said. "Large lot owners are therefore benefiting at the expense of a
typical 50-foot lot owner."
Steve Britt. resident of Stokes Drive along Turtle Creek. said the project lacks consistency, adding he cannot
even get a jet-ski out of the creek at low tide despite the dredging.

24
"I don't mind, I'll pay $10,000 if you'll fix it right," Britt said. "But I don't believe in paying for something that's
not done right. I don't see how you could even charge somebody -
I mean, go out there and measure it."

Susan Gentry. a Shoreline Drive E. resident whose property also fronts Turtle Creek. echoed Britt's sentiment.
noting her property also did not benefit and her dock remains unusable. "I've never paid for something that I
know of that I didn't get any benefit from. and I don't intend to change that." she said. "So, we got to work on
this."
Mayor Pro Tem Corbett said "all of the concerns and complaints" shared with the council during the March 3
meeting "were also in the letters" the council has received from citizens regarding the assessment.
Corbett asked Anglin what the town can do to address the complaints the contractor did not do an adequate
job because residents' docks remain in the mud and navigational issues persist.
"With utilizing grant funds from the state. we had to stay in the public area of all of the bodies of water."
Anglin said. "We were not allowed to go within 10 feet of docks. In addition, CAMA would not allow us to go
within 5 feet of docks and 10 feet of marsh grass. ... lam not aware of a grant available for maintenance
dredging under docks which CAMA and the Army Corps [of Engineers] consider basically private property
still in public waters, but basically private property."
The council ultimately voted to table the acceptance of the preliminary assessment roll. "I'll make a motion to
table it to, to the best of our ability, look into concerns, get with our engineers and see what happens,"
Councilman Mike Hargreaves said.
Corbett asked Anglin what recourse the town has to potentially address residents' concerns. "I don't know,"
Anglin said in response. "We need to go into those conversations before I'll be able to state in public what
would be happening, if anything."
Anglin added that the permitting agencies are not responsible "for how [the dredging] was done."
"They tell us the standards, the company has to provide those standards and we go through that," she said.
"They tell us where we can dredge, where we cannot dredge, they hold us to that."
This is a developing story. The Brunswick Beacon will continue reporting updates on this story as new
information is gathered.

25