20081121 Ver 1_Staff Comments_20090623

Lucas, Annette
From: Lucas, Annette
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 8:20 AM
To: Homewood, Sue
Cc: Lucas, Annette
Subject: FW: another opinion
Attachments: 08-1121 Diamonds Keep - take 2 or return.doc
Sue,
Hey - I'm about to leave for the day, so I will go ahead and send these bullets that you can use to return the project.
Thanks,
Z
From: Tedder, Steve
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 6:45 AM
To: Lucas, Annette; Homewood, Sue; Sullivan, Shelton; Hennessy, John
Cc: Karoly, Cyndi
Subject: RE: another opinion
Amen ...... time to get their attention. If the EMC disagrees later on......... so be it.
E-mail correspondence to and from this address
may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records
Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
Steve Tedder
Steve [e-mail]
NC DENR Division of Wafer Quality
585 Waughrtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
(336)-771-4950
Fax [phone]
From: Lucas, Annette
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 3:53 PM
To: Homewood, Sue; Sullivan, Shelton; Hennessy, John; Tedder, Steve
Cc: Karoly, Cyndi
Subject: RE: another opinion
Sue,
From a permitting perspective, returning the project and making them resubmit with a new fee would be very
consistent and appropriate at this point. I cannot speak to the issue of the fines, but in general I do not think it is fair to
reward folks who fail to apply for the appropriate permits and then drag their feet after a violation has been issued.
Thanks,
Annette
From: Homewood, Sue
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 3:45 PM
To: Sullivan, Shelton; Hennessy, John; Tedder, Steve
1
Cc: Lucas, Annette
Subject: another opinion
This one has a long story. Back in Feb 2008 1 issued an NOV to a site in Randolph county (diamonds keep subdivision) for
impacts to a wetland and streams without getting their permits first. They had a jd with the USACE person but didn't file
their paperwork for a permit before starting the work. we told them in the NOV they had to apply for and receive after
the fact permits. It should be noted that there was also a stream onsite that they relocated through a sediment basin
but the USACE didn't call it jurisdictional because of the drought in 07. 1 told them they still had to fix it and so did land
quality and they did. they had const. stormwater record violations but have had the info in subsequent inspections.
they originally applied for their 404 and 401 in july 08. since then they have fired their engineer, hired another one,
asked for many extensions and many meetings and have submitted many incomplete and unacceptable plans to DWQ
(they have their 404 now). this all revolves around the requirement to do a stormwater treatment system for high
density which they did not think they were. the last extension request I told them point blank that it better be the best
plan ever and absolutely complete and on time otherwise we'd return everything and fine them for a violation over a
year long. please note that they continue to move forward building the SD during all this since they had already
disturbed all the stream and wetland areas they planned to.
So, we are tired of dealing with very bad submittals. I would like to return the current submittal and move forward with
enforcing fines. I would like your thoughts on how management and/or the EMC would see this. I know its dragged on
and they never like that, but honestly that is because we thought they would work with us and no additional harm was
being done in the meantime but this amount of time and effort on our part is unreasonable. what do you think?
Please note my new email address
Sue Homewood
NC DENR Winston-Salem Regional Office
Division of Water Quality
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Voice: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
08-1121 Diamonds Keep
AML comments
June 22, 2009
Comment 1 of the DWQ's March 31, 2009 Request for More Information letter
stated: "For Basins 1, 4, 6, 7 and 8, please provide a detailed inventory of
imperviousness surfaces. The inventory should include ALL proposed building
footprints, roads, driveways, sidewalks, gravel-surfaced areas, amenity areas, etc.
A Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) must be provided for any drainage areas
that exceed 24 percent imperviousness. Per NCAC 2B 15A: 02H.1000, a
"drainage area" is defined as "the entire area contributing surface runoff to a
single point."
This information was not provided on the plan sheets. Providing a typical layout
of the home, out building, drive and walk ways for a residence on a lot of this
nature is not specific enough. It also appears that the drainage area boundaries
may not have been drawn accurately.
2. Comment 2 of the DWQ's March 31, 2009 Request for More Information letter
stated: "For any drainage areas that are between 22 and 24 percent impervious,
please provide draft deed restriction language that will limit lot imperviousness
such that low density conditions are permanently maintained. In that case, you
will be required to denote the impervious surface limit on each plat as a condition
of your 401 Certification."
The proposed deed restriction language does not provide an impervious surface
limit on the lots of this subdivision.
3. Comment 3 of the DWQ's March 31, 2009 Request for More Information letter
stated: "For Basins 3, 9, 10, 11 and 12, please explain the current and future uses
of the areas that are not currently platted in lots. The impervious surface
calculations for these basins are currently based on these areas remaining as open
space permanently. If these undesignated areas are to be permanently protected
as open space (with no additional impervious surfaces to be added in the future),
then please provide documentation of that intent."
No documentation of the intent to maintain these areas as open space has been
provided.
4. Please provide the following information regarding the proposed Wet Detention
Ponds:
a. The plans of the entire site at the requested scale of 1" = 50'(rather than
the 1" = 150' scale provided). Please label the contour lines on the plan
sheets so that the DWQ can verify the locations of the drainage area
boundaries.
b. Calculations for the storage volume discharge rate and the drawdown time
to verify that the orifices have been sized correctly.
c. Tables of elevations, areas, incremental volumes and accumulated
volumes for the overall pond and for the forebay to verify the volume
provided.
d. Signed and notarized Operation and Maintenance Agreements.
e. A soils report that documents the level of the Seasonal High Water Table
(SHWT) levels.