20031486 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_20031124

...........................................................................................................................................................................
JUL-26-2004 15:40 FR0M:DWQ-WETLANDS 9197336893 T0:93639222 P:2/2
Certificate of Completion
DWQ Project No.:
WETLANDS 1401 GROUP
JUL 2 S 2004
WATER QUALITY SECTIOV
Applicant: IZICHd-rLo VVI1.E5
Project Name: 1P?66NOJ PA,4?- C-z,,T73-tZ lA"r 64-
bate of Issuance of 401 Water Quality Certification: 1A1 4.044 lei -.-Zoo q led"
r6B- JA4y 5, Zvq ,ue eh X,-T
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, and any
subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return this certificate to the 401[Wetlands Unit, North
Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-16.50_ This form may be
returned to DWQ by the applicant, the applicant's authorized agent, or the project engineer. It is not
necessary to send certificates from all of these.
Applicant's Certification
hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and
diIigencc was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built
within, substantial compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the
approved plans and specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature: Date:
.Agent's Certification
I, 60( "a. T. 6q " , hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and
diligence was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built
within substantial compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Mules, the
approved plans and specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature: 041l th,N x.v ?-- Date: 4 2? o
If this project was designed by a Certified Professional
I, , as a duly registered Professional (i.e.,
Engineer, Landscape Architect, Surveyor, etc.) in the State of North Carolina, having been. authorized to
observe (periodically, weekly, full time) the construction of the project, for the Permittce hereby state that,
to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence was used in the observation. Of the construction such, that
the construction was observed to be built within substantial compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality
Certification and Buffer. Rules, the approved plans and specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature: Registration No.: Date:
03-1 X86
County:
WAV-6
SENDING CONFIRMATION
DATE MAR-25-2004 THU 08:50
NAME : DWQ-WETLANDS
TEL [phone]
PHONE : [phone]
PAGES : 2/2
START TIME : MAR-25 08:48
ELAPSED TIME : 011 06"
MODE : G3
RESULTS : OK
FIRST PAGE OF RECENT DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED...

FWATFA
0

Pons+t'FOx NO1e 1x71
) 1
y?l+?0`{INEw?a?
°`j M..,...-r. w.,., ..

wdYm L'.1iun.h.. B!oref7
N r:a'ur. Fenmrtn.
k
?
M
d b
m
[f nnr; ?+YP vv
rrn G><? ZJR r.
?
n
a
I
P F DrrYv
h
,y uA:.N AYn W. qnM.
Dr sonM W-mr
o 'd enw• "'° 135-9-;316
ro.,? H. au.rt., or-orv c rxlor
3L3-5?a ?•• Do%c'awater0'Jrty
Ma-cn 16.2004
DWO Project No. 03-14115
Wake CDun:y
Pape 1 -1 2
CERTIFIED M
Rionard N. Wllas
113 Rocram Drive
Cary, NC 27511
°.uoject Property: Wiles Property, Lot a 54, Regency Park Estates, 113 Radiem DrIV e, Cary, 27511
UT to Swift Cmoit 10-04-02.27-43 (1). WS-Ill (water supply) NS'W (rulrWnt sonahive)]
MAJOR VARIANCE APPROVAL per the NEUSE RIVER RIPARIAN AREA PROTECTION RULE [15A NCAC 2B
,0233(9)] W ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Dear Mr. WWII:
On February 12, 2004, ire Water Oua)ity Commiree (WQC) of Via N.C. 01wo,'mxnlal MWA96ment Commission PAC-)
decided to approve yq Mayor Vcriwm with the folWwlnq conditions. This letter sha'I at:l as your Major Variai.w eylprova
as 0mW9d try Ow WOO and doacribad within 15A NCAC WR.c733(9)(c). In adittian. you 3ha:id ootain o otherwise
comply with any other ro1'Jlmd federal, 6'410 Of Wcal rogWations beton you pr(tmwi wah your project including (but not
kmitad to) U.S. Army Corps of Engineors 404 PcnnlL, Division of Water Quality (OWO) 401 Cerl.I"tiorls, Erosion and
EVC"nl COmrol And Nun-Discharge "alAtune.
TMs app al Is only vd of for the purpose and design that you dosorlbod In your Major Variance except as motif ltd
below. K you change your project, you nual nobly us and you may be required to sand us a now applWatlon and requeel
a new Maier Varierle approval OYough Ore WOC. If the property is eok1, the new ownar must be given a copy of this
approval and Is droreby responsible to canlplyrg with all conditions. For thW approval to be valid, you mull I1g'.ow Iha
condtbns listed below.
Conditions
1. Buffer Mitigation
You are rnq gmd to Mr.Iraia jar impac" to the orotnclod riparian buffers. The regWrld arse nt ml?ptibn (wlCUlaurd
at 3:1 for Zone 1 and 1.5:1 fof Zone 2) to COn1p6116aV for impacts to the protect90 rlparlan butters Is 2,508 square
feel as (equ-c! urk:r sus varu? apwuviJ urd 15.A NCAC 2B.0242. We uriJa'sWral Ihui you w,sh W m," a
payment Me no Rlpariarl Nutter Pasloratbn Fund adminwiered by the NC Ecological Enhancement Program (1,+P)
to meet this mlga'ion requirement This halt been dolunnined by u o DW'O to be a sudaule rnabod to mecl the
mdiga11un requi'emAnt In accuilwtw wttn 15A NCAC 21J .0242(7), the contribution w li saimly our compensalwy
nn10atbn regtll'amanis "'ear 15A NCAC 7B .0233(9)(C). The Impacts approved order this Major Variance are not h
compliance w171 15A NCAC 023.D233, until the EEP receives and Mears your urrcck (mace paysLle W: DENR -
Ecolo r_al Enhar-merit Program MO. Mr. Ron I east shou'd be contacted at (919) 773-5:'W a you haw wy
quell are concorning payme-d rto the Riparian Rutter Re,-totw1un FDrd. For accounting purposes. this vnrlonoe
Approval authorizes payment Into the Riparian Buller Restoration Fund to compensate for 2 sop re' of
required riparian bti mitigation for impacts to approxbnafe)y 1,235 fe of protected riparian buffers; 03.04
02 (leer and subbasbl, 27.43-(1) stro m Index number.'
N rmnn. c-,,a wavergty M. 601 -- r..nrr„ran Unk
1650 NW 6*M # Canty. Ra'oi^ NO 9160P 1650(wsne Addw.)
V21 DAR' DiW . ruW'n. NC 27A 220 (L-it-)
9197931I'M 1)xm•.1. 9,9 r3ae6W (w4, hdy/aau.w..r Ie.lc.vahawuni..tf
O?OF W AT ?RpG
T_

Post-it' Fax Note 7671 Date 3
I
pages
To r?(?i'L "0,4i?s From &-?b ?2 \
Co./Dept. Co. 0t,J01
Phone # Phone # ?3 j -c1??0
Fax # ?C, J _ 1 D Fax #
March 18, 2004
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
trtment of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P. E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
DWQ Project No. 03-1486
Wake County
Page 1 of 2
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Richard N. Wiles
113 Redfern Drive
Cary, NC 27511
Subject Property: Wiles Property, Lot # 54, Regency Park Estates, 113 Redfern Drive, Cary, 27511
UT to Swift Creek [03-04-02, 27-43-(1), WS-III (water supply) NSW (nutrient sensitive)]
MAJOR VARIANCE APPROVAL per the NEUSE RIVER RIPARIAN AREA PROTECTION RULE [15A NCAC 2B
.0233(9)] w/ ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Dear Mr. Wiles:
On February 12, 2004, the Water Quality Committee (WQC) of the N.C. Environmental Management Commission (EMC)
decided to approve your Major Variance with the following conditions. This letter shall act as your Major Variance approval
as decided by the WQC and described within 15A NCAC 02B .0233(9)(c). In addition, you should obtain or otherwise
comply with any other required federal, state or local regulations before you proceed with your project including (but not
limited to) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 Permits, Division of Water Quality (DWQ) 401 Certifications, Erosion and
Sediment Control and Non-Discharge regulations.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your Major Variance except as modified
below. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application and request
a new Major Variance approval through the WQC. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this
approval and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. For this approval to be valid, you must follow the
conditions listed below.
Conditions:
1. Buffer Mitigation
You are required to mitigate for impacts to the protected riparian buffers. The required area of mitigation (calculated
at 3:1 for Zone 1 and 1.5:1 for Zone 2) to compensate for impacts to the protected riparian buffers is 2,508 square
feet as required under this variance approval and 15A NCAC 213 .0242. We understand that you wish to make a
payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund administered by the NC Ecological Enhancement Program (EEP)
to meet this mitigation requirement. This has been determined by the DWQ to be a suitable method to meet the
mitigation requirement. In accordance with 15A NCAC 26 .0242(7), this contribution will satisfy our compensatory
mitigation requirements under 15A NCAC 213 .0233(9)(C). The impacts approved under this Major Variance are not in
compliance with 15A NCAC 026 .0233, until the EEP receives and clears your check (made payable to: DENR -
Ecological Enhancement Program Office). Mr. Ron Ferrell should be contacted at [phone] if you have any
questions concerning payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund. For accounting purposes, this variance
approval authorizes payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund to compensate for 2.508 ft2 of
required riparian buffer mitigation for impacts to approximately 1,235 ft2 of protected riparian buffers; 03-04-
02 river and subbasin, 27-43-(1) stream index number."
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), httpJ/h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/
Richard Wiles
Page 2 of 2
March 18, 2004
2. Stormwater Management
The "Natural Retention Area" depicted on the Wiles Property site plan included within the variance request
presented to the WQC during their February 12, 2004 meeting shall be protected. No clearing of vegetation, soil
disturbance or alternations of the existing drainage patterns within and draining to this area shall occur. A
notification or similar mechanism (acceptable to the DWQ) shall be recorded on the property deed to ensure the
protection of this area as described above. This deed notification shall be permanently recorded on the deed,
such that the notification will run with the land and deed, that the notification cannot be changed or deleted
without concurrence from the DWQ, and any potential buyers of the property will be notified of this condition. The
notification shall include language provided below unless otherwise approved by the DWQ.
"A portion of this lot contains a "natural retention area" to treat stormwater runoff prior to entering the protected
stream buffers and stream. No clearing of vegetation, soil disturbance or alternations of the existing drainage
patterns within and draining to this area shall occur unless otherwise approved by the N.C. Division of Water
Quality. The intent of this provision is to ensure compliance with condition no. 2 of a Major Variance approved by
the Water Quality Committee of the N.C. Environmental Management Commission on February 12, 2004. The
property owner shall reference this approved major variance in any future correspondence to the DWQ. This
covenant is intended to ensure continued compliance with all rules adopted by the State of North Carolina and
therefore the State of North Carolina may enforce benefits. This covenant is to run with the land and shall be
binding on all Parties and all persons claiming under them".
3. Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or applicable Buffer Rules, and
any subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return the attached certificate of completion to the
401/Wetlands Unit, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this Major Variance Approval, you may ask for the full EMC to review
your variance request. You must send us a request for this review in writing within 60 days of the date that you receive
this letter. If you do not accept any of the conditions of the full EMC review, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. To
ask for a hearing, send a written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the
Office of Administrative Hearings, PO Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This Major Variance Approval and its
conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under the Neuse River Riparian Buffer Protection Rules
(15A NCAC 2B .0233). Please call Danny Smith at [phone] if you have any questions or require copies of our
rules or procedural materials.
ly,
Klimel
DWQ
Cc: Connie Hoyes, Southern Garden, Inc., P.O. Box 808, Apex, NC 27502
Steve Mitchell, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
Ron Ferrell, NC Ecological Enhancement Program
Jerald Harris (FAX [phone])
File Copy
Central Files
DWQ 031486
March 18, 2004
bz
AD>CNDUM DL
Consideration of a u?t fora Major variance from the
Neuse River Riparian Area Protection Rule
Richard N. Wiles, Cary, Wake County, NC
February 12, 2004
follow-up visit
to resolve discrepancies regarding how to properly measure the square footage of
riparian zone impacts. As a result of the visit, the riparian zone impacts were
determined to be 1,235 square feet.
On FebChanges:ruary 3, 2004, DWQ staff encountered additional information that results in
staff recommendations are listed for your consideration:
changes • On to the February Wiles 3, 2004, Variance Danny ApplicationSmith. and The Bob below Zarzecki listed changes conducted a and respective
• During the site visit staff observed that a portion of the 3.1 acres, initially
proposed for stormwater treatment was being conveyed to a curb and gutter
infrastructure. As a result, the proposed drainage area available for stormwater
treatment is now 1.29 acres. (TN export from the catchment is 7.41b/yr)
Due to changes to the stormwater and flow pathways, approximately 1.29 acres is
now being treated by a forested area (located approximately 100 feet from the
stream). It is the observations of DWQ staff that this area is providing excellent
treatment and cannot be meaningfully improved by installation of abio-retention
area. No bio-retention measure is proposed.
Recommendations:
The Division Staff believe that the applicant is proposing sufficient nitrogen
removal.
• Additional conditions -The Division staff believe that the following conditions
should be added to the variance if approved:
a. By June 15, 2004, the applicant shall provide full buffer mitigation as
per 15A NCAC 02B .0242.
b. By July 1, 2004, the applicant must record stormwater easements for all
of the forested area that is providing stormwater treatment. (This
easement will not allow clearing of vegetation, soil disturbance or
alterations of the existing drainage patterns. Also, this easement is a
permanent recording, such that the easement will run with the land, that
easement cannot be changed or deleted without concurrence from the
State, and the easement will be recorded prior to the sale of any lot).

?
j

i?7Tf 'iVZ, PvA 1 CU S1' I MFA-T:
30' IN FEZ cROf?c,?4a.[?t a +137 iz
5b' P-JFFm ul tr Ac.p_kA,Fwfi - ?9$ z`

- W I LE75 'PROP
LD-r 0.54
_ 9,e j 4 c,y PA V-L ESTAW,5
c..4M.? ? VGA ? GaJ?,Xr+? / ? G
5c4e : APP909 I
01

1,1
r.tT"
1
1
i
` I
? I
r
I
I,I i
OFFICE USE ONLY. Da'(-, Received Rer?uesi ,t
at:rtr. cif Ncrt» Care Ira
I)opar ,irnt of i rvrrrni^nt and
f;ivi=i,jn rf','latcrIy
Variance Request Form
Neuse River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy
Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rule (15A NCAC .0233)
MOTE: 7hr? ;rxm rrttiry lJr? photCCt?;)rittl her tr??? ::?: ?3rr cn+drrl(:!
Part 1: General Information
1. Applicant s name 0he corporation, irdividunl, etc. v .ho cv ns th projcct)_
f c,x ,J . vet , L-e 5
1. Print Ovwrer/Signing Official (persr n legally responsible: fcr the facility and its coinpliarco
Name: nrert,??? N. L-UIIaS
Title: Gujgc-:)
Strcctaddreas: Ira L-, P-14 "pr'-iV
City, State. Zip: AA c-
Telephone:
(- 329
1-70 j 34

l=?rx: ?r ?Z; _
? o?
3. Project Name, (Sub division. facility, or establishment name - consistent vrith project natw-, on
plans, specification s, letters, operation and maintenance agrer_mants. ctc.;:

.1. Location of Facility
Street address f 1 ? ll Fir ?:1 Dr ?t/?r

Cia/, state, Zip: ' c '
hi` 7511
?-
'
County* ??
=1=
Latitude/longitude: - 7D, 71 f 7-0 ?i; 17 ? 3 -5, • 72...00C 3h
5. Dircotions to facility from nearest major intersection (Also altach a rivip):
?t LttJ ?2F« 'J ? rf
7-ua 214 ?r f n? 1c t 1??i'{ r'.1'2 i=LJ 1131 t'<^L (7L ??, R-0
c1tf-ItAlIC-5 rrI E)t)r?u? .4nvVG ? =?. -n.,9-4 ?r cNT
I -;) I- Fr 4Mrl, ~'yC171;;,)kj C1L4 C-. F*0(A_1(Jrte v+f? V Cit 4J s?
G. Contact purson N:ho can answer questions about the facility.
Namo: Ct)N") C- HoVy :s
Telephone: q11 1t ,l !0g) LIP-y- ilt ti
Fax.: ?r'i :'?3 1=?7
Ema.i: S gardan L acI. ?-,aI
7. Requested Environmental f'?'anagement Commission Hearing Date: Dom. 10, ,c03
Vorsion 1: Svptumbor 1?13
Part 2: Demonstration of Need for a Variance
NOTE: The 'vark-., ce prut,rsiu,r of the iVvas?3 Rifmrian Aria Rtiio ahbi.'s tilo t_rwirann,ert.atP,;arnaparnzri,
Cort;rrtission to grant a vr.rr;rca to an io-Erred parry ?,ipcn rhea to,7avrrng cor;critioos apply on a giver! ,crcyud:
(a) pla,,Jxal d,ffcrat;cs Of l?,?rrf hips wnr,ra 10sult from strict oppticatiurl of !"'.0 to;v:
(h) such diU,-edifies or hardships result f ou" corx"diOs which Z:rC pace iar,t) thrD pro"'cr(y invoi'vod: and
(c) the goiioiaf purpos3 aml intent of the Rule wouia brt pierorved, tt.atrr pnNy ?;nt;id bit protected and
SJ1JS,ar1!i i.iijuS??G L' iiOr:id be (1L`f?f? ii rtri? van 3ix;a }7(}TG grontc(:.
This of 1h .0 .;r.alion is !o le
(' ?' ar-},pp exp," ?trrt i ;Cr;r the pra;ecf ritee is Gr. ri?3 (rs) ar)rf (,>,l.
1. Attach ;a detailed description (2-3 pares) explaining the following:
The practical difficulties or hardships that would result from strict application of the Rule:.
• Flow these difficulties or hardships result from conditions that are unique to the propEl-ty
involved.
• +/,dhy reconfiguring and/or reducing the built-upon area to preserve a greater portion of the
riparian area is not feasible on this project. If econurnic hardship is the ra;:ajor
consideration, then include a specific explanation of the, cconomic hardship grad tho
proportion of the hardship to the entire value: Of MCI projoCt.
Part 3: Water Quality Protection
NOTE: This part of tho application is to explain hot.1 tltc pro?uc! rrur<as cr;terrix7 (c): tltc c?enr?ra1 pr.rlatsr, r;;;ci
i1ler7f of !ha F;'tr(e tvcuid bu pn:sufvca, trot 'r duality svoirtd hp p,rtcctcd Gird s!rbsi??rait?i co Justit;?r told tta rian if
,hs vari;u;ca were grartcrt.
Briefly summarize how water quality will be protected on this project. Also attach a detailed
narrative (1-2 pages) describing the nonstructural and structural measures that .-ill be usLd
for protecting water quality and reducing nitrogen inputs to surface water.
5e,2 a-d- a-' k e- d
2. What is the total project area in acres? • of azcV0
3. Which of the following permits/approvals will be required for this project?
CAMA Major
SedimontiErosion Control
401 Certification!404 Permit
wjvt Ors Jba,e,
Var;,,nct: Rec,ue :t Form, pilge 2
Version 1: September 191- 3
Part 3: Water Quality Protection, continued
4, Complete the following information for each drainage basin. If there are more than t.' o
drainage basins in the project, attach an additional shout with the information for each basin
provided in the same fcrinat as below,
Project Information Drninago BasinI i Drainage Basin 2
Rocca ing struirli 11 -a atC 9 =GUI f'{
Re?civrr.y s"fea,)) Class 1?U? T 1 511
Draini:?ge basin arcs (`otal
Existlnq inipcrJrous ar.n tart:+') 7. '?
PrCj)M;(.d iM...)el'yiUUS area' (tot;!')
`i. lmaervnous ar_:a' (;r-s:itt?l

t
9C1 3 1

1MpCr.'icus area' (tol::';`)
. a
? u
..
Impervious area' ........... ....____--___ -- -------- -
Drainage basin 1 Drainage basin 2
tin site bu::ii n;: 3^?7?1
Cdr ,il;; ?;tr r .<
i
4-74--4
t?r rt lip k:;'ra _-
--._ .::._._....._--. _ _ ._..._
Cr, s to s do talks
(y?S , .u
Cihor on-site
?To-al on-site
C`,`f-sate O, tz.???:- X2=-7
Tot41 _
11?e intornct slit for Mis is?fCalrr73t10!1 rv i1i10'+lhpn.t;riG t3lL'.fiC.Cl t??tl7??Ci<?aSl?IrtJI)?7ifir I1.11?177
Total invans cn-site t,ius off-lsitr: ;jto a that drairs N,roui;h tiro project.
lr ?J71.`;'.•;.;r15 atu a is deriried as Vic iJ!J!it'd11;017 area ifil hili(ng. but net Limited to, btwdin gs, l,Qn;iny ;1roa
s cl?rvaiks, grav:;f awns. etc.
5. Ho-w r.as the off-site impervious area listed ahove derived?
t?cc- oDcrucGie-d
6, %Nhakvill be the annual nitrogen load contributed by this site after development in pounds pur
acre per year %^Jtl=t structural BNIPs (stormwater pond, wetland, infiltration basin, etc)?
Attach a dc;tailed plan for all proposed structural stor water BMPs.
Drainage
basin

1 Size of 1 - Post-development BMP nitrogen Final nitrogen
drainage: nitrogen loading rato removal loading rate
basin without B1tSPs` efficiency' (lbs,/ac/yr)
lbs/acLyr (ia) _
1. ac. `7. 1`i?J? ??5r? „Y _ -si."1?Y?Da jf?t??yrpl I.
Lti Final nitrogen
loading from
drainage basin
fibs)
7 GiC?.: n- ? Y
_ h
1
2
1 3 !
i
1 5
M
1 Totals ------ C ------ - -
? r?+it?iCl7 CaiGt?$31iDi1S 3rid tifCrenCCS.
Ai:actl G.:71GiP,c1t."Cfi i and i0je1Gi7ces.
Variance Request four, priyu 3
Part 3: Water Quality Protection, continued
7. The applicable supplemental form(s) listed below must be attached for each BMP specified:
Form SWU-102 Wet Detention Basin Supplement
Form SWU-103 Infiltration Basin Supplement
Form SWU-105 Curb Outlet System Supplement
Form SWU-106 Off-Site System Supplement
Form SWU-107 Underground Infiltration Trench Supplement
Form SWU-109 Innovative BMPs Supplement
Part 4: Submittal Checklist
A complete appplication submittal consists of the following components. Incomplete submittals
will be returned to the applicant. The complete variance request submittal must be received 90
days prior to the EMC meeting at which you wish the request to be heard. Initial below to
indicate that the necessary information has been provided.
Applicant's Item
Initials
Original and two copies of the Variance Request Form and the attachments
listed below.
• A vicinity map of the project (see Part 1, Item 5)
_..... _...... Narrative demonstration of the need for a variance (see Part 2)
A detailed narrative description of stormwater treatment/management (see Part
3, Item 1)
• Calculations supporting nitrogen loading estimates (see Part 3, Item 6)
- ---- ----- • Calculations and references supporting nitrogen removal from proposed BMPs
(see Part 3, Item 6)
Location and details for all proposed structural stormwater BMPs (see Part 3,
Item 6)
-------- -- . Three copies of the applicable Supplement Form(s) for each BMP and/or
narrative for each innovative BMP (see Part 3, Item 7)
Three copies of plans and specifications, including:
0 Development/Project name
^------- -- - 0 Engineer and firm
0 Legend and north arrow
_ 0 Scale (1" = 100' or 1" = 50' is preferred)
- 0 Revision number & date
0 Mean high water line (if applicable)
0 Dimensioned property/project boundary
0 Location map with named streets or NC State Road numbers
0 Original contours, proposed contours, spot elevations, finished floor
elevations
0 Details of roads, parking, cul-de-sacs, sidewalks, and curb and gutter
---- 0 Footprint of any proposed buildings or other structures
----- - 0 Wetlands delineated, or a note on plans that none exist
0 Existing drainage (including off-site), drainage easements, pipe sizes, runoff
calculations
-------- 0 Drainage basins delineated
------------ 0 Perennial and intermittent streams, ponds, lakes, rivers and estuaries
0 Location of forest vegetation along the streams, ponds, lakes, rivers and
estuaries
Variance Request Form, page 4
Version 1: September 1998
Part 5: Deed Restrictions
By your signature in Part 7 of this application, you certify that all structural storrnw ter best
management practices required by this variance shall be located in recorded stormwater
easements, that the casements will run with the land, that the casements cannot be changed or
deleted without concurrence front thu State, and that the easements will be recorded prior to the
sale of zany lot.
Part £: Agent Authorization
If you .vish to designate submittal authority to another individual or firm so that they may provide
information on your behalf, please complete this section:
Designated agent (individual or firm)
Nlailing address:
City, State, Zip:
Telephone:
Fax:
Email:
6 0U`t=1'141-41 Ctiavdc n, IP-1C
,P t
art ue +'t C-' 275?z-
rr`r - 3 z. 1c,S0
`1r'? ? 7G?- `fez-?

Part 7: Applicant's Certification
I .? ac u w?.? vVr l_. S (print or type name of person
listed in Part 1, Item 2), certify that the information included on this permit application form is
correct, that the project will be constructed in conformance with the approved plans rand that the
deed restrictions in accordance with Part 5 of this form will be recorded with all required permit
conditions.
Signature:
Date: ?-o cT oU t.??,r 'Loci
Title: P.^, r-tr? o?v?l c d'
Variance Hcqueat Form, page 5
Version 1: Seplket ;her 1M8
Part 2
Question 1
Richard N. Wiles and Anne Wiles
Lot #54 Regency Park Estates
Cary, NC
This application is for a major variance for a residential lot located in the Neuse Riparian Buffer
zone. The need for this application has arisen due to a series of events that unfortunately have
resulted in impervious surface area being installed within the 30 foot buffer zone of an unnamed
creek that flows through this lot during a portion of the year.
Lot #54 is a .91 acre lot located in Regency Park Estates Subdivision in Cary, NC. Regency
Park Estates was platted and approved as a subdivision in 1989. The home on Lot #54 was
finished in April 2000. The home was permitted by the town of Cary in 1999, and a survey was
completed by Cooper and Associates. That survey does record setbacks and easements that were
on record at the time of the approval of the subdivision in 1989. Cooper and Associates, the
surveyor, says that it is not customary for a surveyor to record easements that have arisen after
the original platting of the lot. As a result this Neuse Riparian Buffer is not a part of the survey.
Unfortunately, when the house was permitted to be built in 1999, the Neuse Riparian Buffer was
not being acknowledged or enforced by the town of Cary planning department. As a result the
house itself is sited significantly within the 30'setback zone from the bank of the creek; the
house actually is 10' from the creek. The creek runs along the edge of the lot for approximately
190 ft. of the 300 ft. long property line along that side. The creek enters the lot and meanders
within the 15 foot buffer setback zone along the southern boundary of the property.
The lot is shaped in a pie. It is significantly encumbered with requisite set-backs, buffers, and
easements. The sanitary sewer line for the development actually is located through the center of
the property, with a manhole access located near the front door of the home. The house was
moved back on the property to accommodate the sewer easement. A suitable "shotgun" style
floor plan was implemented to properly fit the site. The house is sited significantly to the rear of
the lot. There is a stream that is indicated on the GIS Maps on the north boundary of the
property, but upon field investigation by Steve Mitchell on December 1, 2003, he determined
that this is ephemeral drainage only.
The town of Cary determined that the hot tub installation did not require a general building
permit. The only permit required was the electrical permit. The electrician did not obtain the
electrical permit prior to beginning the work, contrary to the indication that he had the permit in
his possession. Hence the problem started.
Much of the rear of the property is subject to flooding and is low lying, but no flood plain notes
are on the survey. In consideration of the topography and stream there, the tub was sited to avoid
potential flooding, both from the stream that has exceeded it's banks historically, and from
upland water surface runoff that collects and flows heavily on the opposite property line from the
stream .
Setting the tub further away from the stream was a possibility. During the initial review of the
site to determine the best location, existing vegetation and water flow were considered. The area
that was selected required the least amount of vegetation to be removed. This site also required
the least amount of disturbance and minimized collection to the existing flow of surface water.
There is a significant vegetated buffer that is located on the north most property line, further
away from the stream, but does sit squarely in the route of offsite water runoff that is introduced
onto Lot 54. Pushing this installation further into that vegetated buffer would also concentrate
the surface flow into more of a channel, rather than the flatter swale that currently exists.
Prior to construction on Lot 54 (Wiles property), considerable grading was done off site. The
town homes that are built backing up to Lot 54 cleared all of the native vegetation up to and over
the lot line and re-graded, introducing the majority of the surface water onto Lot 54. Moving this
tub toward the native vegetative buffer would have required clearing of a heavily wooded area
consisting of native beech, gum, poplar, beautyberry, deciduous holly and pine.
The hot tub was set 26 feet from the stream. With additional clearing, there is sufficient space to
have moved the vessel another 10 or 15 feet easily, but the unit is now installed sub-grade, and is
quite difficult to move. We have also added trees, shrubs, and groundcover in the area to screen
the tub, utilize surface water, and control erosion. Access pathways in the area are all ground
woodchips, supporting the homeowner's desire to keep the natural feeling of the site.
The final electrical inspection wore on, and it became apparent that the electrician did not have
the necessary permit to finish the job. At that point we learned of the Neuse Riparian Buffer and
the encroachment into the setback zone. This encroachment was unintentional, and we would
have been pleased to have sited the vessel further from the bank of the creek, and could easily
have done so by removing native vegetation. Now it is not so easy.
The tub itself weighs about 75001bs., and requires a heavy crane to move it. The accessibility
route has now been closed off as we worked our way out during installation. There was existing
concrete driveway that was used for accessibility, and once the tub was set, the concrete has been
removed. It would require removal of 400 sq. ft. of concrete apron that has been poured on the
perimeter of the tub, and removal of 150 cu. yds. of soil and gravel that have been backfilled, and
removal of a CMU retaining wall that was installed to stabilize the gravel and soil backfill. The
tub itself is a $45,000 tub, requiring 525,000 installation costs, and approximately $20,000 in
naturalized landscaping. The cost to move the tub over is very difficult to estimate. The tub
itself may no longer be moveable without damage to the vessel.
The original site had a large amount of the native vegetation removed during the development
and construction phase in 1999. The first phase of landscaping that was done at conclusion of
the house construction during 2000 did include some native vegetation along the stream bank to
hopefully assist in stabilization of the area during storms and high water flow in the stream.
Those river birch and native azalea have become established and done very well. We have
mulched the denuded area and keep it covered in order to limit erosion. We are in the process of
adding ground cover and native plantings to assist in stabilization of the soils and prevent
erosion, increase infiltration of surface water to reduce runoff as a part of the hot tub installation.
Part 3
Question 1.
Richard N. Wiles and Anne Wiles
Lot # 54 Regency Park Estates
Cary, NC
Lot #54 is the closest lot in the 1.29 acre watershed to the unnamed stream that empties eventually
into the Swift Creek. The current grading of the lot and the adjacent lots that flow surface water
through this property are fed through sheet flow. There is a significant amount of water that flows
through this lot. The homeowners have attempted to manage the water flow. They have established
grass cover and ground cover to help prevent erosion. Prior to the installation of the hot tub, the
grade was at the lowest in the position of the current tub, and all surface water flowed through that
low area and into the No Name stream. All pervious surface areas are maintained with mulch or
wood chips.
DWQ staff have visited the Wiles property and detennined that the watershed area is not as large as
previously suspected. Established curb and gutter and stormwater management does effectively
reduce the area that could have been considered a portion of the watershed. With that
consideration, the recommendation of Staff is that no new BMP device is needed.
Approximately 50% of the water that is collected from the roof and managed through a gutter
system has now been diverted to the most northern property line. Previously roof water was
dumped directly into the stream. Water that sheet flows from the uphill neighbors property now
also is diverted away from the No Name stream. Placement of the hot tub did increase the top level
of grade, and had the net effect of preventing much of the water that was previously directed toward
the stream from being directly dumped there. The new drainage plan diverts water toward the
established wooded area, and a natural water retention basin.
North of the hot tub at the northern most property line is a natural basin that has been identified by
staff as a functioning as a detention area. This area is already heavily vegetated with native
hardwood and pine cover. The natural buffer retention area has established beech, yellow popular,
pine and sweet gum. Attached is a survey of Lot #54 that shows the location of the natural
filtration basin.
Approximately 200 sq. ft. of impervious driveway surface area was removed in the course of this
installation. Prior to construction, 100% of the drainage from the roof gutters that is currently being
directed onto the edge of the lot and is entered the stream untreated; 50% of the 3500 sq. ft. of
downspout water is now being directed to the natural holding basin. Surface water that is
introduced from adjacent lots and flows through the Wiles property and into the buffer is now
retained and treated in the natural basin.
Soils on this site are currently Chewacla Series (Cm). The Wake County soil survey describes this
soil as a sandy loam to silty loam surface layers 4" to 12" thick. Beneath the surface layer there is a
sandy loam, silty loam to clay layer. The total thickness of the profile is 34" - 72" and the
infiltration rate is good with slow surface runoff. Permeability is .63 - 2.0 inches per hour.
Part 3
Question 5
The total nitrogen export of the Wiles property was calculated using ArcView GIS
software, geographic data obtained from Wake County GIS, and guidance from the
Neuse River Basin Model Stormwater Program for Nitrogen Control (guidance
document).
Wake County topographic data (2-foot contour interval) was used to delineate the target
property's off-site drainage basin area. The resulting polygon (drainage area) was 1.29
acres. The drainage area was then overlaid on 1999 aerial photography and cut into
smaller polygons representing land cover types. The target property had not been
improved at the time of the photograph. However, all other tracts in the drainage area
were developed. One property, adjacent to the north of the target property, was under
construction at the time. The adjacent residential structure was completed (exterior),
and the driveway was estimated to calculate this lot's impervious surface area.
Three land cover categories were delineated within the drainage area, based on the
guidance document, including: Permanently protected undisturbed open space;
Permanently protected managed open space; and Impervious surfaces. Total nitrogen
export coefficients are provided for each land cover type in the guidance document.
Method 2 (Quantifying TN Export from Residential/Industrial/Commercial Developments
when footprints of all Impervious Surfaces are Shown) was followed.
Land Cover Area (ac) TN export coefficient TN export
(Ibs./ac./yr.) (Ibs./yr.)
Undisturbed
Open Space 0.448 0.6 0.2688
Managed
Open Space 0.541 1.2 0.6492
Impervious
Surface /306 21.2 6.4872
TOTAL: 1.29 --- 7.4052
The drainage area (1.29 ac.) contributes 7.4052 Ibs. of nitrogen per year to the target
property. This breaks down to 5.7405 Ibs./ac./yr. Total nitrogen export.
v

j
i ?
k,T TI$ pYa?e ? i wt' I ter :
30 1?4t=RPL E?{cPc.ALwAi Jt - +l3? w
Sb? P-VFuu L-J:jZOAc-F1 RAU*-r -- -19$
I

WILES
LoT ? 54-
P CfFJ{G? PA-IZIL V`ITA?la,7
l?Mt VJA cz Cocw-m I q G
5 cAvr,- : AM= I " - ?'
Of q? I `
Explanation of Photogrametric Calculations
of Land Cover Types in the Target
Property's Drainage Basin.
Wyles Property Bioretention Area
113 Redfern Drive - Cary NC, 27511
Ware County GIS topographic data were
used to identify the drainage area of the
target property. Because of up-drainage
stormwater improvements, Mr. Todd St.
John and Mr. Danny Smith with NC DENR
DWd revised the drainage area as illustrated.
Using ArcView GIS, the total area was
calculated to be 1.29 acres.
i

z

Again using ArcVievv software to calculate
areas of each land cover type:
Protected open space --------- 0.448
Protected managed open space ----- 0.641
Impervious surface area -------- 0.306
Nitrogen load calculations based on Neuse
River Basin Stormwater Program for Nitrogen
Control and TN export coefficients provided.
0.448 ac * (0.6 Ibs/ac/yr) = 0.2688 Ibs/yr
0.541 ac A (1.2 Ibs/ac/yr) = 0.6492 Ibs/yr
0.306 ac * (21 .2 Ibs/ac/yr) = 6.4872 Ibs/yr
1.29 acres contribute 7.4052 Ibs/yr
= 6.7405 Ibs N/ac/yr

Impervious Surface(')
Permanently Protected Open Spac?2)
Permanently Protected Manaaed(3)
Open Space
1 = Houses, ParkingOrivev.ays, Outc-tructures
2 = Hardwood and HardwoodFPine
Mixed Forest
3 = Lawn/landscaped Areas

III
The drainage area polygon was then laid
aver 1999 aerial photography and cut into
pieces based on land cover.
f,1 ap prepared by
Robert J. Goldstein u Associates, Inc.
8480 Garvey Drive - Raleigh, NC 27616
[phone]: fax [phone]
URL: vwrwv.rjgaCarolina.com

t
B
v
0
0
0
0
m
tU
ADPNDUM
Consideration of a Request for a Major Variance from the
Neuse River Riparian Area Protection Rule
Richard N. Wiles, Cary, Wake County, NC
February 12, 2004
On February 3, 2004, DWQ staff encountered additional information that results in
changes to the Wiles Variance Application. The below listed changes and respective
staff recommendations are listed for your consideration:
Changes:
• On February 3, 2004, Danny Smith and Bob Zarzecki conducted a follow-up visit
to resolve discrepancies regarding how to properly measure the square footage of
riparian zone impacts. As a result of the visit, the riparian zone impacts were
determined to be 1,235 square feet.
• During the site visit staff observed that a portion of the 3.1 acres, initially
proposed for stormwater treatment was being conveyed to a curb and gutter
infrastructure. As a result, the proposed drainage area available for stormwater
treatment is now 1.29 acres. (TN export from the catchment is 7.4 lb/yr)
• Due to changes to the stormwater and flow pathways, approximately 1.29 acres is
now being treated by a forested area (located approximately 100 feet from the
stream). It is the observations of DWQ staff that this area is providing excellent
treatment and cannot be meaningfully improved by installation of a bio-retention
area. No bio-retention measure is proposed.
Recommendations:
• The Division Staff believe that the applicant is proposing sufficient nitrogen
removal.
• Additional conditions -The Division staff believe that the following conditions
should be added to the variance if approved:
a. By June 15, 2004, the applicant shall provide full buffer mitigation as
per 15A NCAC 02B .0242.
b. By July 1, 2004, the applicant must record stormwater easements for all
of the forested area that is providing stormwater treatment. (This
easement will not allow clearing of vegetation, soil disturbance or
alterations of the existing drainage patterns. Also, this easement is a
permanent recording, such that the easement will run with the land, that
easement cannot be changed or deleted without concurrence from the
State, and the easement will be recorded prior to the sale of any lot).
ADDNDUM
Consideration of a Request for a Major Variance from the
Neuse River Riparian Area Protection Rule
Richard N. Wiles, Cary, Wake County, NC
February 12, 2004
On February 3, 2004, DWQ staff encountered additional information that results in
changes to the Wiles Variance Application. The below listed changes and respective
staff recommendations are listed for your consideration:
Changes:
• On February 3, 2004, Danny Smith and Bob Zarzecki conducted a follow-up visit
to resolve discrepancies regarding how to properly measure the square footage of
riparian zone impacts. As a result of the visit, the riparian zone impacts were
determined to be 1,235 square feet.
• During the site visit staff observed that a portion of the 3.1 acres, initially
proposed for stormwater treatment was being conveyed to a curb and gutter
infrastructure. As a result, the proposed drainage area available for stormwater
treatment is now 1.29 acres. (TN export from the catchment is 7.4 lb/yr)
Due to changes to the stormwater and flow pathways, approximately 1.29 acres is
now being treated by a forested area (located approximately 100 feet from the
stream). It is the observations of DWQ staff that this area is providing excellent
treatment and cannot be meaningfully improved by installation of a bio-retention
area. No bio-retention measure is proposed.
Recommendations:
• The Division Staff believe that the applicant is proposing sufficient nitrogen
removal.
Additional conditions -The Division staff believe that the following conditions
should be added to the variance if approved:
a. By June 15, 2004, the applicant shall provide full buffer mitigation as
per 15A NCAC 02B .0242.
b. By July 1, 2004, the applicant must record stormwater easements for all
of the forested area that is providing stormwater treatment. (This
easement will not allow clearing of vegetation, soil disturbance or
alterations of the existing drainage patterns. Also, this easement is a
permanent recording, such that the easement will run with the land, that
easement cannot be changed or deleted without concurrence from the
State, and the easement will be recorded prior to the sale of any lot).
Appendix F. Development of Nitrogen
Export Methodologies
Method for Quantifying TN Export from New Developments
1. Based on water quality monitoring data from Fayetteville, Raleigh and Durham,
estimate that:
Cpervious 1.4 mg/L
Cimpervious 2.6 mg/L
2. Utilize Schueler's "Simple Method" for determining pollutant export in lbs/ac/yr
from new development:
L = [ (P) (P;) (R,,) / 12] (C) (2.72)
where:
P = 42 in (rainfall expected in one year)
P; = 0.9 (correction factor for storms
w/no runoff)
R,, = 0.05+ (runoff coefficient, the fraction
0.009*1 of rainfall
converted to runoff, I = percent
impervious)
C = 1.4 to 2.6 mg/L (flow-weighted mean
concentration of the
pollutant -- see
above)
3. Figure out the concentrations and export coefficients associated with different
percentage impervious covers on a right-of-way or lot.
Portion

Impervious C *

m /L Exp. Coeff.
**
Ibs/ac/ r
0% 1.40 0.6
10% 1.52 1.8
20% 1.64 3.2
30% 1.76 4.8
40% 1.88 6.6
50% 2.00 8.6
60% 2.12 10.7
70% 2.24 13.1
80% 2.36 15.6
90% 2.48 18.3
100% 2.60 21.2
24

* This is a weighted average of the pervious and impervious
concentrations given in Step 1.
** This results from applying the formula given in Step 2 with the
appropriate concentration.
4. Graph the result to get relationship between percentage of right-of way that is
pavement and TN export in Ibs/ac/yr.
Total Nitrogen Export from Pavement

25.0
i

20.0
a
c?
m
a 1
0
5.
c

O - --- - -----
10.0
C - - - - •
- --- - ------- --
X
W
Z
-
-
- --
5.0 -- --- - - - - - -- - - -
-

0.0
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
Percentage of Right-of-Way that Is Pavement
5. Utilize information from the City of Raleigh on percent impervious cover expected
on each lot for various zoning categories.
Dwelling
units
per acre Portion

Im ervious C *

m /L Exp. Coeff.
**
Ibs/ac/ r
0 0.00 1.40 0.6
1 0.14 1.57 2.4
2 0.22 1.66 3.5
4 0.30 1.76 4.8
6 0.35 1.82 5.7
8 0.38 1.86 6.2
10 0.41 1.89 6.7
12 0.43 1.92 7.2
14 0.45 1.94 7.6
16 0.47 1.96 8.0
18 0.49 1.98 8.3
20 0.50 2.00 8.6
30 0.55 2.06 9.6
25

* This is a weighted average of the pervious and impervious
concentrations given in Step 1.
** This results from applying the formula given in Step 2 with the
appropriate concentration.
6. Graph the relationship between number of dwelling units per acre and TN export
in Ibs/ac/yr.
Total Nitrogen Export Irom Lots
12M
low
ew
9
A q0q
I
.ro
2W
0W
I? I
0 2 t a a 10 12 14 is to 20 = 24 26 26 00 72
N.- of tMdllnq U.I. W -.
26
Appendix G. Land Use Planning and
Design Techniques
Reducing Road Widtlis
In many instances, road widths are required to be wider than needed to safely convey
traffic through residential and commercial areas. Although these wide widths are often
adopted to increase safety for automobiles, they often increase speeds through residential
areas and, in so doing, may decrease safety for pedestrians and cyclists. Also, some
jurisdictions require curb and gutter for aesthetic reasons where it is not actually
necessary to control stormwater runoff. This can result in increased flooding and also
eliminates the potential for stormwater runoff control and treatment that can occurs in
properly designed and maintained roadside swales.
Most local governments model their residential street design standards after state and/or
federal highway criteria, although the traffic capacity and function of their street system is
considerably different from highways. Very few communities recognize any local road
categories that are different from established state and federal street categories. Many
local traffic engineers have simply accepted the notion that wider streets adequately
address these concerns and that wide streets are safe streets (Schueler 1995).
Narrower road widths can reduce the road surface area by up to 35 percent.
A number of communities have implemented standards that promote narrower residential
streets and have concluded this to be an attractive, safe and environmentally beneficial
alternative.
Communities should also review their standards for turnarounds to reduce the need or
unnecessary road surface. One of the most common types of turnaround is a cul-de-sac
that may have a diameter of 80 to 100 feet or more (Schueler 1995). Some communities
are recognizing that this is excessive and are choosing alternatives that create less
impervious cover, such as T-shapes. A 60-foot by 30-foot T-shaped turnaround creates
only about 36% as much impervious area as an 80-foot diameter cul-de-sac and is more
than adequate for most vehicles.
Local governments should: (1) examine community regulations governing road width
and turnaround size; (2) evaluate if the specified widths are necessary; and (3) where
feasible, make changes to reduce unnecessary road surfaces.
Reducing Minimum Parking Requirements
Parking lots are often designed to accommodate parking needs on the busiest days of the
year. For example, shopping center parking areas are often big enough to handle the busy
holiday times, but then sit vacant for much of the rest of the year. This can result in
increased nitrogen load (as opposed to maintaining open space).
27
Some management strategies that would contribute to a reduction in urban nitrogen from
parking lots:
• Use angles and smaller parking spaces.
• Use more pervious construction materials in seldom-used parking areas (Land of Sky
1995).
• Provide public transportation to shopping centers during the peak holiday times and
encourage people to use it.
• Design parking areas to drain in sheet flow into stable vegetated areas.
Minimizing Use of Curb and Gutter
Runoff is conveyed along streets and parking areas in one of two ways, either (a) in an
open drainage channel located in the right of way, or (b) in an enclosed storm drain
located under the street or right of way. The use of an open channel or storm drain in a
particular street is determined by a number of factors, such as drainage area, slope, length,
housing density, and street type. Open channels can be used on smaller streets, but at
some point runoff velocities become too erosive to be adequately handled in an earthen
channel and they must be enclosed in a storm drain. This erosive velocity is typically
around 4 feet per second. A channel's maximum velocity is generally defined and
computed using the peak discharge rate under the two year design storm event.
Open vegetated channels can have many water resource protection benefits. For example,
a portion of stormwater pollutants may be removed through grass and soil as they pass
through the channel. Performance monitoring has shown that open channels only realize
these benefits under ideal conditions (e.g., low slope, sandy soils, dense grass cover, etc.).
When these conditions are not met, drainage channels can have a low or even negative
removal capability for many pollutants.
Only recently have engineers recognized the value of designing open channels explicitly
for pollutant removal during small and moderate-sized storm events. Depending on the
depth to the water table, they are known as either grass channels, dry swales or wet
swales. Checkdams, underdrains, stone inlets, prepared soil mixes and landscaping are
also used to enhance the pollutant removal capability of swales. The use of grass
channels or swales along residential streets can be an economical and effective element of
a BMP system, as long as the critical erosive velocity is not exceeded. In addition, open
channels must be designed to prevent standing water, to ensure that mowing is
convenient, and to avoid odors, mosquitoes, or other nuisances associated with standing
water.
Even the moderate vertical break of a curb shelters airborne pollutants that blow in by the
wind. Thus, dust, pollen, leaves, grass clippings, and other nitrogen-rich organic matter
can be trapped by the curb, where they remain until they are washed into the storm drain
system.
Some management strategies that may contribute to a reduction in urban nitrogen from
roadside drainage systems are:
28
• Minimize the use of curb and gutter and maximize the use of vegetated swales where
feasible.
• If curb and gutter is necessary, consider frequent curb cuts to divert manageable
quantities of runoff into stable vegetated areas for infiltration. (Land of Sky 1995).
• Develop a site/landscaping plan that uses landscaped areas for infiltration or
detention/retention areas (bioretention).
• Instead of grass that requires chemical applications, use trees, shrubs, ground cover,
mulch or other materials that require little or no chemical applications.
Allowing Cluster or Open-Space Developments
Cluster or open-space developments rearrange density on each development tract so that a
lower percentage of the tract is covered by impervious surfaces. This results in more land
being retained in a natural state.
This approach respects private property rights and the ability of developers to create new
homes for the expanding population. Such developments are "density-neutral" since the
overall number of dwellings allowed is not less than it would be in a conventional
development. This lessens the adverse impact on the remaining natural areas and cultural
resources that make our communities such special places to live, work, and recreate.
The most important step in designing an "open space subdivision" is to identify the land
to preserve. "Primary Conservation Areas" include unbuildable wetlands, waterbodies,
floodplains, and steep slopes. "Secondary Conservation Areas" include mature
woodlands, upland buffers around wetlands and waterbodies, prime farmland, natural
meadows, critical wildlife habitats, and sites of historic, cultural or archeological
significance.
Cluster developments can reduce road lengths by 50 to 70 percent (Arendt 1993). At an
average cost of over $100 to construct a linear foot of road, such reductions are extremely
cost-effective. The reduction in road length may also reduce the overall capital costs for
stormwater controls. Tile developer may realize a significant savings in the reduced need
for storm drain pipes and best management practices. It has been reported that in some
cases the overall reduction in capital costs associated with these developments can be 10
to 33 percent (Schueler 1995).
Property owners can realize indirect economic benefits from reduced impervious cover.
While a host of factors influence future residential property values, some evidence
indicates that homes located adjacent to well designed and maintained open or green
space do appreciate at a faster rate than traditional subdivision properties. This premium
has been found to range from 5 to 32 percent, according to Land Ethics (1994). Another
study in Massachusetts indicated that homes in cluster subdivisions with open space
29
appreciated 13% more in value than similar homes in conventional subdivisions over a
21-year period (Arendt 1993).
For local governments, it is typically more expensive to provide public services on large
residential lot developments compared to smaller ones. Clustered developments can
greatly reduce the length of water and sewer pipes and roads that local governments have
to construct and maintain.
Allowing Traditional Neighborhood Developments
Traditional neighborhood developments (TNDs) are designed so that dwellings, shops,
and workplaces are in close proximity. They typically follow a rectilinear pattern of
streets and blocks arranged to provide interesting routes of travel that also accommodate
and promote pedestrian travel and bicycle travel rather than automobile travel. These
developments also include greenways, landscaped streets, churches, stores, schools, and
parks woven into the neighborhood for social activity, recreation, aesthetics, and
environmental enhancement. See Figure G1 for a diagram of a TND.
One of the most important features of TNDs that affects water quality is their
compactness. As these developments expand, they maintain their compact, rectilinear
layout and their accessibility. Another environmental advantage offered by TNDs is that
they may reduce automobile traffic and promote increased use of alternative forms of
transportation, such as mass transit.
Environmental impacts of TNDs are affected by site conditions and the development
intensity and design. Those TNDs that offer environmental benefits may also offer
economic benefits. The increased value of real estate in a traditional development is
illustrated in Raleigh. The "inside the beltline" neighborhoods in Raleigh that have city
blocks, greenways, and accessibility to shopping areas, on the average, sell for 40 percent
more per square foot than homes in North Raleigh subdivisions (pers. comm. Marilyn
Marks, Simpson and Underwood Realtors, 1997).
Other Techniques
In many instances, subdivision codes contain rigid requirements that govern setbacks
from the property lines. These requirements increase the length of driveways, roads, and
sidewalks and thus increase the proportion of impervious cover to housing units. These
requirements can inadvertently increase impervious surfaces and cause expense for
developers and homeowners.
Large-lot zoning also impacts overall imperviousness. Although large-lot zoning reduces
rooftop impervious cover in a watershed and spreads development over a wider
geographic area, it can increase transport-related impervious cover because of longer road
networks. Although large-lot zoning may be wise for individual sensitive watersheds, it
is probably not practical as a uniform standard. An alternative is forming more compact
neighborhoods in order to decrease impervious surfaces associated with transportation, a
30
factor that has long been overlooked. Another advantage to compact neighborhoods is
that they decrease automobile use by allowing better accessibility for walkers and cyclists
and facilitating public transportation.
Figure G1. Maytown Before and After (adapted from Stimmel Associates, 1993)
A. Maytown in 1900 B. Maytown today. C. Maytown as it could have been.

A. Maytown developed around B. The development that has occurred C. The same amound of development
a central square with a grid street over the past 30 years is not could have been accommodated in a
pattern. Development was compact compatible with the original village. pattern that complements the original
and there was a distinct separation Curvilinear street and cul-de-sacs village. All residents could have been
between the village and the have replaced the traditional grid within walking distance of the center
surrounding countryside. street pattern. The separation between square, community facilities, and
the village and the surrounding parks.
countryside have been lost.
31
rJ
^
`
W

R
J
A
`
W

?
rt
•V
ff
^ N
A
W

°
CL

C

N

CL
? co
I ?
o
T
N
O
W

7
O
N
d
t
C
? a
rr^ v
O
a
C
O
U
v
GPM ca

N
a)
cc
A?
O

C
G

N
a
E N o

0
N

)
? ro

? :3

? Z

c O C;)
°' ca CL

E a) a

CL
a'
` 0 E m
a a) ° U) O 0)
Y O C Z U o
co
-0 U
=
`
ca O U L
CL 0 .- CL
co
-
(D C

d' 0
n.
d o o
L N C E C
?t Ea (n
s Q
a ° 5
U
LO
mCO U U a
L
co 11 n
,dd co •c?o
-0) c C N a
-
C)00 cm 0Ni r a
a

Ga o LO a
u) EN 3
U)
- a
i
?
L
E
- (D o

'IT
0 O U o 0 m cp o
c
a ro ro O, N
? o m
°
i
s 2-
- L ci
co
\
a) s ?
G
U >
co
'fl •C C C r E O m.C
3: . G i2
RS
3 4)
O
ro
-Fz T (n r- M r (n
MNUf N 0N O0 N co
NM ca
r m to
(D
z =
O O MNrOLL >OinO rC; P > M
M
O \ (D (o LO
Z°?r (D 't O r` -,t r-- M 00
00 C) ; NN N NO ti
W v
z -
Y - (D r`
F- - ; N 00 r` 00
(D N ; to ; ,
; N N
CO O

; (7
V
o (D co
Z N N t- LO O "t
; r (f) V M
;
; N V'
00 N
Z O rn
Z o CD (D 01 Di r` O O O N LO
F- r CMMr r Mr ; CMrM l ; ; N

U)
c -ca a
i=

E
>1

ca
> ;
L -
8,0
L a a

a) a)
J aN U? E ; E
s ? E 2 E 1
Q) U U U U U (a U U U
03 co U U C U
C m co 03
07 03
co U C ? O co U (a co U U
•
C?j a) N _ r M 03 (D
O
N (D M C ca
M

O Q r T co ?
Co N (D co
T N V tt r N
r LO Q) !!
co t`
It 00 N IT (D I- 1
cn
N
O Q. O
E v
ZcgN Nrl- a) (DCOC\jco (D _
CO M
rNNr r co i
c
O

O U O X X J J J J J J Q Q U U J
J Z Z F- F- LL LL LL LL LL_ LL > > Z Z LL
N 0) co
00
M
r m
rrr rn
r LO
M co:
"U 00
r
ca (a C C
inin Cl) _
0O0 (a CO D)
D? WMM GO 00
Z- COO) ? ca
Mr0 ? N
O W
_
a> _
a> > >
a ¢ a?rrnrn
C
0) r N
_ Eco 00 rn r00
?
O 00
N Or
Q
C
C) _
C
-? O O O
O E U C O = ?
J rn
O` a
.- UU 2 r -C)
co
O O .Y .? 7 O '? (O O 0
co O?> O O>
(n co mUU UCS 0C72 20 ? ?Q
M
M
O
L
Q?
a)
L N
O `
.r., IL
? M
co
r
N
O
CD
t
r
7
O
N
a)
t
C
a
a)
v
a
C
O
U
L
U
R
a)
N
a)
O
R
E
3
U)
a?
s ? E
U p O F-
C "' C (n
J a) N
a?
a) ?
U U (0 a N
?'? o m E
(0 a) a
C
T a O
U)-'O T (0 a)
Q)
>1 cm
(0 ° of a o co
a W o C O
r X = CL U II
a) -a m ?U
II a m L
U a) CZ U)
U E ? .0
co
a
cz U i0 II
1- o
0 c c .x o > I--
~O Lq 0-7 (UO CTJQ('7
z O CC0 CL
M
° L? ? M LO (D00 (~ D N
Z (LO
Y M r N N
(D 00 i r LO
d 0 LO CD
Z ° (LO ? ? (OD N r V
v
.v
0
I- N i
( (D
M
i V
Oa E
C) ° O
n _
as E n (0
Ow
- 7
7 O` a)
-C L O. N
3 a)
U
U) o .V U

J Cn C10
C
m ccoo O O
(D
0
CT
(0 C
U
(0

U
U
O
U
U R)
(0 U
T (0 0 It

Q ((')
(D rn !
r ? (O N i
O
O
p C N I?
d N
O (0 !
Z (n ? N ? i
c
co0
U p p
J cL LL LL > LL LL i
N
LO m
rn a)
Cn (D LO T r
m CO CD
a0)Q 0) a U c0
c a a In
co o a) co oQ ? m cU
V) > O (c00 > a) J O
L C O L M
a Y LLI
Q W 2 Q w W O T CC T co
Q
N
L
O
LL
(u
N
a
a)
Ca
C
O O
C C1
CD O C
r s is o
U U a)
C a
.E
m LO r-
r(O >
0
?., - - CO ?
?.oo m?oa
.a
CO O C C C 'v= U cz ca
`) M v im ) U)) U)
a a) a
a) N U OW Un C
Q = a)
'6 =3 =3 C) cli
co O
Oo co rM•-N? l
Z
0
r? CD I- l (dD 0) CV) (dD
d
2
Z u (o d M
? ? d rn ? v
Z o I
O
0
N
? ?
V
d I? .
- Cl)
o I
6
E E
c' o
C E s.
f0 p) o
-i CL U O 2i (°D S (°)n
CD
c0 co co m (0 (0
0 Od i
QO co ° r- L°
N
m
O C1
E
0 CO C\l

z (n N l ?r
C\
00

I
c
O
75

J > F- F- F- F- i
O
Cn
N N CA
T
(n
CF) r r N
o) a 03
? c)
•
c a) cn

(1) V)
co T :3 :3 CL
Lli
?{
U
Q
C viQ QU
Q
a n:3 o w
Q) TY
(n to > U CU m Q
't
M
N
Q?
U
U
a..
a
Q?
m N
U ?
r a`
C
Q. M
co
W
O
N
R
d
S
m
O
N
d
t
C
a
d
U
3
a
c
O
U
t
L
ca
d
N
O
O
E
U)
U II
H ?
(UO (UO •U U 000
c0 CU C- m (Z CZ CL a a N
U U` V U co
j, T T
O O?p?00.E
II N r 47
Y Y N T 11 U
•O •O ca U O •? •U
L
N U O p c 0 0 'U -F, 76 '6
> CU > >
o U d C
OR
it -t 2: N ny c3 O O a
II II O O -(n c: C- E=
U) a_ _a O• C• U U 00
O E ? (D Q)
p O O >. >. T C >. >+ N
Z O O c V N d N E N N coo
3
Cl)
OZ° tLON7 ? tN r M
Z O
lg? co ,t 0
F- CO ',t ?^- i N r
= o r ?!
Z co
Cl)
O ° co °i
w IT C) c2 T M co
?Cl)
O
d •? J
TT> cL> C)- >, E C ?T
7 ca ? ? E 3 E ?"o-0
? LLL' Lo Loo y yt
J LL=(D=1-=r?CC=
Q7
m
ro CO cz (a U U
C O r- Cl) t` 03 03
co d co
N N 00 r !
?QC7Nr O r -r i
p
D.
O
E co co
O w N N (D r O
z (n -?i cY CA r r LO OJ (D
C
O
ro
00
-i F- F- > LL LL U-
rn LO
O Q)
r r
co co Co Cl)
=
n3 n3 Q co N 00 00 Q N
rnrn W
Q
cz J J
E d d N W
Z5 ' z z 00 a
(n
mm0
M
References
Barrett, M.E., Walsh, P.M., Malina, J.F., Charbeneau, R. J.; Performance of Vegetative Controls for
Treating Highway Runoff. J. of Env. Eng. November 1998, Vol. 124, No. 11
Bordon, R., J. Dorn, J. Stillman, S. Lier. Effect of In-Lake Water Quality on Pollutant Removal in Two
Ponds; J. of Env. Eng. August 1998, Vol. 124, No. 8
Cahoon, L.B., Water Quality Variability in Stormwater Detention Ponds in New Hanover County, NC.
City of Austin, TX. 1991. Design Guidelines for Water Quality Control Basins. Public Works
Department, Austin, TX. 64 pp.
City of Austin, TX. 1996. Evaluation of Nonpoint Source Controls; a 319 Grant Project. Draft Water
Quality Report Series. COA-ERM-196-03.
Cullum, M. 1985. Stormwater Runoff Analysis at a Single-Family Residential Site. University of
Central Florida at Orlando. Publication 85-1: 247-256.
Dorman, M.E., J. Hartigan, R.F. Ste-, and T. Quasebarth. 1989. Retention, Detention and Overland
Flow for Pollutant Removal from Highway Stormwater Runoff. Vol. 1 Research Report.
Federal Highway Administration. FHWA/RD 89/202. 179 p.
Driscoll, E. D. 1983. Performance of Detention Basins for Control of Urban Runoff Quality.
Presented at the 1983 International Symposium on Urban Hydrology, Hydraulics and Sediment
Control. University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY. 40 p.
Gain, W.S. 1996. The Effects of Flow Path Modification on Water Quality Constituent Retention in
an Urban Stormwater Detention Pond and Wetland System. Orlando, FL. U.S. Geological
Survey. Water Resources Investigation Report 95-4297. Tallahassee, FL
Holler, J.D. 1989. Water Quality Efficiency of an Urban Commercial Wet Detention Stormwater
Management System at Boynton Beach Mall in South Palm Beach County, FL. Florida
Scientist. Winter 1989. Vol. 52(1): 48-57
Kantrowitz, 1. and W. Woodham. 1995. Efficiency of a Stormwater Detention Pond in Reducing
Loads of Chemical and Physical Constituents in Urban Streamflow. Pinellas County, Florida.
U.S. Geological Survey. Water Resources Investigation Report: 94-4217. Tallahassee, FL. 18
P.
Martin, E.H. 1988. Effectiveness of an Urban Runoff Detention Pond/ Wetland System. Journal of
Environmental Engineering. Vol. 114(4): 810-827.
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. 1983. Final Report: Pollutant Removal
Capability of Urban BMPs in the Washington Metropolitan Area. Prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 64 p.
Occoquan Washington Monitoring Laboratory. 1983 (b). Final Report: Metropolitan Washington
Urban Runoff Project. Prepared for the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.
Manassasas, VA. 460 p.
Rushton, B. T. and Dye, C. W. January 1993. An In-depth Analysis of a Wet Detention Stormwater
System. Southwest Florida Water Management District, Brooksville, FL.
Rushton, B., C. Miller, C. Hull and J. Cunningham. June 1997. Three Design Alternatives for
Stormwater Detention Ponds. Southwest Florida Water Management District, Brooksville, FL.
Schchl, T.P. and T.J. Grizzard. 1995. Runoff Characterization From an Urban Commercial Catchment
and Performance of an Existing Under-round Detention Facility in Reducing Constituent
Transport. Proceedings of the 4th Biennnial Stormwater Research Conference. October 18-20,
1995. Clearwater, FL. Sponsored by the Southwest Florida Water Management District. p.
190-199.
36
L£
•dd •xioA nxaN `yio t moN •snouli°ug ling 30 X10130S UUDIJaWd -spa `nusao-d •d•'I puu suuogjfl
•g •X°olougaal, luauzaauuqug XI!ILna puu jaLdwi - XlilLna 33ounH uLgjfI :(ui) « su?sug uoljuaja?
uLgin 3o ssauanIjaa33g puL uaf[saQ„ '9861 "Z)cf'LH 'H 'H puu `ujs?laiuuM •d*W `•V*,k `3asnoA
'68Z-08Z 'dd -IjoA AwN `y1ok AXON •sJaaul3ug 1[n?D 3o xjataoS uuoiio ud •spa
`uauuoS •g -W puu suuogjfl •g `.iausao,d •d •g «•s[oil uoD X1ijuno jjoun-d uLgin 3o ukisaQ„
(ul) •spuod uouuajaQ jam uugin uo,CpnjS Xlllunj,).iajuM '8861 •XauloCl • f puL urwjoH 'fI `S 'f `nM
?N `ajjollLq? `ajnjtjsul gaiLasa?l saaanosaZl aajLM •uuilojuD
gj.ioN 3o uo?3a2I juowpard aqj ut aauLuuOJ'c)d uisLg uoijuajaQ jo uoijunlL^g '686I XJnf 'S 'f `nM
mailbox:///Cl/Documents%20and%20Settings/bob_zarzecki/Applicat...
Subject: 113 Redfern Drive Y?
From: Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 08:56:31 -0500
To: [e-mail]
CC: john dorney <[e-mail]>, Steve Mitchell <[e-mail]>, Jeff
Manning <[e-mail]>
Connie:
John Dorney and I have discussed your project. We have determined that the Division
of Water Quality (DWQ) has not been given adequate time to review your request for it
to be placed on the December Water Quality Committee (WQC) meeting. Your draft
request was received at approximately 5 pm on Friday, November 21, 2003 and the mail
out for December's meeting is today. DWQ is responsible for preparing a "preliminary
findings" and recommendations to the WQC as to whether the request meets all of the
requirements for granting a variance. My Unit, the DWQ Wetlands/401 Unit, is
responsible for preparing the findings and recommendation and attaching it to the
request at the time the request is mailed to the WQC members. We have to coordinate
our determination with the Regional Office. In this case with the Raleigh Regional
Office (RRO). The primary contact for this request is Mr. Steve Mitchell. Because
your project involves an "after-the-fact" major variance (which none have been issued
to date) in response to a RRO violation of a hot tub built in the protected buffers,
coordination with the RRO is essential. DWQ has not been given adequate time to
perform this coordination. We are requesting by copy of this letter to the DWQ
Planning Branch that your request be tentatively placed on the next WQC meeting after
the December meeting. This meeting is currently scheduled for February 11, 2004. We
recommend that you request a meeting with our staff and the RRO as soon as possible
in order to prepare and finalize your request. Please contact me if you would like
me to schedule this meeting. I will begin paternity leave on December 12th (or
possibly sooner) and will not return until the end of January. As such, I recommend
that we schedule this meeting next week if at all possible. Your request should be
finalized at least 3 weeks prior to the February 11, 2004 meeting.
- Bob
1 of 1 11/24/2003 8:57 AM
f r- car-G i icF nNi v Date Received
Request # State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Variance Request Form
Neuse River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy
Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rule (15A NCAC .0233)
NOT1=: This form maybe photocopied for use as an original.
Part: 1: General Information
1. Applicant's name (the corporation, individual, etc. who owns the project):
- -- P-1 crag-esq... _ N __w' Les
2. Print Owner/Signing Official (person legally responsible for the facility and its compliance)
Name:
Title: ?-
;itreet address:
City, State, Zip: Al c-
Telephone: r 71.x_) 3?f 1- 32.17-
Fax: (33h j_ 3zq - rjo ?-o_
3. Project Name (Subdivision, facility, or establishment name - consister-t with project name ?n
plans, specifications, letters, operation and maintenance agreements, etc.):
4. Location of Facility !
;itreet address: 1) 3 R£p? Dr24VE' __... _
City, State, Zip: CAAA1 t.JC _Z7511 ......
County -- - --- -- - -- -_-
latitude/longitude: _ --76,-79_f?-806-!_yz!-?_.. _ _4 _ 3.5 7i3a?&.voo0.32
5. Directions to facility from nearest major intersection (Also attach a map):
_ ZuQ4 °r n? 1 G_DvCt rL> _ _y p9 J_ _?? rJ R-0 .Fb oUJ Tt F1?DUC? N / 41r,1?
CFM±???__To._._._tD -MAt6-- --.. 441W TU 1 LeFr..OMTD. AUa4-U9SrA
_ J 11?iOtn-._! -rr- OWL -0W1E._ DUtW-3 0J0 0F'_clk_.0E_sAc
6. Contact person who can answer questions about the facility:
Name: COIJ?.tI5 HOVEES . .
Telephone: i ql5__.; 36a -tZSD g19_G(- _0I1_0
_
Fax
7. Requested Environmental Management Commission Hearing Date: Dm; 10,-- X003_-__ 1
Versi 3n 1: September 1998
1
I f ? 1
Part 2: Demonstration of Need for a Variance
NOTE: The variance provision of the Neuse Riparian Area Rule allows the Environmental Management en mro'ect:
1
Commission to grant a variance to an affected party when the following conditions apply given project.,
(a) practical difficulties or hardships would result from strict application of the rule: i
(b) such difficulties or hardships result from conditios which are peculiar to the property involved; and 1
(c) the general purpose and intent of the Rule would be preserved, water quality would be protected and
substantial justice would be done if the variance were granted.
This part of the application is to explain how the project meets criteria (a) and (b).
I I i
1. Attach a detailed description (2-3 pages) explaining the following:
The practical difficulties or hardships that would result from strict application of the Rul
How,these difficulties or hardships result from conditions that are unique to the properti
involved. i
Why reconfiguring and/or reducing the built-upon area to preservea greater portion of ?he
riparian area is not feasible on this project. If economic hardship is the major
consideration, then include a specific explanation of the economic hardship and the
proportion of the hardship to the entire value of the project.
Part 3: Water Quality Protection
Non-- This part of the application is to explain how the project meets criterion (c): the general purpose and
intent' of the Rule would be preserved, water quality would be protected and substantial justice would be done, if
the variance were granted.
1. Briefly summarize how water quality will be protected on this project. Also attach a detaile
narrative (1-2 pages) describing the nonstructural and structural measures that will be used
for protecting water quality and reducing nitrogen inputs to surface water. ! j
5ce d
_..._._...-----r-
._....... _ -- -1 ._
2. What is the total project area in acres? • ql aW4 _
I'
3. Which of the following permits/approvals will be required for this project?
_ CAMA Major j
Sediment/Erosion Control
401 Certification/404 Permit
noire of a6aw-

Variance Request Form, page 2
Version 1: September 19913
I
Part 3: Water Quality Protection, continued
4. Complete the following information for each drainage basin. If there are more than two
drainage basins in the project, attach an additional sheet with the information for each basin j
provided in the same format as below.
Project Information Drainage Basin 1 Drainage Basin 2
?'gtNlt=f
Receiving stream name oAme
Receiving stream class' 6 IIL - 11sw
Drainage basin area (total') 3• (o ages
Existing impervious area' (total')
Proposed impervious area' (total') 2
% Impervious area" (on-site) 94410
21 ?n
% Impervious area" (total)
. I ?
Impervious area" Drainago basin 1 Drainage basin 2
On-rite buildings 337
On-site streets '(S
On-site parking -?
On-site sidewalks (off
Other on-site .91"
Total on-site 0746 -2acm
Off-site 1.3a;L aores
Total 1.532-
Than internet site for this information is http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/strmclass/alpha/neu.html
2 Total means on-site plus off-site area that drains through the project.
" Impervious area is defined as the built-upon area including, but not limited to, buildings, parking areas,)
sidewalks, gravel areas, etc.
i
5. How was the off-site impervious area listed above derived?
6. What will be the annual nitrogen load contributed by this site after development in pounds per
acre per year without structural BMPs (stormwater pond, wetland, infiltration basin, etc)? i
Attach a detailed plan for all proposed structural stormwater BMPs.
i i
Drainago
basin Size of
drainage
basin
NO Post-development
nitrogen loading rate
without BMPs`
Ibs/a r BMP nitrogen
removal
officlencys
% Final nitrogen
loading rate
(Ibs/ac/yr) Final ni ogon
loading fro
drainage bas?n
Ibs
3. ao. lo.q ji cu. r• Z6-4o9• g.z_ S.6 ???. y?. 3 x.99 1 by .
-
2 1
3
4
5
Ti)tals ------ ------ -----
Attach calculations and references. i
s Attach calculations and references.
Variance Request Form, page 3
Versim 1: September 1998
Part 3: Water Quality Protection, continued
7. The applicable supplemental form(s) listed below must be attached fo.* each BMP specifie
Form SWU-102 Wet Detention Basin Supplement
Form SWU-103 Infiltration Basin Supplement
Form SWU-105 Curb Outlet System Supplement i
Form SWU-106 Off-Site System Supplement
Form SWU-107 Underground Infiltration Trench Supplement
Form SWU-109 Innovative BMPs Supplement
Pant 4: Submittal Checklist
A complete appplication submittal consists of the following components. Incomplete submittals
will be returned to the applicant. The complete variance request submittal must be received 9t
days prior to the EMC meeting at which you wish the request to be heard. Initial below to
indicate that the necessary information has been provided.
Apl)licant's
Initials
•
GF?' •
'C it., a

Item
Original and two copies of the Variance Request Form and the attachments
listed below.
A vicinity map of the project (see Part 1, Item 5)
Narrative demonstration of the need for a variance (see Part 2)
A detailed narrative description of stormwater treatment/management (sed Part
3, Item 1)
Calculations supporting nitrogen loading estimates (see Part 3, Item 6)
Calculations and references supporting nitrogen removal from proposed BMPs
(see Part 3; Item 6)
Location and details for all proposed structural stormwater BMPs (see Par 3,
Item 6) II
Three copies of the applicable Supplement Form(s) for each BMP and/or
narrative for each innovative BMP (see Part 3, Item 7)
Three copies of plans and specifications, including:
0 Development/Project name
0 Engineer and firm
0 Legend and north arrow f
0 Scale (1" = 100' or 1" = 50' is preferred)
0 Revision number & date
0 Mean high water line (if applicable)
0 Dimensioned property/project boundary
0 Location map with named streets or NC State Road numbers j
0 Original contours, proposed contours, spot elevations, finished floor
elevations
0 Details of roads, parking, cul-de-sacs, sidewalks, and curb and gutter i
0 Footprint of any proposed buildings or other structures
0 Wetlands delineated, or a note on plans that none exist
0 Existing drainage (including off-site), drainage easements, pipe sizes, ,runo``f
calculations j
0 Drainage basins delineated
0 Perennial and intermittent streams, ponds, lakes, rivers and estuaries I
0 Location of forest vegetation along the streams, ponds, lakes, rivers and
estuaries
Varia ice Request Form, page 4
Version 1: September 1998
Part 5: Deed Restrictions
By your signature in Part 7 of this application, you certify that all structural stormwater best
management practices required by this variance shall be located in recorded stormwater
easements, that the easements will run with the land, that the easements cannot be changed or
dele-;ed without concurrence from the State, and that the easements will be recorded prior to the
sale of any lot.
Part 6: Agent Authorization
If you wish to designate submittal authority to another individual or firm so that they may provide
information on your behalf, please complete this section:
Designated agent (individual or firm): __Sot hti'v? Ga.vcl4jn,._InC, -___..._ _ ......
_..
Mailing address: _ 'Po•8o¢ 808.________ -___._ ._.___._ _.
City, State, Zip: N4 27sa7-
-i- -- - _........ _ i ...
--- -
Telephone: ?l? - 36??050
Fax: -----??3.63_- gtzZ
Email:
Para: 7: Applicant's Certification
1, '12.icuc.+a.o ?_WttS (print orty;,e name of person
listec in Part I, Item 2), certify that the information included on this permit application form-is
correct, that the project will be constructed in conformance with the approved plans and that the
deed restrictions in accordance with Part 5 of this form will be recorded with all required permit
conditions.
Signature: -?
Date: ;o-N o 200
Title: PeJ)QW'U OWA-e ?_ ---------- ; -
i
Variance Request Form. page 5
?
Versicn 1: September 1998
? I
Part 2
Question 1
Richard N. Wiles and Anne Wiles
Lot #54 Regency Park Estates
Cary, NC
This application is for a major variance for a residential lot located in the Neuse Riparian
Buffer zone. The need for this application has arisen due to a series of events that
unfortunately have resulted in impervious surface area being installed within the 30 foot
buffer zone of an unnamed creek that flows through this lot during a portion of the year.
Lot #54 is a.91 acre lot located in Regency Park Estates Subdivision in Cary, NC.
Regency Park Estates was platted and approved as a subdivision in 1989. The home on
Lot #54 was finished in April 2000. The home was permitted by the town of Cary in
1999, and a survey was completed by Cooper and Associates. That survey does record
setbacks and easements that were on record at the time of the approval of the subdivision
in 1989. Cooper and Associates, the surveyor, says that it is not customary for a surveyor
to record easements that have arisen after the original platting of the lot. As a result this
Neuse Riparian Buffer is not a part of the survey.
Unfortunately, when the house was permitted to be built in 1999, the Neuse Riparian
Buffer was not being acknowledged or enforced by the town of Cary planning
department. As a result the house itself is sited significantly within the 30'setback zone
from the bank of the creek; the house actually is 10' from the creek. The creek runs
along the edge of the lot for approximately 190 ft. of the 300 ft. long property line along
that side. The creek enters the lot and meanders within the 15 foot buffer setback zone
along the southern boundary of the property.
The homeowner desired to set a hot tub on the rear of the property. Much of the rear of
the property is subject to flooding and is low lying, but no flood plain notes are on the
survey. In consideration of the topography and stream there, the tub was sited to avoid
potential flooding, should it ever be a problem. There is generous space in this rear yard
for the tub, so it is not a tight fit.
The town of Cary determined that the hot tub installation was not one that would require
a general building permit. The only permit required was the electrical permit. The
electrician did not obtain the electrical permit prior to beginning the work, contrary to the
indication that he had the permit in his possession. Hence the problem started.
The hot tub was set 26 feet from the stream. There is sufficient space to have moved the
vessel another 10 or 15 feet easily, but the unit is now installed sub-grade, and is quite
difficult to move. We have also added trees and shrubs in the area to screen the tub. The
final electrical inspection wore on, and it became apparent that the electrician did not
have the necessary permit to finish the job. At that point we learned of the Neuse
Riparian Buffer and the encroachment into the setback zone. This encroachment was
unintentional, and we would have been pleased to have sited the vessel further from the
bank of the creek, and could easily have done so. Now it is not so easy.
The tub itself weighs about 7500 lbs., and requires a heavy crane to move it. The
accessibility route has now been closed off as we worked our way out during installation.
There was existing concrete driveway that was used for accessibility, and once the tub
was set, the concrete has been removed. It would require removal of 400 sq. ft. of
concrete apron that has been poured on the perimeter of the tub, and removal of 150 cu.
yds. of soil and gravel that have been backfilled, and removal of a CMU retaining wall
that was installed to stabilize the gravel and soil backfill. The tub itself is a $45,000 tub,
requiring $25,000 installation costs, and approximately $20,000 in naturalized
landscaping. The cost to move the tub over is very difficult to estimate. The tub itself
may no longer be moveable without damage to the vessel.
The original site had a large amount of the native vegetation removed during the
development and construction phase in 1999. The first phase of landscaping that was
done at conclusion of the house construction during 2000 did include some native
vegetation along the stream bank to hopefully assist in stabilization of the area during
storms and high water flow in the stream. Those river birch and native azalea have
become established and done very well. We have mulched the denuded area and keep it
covered in order to limit erosion. We are in the process of adding ground cover and
native plantings to assist in stabilization of the soils and prevent erosion, increase
infiltration of surface water to reduce runoff as a part of the hot tub installation.
Part 3
Question 1.
Richard N. Wiles and Anne Wiles
Lot # 54 Regency Park Estates
Cary, NC
Lot #54 is the closest lot in the 3.116 acre watershed to the unnamed stream that empties
eventually into the Swift Creek. The current grading of the lot and the adjacent lots that
flow surface water through this property are fed through sheet flow. The area above the
Wiles property is heavily developed, resulting in 52% impervious surface area of the
watershed. There is a significant amount of water that flows through this lot. The
homeowners have attempted to manage the water flow. They have established grass
cover and ground cover to help prevent erosion. All pervious surface areas are
maintained with mulch or wood chips.
The Wiles have agreed to the installation of a Bioretention Area to manage the surface
water that is being introduced into the no name stream. Southern Garden, Inc., North
Carolina Registered Landscape Contractor #1049 will construct the Bioretention Area.
Referencing the Stormwater: Best Management Practices document that has been
prepared by the NCDEHNR dated April 1999, we are proposing a Bioretention area
device to assist and filter the water that does flow through this property. Attached is a
survey of Lot #54 that shows the proposed location of the filtration device.
Figure 8 Parking Edge and Perimeter Without Curb, From Prince George's Co. 1993
from the Stormwater: Best Management Practices has been selected as a model for the
proposed installation. Drawings are attached that detail the proposed rain garden. This
rain garden will be a minimum of 15'width x 40' length. The ponded area will have a
maximum depth of 6". The planting soils will be a minimum of 4'. Planting schedule is
attached, selecting trees, shrubs and groundcovers from the native plant listings
recommended in the Stormwater: Best Management Practices.
Water will enter the rain garden device through a gradual sloping (< 5%) sheet flow.
This sheet flow area is currently densely vegetated with native population of primarily3"-
6" caliper yellow popular and sweet gum tree cover. The opening to the rain garden will
be shaded, and plant materials that are suited to shady locations have been selected for
planting. We will remove no native trees larger than 6" to construct the garden. All
clearing will be greater than 50' from the actual no name stream.
Soils on this site are currently Chewacla Series (Cm). The Wake County soil survey
describes this soil as a sandy loam to silty loam surface layers 4" to 12" thick. Beneath
the surface layer there is a sandy loam, silty loam to clay layer. The total thickness of the
profile is 34" - 72" and the infiltration rate is good with slow surface runoff. Permeability
is .63 - 2.0 inches per hour.

WooDf5:70 S IT6
-,-o nc W-m Tmto aOW

I i
1
i
I

NU)Otn
5'.1 TF
WIrtM
`? ?t 'r' FLOW
c
GQV?JrJOev?EDL„ {
MMA Poi OW
WAR ?in? MtXU?
OEM
i 4
C'1wrilJe. 5o<<. 41 aW. ?
1 5A,%lO F3ED r I
NAME So I"
un?av Naer, .?
i
i
1
...... _rl(11/?Q.'?."?s 0Z :'? f rn vvvr.?..-....--.._ _ _ _ _
i
IS AV
tf MW WAKE MR
IT IS
? r
I ! R4'AAt2S" C 17.LId'
?UU
4
E7
J
1' ?0' STORY pOMW..f. {A9tJwfN

Y
N
?
/ AOr I
/ Tulb u
sr i5 J
5
i
5?) c
5

,

[mfm NqN FYI[
' t. COMII?U)i0 CQ?4i4ik
'_1C- --- ? - ATOM /AY1F SCT
? - AYALLYJYC SL/tMCX.S

' t?llCt1,ON AMtC
'C.-?,
J
It S 1:3'JI'N:' C 31.00'
'
41t?0
I s s csso/ a iJ.74•
HUYfitN1R40, OUtA JAW IFM"Nf MAIM : CNORf) tX51.
C1 60.00 2520'14^ 24.44 _ 17.-TA 1Y Mini- w 24.7)
'JO 0 Sp 100 150
Scalc l Y - 50'
Y+F COY C T, rr1S rlAt WAS OONC W ACCOR WVCF, wM STAhIW* SINPVMw. pNACT,CCS. E.O.C.: 12 10.00.
(.•
'tea
Pt4
" MrattraTion MtwetX
.t. 1N 1MVS %WUWW AWL nr,MA; .... &USLCO R, rrrr. AWJ MOM Rr =M-Ta CRC FF4ff, gpM
Bco+r al Mopt tf181L Val. pogo_g2
L. p??l. Qook 1'q. Cnunfy 1L,u(f'
CCU! t)4. PHASE 1 SUBDIVISION
So'r•C lrUJB Ufown: aWAf9 MUM RAC lkib No.r Dins: 6114199 Srwfa:,, ('_,?
COOPER AND ASSOCIATES Pmperty w:
r.0. AOX 370 ema chow M o4.
u.a:.wn., NC 27850 caY. Mc a7t?1s RICIl?1RD N. WILES ?

ANNE MI CS
(9111)
s67-1 /g0
_ CAGY. %V"r M- JAJIV_ W TUJ PIMIIIJJ
1
a?/ Oe/ sql 9'9 - Z'8
of peonpaa aq Ill^n'uoljen}ls }uaimo •aA/•oe/•sql 6'06 aq}'slseq ajoe-aad a uo •ooeld ul
aa}llj juaul.nu jo uoljoalloo jalemmo}s ou sey (eaje abeuleip) juawdolanap 6u1}s1xa aql
'(%Ot,) JeaA
jad •sql 9'£6 goea] AIlentoe Aew lenowaJ ua6oa}lu letol 'Saalenn eoe}ins 6ulg0eaa wojj
ae@A goea (%SZ) ua6oJ}lu jo •sql 9.9 a}eulwlla Illnn eme uol}uatajolq aql •atewltsajapun
ue AIgegoJd sl slgt 'sasodind 6uluueld col punos g6nogtle `Iegl punoj j}e}s DMa gtlnn
SuoltesJanuoO •}uawnoop aouepln6 Oy} ul paplnoid sain6ll uo paseq '%SZ tnoge jo atej
lenowaa Ni 6uluueld a sey •oul 'uapaeD way}noS Aq pasodoid eaje uol}uatajolq aql
•}jodxa ua6oj}lu letol a?(/ 0e/ sql 6'06 of unnop geaiq s141 -Apadoid
}a6je} aqj o} aeaA aad ue6oJllu jo •sql t7066'££ sa}nglatuoo (•oe 96 6'£) eaje a6eulejp 0141
t,066'££ --- 91, 6'£ :71dlol
t?8L?'Z£ Z' 6Z US' 6 ooejjnS
snolnuadwl
Z£Z 6' 6 Z* l, 9£6'0 aoedS uado
pa6euen
888£'0 9'0 8t79'0 aoedS uado
paganlslpun
}jodxa Nl tu0lolttaoo }jodxa Ni (0e) easy JOnoo pue-
•pannolloj seen (unnogS we sooejjnS snouuadwl Ile to stuljdtooj uagnn
stuawdolanaa leloaawwoo/lela}snpul/lel}uaplsoH waj }jodx3 NI 6u1A}ltueno) Z poq}aIN
•tuawnoop aouepln6 aqj ul adAt .Janoo puel goea Jot paplnoid Oae s#uapilooo }jodxa
ua6oJllu letol •saoejjns snolniadwl pue `coeds uado pa6euew patoatoid AItuauewJad
:coeds uado pagantslpun patoato.id Alluouewiad :6ulpnloul 'tuawnoop aouepln6
eqj uo paseq 'ease 06euleip aqj uly}lnn pajeoullop alarm saljo601e3 .lanoo puei aaagl
•eaje ooe}ins snolnaadwl sjol sly} 0}elnoleo o} patewltsa Senn AeMOnlap ay} pue
'(aouatxa) pataldwoo seen aint0nits lequapisai tuaoefpe aqj •awlt aqt le uoltonatsuoo
japun seen `Aliedoid ta6aet aqj to q}jou aqj of tuaoefpe 'Aliadoid auo •podolanOp aJOM
ease a6euleJp aqt ul SIMI aagto Ile `JanannoH •gdei6otogd aqt to awl} aqt le panoidwl
uaaq tou peq Apadoid }a6ae} 0141 •sodAj JOnoO puel 6uguasaidaj suo5Alod aallews
o}ul tno pue Agdei6otogd lelaae 6661, uo plelJano uay} Senn Coca a6euleap aql 'saJoe
96 6'£ seen (ease a6eulejp) uobAlod 6ultlnsaa oql •eeie ulseg a6eulejp a}ls-tlo s,A:pado.id
1a6je} aq) ateaullop o} pasn seen (lenuatul anotuoo tooj-Z) e}ep olgdea6odo} AtunoD a? eM
•(}uawnoop
aouepln6) la;uo:D ua6atlN COI weJ6oad JatennwJotS lapoW ulse8 Manly asnON
ay} woaj aouepln6 pue 'SID Ajunoo a?leM waj pauletgo etep olgdej6oa6 'ajenntlos
SID MalnOJy 6ulsn patelnoleo seen Apadoid salAM aqt jo }jodxa ua6oatlu leto} aqi
S uoltsonp
£ IJed
w
0
0
O
w
C)
O
CY)
C)
C)
(D
(D
z>
ca 00 m
'Or
r o C ° a
4a1 Lm
N E
c O CD
lfl a O_
v?N a
rnI C D A N co co Ch M 3
0 m `c
a1 Cl) 3
O X 2 Qp
d D
n m N
O
°D to
3 ?'.
~
r-j
,6zm
hi OP

E3 OI n. O , f7 r) co
o_ - O.. o- p- I
CD 'O CQ co 63 C" iA w
Q.. (D , Q w t7
.. Q C y n C 0 Q fl1
co to cl l<
0
N r?r O Ul
rn v°°= 03
cn m ? 0
(n co
0 0
0
co ?
3 3

-0
W M.
M 0
o
O
c tD
'?. CO
W O
O =
C
• ? fN/1
COL'
0
4FS ?
i y
i
CD
0
w `<
CD
cn
Q
--n -S
(D O
1 -0
1 ?
C?
O O
CD
n r-r
m iD
nD
na (CD
-4 M
C71
C:)
0
m
M
o
m o
1 -0
D co
D �
<
CD o
m
(D
Z o
C) D
r� m
Cil

Explanation of Photogrametric Calculations
of Land Cover Types in the Target
Property's Drainage Basin.
Wyles Property Bioretention Area
113 Redfern Drive - Cary NC, 27511
Wake County GIS topographic data were
used to identify the drainage area of the
target property. Using ArcView GIS, the
total area was calculated to be 3.116 acres.
Again using ArCView software to calculate
areas of each land cover type:
Protected open space --------- 0.648 acre
Protected managed open space ----- 0.936 acre
Impervious surface area -------- 1.532 acres
Nitrogen load calculations based on Neuse
River Basin 8tormwater Program for Nitrogen
Control and TN export coefficients provided.
0.648 ac * (0.6 lbs/ac/yr) = 0.3888 lbslyr
0.936 ac * (1.2 lbs(ac/yr) = 1.1232 lbslyr
1.532 ac * (21.2 Ibs/ac/yr) = 32.4784 Ibs/yr
3.116 acres contribute 33.9904 Ibs/yr
= 10.908 Ibs N/ac/yr
The drainage area polygon was then laid
over 1999 aerial photography and cut into
pieces based on land cover.
Impervious Surface
Permanently Protected Open Space
arty removed to
site nitrogen
Map prepared by
Robert J. Goldstein & Associates, Inc.
8480 Garvey Drive - Raleigh, NC 27616
[phone]: lax(919)872-9214
URL: vwwv.rjgaCarolina.com
?n
tv r-
cN
Q U
C Z
O
C
o U
o ?
M >
D
a L
O (D
L- 4-
CL -0
O
to
O
3i m
c
E o
Q U)
(.? cu
? D a
a
X m
V a E
4-
.I_, o Q
V C
4} Q va
.O o a
a 0
,o<?,,,,, ?? nnnfT
F
78.4715" . nins Mao 1352
G H
78°46'30" 2,070,000 FT
Id RAY ? OQ' n WI A NOE Q?
??,,??
KE PINt - TGIF CT C 1417 C? fENOC
A OU CT p,Q.

Y LA EVEN app 0 1.? tr
qq
"
'PN'r 9
?OA YY9`h ?c JUIF.
LA WAY 9 y
P jEPN
? E BD Nf LN
CT
? a 9?y Z CIf LIN

r ?' 92 RO $
0 2 i
G
CHI 0 P
P
? 001 _ ,?OS'\ -

``-: `' v\ J I' {.I la
b
E Lit
RONSARD l 9 9lF OHOEE z p
?
, '. CT
Ilingl

VEN5ALELES
CORSICA 3

OUyC VS
GOVAN M

gK CT c rega o `?

UDWa$ \\N pY
L
•.. r .,?

?L(tI3L D0
C
64 THE
DER(
S
ARP
k

R
DR W <
r

Ol2
CT CC

-`
i IY S

\A?
IARKW00
0
39?
\ ,
c FEE
,
2T4 OWPM1A BGO
H !'CE'O

1$
Dow L?

.HINVAR \PO

9 Np w
'1-?N
$ ?\G
O EWeEF
'9. 0
P H !q

LARKW000
H ?.1

V j
Iyl(?j REt0R ,OVAN' Q ?
f l CT ? l (4y
X
1 4(!
pN 0.^

09 ? O Gr

1P?a
}yF9ClF op _
N

O?,y?9??KEESO ONp? P

o PNSE

OE
0 I ?1) I' Eb Q 00 °

9 0 0 °°
p? P c,

Q 2
°
ti

'
S c
,Y
R
OUFfNSF
__?? c
!Q oT
,
,?
O
Sta
O P
,?4 0 CA
SR
? 9 'z+ 3
z
ti
,°
onto ERRY
R
O ? ?
Q
p'
@e O?
!v?
y
l ?
Western Wake
E r
SAS
0
,Ham
c?5
u sp GRECN O
a ylN??" RWI
p?'P°O1 yA WI E R C
??DK ?'
R C
T 'v?
RD EDINBURG ,?
64 ..°?
P`Ih,?C l
` pS
?E
P
`(Q
(
` r
y CO
1111 S
OLO PPCEI
° r
\ ? '
ShD
p G
q. KH
P
9 5 luresc .l
n?. r`..`
r `, ", UMMERVIEW
LA
O9

M REGOR % .

rQ MScGiegoi
Village Comm

cA Shop
\ \ c ns

tr
?
U

LOCH POMTE
°R F

9

'r
Shop Ctr

xlt-98 l ar.ec

rmr
SO
N o ' $ r
0
I + = O?,,C C. it y
? I
o

STRIAL
IND

N
P ee y
r,
F
Gl y

TH? CRIES s
w ? o
ENT
c OCN
yq
Cµ
Fo ?f
N
° r
q(F )
MACAIYSO
C1 y
1 .-
'^\ -
'` °'Vl. \LC7.

% 1 °
?V_{ 1 BUS P

vv? o
+
is- w

° o

VIM1' ROCK 3 s?

9 r??

Y+r
°
cRFCS PARK p pQ. R°GE CY

?. *
1
fOPEST 1 ,a-
} nr - yZ x
p ° W
$
L P
?'
E?Fp ono
GAO 5
.i
W N
? I.,
(,# - a .cc: !jam i Pe Y'/`I i
O

>q

V

bYIL I MSEtU

I -. 3 2

O AKUORto y
GsC,, SD G o

EA 5 EL?DW0CH E 8o o

R

Q?

-

C M M D CF
?' 4NNGHI R q
J P
9
0
i' FOCHMERE
TLEW00
ALA LA a
oD
'`?

t',
J

GVP BY -P
-

REGEN

Y ? s
4
QEO.iH
r
?C?• N
N
(f¢\ Rltter >

7
,n", a IRA41i ,F-
C 5 p Wo
o
P F s
GINGERWOOD W
W LA ,

NELEAF °y
- /'?.
/ a}7n1F7?f Olly 4 4,? E
LD('.K Fq ark 1? 1 C
ART R vci E ( 0 S? °KE PE C
° 9
9r
Lake B UFFS ?. PATH
1 PEORL LO HlA Oy os?.p Zy F4j9 yR,n R
1 - PLR! o O? .
Slr, • EEN
Z LOMOh L T'O - f/
t PARK ;r- eI L?s(, ft, PP RELAS ON
,

.
t g
! n IJGL n

E
CT ?
TcLI D NATURE cy
FF
?tM?c1
YUIi''TCORO CT eP ?\< 1p`o
tOP\E
r s
pp PRESERVE Pa v
wO
LOCH 44. P?pS
?Op ?t
p
PI' w HFOhap pV
C PO ?
?
T ?
20 y?
0 O
N (SR 1300) ?O
oQ PS p
p oQSE
0 0 ME
v
r TRIG
' KFIFKFNi ,.
Ky, FAlr
PV'ON?
N
Q SE
pH
D
' p? INOVALF !0
?T 9F.
0
0f, GREY
NIG E N
$
DS ,
C {
??
C? O
N? !iJ
„
o F
Cy
, RUF6A11
eC
P `
? ,?\60 c,t
??p KE K/ Fyg
9
CIG
P?
f'l OPe?I
7o t'i
CQpC'
? p
'
00T
?"
GT ?
` O OP n
O
E
p S1EE
O WOODS 0.EA
DR
4 - gsTON
HLANDS E4 F °1 ?i GO
.
S ELTOR ?y 4
.. _o lION? a
s,Yy,c'
"
w (
?

x'`9
~ ?

ie7AGiJ? A T
D S ROSE v
o
. cmlotk ,P

'(c
W CT lOM
b"r S
4 0'?
C a 9o S

o
a .

'" m W
ZE

9r .
Cl
WN
L 1 9 4
V
,
!y 9
SS %70 0
MAGN Plaza ?,
,.
°.,
< ixE0W00D (Eq
B
O `N lp0 6ARG F
? yON
?. OOm J
.p
0 T1p'9 'FO,y enny
TREE
Road ,
o°
T
7
° ,.?
i
6ER
CT O
P
QQ
o ( L4VA? 9,
a
+

O
T rFyc? ??
'o F°Yy`p? s LA
~
S nn
y cr
R d ES __ _ 3
9
)
s
`
l5?~
pa .
?
0
ea
ERF p
e o dip
i 9 °oo s
G
°s
WOOD SOR!
P"?CN00
,•CIU\N
NO v
GFE `?
`S4i
9 Pk +
KOAD
?'? ,
s
'?O 2vs V
C s FfCi
e i W VIEW D
o
RD
KRIDGE

1
'
`r
Cr
?
•-'
RIDGFOR
DH W
GFORD2C?. Qo $V
o
URE

OakGov _

NY
:.
N
'S' °
EN WI J
0 KS y
y
09 a
Fsr
0`
o O ES b~ d_.
LOCHH GHLANOS"'•.
?
l3> 1 Q sF Q
P
T " I;SIE• `9 -_
I
Knights-
E
P O o
FNEU`'OP
!C 0
S~OQ O N
O O Cl F
bK ?
AMSTERDAM
yOE?
N ---.
?
Play
GC NOS ,
?C 9jfy 5 P
V
FE NV! D o?Q y?FyOAKS LAV
DR
vDS I mW
° THE HACUE
? ?
Y ?? °y ° ¢
RN p
f t NR D DUM "11AN D `' VS
oP
SCE 48pp y
ES UMMERCR T INNSa o?
\ oo
``'
O O QQi
pE V .I ?P BEEGNH` OR
3
1 0 h
3
(Of 2
W K J
MENDI
v3
'? $ " °Q ?' FEFSQ po RO
? C NAV =o ?lr?,L CT
? E F
y
y
o ,? u0
GN _ F
? ?, r
h
? x '' „' o
a°
RIPPIN S pNE
ANTES z
RO o ti
TIER
MYRTLE 'JOOD WAY
(R 10 A
T
ry
Q
PEACH Rco A, 10 ROAD ° s $ ?
w
p
Q 400
TULIP
=

y CATBIRD Q pP CIR
r
O?
SMC1? LA n O
m RD
m
\SPT

TREY TR

YLAND

C? ? s
UTCH
e? rF er R s GCNZCSV
e
?'?' ES
MILY Ciq ¢° _ T JES
A
R UR - \ r
u i J" (SR o?
10

?
..
" LES JNakpp C
4i
®
i o to 2
Cr wf
SATORI
WAY
l\ p
HAD
WA FI MORFz 9
0 `
0^
COISW Id ew
r
Ea
* t' RBRESpp Oy
o a?° \? °r
?tE

UR AAN.... ° -
F.
•.- L ? ti L.'? l
1 ',I ' I ! rl i J Jt? F' } ' v*` /..
I - `? } J 1+? r 111 ,!!r? r`.q ?`'
t'? i? r? ?• t ?'111?/ ff?? t,rs r?
i •-. J ' fj ( ?? t -t ? ! ? •? ? ..,1 1-J ? ? "'?? f f1 ? M ? 1 f ,r ? i ??? s'.. i???
r`r ( r •y ? _ - s Ste '? I .. - ?r ? _ + r r : J,
t? /r 'f Yf (
lee
All-
QI `, .f UIVj9G Urz/.? ?CT1U,y!__
Gyt?/t
Y
f
j 4t
v !!
t
f } 1
. fr 1 r I, Lf " f `\, '.. -„?1?'.P4t_,_..r •. f ! .i ?f tJ i - / `\'.
"y `5? ,4 yF' r, -'';` 1`i,? t \? ---- - ??`j r ±/?-r ?? f1%??` ? /i -•-?--,,.,,;(- ,,,t'?•. i ` rs?-
;!? o• f6 Dtr,. ,--- -- 1
;IES: ?i i i ? t (::'J. 1?•__- f. ?J; 1 f J 4, r- .?` t- ,f?'r -,-- r'P r'r«
IN,
? + '-,.? ? y? ? t ELY l
j + ? '? ? I ••` ,\ -' ?.+ ? '/?•._ 3 ?J?r { ?.? ? .11" ? I It ? it / `, rl' ?,?.- ?? i f •,.---
? J + ? i ?? r ? iI ?f f ` ?:• ,, -?; ??????1ti .,' PF -`.; ., +l ?? ?l/fi / f`` Vii- .
r I ? r, '•a ? 1?,?? ,? ? ?? -7 • ,ti, j ,? 1r ? ?re t ,
It Ie'Iri
' ,1 f r' tit ,sf,? i!f t \`,?-'?/ ?.? .-? ?'?, '""`.°,`?.?•? ? 1! lit
+•rf i ?r? ,,,1f fj fr' t jr^ ?'? i ?' ?' ?? \,`• "•\y ? ??. ' ? ? .?_ ? J? j?ti ?? ;? 1
Copyright (C) 1997, Maptech, Inc.
N
U
6

N N
? U
?o
(99 laags suior) o
U Q
Y. l?/iV VIVI Il l;l V.i li L?7'..l lv n1lal ll_!,i .?;y `J,?i'?
CD
Q
m
U
E
U
W N
i G
Wetlands Tracking
Facility Name Regency Park Project
Project Number 98 1194
401s
? Express L
Project Type purpose of subdivision I County Wake
Location Crabtree Creek, Cary
Received From DWQ
Received Date December 1, 1998
Sent to Region Date I
Rcvd Region Date
Last Action Date
Last Action issue N13R
Latitude (ddmmss) 354330
Longitude (ddmmss) 784758
Public Notice Written
Date
County2

COE ID # Region Raleigh
COE Susp Date Reg. Contact
DCM Susp Date APPLICATION FEE INFO
TIP Number Payment Date
More Info Requested I Amount Paid '
More Info Received I Payor
Mitigation ? n Check #
COC Received Date
Public Notice I Comment Period
ReceivedDate Ends Date
Certificates Stream
Class
Permit Wetland Wetland Stream Wetland
Type Cert # Type Impact Score Index Prim. Supp. F Subbasin Class
NBR O Y @N _J 27.33.3.5 NSW 0304
11 f IJOY ON 11 11 1 1
WRP
pMitigation Project Wetland Wetland ` Area Length
I MitigationType Number Type Class ' (acres) (feet)
Area Area Length 1 Length
(acres)
Re ' (acres) ` (feet) (feet)
Req. Appr. Req. Appr.
Total for 401:
Mitigation Stream Impacts (ft.)
Completion Subbasin Peren- Inter_
Date nial " mittent

Total Mitigation:
Neuse River Basin:
Model 5 torm wa ter Proa ram
c;F
for Ni troaen Control
cmwjr
August 30, 1999
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 4
1-A. Purpose of the Neuse Stormwater Rule ................................................................
1-B. Requirements of the Neuse Stormwater Rule ..... ......... ......... ......... ............5
2. New Development ........................................................................................ .................. 7
2-A. Requirements in the Rule------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------7
2-13. Protecting Riparian Areas on New Development ____________________________ __________________7
2-C. Calculating N Export from New Development________________________________ __________________ 8
2-D. Calculating Peak Runoff Volume ...................................................... ................. 13
2-E. BMPs for Reducing Nitrogen
------------------------------------------------------------ 14
-----------------
2-F. BMP Maintenance 15
2-G. Land Use Planning Provisions ........................................................... ................. 16
2-H. Jurisdiction-Wide and Inter-Local Approaches ................................ ................. 17
2-I. References 17
3. Illegal Discharges----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------19
3-A. Requirements in the Rule------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------19
3-13. What is an Illegal Discharge?
------------------------------------------------------------ 19
-----------------
3-C. Establishing Legal Authority------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------20
3-D. Collecting Jurisdiction-Wide Information ........................................ ................. 20
3-E. Mapping and Field Screening in High Priority Areas____ _________ _____ ____ __________22
3-F. Identifying and Removing Illegal Discharges .................................. ................25
3-G. Preventing Discharges and Establishing a Hotline ...........................
26
.................
3-H. Implementation Schedule and Reporting Requirements ------------------ ----------------- 27
3-1. References 27
4. Retrofit Locations 28
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-A. Requirements in the Rule------------------- ---------------------------------------------•----------------- 28
4-13. Approach for Meeting Requirements ................................................................ 28
4-C. Data Collection and Notification 29
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
4-D. Mapping Requirements ...................................................................................... 30
5. Public Education 32
----------------- ---------------------------------- ----
5-A. Requirements in the Rule-- ------------ • ------------------------------------------------------------------- 32
5-13. Public Education Action Plan 32
5-C. Flexibility of Imp] ementati on/Al tern ative Programs 33
5-D. Recommended Alternative Approaches ............................................................. 33
6. Reporting Requirements------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------34
6-A. New Development Review/Approval________________________________ _______________________________34
6-13. Illegal Discharges 34
___________________________ --
6-C. Retrofit Locations 35
6-D. Public Education 35
2
Appendices
Appendix A Plan Submittal Checklist
Appendix B 15A NCAC 2B .0235 Neuse River Basin - Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Management Strategy: Basinwide Stormwater Requirements
Appendix C The Nitrogen Cycle
Appendix D Sources of Nitrogen in Developed Areas
Appendix E Process of Developing the Model Stormwater Program
Appendix F Development of Nitrogen Export Methodologies
Appendix G Land Use Planning and Design Techniques
Appendix H Summary of BMP Literature Studies
Appendix I Example of a Stormwater Maintenance Program
Appendix J Examples of Ordinances to Establish Legal Authority For Illegal
Discharge Programs
Appendix K Example Screening Report Forms
Appendix L Letter to Prevent Illegal Discharges
Appendix M Sample Public Education Action Plan
Appendix N Sample Technical Workshop Agenda
Appendix O Alternative Approach to Public Education
3
1. Introduction
1-A. Purpose of the Neuse Stormwa ter Rule
Water quality has been an issue in the Neuse River Basin for over a century. In 1887,
legislation was passed to "prevent the throwing of dead stock into the waters of tile Neuse
River and its tributaries." Some of the water quality initiatives that have been undertaken
in the Neuse River basin between 1950 and 1995 include:
• The State Stream Sanitation Act of 1951 required a statewide survey of all surface
waters.
• Since the 1960s, better regulations and technology for wastewater treatment and the
development of stream classifications with accompanying water quality standards
have been implemented.
• In 1983, the Falls Lake watershed Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) Strategy required
more stringent controls for wastewater treatment facilities.
• In 1988, the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) classified the
remainder of the Neuse River Basin as NSW, which brought about more stringent
nutrient limits for wastewater facilities. Some of the nutrient loading from nonpoint
sources (NPS) was controlled through the Agricultural Cost Share Program. In
addition, the NC General Assembly adopted a statewide phosphate detergent ban on
January 1, 1988.
• In 1993, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) completed the first Basinwide
Management Plan for the Neuse River Basin. The plan recommended an accelerated
schedule for reducing nitrogen runoff from nonpoint sources. Since 1993, DWQ has
continued to monitor and evaluate conditions in the Neuse River.
Despite these initiatives, the Neuse River basin has continued to have water quality
problems. During July, September, and October 1995, extensive fish kills occurred in the
Neuse River, primarily from New Bern to Minnesott Beach. Millions of menhaden, as
well as numerous flounder, croaker and rock fish, were killed. Unusual meteorological
conditions in 1995 were partly responsible for the fish kills. During June, record rainfalls
delivered a tremendous load of nonpoint source nutrients into the Neuse River.
Environmental conditions in the Neuse River are driven by complex interactions between
rainfall, flows, temperatures, biological factors, and chemistry. Each year will bring its
own variations. However, the long history of problems with nutrient pollution and algal
blooms provides evidence that immediate control measures are necessary.
On February 8, 1996, the EMC approved a draft comprehensive Neuse River NSW
strategy. The goal of the strategy was and still is to achieve a 30 percent nitrogen
reduction from each controllable and quantifiable source of nitrogen in the basin. These
sources are: Wastewater Treatment, Urban Stormwater, Agriculture and Nutrient
Application. The NSW Strategy also includes a rule to protect Riparian Buffers in order
to maintain their existing nitrogen removal capabilities.
The NSW Strategy was noticed for public comment several times between its initial
development in February 1996 and its final adoption in August 1998. These comment
periods included six public workshops in May 1996, four public hearings in November
1996 and two public hearings in October 1997. As a result of the public hearings, each
rule, including the Stormwater Rule, was modified to increase flexibility for the regulated
community and to improve the mechanisms to insure that the 30% nitrogen reduction
goal is met. The full text of the Neuse Stormwater Rule is included in Appendix B.
1-13. Requirements of the Neuse Stormwa ter Rule
The Neuse stormwater rule applies only to the largest and fastest-growing local
governments in the Neuse River basin (shown below). The EMC may also designate
additional local governments within the Neuse River basin to comply with the stormwater
rule in the future. The rule establishes a broad set of objectives for reducing nitrogen
runoff from urban areas. The rule also sets up a process for DWQ to work with the
affected local governments to develop a model Stormwater program for meeting the
objectives.
Tile affectec
Cary
Durham
Garner
Goldsboro
Havelock
Kinston
New Bern
Raleigh
Smithfield
Wilson
l local governments are:
Durham County
Johnston County
Orange County '
Wake County *
Wayne County
* Applicable areas are those under the direct jurisdiction of
the respective county.
Tile timeframes for implementation of the rule are as follows:
August 1, 1998: Effective date of the rule.
August 1, 1999: Deadline for approval of the Model Stormwater Program by the
Environmental Management Commission.
August 1, 2000: Deadline for submittal of local Stormwater Program (including
ordinances) to the Environmental Management Commission.
February 1, 2001: Deadline for local governments to begin implementing local
Stormwater Programs.
Following implementation in February 2001, local governments are required to make
annual progress reports to the EMC that will include nitrogen loading reduction
estimates.
The general elements that must be included in the local government stormwater
management program are:
1. New Development Review/Approval
New development would have to meet the 30% reduction goal by implementing planning
considerations and best management practices, such as constructed wetlands. The rule
imposes a 3.6 pounds per acre per year (lb/ac/yr) nitrogen loading limit on new
development. Nitrogen load from new developments that exceeds this performance
standard may be offset by payment of a fee to the Wetlands Restoration Fund provided,
however, that no new residential development can exceed 6.0 lb/ac/yr and no new non-
residential development can exceed 10.0 lb/ac/yr.
2. Illegal Discharges
Illegal discharges are substances deposited in storm sewers (which lead directly to
streams) that really should be handled as wastewater discharges. Depending on the
source, illegal discharges may contain nitrogen. Local governments must identify and
remove illegal discharges.
3. Retrofit Locations
There are a number of funding sources available for water quality retrofit projects, such as
the Clean Water Management Trust Fund and the Wetland Restoration Program that the
NC General Assembly has recently established. To assist technical experts, local
governments are required to identify sites and opportunities for retrofitting existing
development to reduce total nitrogen loads.
4. Public Education
Citizens can reduce the nitrogen pollution coming from their lawns and septic systems if
they understand the impacts of their actions and respond with appropriate management
measures. The local governments will develop and implement public education programs
for the Neuse basin.
2. New Development Review/Approval
2-A. Requirements in the Rule
The Neuse Stormwater Rule (15A NCAC 2B .0235) has the following requirements for
new development located within the planning and zoning jurisdictions of the 15 local
governments subject to these rules:
The nutrient load contributed by new development activities is held at 3.6 pounds per
acre per year. This is equivalent to 70 percent of the estimated average nitrogen load
contributed by the non-urban areas in the Neuse River basin (as defined using 1995
LANDSAT data). The Environmental Management Commission may periodically
update the performance standard based on the availability of new scientific
information.
• Property owners shall have the option of partially offsetting projected nitrogen loads
by funding wetland or riparian area restoration through the North Carolina Wetland
Restoration Program. However, the total nitrogen loading rate cannot exceed 6.0
pounds per acre per year for residential development or 10 pounds per acre per year
for non-residential development.
• There is no net increase in peak flow leaving the site from the predevelopment
conditions for the 1-year, 24-hour storm.
• Local governments must review new development plans to assure compliance with
requirements for protecting and maintaining riparian areas as specified in 15A NCAC
2B .0233.
2-B. Protecting Riparian Areas on New Development
The Neuse Stormwater Rule requires local governments to ensure that riparian areas are
protected on new developments in accordance with the Riparian Buffer Rule (15A NCAC
2B .0233). The Riparian Buffer Rule requires that 50-foot riparian buffers be maintained
on all sides of intermittent and perennial streams, ponds, lakes and estuaries in the Neuse
River basin. The rule includes some uses that are allowable within the riparian buffer,
such as road and utility crossings.
Each jurisdiction has the following two choices for ensuring that riparian buffers are
protected on new developments:
1. Receive a delegated program and implement all applicable provisions of the Riparian
Buffer Rule within its jurisdiction, or
2. Disapprove any new development activity that is proposed to take place within the
first 50 feet adjacent to a waterbody that is shown on either the USGS topographic
map or the NRCS Soil Survey maps unless the owner can show that the activity has
been approved by DWQ. DWQ approval may consist of the following:
• An Authorization Certificate that documents that DWQ has approved an
allowable use such as a road crossing or utility line. A detailed list of
allowable uses is included in the Riparian Buffer Rule.
• An opinion from DWQ that vested rights have been established for the
proposed development activity.
A letter from DWQ documenting that a variance has been approved for the
proposed development activity.
2-C. Calculating N Export from New Development
For the purposes of the Neuse Stormwater Program, new development shall be defined as
to include the following:
• Any activity that disturbs greater than one acre of land in order to establish, expand or
modify a single family or duplex residential development or a recreational facility.
• Any activity that disturbs greater than one-half an acre of land in order to establish,
expand or modify a multifamily residential development or a commercial, industrial
or institutional facility.
New development shall NOT include agriculture, mining or forestry activities. Land
disturbance is defined as grubbing, stump removal and/or grading.
Property owners that can demonstrate that they have vested rights as of the effective date
of the Local Stormwater Program for Nitrogen Control (expected February 2001) will not
be subject to the requirements for new development. Vested rights may be based on at
least one of the following criteria:
(a) substantial expenditures of resources (time, labor, money) based on a good faith
reliance upon having received a valid local government approval to proceed with the
project, or
(b) having an outstanding valid building permit in compliance with G.S. 153A-344.1 or
G.S. 160A-385.1, or
(c) having an approved site specific or phased development plan in compliance with G.S.
153A-344.1 or G.S. 160A-385.1.
Projects that require a state permit, such as landfills, NPDES wastewater discharges, land
application of residuals and road construction activities shall be considered to have vested
rights if a state permit was issued prior to the effective date of the Local Stormwater
Program for Nitrogen Control.
The nitrogen export from each new development must be calculated. This export will be
calculated in pounds per acre per year (lbs/ac/yr). Model methodologies that may be used
to make this calculation are presented below; however, local governments may propose
alternative approaches where it can be demonstrated to be equivalent. There are two
different methodologies proposed for calculating nitrogen export from new
developments. These are as follows:
• Method 1 is intended for residential developments where lots are shown but the actual
footprint of buildings are not shown on site plans. This method does not require
calculation of the area of building footprints. Rather, the impervious surface resulting
from building footprints is estimated based on typical impervious areas associated
with a given lot size. This method is shown in Figure 2a.
Method 2 is for residential, commercial and industrial developments when the entire
footprint of the roads, parking lots, buildings and any other built-upon area is shown
on the site plans. This method is simpler and more accurate since it does not require
estimating the impervious surface based on lot size like Method 1 does. Method 2 is
shown in Figure 2b.
The development of these methods is described in Appendix F. During the one-year
process of developing local stormwater programs, the jurisdictions may revisit the
development of Methods 1 and 2 and adapt the process to be more applicable to their
jurisdictions. Any changes to Methods 1 and 2 should be adequately explained and
supported with appropriate technical information.
One situation that is not addressed in either of these methods is a non-residential
subdivision where the impervious surfaces are not shown on the plans at the time of
submittal. In this case, the local government could require that the property owner
specify the areas of impervious surface, undisturbed open space and managed open space
on the property in a restrictive covenant or other legal, enforceable mechanism. Then,
Method 2 could be applied. An alternative is for the local government to determine a
worst-case scenario for the areas of impervious surface and managed open space for the
type of development specified and then apply Method 2.
Figure 2a: Method 1 for Quantifying TN Export from Residential Developments when
Building and Driveway Footprints are Not Shown
Step 1: Determine area for each type of land use and enter in Column (2).
Step 2: Total the areas for each type of land use and enter at the bottom of Column (2).
Step 3: Determine the TN export coefficient associated with right-of-way using Graph 1.
Step 4: Determine the TN export coefficient associated with lots using Graph 2.
Step 5: Multiply the areas in Column (2) by the TN export coefficients in Column (3) and enter
in Column (4).
Step 6: Total the TN exports for each type of land use and enter at the bottom of Column (4).
Step 7: Determine the export coefficient for site by dividing the total TN export from uses at the
bottom of Column (4) by the total area at the bottom of Column (2).
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Type of Land Cover Area TN export coeff. TN export from use
(acres) (lbs/ac/yr) (lbs/yr)
Permanently protected undisturbed 0.6
open space (forest, unmown meadow)
Permanently protected managed 1.2
open space (grass, landscaping, etc.)
Right-of-way (read TN export from
Graph 1)
Lots (read TN export from Graph 2)
TOTAL
Graph 1: Total Nitrogen Export from Right-of-Way
25.0
20.0
m
15.0
c_
r
°a. 10.0
X
w
z
t- 5.0
0.0 i i I i I
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 10000 120%
Percentage of Right-of-Way that is Pavement
10

Graph 2: Total Nitrogen Export from Lots
Total Nitrogen Export from Lots
12.00
10.00
8.00
200
0.001 I F I i 1 F + E 1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
Number of Dwelling Units per Acre
T
t?
VI
d
6.00
0
O
M
X
W
Z
~ 4.00
11
Figure 2b: Method 2 for Quantifying TN Export from Residential / Industrial / Commercial
Developments when Footprints of all Impervious Surfaces are Shown
Step 1: Determine area for each type of land use and enter in Column (2).
Step 2: Total the areas for each type of land use and enter at the bottom of Column (2).
Step 3: Multiply the areas in Column (2) by the TN export coefficients in Column (3) and enter
in Column (4).
Step 4: Total the TN exports for each type of land use and enter at the bottom of Column (4).
Step 5: Determine the export coefficient for site by dividing the total TN export from uses at the
bottom of Column (4) by the total area at the bottom of Column (2).
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Type of Land Cover Area TN export coeff. TN export from use
(acres) (Ibs/ac/yr) (Ibs/yr)
Permanently protected undisturbed 0.6
open space (forest, unmown meadow)
Permanently protected managed 1.2
open space (grass, landscaping, etc.)
Impervious surfaces (roads, parking 21.2
lots, driveways, roofs, paved storage
areas, etc.)
ITOTAL
---
Tile rule requires that all new developments achieve a nitrogen export of less than or
equal to 3.6 pounds per acre per year. If the development contributes greater than 3.6
lbs/ac/yr of nitrogen, then the options shown in Table 2a are available based on whether
the development is residential or non-residential.
Table 2a: Nitrogen Export Reduction Options
Residential Commercial / Industrial
If the computed export is less than 6.0 If the computed export is less than 10.0
Ibs/ac/yr, then the owner may either: Ibs/ac/yr, then the owner may either:
1. Install BMPs to remove enough nitrogen 1. Install BMPs to remove enough nitrogen to
to bring the development down to 3.6 bring the development down to 3.6
Ibs/ac/yr. Ibs/ac/yr.
2. Pay a one-time offset payment of $330/lb 2. Pay a one-time offset payment of $330/lb to
to bring the nitrogen down to the 3.6 bring the nitrogen down to the 3.6 Ibs/ac/yr.
Ibs/ac/yr. 3. Do a combination of BMPs and offset
3. Do a combination of BMPs and offset payment to achieve a 3.6 Ibs/ac/yr export.
payment to achieve a 3.6 Ibs/ac/ r export.
If the computed export is greater than 6.0 If the computed export is greater than 10.0
Ibs/ac/yr, then the owner must use on-site Ibs/ac/yr, then the owner must use on-site
BMPs to bring the development's export down BMPs to bring the development's export down
to 6.0 Ibs/ac/yr. Then, the owner may use one to 10.0 Ibs/ac/yr. Then, the owner may use one
of the three options above to achieve the of the three options above to achieve the
reduction between 6.0 and 3.6 Ibs/ac/ r. reduction between 10.0 and 3.6 Ibs/ac/ r.
12
The table above discusses the option of using offset fees to meet the nitrogen export
levels set for new development activities. These offset fees go to the Wetlands
Restoration Program (WRP). The WRP will utilize these fees in accordance with the
WRPs Basinwide Wetlands and Riparian Restoration plans. It is the policy of the WRP
to utilize the funds where they are generated to the maximum extent possible as long as
they can obtain the cooperation of the local government.
2-D. Calculating Peak Runoff Volume
The Neuse Stormwater Rule requires there be no net increase in peak flow leaving the site
from the predevelopment conditions for the 1-year, 24-hour storm. Each jurisdiction
affected by the rule may specify the methodology(ies) that shall used when determining
peak flows from new development activities.
Acceptable methodologies for computing the pre- and post-development conditions for
the 1-year, 24-hour storm include:
• The Rational Method.
• The Peak Discharge Method as described in USDA Soil Conservation Service's
Technical Release Number 55 (TR-55).
• The Putnam Method.
• Other methods proposed by local governments and approved by the Environmental
Management Commission.
The same method must be used for both the pre- and post-development conditions.
Division of Water Quality staff have computed rainfall depths for the 1-year, 24-hour
storm for use with hydrologic computation methods. This information is provided in
Table 2b below. In addition, the Division will continue to work with local governments
in the basin to develop rainfall intensity information and other technical information that
may be necessary to assist in the implementation of this requirement.
Table 2b: Rainfall depths for the 1-year, 24-hour storm
Location 1yr - 24 hr depth
(inches) 1yr 24 hr
intensity*
i n/h r
Raleigh 3.00 To Be Developed
Wilmington 3.70 To Be Developed
Washington 3.40 To Be Developed
* This information is currently under development
13
The flow control requirement is not required for developments that meet one or all of the
following requirements:
The increase in peak flow between pre- and post-development conditions does not
exceed ten percent (note that this exemption makes it easier to conduct redevelopment
activities).
• The proposed new development meets all of the following criteria: overall
impervious surface is less than fifteen percent, and the remaining pervious portions of
the site are utilized to the maximum extent practical to convey and control the
stormwater runoff.
It is recognized that in certain parts of drainage basins, stormwater detention can
aggravate local flooding problems. Communities may need to tailor requirements or
provide exemptions to those specific locations.
2-E. BMPs for Reducing Nitrogen
Designing best management practices that remove nitrogen from stormwater is a
developing field. Researchers throughout the country, particularly in the Southeast, are
conducting studies to determine effective means of controlling nitrogen. At the present
time, current data indicate that most BMPs remove only 20 to 40 percent of total nitrogen
on a consistent basis. All BMPs require regular maintenance and some have varying
performance depending on soil type and the season. It is crucial to consider the issues of
aesthetics, long-term maintenance, safety and reliability in BMP design.
Since it is relatively difficult to design and maintain BMPs that remove nitrogen, the TN
accounting method in 2-C was designed to provide credits for site planning practices that
reduce nitrogen loadings from new development. These planning measures include
reducing impervious surfaces and protecting open spaces. More detail on planning
measures that reduce nitrogen loading is given in Appendix G.
The following BMPs may be utilized for reducing nitrogen from new developments:
• Wet detention ponds
• Constructed wetlands
• Open channel practices
• Riparian buffers
• Bioretention
• Proprietary BMPs
The Neuse Stormwater Team estimated total nitrogen removal rates for various BMPs by
conducting a literature search of studies performed on BMPs. The total nitrogen BMP
removal rates based on current literature studies are provided in Table 2c below. A
summary of these literature studies is given in Appendix H.
14
Table 2c: BMP Types, TN Removal Rates and Design Standards

BMP Type TN Removal Rate
based on Current
Literature Studies
Appropriate Design Standards
Wet detention ponds 25% NC and MD Design Manuals
Constructed wetlands 40% NC and MD Design Manuals
Open channel practices 30% NC and MD Design Manuals
Riparian buffers 30% Neuse Riparian Buffer Rule (15A NCAC 2B
.0233
Vegetated filter strips with
levels reader 20% NC and MD Design Manuals and other
literature information
Bioretention 25% NC and MD Design Manuals
Sand Filters 35% NC and MD Design Manuals
Proprietary BMPs Varies Per manufacturer subject to DWQ approval
Other BMPs Varies Subject to DWQ approval
If more than one BMP is installed in series on a development, then the removal rate shall
be determined through serial rather than additive calculations. For example, if a wet
detention pond discharges through a riparian buffer, then the removal rate shall be
estimated to be 47.5 percent. (The pond removes 25 percent of the nitrogen and
discharges 75 percent to the buffer. The buffer then removes 30 percent of the nitrogen
that discharged from the pond, which is 22.5 percent. The sum of 25 and 22.5 is 47.5.
Tile removal rate is NOT 25 percent plus 30 percent.)
Z-F. BMP Maintenance
If BMPs are implemented to achieve the nitrogen loading and flow attenuation
requirements for a development, then the local governments must require a maintenance
plan for the BMPs. The stormwater management plan must describe the local
government's selected approach for assuring BMP maintenance. Possible options to be
considered include, but are not limited to, the following:
The jurisdiction can charge a stormwater maintenance fee and assume the
responsibility of maintaining the stormwater BMP itself, including providing annual
inspection.
• The jurisdiction can notify the owner upon finding that maintenance is needed on a
BMP. If the owner does not complete the maintenance himself in a timely manner,
then the jurisdiction can contract out the maintenance itself and recover costs in the
manner it determines most appropriate.
• The jurisdiction can require that escrow accounts be set up to provide sufficient
resources to completely replace the BMP in the event of failure.
15
• The jurisdiction can require a legal maintenance agreement for the BMP with the
owner.
An example of a stormwater maintenance program is given in Appendix I.
Regardless of the option selected, the jurisdiction should inspect all BMPs on an annual
basis. Tile resources needed for this may be recovered through an inspection fee or other
funding source(s) determined appropriate and necessary by the local government
(currently, some of the local governments are charging annual inspection fees for
stormwater BMPs that range from $105 to $150). Jurisdictions should keep a list
(database recommended) of BMPs and their locations to assist in the inspection process.
BMPs should never be included on a separate lot, but should be part of the development
site. This prevents the landowner from foreclosing on or abandoning the lot that contains
the BMP without repercussions for the entire development.
2-G. Land Use Planning Provisions
This model program is intended to provide the flexibility and incentives to use site design
techniques to reduce impervious surfaces on their developments. As discussed
previously, reducing impervious surfaces reduces the need for BMPs to control nitrogen
and peak stormwater flows and also reduces associated BMP maintenance concerns.
Under the model stormwater program, affected jurisdictions are required to review their
local ordinances with regard to the following topics and show that they have provided
adequate flexibility for developers to utilize planning measures to reduce impervious
surfaces. This review is intended to look for opportunities where these measures could be
allowed, or obstacles to their use could be removed.
Each jurisdiction must show that they have reviewed and considered the following
planning techniques and the general advantages and disadvantages of incorporating these
approaches at the local level.
• Reducing road widths
• Reducing minimum parking requirements
• Minimizing use of curb and gutter
• Cluster or open-space developments
• Traditional neighborhood developments
• Mixed-use developments
Descriptions of these techniques are provided in Appendix G.
16
2-H. Jurisdiction-Wide and Inter-Local Approaches
Jurisdictions have the option of implementing jurisdiction-wide or inter-local approaches
to achieving nitrogen reductions. Such approaches may be incorporated into an
individual local government's model program if there is appropriate supporting
information to show how they will achieve the nitrogen loading reduction requirements
applicable to new development. Some ideas for jurisdiction-wide approaches that a local
government may consider include:
Creating regional stormwater management facilities, such as ponds, to provide some
of the nitrogen removal and flow control required from new development. A regional
stormwater management facility would have to be implemented in conjunction with
on-site controls to locally protect against water quality degradation and flooding. The
Neuse buffer requirements may impact the feasibility of using certain regional
stormwater approaches.
"Land banking" within the same watershed where development is occurring. The
land to be banked should have significant water quality value, such as being
contiguous with an existing floodplain, wetland or riparian area. It should be secured
in a permanent conservation easement or equivalent legal mechanism whose
provisions prohibit both farming and unapproved logging practices. This
conservation land should be tracked on a GIS system and recorded on the plat or
deed.
Any jurisdiction that wishes to implement a jurisdiction-wide approach will be
responsible for demonstrating and quantifying the associated nitrogen removals. This
information can be submitted to the Environmental Management Commission as part of
the jurisdiction's stormwater program.
2-I. References
Arendt, R. Open Space Design Guidebook: Albermarle-Pamlico Estuarine Region.
1993. Prepared for the NC Association of County Commissioners. National
Lands Trust. Media, PA. 259 pp.
Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. November 1994. Section 319
Success Stories.
Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Jan. 1993. Guidance Specifying
Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters.
Washington, DC.
Land of Sky Regional Council. 1995. Stormwater Fact Sheet Number 8: Plan Early for
Stormwater in Your New Development. Asheville, NC. 4 pp.
17
Schueler, T. S. Dec. 1995. Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection. Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments. Silver Spring, MD 231 pp.
Stimmel Associates. 1993. Traditional Neighborhood Development Design Guidelines.
Chapel Hill, NC.
18
3. Illegal Discharges
3-A. Requirements in the Rule
The Neuse Stormwater Rule requires that all municipalities establish a program to
prevent, identify and remove illegal discharges. Illegal discharges are flows in the
stormwater collection system that are not associated with stormwater runoff or an
allowable discharge.
3-B. What is an Illegal Discharge?
Stormwater collection systems are vulnerable to receiving illegal discharges (even though
the person responsible for the discharge may be unaware that it is illegal). Depending on
their source, illegal discharges may convey pollutants such as nutrients, phenols, and
metals to receiving waters. Table 3a identifies some potential flows to the stormwater
collection system that may be allowable. Table 3b identifies some discharges that are not
allowed.
Table 3a: Discharges that may be allowable to the stormwater collection system
Waterline Flushing Landscape Irrigation Diverted Stream Flows
Uncontaminated Rising Uncontaminated Ground Uncontaminated Pumped
Ground Water Water Infiltration to stormwater Ground Water
collection system
Discharges from potable Foundation Drains Uncontaminated Air
water sources Conditioning Condensation
Irrigation Water Springs Water from Crawl Space
Pumps
Footing Drains Lawn Watering Non-commercial Car Washing
Flows from Riparian Habitats NPDES permitted discharges Street wash water
and Wetlands
Fire Fighting Emergency Wash Water from the Dechlorinated backwash and
Activities Cleaning of Buildings draining associated with
swimming pools
19
Table 3b: Types of Discharges that are not allowed to stormwater collection system
Dumping of oil, anti-freeze, Commercial Car Wash Industrial Discharges
paint, cleaning fluids
Contaminated Foundation Cooling water unless no Washwaters from commercial
Drains chemicals added and has / industrial activities
NPDES permit
Sanitary Sewer Discharges Septic Tank Discharges Washing Machine Discharges
Chlorinated backwash and
draining associated with
swimming pools
3-C. Establishing Legal Authority
One of the first steps that each local government is required to take is establishing the
legal authority to control illegal discharges. According to the policies of each individual
local government, this legal authority may be carried out through ordinances, policies,
city codes or charters.
By February 2001, each local government is required to show that it has established the
legal authority to do the following:
• Control the contribution of pollutants to the stormwater collection system associated
with industrial activity.
• Prohibit illegal discharges to the stormwater collection system.
• Prohibit discharge of spills and disposal of materials other than stormwater to the
stormwater collection system.
• Determine compliance and non-compliance.
• Require compliance and undertake enforcement measures in cases of non-compliance.
Raleigh and Durham have established legal authority in the above areas. Examples of
these ordinances are provided in Appendix J. Examples from other communities may be
compiled by the Triangle J Council of Governments.
3-1). Collecting Jurisdiction-Wide Information
Under the Model Program for Illegal Discharges, each jurisdiction is required to collect
geographic information at three increasing levels of detail:
• The first, most cursory level is information that shall be collected for the entire
jurisdiction. The associated requirements are discussed in this section.
• The second level is a more detailed screening for high priority areas within the
jurisdiction. The associated requirements are discussed in Section 3-E.
20
The third level is a very detailed investigation that shall be done upon the discovery of
an illegal discharge. The associated requirements are discussed in Section 3-F.
The purpose of collecting jurisdiction-wide information are to assist with identifying
potential illegal discharge sources and characterizing illegal discharges after they are
discovered.
Each local government shall compile maps that show the following information. It is not
necessary that all of this information be shown on a single map. The maps shall be at a
scale that is most useful to the jurisdiction; however, no scale may be greater than
1:24,000.
• Location of sanitary sewers in areas of the major stormwater collection systems and
the location of areas that are not served by sanitary sewers.
• Waters that appear on the USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil
Survey Maps and the U.S. Geological Survey 1:24,000 scale topographic maps.
• Land uses. Categories, at a minimum, should include undeveloped, residential,
commercial, agriculture, industrial, institutional, publicly owned open space and
others.
• Currently operating and known closed municipal landfills and other treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities, including for hazardous materials.
• Major stormwater structural controls.
• Known NPDES permitted discharges to the stormwater collection system (this list can
be obtained from the Division of Water Quality).
Written descriptions should be provided for the map components as follows:
• A summary table of municipal waste facilities that includes the names of the facilities,
the status (open/closed), the types, and addresses.
• A summary table of the NPDES permitted dischargers that includes the name of the
permit holder, the address of the facility and permit number.
• A summary table of the major structural stormwater control structures that shows the
type of structure, area served, party responsible for maintaining, and age of structure.
• A summary table of publicly owned open space that identifies size, location, and
primary function of each open area.
21
The local governments shall complete this collection of jurisdiction-wide information by
the time the second annual report is due (October 2002).
3-E. Mapping and Field Screening in High Priority Areas
Beginning in the third year after implementation of the local stormwater program, each
jurisdiction shall identify a high priority area of its jurisdiction for more detailed mapping
and field screening. This high priority area shall comprise at least ten percent of the
jurisdiction's area. This requirement will begin in the third year after implementation.
Each subsequent year, the jurisdiction is responsible for selecting and screening another
high priority area that comprises at least ten percent of its jurisdiction.
The method for detennining the high priority area will vary from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction. "High priority" means the areas within a jurisdiction where it is most likely
to locate illegal discharges. Based on the experiences of Raleigh and Durham, the most
likely locations for identifying illegal discharges are areas with older development. Each
year, the local governments should explain their basis for selection of the high priority
areas.
The first part of the screening process for the selected high priority area is mapping the
stormwater system. At a minimum, the map that is produced shall include the following:
• Locations of the outfalls of any pipes from non-industrial areas that are greater than or
equal to 36 inches.
• Locations of the outfalls of any pipes from industrial areas that are greater than or
equal to 12 inches.
• Locations of drainage ditches that drain more than 50 acres of non-industrial lands.
• Locations of drainage ditches that drain more than 2 acres of industrial land.
• An accompanying summary table listing the outfalls that meet the above criteria that
includes outfall ID numbers, location, primary and supplemental classification of
receiving water, and use-support of receiving water.
The second part of the screening process for the selected high priority area is conducting a
dry weather field screening of all outfalls that meet the above criteria to detect illegal
discharges. The dry weather field screening shall not be conducted during or within 72
hours following a rain event of 0.1 inches or greater. In residential areas, it is
recommended to conduct the field screening either before 9:00 am or after 5:00 pm, since
these are the hours that citizens are most likely to be home and thus any illegal discharges
are more likely to be evident.
22
Figure 3a illustrates a suggested process for conducting field screening sampling
activities and following up with any findings of dry weather flow. As shown in the
figure, if the field screening shows that an outfall is dry, then the outfall should be
checked for intermittent flow at a later date.
If the field screening shows that an outfall has a dry weather flow, then the local
government is required to complete a screening report for the outfall. The information
that should be contained in the screening report is outlined in Table 3c. Screening reports
shall be kept on file for a minimum of five years. Example screening report forms are
provided in Appendix K.
Table 3c: Field Screening Report Information
General Information Sheet Number
Outfall ID Number
Date
Time
Date, Time and Quantity of Last Rainfall Event
Field Site Description Location
Type of Outfall
Dominant Watershed Land Use(s)
Visual Observations Photograph Deposits/Stains
Odor Vegetation Condition
Color Structural Condition
Clarity Biological
Floatables Flow Estimation
Sampling Analysis ' Temperature Nitrogen-Nitrate/Nitrite
pH Fluoride or Chlorine
Nitrogen-Ammonia
* Analytical monitoring is required only if an obvious source of the dry weather flow
cannot be determined through an investigation of the upstream stormwater collection
system.
Outfalls with flow will be screened again within 24 hours for the above parameters. The
tests for ammonia and nitrate/nitrate that are purchased should be sensitive for 0.1 to 10
mg/L. The cities of Raleigh and Durham can be contacted for guidance on test kit
information.
23
Figure 3a: Field Screening Process
No flow
Screen outfall in high priority area Check for signs of intermittent flow'
Flow found
found
No flow
Inspect and sample flow
Investigate source of flow, considering
the following:
• Jurisdiction-wide information collected
• Field investigation of drainage area of
outfall
• Sampling data
• Qualitative observations -- sheen, odor,
turbidity, etc.
Remove illegal discharge
Outfall OK
" Checking for intermittent flow includes rechecking outfall at a later date as well as
visual observations for evidence of intermittent flow.
Note: Analytical monitoring is required only if an obvious source of the dry weather flow
cannot be determined through an investigation of the upstream stormwater collection
system.
24
The purpose of the field screening is to provide clues as to the source of the illegal
discharge. The characterization should be used in conjunction with the jurisdiction-wide
information and a field investigation to identify the source of the illegal discharge. The
process of identifying and removing illegal discharges is discussed in the next section.
As part of the review process for field screening activities, the Team recognized that there
were some training needs associated with performing these activities. The Education
Program (outlined in Section 5) should look at the development of training materials and
opportunities to assist local governments in preparing to implement these measures.
3-F. Identifying and Removing Illegal Discharges
After the field screening is complete, local governments are required to take measures to
identify and remove illegal discharges. Identifying illegal discharges may require a
combination of office and field work. After the field screening, local government staff
should consult the jurisdiction-wide information they have compiled (see Section 3-D) to
obtain information about the land uses, infrastructure, industries, potential sources and
types of pollution that exist in the drainage area of the outfall.
After potential sources have been identified in the office, a systematic field investigation
should be planned that minimizes the amount of resources required to identify the source.
Several field methods may be used to identify illegal discharges. It is recommended that
local governments use a simple approach if that will suffice. Listed below are several
approaches that are recommended by Raleigh and Durham, starting with simple
approaches and moving to more complex ones
• Site Investigation
• Additional Chemical Analysis (recommend testing for fecal coliform if the ammonia
concentration was found to exceed 1.0 mg/L)
• Flow Monitoring (recommended to use multiple site visits rather than a depth
indicator)
• Dye Testing (fluorescent dye is recommended)
• Smoke Testing
Television Inspection
One tip on identifying illegal discharges is that outfalls that do not have flow during wet
weather are likely to originate from floor drains.
25
Documentation of the results of the office and field investigations should be kept on file
for five years with the screening report.
After a local government identifies the source of an illegal discharge, it is required to take
enforcement action to have the source removed. The legal authority that was established
for the illegal discharge program shall provide the means to accomplish this requirement.
Enforcement should include requiring the person responsible for the discharge to remove
or redirect it to the sanitary sewer. There should also be remedies to deal with cases of
non-compliance. Records of all compliance actions shall be kept for five years with the
screening report.
In addition to keeping all screening reports on file, each jurisdiction shall maintain a map
that includes the following:
• Points of identified illegal discharges.
• Watershed boundaries of the outfalls where illegal discharges have been identified.
• An accompanying table that summarizes the illegal discharges that have been
identified that includes location, a description of pollutant(s) identified, and removal
status.
3-G. Preventing Discharges and Establishing a Hotline
Local governments are required to contact persons who are responsible for establishments
that are likely sources of illegal discharges. Some of these sources include automotive
sales, rental, repair and detailing establishments, lawn care companies, cleaners and
certain types of contractors. Previous experience has shown that many illegal discharges
are actually unintentional. A sample letter to inform owners and operators about the
requirements of the illegal discharge program is included in Appendix L.
The experiences of Raleigh and Durham have shown that an illegal discharge hotline is a
cost-effective way to identify illegal discharges. Part of the public education program
(discussed in Chapter 5) will be to educate citizens about what types of discharges should
not go to the stormwater collection system and make them aware of the hotline.
Local governments are responsible for establishing a hotline. Tile hotline will require
them to either designate a new phone number or use an existing service. The hotline
should include a recording advising citizens what to do if they call during non-business
hours. There should be another number given in cases where the illegal discharge is
perceived to be an emergency.
26
3-11. Implementation Schedule
In keeping with their goal of having an efficient and cost-effective program, tile Neuse
Stormwater Team has created a phased implementation schedule for illegal discharges
(Table 3d). The schedule allows for collecting jurisdiction-wide information during the
first year of implementation and then screening the high priority areas during future years.
This phased schedule is also intended to allow communities to evaluate and make
improvements to their programs as they progress through high priority areas.
Table 3d: Implementation Schedule and Annual Reporting Requirements
Year Implementation Requirements Annual Report Requirements
By February 2001 Establish legal authority to address • Submit report identifying
illegal discharges established legal authority to meet
requirements.
By October 2002 • Collect jurisdiction-wide • Report on completion of
information. jurisdiction-wide information
• Select high priority area for collection.
additional screening. • Submit map of high priority areas
• Initiate illegal discharge hotline. and reason for selection.
• Report on initiation of illegal
discharge hotline.
Each subsequent . Complete mapping and field • Submit map of stormwater
year after 2002 screening for high priority area. collection system in high priority
• Select next high priority area. area upon request by DWQ.
• Identify and remove Illegal Document illegal discharges
discharges as encountered. found and resulting action.
• Continue operating illegal • Report on hotline usage and
discharge hotline. actions taken.
• Submit map of next high priority
area and reason for selection.
3-J. References
Debo, Thomas N. and Reese, Andrew J., Municipal Stormwater Management, CRC
Press, Inc. 1995
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1992. Manual of Practice - Identification
of Illicit Connections. EPA 833/R-90-100
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993. Investigation of Inappropriate
Pollutant Entries into Storm Drainage Systems - A User's Guide. EPA 600/R-92-238.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1991. Guidance Manual for the
Preparation of Part 1 of the NPDES Permit Applications for Discharges from Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer Systems. EPA 505/8-91-003A.
27
4. Retrofit Locations
4-A. Requirements in the Rule
The rule requires that all affected local governments establish a program to identify
places within existing developed areas that are suitable for retrofits.
4-13. Approach for Meeting the Requirements
Retrofit opportunities will be considered acceptable if all of the following conditions
have been investigated:
• The retrofit, if implemented, clearly has the potential to reduce nitrogen loading to the
receiving water.
• The watershed is clearly contributing nitrogen loading above background levels.
• The landowner where the retrofit is proposed is willing to have the retrofit installed
on his property. Securing the landowner's cooperation is one of the most important
tasks for the local government, as this is often the most difficult aspect of
implementing a retrofit.
• There is adequate space and access for the retrofit.
• It is technically practical to install a retrofit at that location.
The minimum number of retrofit opportunities that each local government is required to
identify is based on a sliding scale according to the population of the government. For
those communities that are not completely located within the Neuse River Basin, the
number of retrofits can be based on the estimated population within the Neuse River
Basin. The local government will have to provide the data to support this population.
Table 4a shows the minimum requirements for identifying retrofit opportunities for each
affected jurisdiction. Sites maybe carried over to meet the minimum requirements for up
to two subsequent years provided that BMPs/retrofits have not been implemented and the
site continues to meet the criteria above on an annual basis.
28
Table 4a: Minimum Number of Retrofit Opportunities that Each Local Government Must
Identify on an Annual Basis
1997 Minimum Number
Population Category Local Government Population of Retrofit Sites
to be Identified
Less than 30,000 Smithfield 11,194 2
Garner 17,821
Havelock 21,374
New Bern 22,032
Kinston 25,398
Between 30,000 and 60,000 Durham County 37,292 3
Wilson 41,103
Orange County 43,913
Goldsboro 48,356
Wayne County 56,117
Between 60,000 and 100,000 Johnston County 67,526 4
Cary 80,751
Between 100,000 and 250,000 Wake County 144,374 5
Raleigh 266,530
Durham 159,030
4-C. Data Collection and Notification
Each retrofit opportunity that is identified shall be accompanied by information to
describe the location of the retrofit, the type of retrofit being proposed, the property
owner, as well as basic information about the watershed and the receiving water. Table
4b shows a suggested format for presenting this information for each retrofit opportunity.
The tables shall be submitted to the Division of Water Quality on October 30 of each year
beginning in the year 2001 as part of the annual report.
The Division will take the responsibility for posting these retrofit opportunities on its
Web Page and also for notifying, at a minimum, the following organizations of the
opportunities for retrofitting within existing developed areas:
• Clean Water Management Trust Fund
• N.C. State University Cooperative Extension Service
• Triangle J Council of Governments
• Kerr-Tar Council of Governments
• Eastern Carolina Council of Governments
• Environmental programs at N.C. State University, Duke University, University of
N.C., East Carolina University and others
• N.C. Sea Grant
29
• USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service
• Upper Neuse Basin Association
• Lower Neuse Basin Association
• N.C. Wetlands Restoration Program
4-D. Mapping Requirements
Affected local governments are required to provide maps that show the locations of
retrofit opportunities. Mapping may be accomplished by using computers or with
existing hard copy maps. The scale of the map should be large enough to adequately
identify the following required parameters:
• Drainage area to retrofit opportunity site.
• Land uses within the drainage area.
• Location of retrofit opportunity.
• Property boundaries in the vicinity of the retrofit opportunity.
• Significant hydrography (as depicted on U.S.G.S. topographic maps and USDA-
NRCS Soil Survey maps).
• Roads.
• Environmentally sensitive areas (steep slopes, wetlands, riparian buffers, endangered/
threatened species habitat - where available).
• Publicly owned parks, recreational areas, and other open lands.
30
Table 4b: Retrofit Oooortunity Table
Location description, including directions
from a major highway
Type and description of retrofit
opportunity
Current property owner
Is the property owner willing to
cooperate?
Land area available for retrofit (sq. ft)
Accessibility to retrofit site
Drainage area size (acres)
Land use in drainage area (percent of
each type of land use)
Average slope in drainage area (%)
Environmentally sensitive areas in
drainage area (steep slopes, wetlands,
riparian buffers, endangered/ threatened
species habitat)
Approximate annual nitrogen loading
from drainage area (Ibs/acre/year) *
Potential nitrogen reduction (Ibs/ac/yr)
Estimated cost of retrofit
Receiving water
DWQ classification of receiving water
Use support rating for receiving water
Other important information
* Suggested methodology: Use Figure 2b from Chapter 2 to compute nitrogen export from the
drainage area based on the amount of impervious surface, landscaped area and forested area in
the watershed.
31
5. Public Education
5-A. Requirements in the Rule
The Neuse Stormwater Rule requires each of the affected jurisdictions in the
Neuse River Basin to develop a locally administered environmental education program to
address nitrogen loading issues.
5-13. Public Education Action Plan
Each targeted community is required to develop a Public Education Action Plan. The
purpose of the Action Plan is to provide local governments a platform to design their own
locally unique public education effort. The Action Plan will outline the proposed education
activities for the upcoming year, identifying target audiences and anticipated costs of the
program. Each targeted community shall submit an annual Action Plan to DWQ for
approval prior to October 1 of each year. An example Action Plan format can be found in
Appendix M.
The Action Plan shall consist of activities from each of the two categories listed below in
Table 5a. Innovative public education activities not included in this list may be considered
for approval on a case-by-case basis. All activities must be designed to raise awareness and
educate the audience about water quality, nonpoint source pollution, and the effects of
everyday activities on water quality and nutrient loading. In addition to the Category One
and Two activities, all Action Plans must include two technical workshops (see below) in
the first year and a toll free hotline for reporting illegal discharges.
The ultimate goal of the public education program is to utilize major media advertising
(television, radio, and newspaper) to reach a broad audience. However, the model
recognizes that these venues are cost prohibitive for many small local governments. If a
local government chooses to use effective major media advertising, either independently or
through a cooperative effort, that local government is exempted from minimum Category
One and Two requirements.
Table 5a: Public Education Action Plan Categories
Category 1 Category 2
Demonstration Sites (for Best
Management Practices) Fact Sheets
"Adopt-a-Program" Environmental Freebies
Quarterly local newspaper articles Fertilizer Tags
Storm drain marking Flyers
Recognition Program (recognize
environment friendly participants) Postmarks
Web age Utility bills inserts
32
Local Cable TV pro grain Close-out Packages (new homeowners)
Toll free hotline for reporting
environmental problems Speak to civic organizations quarterly
Environmental field day
Technical Workshop (only applicable
after 15t ear)
Environmental Contest
The number of annual activities required is dependent upon the total population of the
subject local government. The number of different required activities from each category is
indicated in Table 5b below. The combination of selected activities must provide a general
awareness of nitrogen loading issues and address a diverse audience.
Table 5b: Minimum Number of Annual Activities
Population Category 1 Activities Category 2 Activities
< 60,000 2 2
> 60,000 3 4
During the first year of program implementation, targeted communities are required to
conduct two (2) technical workshops. One shall be designed to educate local government
officials and staff and the other for the development community, including: engineers,
developers, architects, contractors, surveyors, planners, and realtors. During subsequent
years, technical workshops are considered an option under Category 2 activities.
Communities are encouraged to work jointly to develop and conduct the workshops, if
feasible. A Sample workshop agenda, including recommended resources, is located in
Appendix N.
5-C. Flexibility of Implementation/Alternative Programs
Communities may develop a locally unique program designed to meet their needs as long as
the activities meet or exceed the minimum requirements set forth above. While it is not a
requirement, targeted communities are encouraged to work with each other to make use of
existing resources and stormwater education efforts in their areas to meet the requirements.
Working together will provide a more consistent education effort for communities of all
sizes, will be an efficient use of resources and will reduce duplication of efforts.
5-D. Recommended Alternative Approaches
To reduce the burden to targeted communities to meet the requirements, the creation of two
(2) positions is suggested as an alternative approach that the local governments can utilize to
help implement the required Action Plan. See Appendix O for a summary of this
recommended approach.
33

AD-
6. Reporting Requirements
Annual Neuse River Basin Stormwater Program reports must be submitted to the Division
of Water Quality by October 30 of each year beginning in 2001. All reports shall contain
the following information.
6-A. New Development Review/Approval
Under the model program for new development review/approval, local governments are
responsible for submitting the following information as part of the annual reporting
requirement:
• Acres of new development and impervious surface based on plan approvals.
• Acres of new development and impervious surface based on certificates of occupancy.
• Summary of BMPs implemented and use of offset fees.
• Computed baseline and net change in nitrogen export from new development that year.
• Summary of maintenance activities conducted on BMPs.
• Summary of any BMP failures and how they were handled.
• Summary of results from jurisdictional review of planning issues.
6-B. Illegal Discharges
Table 6a outlines the annual reporting requirements for illegal discharges.
Table 6a: Implementation Schedule and Annual Reporting Requirements
Year Implementation Requirements Annual Report Requirements
By February 2001 Establish legal authority to • Submit report identifying
address illegal discharges established legal authority to
meet requirements.
By October 2002 . Collect jurisdiction-wide • Report on completion of
information. jurisdiction-wide information
• Select high priority area for collection.
additional screening. • Submit map of high priority
• Initiate illegal discharge hotline. areas and reason for selection.
• Report on initiation of illegal
discharge hotline.
Each subsequent . Complete mapping and field • Submit map of stormwater
year after 2002 screening for high priority area. collection system in high priority
• Select next high priority area. area upon request by DWO.
• Identify and remove Illegal • Document illegal discharges
discharges as encountered. found and resulting action.
• Continue operating illegal • Report on hotline usage and
discharge hotline. actions taken.
• Submit map of next high priority
area and reason for selection.
34
s
6-C. Retrofit Locations
Data on each retrofit opportunity (Table 4b or other equivalent format),
Maps of potential retrofit sites as specified in Section 4-D, and
The status of any retrofit efforts that have been undertaken within the jurisdiction.
6-D. Public Education
The Report will summarize the next years Action Plan and evaluate the implementation of
the previous years Action Plan (if applicable). The report should include goals, activities
completed, realized education program costs, explanation of experienced shortfalls and a
plan as to how the locality will address shortfalls.
35
imap://bob.zarzecki%40dwq.denr.ncmail.net @cros.ncmai1.net:143/fe...
AP
2of2
Jim Simons <[e-mail]>, hgdunn <[e-mail]>, carcher
<[e-mail]>, Paula Thomas <[e-mail]>, Bill Reid <[e-mail]>,
Letitia Withrow <[e-mail]>, Rick Zechini <[e-mail]>, sydney miller
<[e-mail]>, Chris Dreps <[e-mail]>, David McNaught
<[e-mail]>, Larry Coble <[e-mail]>, Anita
Watkins <[e-mail]>, Sherrill Normann <[e-mail]>, diana
<[e-mail]>, "diana.hales" <[e-mail]>, "A.L. Stejskal"
<eostej skal @earth I i nk.net>
FYI:
The Water Quality Committee (WQC) of the NC Environmental Management
Commission (EMC) and the full EMC will both meet on Thursday, Feb 12, 2004.
The WQC meeting will begin at 8:15 A.M. in the Third Floor Conference Room of the
Archdale Building in Raleigh. The WQC agenda is available at this link
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/emc/committees/wq/2004/index2004.htm
Please note that committees will not be meeting the day prior.
Immediately following the WQC, the EMC will meet beginning
Floor Conference Room in Archdale Building. The EMC agenda
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/emc/2004/emcagenda2004.htm
Thank you.
Jeff anning
[phone], e::t. 579
NC Division of s«ter Quality Planning Branch
Classifications & standards Unit
http:/%h2o.enr.state.ric.us;csu
at 9:00 AM in the Ground
is available at this link
2/4/2004 12:39 PM
imap://[e-mail]:143/fe...
Subject: WQC & EMC agendas for February
From: Jeff Manning <jeff.manning@ncmai].net>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:15:40 -0500
To: Frank Crawley <[e-mail]>, Jill Hickey
<[e-mail]>, Beth McGee <[e-mail]>, Betty Wilcox
<[e-mail]>, bkreutzb <[e-mail]>, Caroline Bellis
<[e-mail]>, Charles Peterson <[e-mail]>, Corey
<[e-mail]>, Dave Moreau <[e-mail]>, Gary Hunt
<[e-mail]>, Jessica Miles <[e-mail]>, Joe Rudek
<[e-mail]>, Marion Deerhake <[e-mail]>, Steve Coffey <[e-mail]>,
Steve Mauney <[e-mail]>, Mick Noland <[e-mail]>, John
Kime <ptrwa @Greensboro. com>, Gina Weaver <[e-mail]>, Jimmy Carter
<[e-mail]>, Lark Hayes <[e-mail]>, Derb Carter
<[e-mail]>, George Everett <[e-mail]>, Preston Howard
<[e-mail]>, Edward Beck <[e-mail]>, Don Cordell
<[e-mail]>, WQ Supervisors <[e-mail]>, Todd
Miller <[e-mail]>, Jack Blackner <[e-mail]>, Bobby Blowe
<[e-mail]>, Ernie Seneca <[e-mail]>, Craig Bromby
<[e-mail]>, Trish Gray <[e-mail]>, Robert Midgette
<[e-mail]>, Donna Moffitt <[e-mail]>, Preston Pate
<[e-mail]>, Arthur Mouberry <[e-mail]>, Bob Zarzecki
<[e-mail]>, ECO Group <[e-mail]>, David Merritt
<[e-mail]>, Matt Lauffer <[e-mail]>, Michelle Nowlin
<[e-mail]>, Robin Smith <[e-mail]>, George House
<[e-mail]>, Mitch Peele <[e-mail]>, Chester Lowder
<[e-mail]>, CAM COVER <[e-mail]>, Roger Thorpe
<[e-mail]>, Steve Tedder <[e-mail]>, "jay.sauber"
<[e-mail]>, Don Reuter <[e-mail]>, RegionalSups
<[e-mail]>, David Williams <[e-mail]>, John
Sutherland <[e-mail]>, John Hunter <[e-mail]>, Betsy Pearce
<[e-mail]>, omnipro2 <[e-mail]>, Carla DuPuy
<[e-mail]>, "Holt, Fred" <[e-mail]>, Jeri Gray <[e-mail]>,
Planning Branch <[e-mail]>, "ed.harrison" <[e-mail]>, Jeff
Manning <[e-mail]>, Bill Holman <[e-mail]>, Paul Clark
<[e-mail]>, crispd <[e-mail]>, "Mick.Greeson"
<[e-mail]>, Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>, Tim Baumgartner
<[e-mail]>, dan oakley <[e-mail]>, Benson Kirkman
<[e-mail]>, David Chang <[e-mail]>, Jerry Hardesty
<[e-mail]>, Pat Davis <[e-mail]>, "McDaniel, Andrew"
<[e-mail]>, Charles Case <[e-mail]>, Jim Kuszaj <[e-mail]>,
Rick Seekins <[e-mail]>, "Frank V. Brinkley" <[e-mail]>, Grady
McCallie <[e-mail]>, "Clark Wright, Jr." <[e-mail]>, Doug Lindeman
<[e-mail]>, Jeanette Powell <[e-mail]>, Mary Alsentzer
<[e-mail]>, johns <[e-mail]>, [e-mail], acoan <[e-mail]>,
"rimer.linda" <[e-mail]>, "preston.howard" <[e-mail]>, tdail
<[e-mail]>, Moreland Gueth <[e-mail]>, Heidi Sullivan
<[e-mail]>, "steve.lewis" <[e-mail]>, "ron.ferrell"
<[e-mail]>, Lauren Kolodij <[e-mail]>, cprivette <[e-mail]>,
1 of 2 2/4/2004 12:39 PM

02/02/04
EMC WATER QUALITY COMMITTEE MEETING
AGENDA
February 12, 2004
Archdale Building - Third Floor Conference Room
8:15 A.M. - 9:00 A.M.
Executive Order No. I mandates that the Chair inquires as to whether any member knows of any known conflict of interest or
appearance of conflict with respect to matters before the Commission. If any member knows of a conflict of interest or appearance
of conflict, please so state at this time.
8:15 A.M. - Opening Comments
Chairman Peterson
1. Request for a Major Variance from the Neuse River Riparian Area Protection Rule for Buffer
Impacts from a Project Located at 113 Redfern Drive, Cary, NC - (Action Item) (Danny Smith)
A request has been received for the Committee to consider a variance from the Neuse River Buffer
Rule (15A NCAC 213 .0233) for a project located at a private residence within the Swift Creek
watershed in Cary, NC. Staff believes that the project now meets the requirements for granting a
variance and recommends that the variance request be approved with stormwater management
requirements and other conditions (please see attachment enclosed) (partial attachment)
Closing Comments Chairman Peterson

AGENDA
NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
512 N. Salisbury Street
Archdale Building - Ground Floor Hearing Room
Raleigh, North Carolina
February 12, 2004
9:00 AM
Executive Order No. One mandates that the Chair inquire as to whether any member knows of any known
conflict of interest or appearance of conflict with respect to matters before the Commission. If any member
knows of a conflict of interest or appearance of conflict, please so state at this time.
David H. Moreau, Chairman, Presiding
1. Preliminary Matters
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of Minutes from the December 11, 2003 Commission Meeting
3. Summary of Approval Documents
4. Revisions or Additions to the Agenda
II. Action Items
1. 04-01 (DAQ) Delilah Blanks, Tommy Jenkins & Frank Shaw Page 2
Hearing Officer's Report on an Amendment to the Municipal Waste combustor Air Quality Rule
2. 04-02 (DAQ) Delilah Blanks, Tommy Jenkins & Frank Shaw Page 3
Hearing Officers' report on Amendments and Adoption of Air Quality Rules on Special Orders,
Notification in Non-Zone Areas, Ethylene Oxide, And Permit Fees
3. 04-03 (DWQ) Tom Reeder Page 5
Request for Permission to Proceed to Public Hearing with Proposed Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
Exceptions Rule
4. 04-04 (DWQ) Bradley Bennett Page 12
Update on NPDES Phase 2 Stormwater Rules
5. 04-05 (AG) Nancy Reed Dunn Page 13
Presentation of Administrative Law Judge's Decision, Lee Roy Smyre v. DENR, DWQ, 02 EHR 1509,
Brunswick County
6. 04-06 (AG) Nancy Reed Dunn Page 14
Presentation of Administrative Law Judge's Decision, Nash-Rocky Mount Schools v. DENR, DWQ,
LV 02-678, LV 03-004, 03 EHR 0242, 0254, Nash County
III. Status Report
1. Status Report by EMC Committee Chairmen
a. Water Allocation Committee
b. Water Quality Committee
c. Groundwater Committee
d. Air Quality Committee
e. Steering Committee
f. NPDES Committee
http://imaps.co.wake.nc.us/imaps/printmap.asp?pin=0761283625&pin...
?Wn4f T? tY n?111?eCtf IPil.v?h /Y ?!

%VAKE
COUNTY + i G c+yuYhclnlwme plan Serviwa
f

,27 7
a
L
12 F
I
100GGLErgGR

176 1 IIFJ
23 ;:; 35 12'3 9
r6 12 -V? I
I T
I ?
4
?' h 1 oi? `r
v. t ?'?1 tf? i yr ! i r v.
t ti 1 1, ?f if ;1 ;f
IV,
REID:
OWNERI:
ADDR1:
ADDR2:
ADDR3:
DEED BOOK:
DEED PAGE:
DEED DATE:
DEED ACRES:
BLDG VAL•
LAND VAL:
BILLING CLASS:
DESCRIPTION:
0176911
WILES, RICHARD N &
ANNE WILES
113 REDFERN DR
CARY NC 27511-8610
'' 7 2,1
i MAP NAME:
t ` PIN NUM:
't
yr, ' r `, ?, ?r? ^y PIN EXT:
CITY:
PLAN JURIS:
1 I. 1 f 7 ? r? _ ., - l•? I ter ? , ri ? Jtl j i,
t TOWNSHIP:
i as YEAR BUILT:
111
SALEPRICE:
J j} e ??14 I y (? ti? _
r of ?1 a 4,+s` 11, tl} ty SALEDATE:
TYPE USE:
DESIGN STYLE:
r UNITS:
+ 1 1 r !' LAND CLASS:
ZONING:
f OLD PARCEL
NUMBER:
ADDRESS
1 47, ? ?- N ? ST NUM:
76 J
,4t _ 4 STMISC:
DIR PREFIX:
ST NAME:
Parcel Number: 0761283625 STTYPE:
Map created on 11/712003 11:56:54 AM. 0 0 59 It DIR SUFFIX:
Copyright 2003. City of Ra,eiyh, Wake County.
08267
0208
3/10/1999
1
961081
113400
2
LT 54 REGENCY
PARK EST PH 1
BM1989-628
076105
0761283625
CAR
CA
20
1999
0
01
A
1
R
R-12
650-00000-0177
113
REDFERN
DR
1 of 1 11/7/2003 11:57 AM
Account Summary - 0176911
littp://awsl.co.wake.nc.us/realestate/Account.asp?id=017691 1&stype...
L Home Wake County Real Estate Data iMaps
Account Summary Tax Bills
Real Estate ID 0176911 PIN # 0761283625 Account
Location Address Property Description Search
113 REDFERN DR LT 54 REGENCY PARK EST PH 1 BM1989-628
COUNTY ...Search Results flew Search ••1??4.??.
h'CIRTII C.1RC)1.1?]A ilc3 " .iti .,
Property Owner Owners Mailing Address Property Location Address
WILES, RICHARD N & ANNE 113 REDFERN DR 113 REDFERN DR
WILES CARY NC 27511-8610 -CARY NC 27511-8610
Administratve Data Transfer Information 'Assessed Value
Old Map # 650-00000-0177
Map/Scale 0761 05 Deed Date
VCS 20CA004 Book & Page
City CARY„Revenue Stamps
Fire District Pkg Sale Date
Township WHITE OAK Pkg Sale Price
Land Class R-<10-HS Land Sale Date
- ETJ CA , Land Sale Price
Spec Dist(s)
3/10/1999
08267 0208
210.00
3/10/1999
$105,000
Zoning R-12 !;Improvement Summary
History ID 1 0120790
History ID 2 Total Units
'Acreage 1.00 "Recycle Units
Permit Date 11/12/1998 Apt/SC Sqft
Permit # 985021 Heated Area
Land Value
Assessed
Bldg. Value
Assessed
Tobacco Pounds
Tobacco Value
Land Use Value
Use Value
1 Deferment
1 Historic Deferment
Total Deferred
7,120 Value
Use/Hist Assessed
Total Value
''Assessed
loft
$113,400
$961,081
$1,074,
11/7/2003 11:57 AM
Ownership History - 0176911
littp:Hawsi.co.wake.nc.us/realestate/Deeds.asp?id=017691 I&stype=a...
Home Wake County Real Estate Data iMaps
Lff Ownership History Tax Bills

,- Real Estate ID 01769 11 PIN # 0761283625
Account
Location Address Property Description Search
113 REDFERN DR LT 54 REGENCY PARK EST PH 1 BM19 89-628
COUNTY Search Results stew Search ? C!
NORTH CAROLINA
Owner Name Type % Own Stamps Book Page Date
Current WILES, RICHARD N & ANNE ALL 210.00 08267 0208 03-10-1999
WILES
1 RUFTY HOMES INC ALL 170.00 08147 0121 09-16-1998
Back
2 REGENCY PARK ESTATES IN C ALL 05295 0598 08-19-1992
Back
3 FIRST INTERSTATE MORTGAGE
Back COMPANY
ALL 04382 0173 11-07-1988
1 of 1 11/7/2003 11:58 AM
Assessment Notes - 0176911
http://awsI.co.wake.nc.us/realestate/Notes.asp?id=017691 1&stype=a...
a Home Wake County Real Estate Data iMa s
Assessment Notes Tax Bills
` Real Estate ID 0176911 PIN # 0761283625
Account
Search
W)MU Location Address Property Description
113 RE DFERN DR LT 54 REGENCY PARK EST PH 1 BM1989-628
COUNTY
Search Results flew Search :
?,a ?' • t •a
NORTH CAROLINA '>?c ..s i1_?.?3,i€?'0•, i iti?s ? _.,., ? ..,?.__, ? _?,(...?n j ..a...v:? ? S',?,: mill
Card 01 Of 01
Date Li ne Notes
01-23-2003 1 1-23-03/MLUADDED UNIT TO BLDG DATA SCREEN/NCIV
07-26-2000 1 7-26-00/RSM/RUN HSE FROM 70% TO 100% COMP F2001
06-05-2000 1 5-30-00/RDJ/NOAH/INC VAL F20001CODE H/70%
06-16-1999 1 6-16-99/ALA/NO CONST F99(PER INSP)
05-11-1999 1 BLDG PERMIT #985021 ISSUE DATE 1-12-98 CONST TYPE N $ 900,000
04-22-1993 1 APPEAL WITHDRAWN-AGREED TO CONSENT VALUE ON 4-14-93
F93/RXH
01-14-1993 1 APPEAL FORM MAILED 1-13-93/PAS
11-17-1989 1 SETUP 90/DCO
1 of 1 11/7/2003 11:59 AM
Parcel Photos - 0176911
http://awsI.co.wake.nc.us/realestate/Photo.asp?id=017691 I &stype=a...
r Home Wake County Real Estate Data iMaps
Photographs Tax Bills
Real Estate ID 0176911 PIN # 0761283625
Account
WMU Location Address Property Description Search
113 REDFERN DR LT 54 REGENCY PARK EST PH 1 BM1989-628
Search Results Hew Search l '
COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA 1 1 1 .. flt_ :`Y3 C3_ 3;C =x:11
Photograph Date: 2/10/2000 10:05:25 AM

y' <~ I

)- t
R ? '?
? , 1 1
y i

x pH!!.
I
EY
b#_€t!

?-

1 of 1 11/712003 11:59 AM
Wake County Property Tax Information - Account Summary http://awsl.co.wake.nc.us/pts/billing/acctsummary.aspx?search=re&y...
,,•, Property Tax Information r=1 printer triendly
s _ nDUOC01Tl Billing/Collections - Account "+D.ew search
Summary =.1 r
G eturn
Account Number: *0000176911 WAKE
*Additional bills may appear in the Account Summary as the relate to those requested COUNTY
Click the account number link to view the billing statement (not available for motor
vehicle bills).
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3
WILES, RICHARD N
WILES, ANNE WILES
LT 54 REGENCY PARK EST PH 1 BM1989-628
Location:
113 REDFERN DR CARY 27511-8610
WILES, RICHARD N
WILES, ANNE WILES
LT 54 REGENCY PARK EST PH 1 BM1989-628
Location:
113 REDFERN DR CARY 27511-8610
WILES, RICHARD N
WILES, ANNE WILES
LT 54 REGENCY PARK EST PH 1 BM1989-628
Location:
113 REDFERN DR CARY 27511-8610
printer friendly O, new search '1r) return
Page 1 of 1
0000176911-2003-2003-000000 Current Due:
Due Date:
Interest Begins
Paid in Full:
Amount Paid:
0000176911-2002-2002-000000 Current Due:
Due Date:
Interest Begins
Paid in Full:
Amount Paid:
0000176911-2001-2001-000000 Current Due:
Due Date:
Interest Begins:
Paid in Full:
Amount Paid:
$0.00
09/01/2003
01/06/2004
09/04/2003
$11,022.69
$0.00
09/01/2002
01/07/2003
08/14/2002
$10,592.89
$0.00
09/01/2001
01/08/2002
08/02/2001
$10,592.89
1 of 2 11/7/2003 11:59 AM
Building Detail - 0176911 - Card 01 of 01
http://aws l.co.wake.nc.us/realestate/Building.asp?id=0176911&stype...
Home Wake County Real Estate Data iMaps
Building Detail Tax Bills
Real Estate ID 0176911 PIN # 0761283625
Account
wivu Location Address Property Description Search
113 REDFERN DR LT 54 REGENCY PARK EST PH 1 BM1989-628
COUNTY Search Results flew Search ! J ? I
r
NOR111 CAROLINA
Building Location Address Building Description Card 01 Of 01,
113 REDFER N DR 20CA004
Bldg Type 01 SGL FAM Year Blt 1999 Eff Year 1999 Base Bldg Value $328,081.
Units 1 Addns Remod Grade AA+40 302%
Heated Area 7,120 Cond % B 97%11
Story Height 1.5 STY Int. Adjust. ATTIC - 10% .Market Adj.
Style CONVNTL FIN I Market Adj.
Basement FULL B BSMT - FULL Accrued % 97%
Exterior BRICK FIN Incomplete %
Const Type WD JOIST Other FIREPLAC Card 01 Value $961,081!1
Heating FORC AIR Features RA-DW-DI All Other Cards
Air Cond COMBINED Land Value $113,400
Plumbing 3+ BATH Assessed
('Total Value $1,074,481;'
Assessed
Main and Addition Summary Other Improvements
Story Type Code Area Inc Units Desl tem CodeYear%GDlnc Value;
M 1H S/B BR 2632
A PATIO $ 858
B OP R 20
C 1 SMS/G/B NY 416
D H SMS/G L 182
E OP/OP/P R33 300
F STP = 60
G PATIO $ 174
H 1 SMS B 33
Building Sketch Photograph
2/10/2000 10:05:25 AM
1 of 2 11/7/2003 12:00 PM
Land Detail - 0176911
littp:Hawsl.co.wake.nc.us/realestate/Land.asp?id=017691 I&stype=a...
?: 'Home Wake County Real Estate Data iMaps
Land Valuation Tax Bills
Real Estate ID 0176911 PIN # 0761283625 Account
Search
wmu Location Address Property Description
113 REDFERN DR LT 54 REGENCY PARK EST PH 1 BM1989-628
COUNTY Search Results Hew Search
NORTH CAROLINA
Land Class R-<10-HS Deeded Acres 1.00 Tobacco Farm Use
Soil Class 4 Calculated Acres Pounds Year
Tobacco Value Farm Use
Flag
Land Value Detail - Market
Sch ETJ Zoning Description Units Rate Cnd%Reason Inf% Reason Value'
4 CA R-12 LOT 1 $126,000 90 SHAPE $113,400
Total Land Value Assessed $113,400
1 of 1 11/7/2003 12:00 PM

All

PRIMARY DELINEATIVE CRITF:DiA rno T,..- ...
\'

'
`wlI
I
Q
.. ... I . .......
4 ,
Entrchmnt < 1.4? 1.4-2,2 > 2.2 - -".
wD Ratio < 12 > 12 > Na > 4.0 >'2•2 < 1.4 < 1.4
Sinuosity 1 - 1.2 > 1.2 > 1 12 2 > 40 40 < 12 > 12
Na daba'e < 12
HO Slope .04-.0 va
99 ,02-.039 < .02 > 1'S > 1.2 > 1.2 - -
< .04 <.005 < .02 < .02
Reprinted with permission of Wildland Hydrology 02 •039
Provided by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (w nt c ondhydrology om)
s -
tantec
a
N
5
r I
x

O

?

S

a •

? I

I
r
V 9
{ I

0 S ?
P
40 I
Cr 0 M

O d
V
h,
rt
?,
3

a S '
f
~ / s
- - 3 -2

r .?
01. CO CO C4 0 C4 0
0C = cot on
N AO ??'i
'D O P
U C14 10?
0 Z M M •O ?,Y t
U Q a X P P O. a ;t
Z O Q P O. r:;{i
.
U 'X* '4)*
0 ILL -0ss a<
? 2 p It
s r {? i
'J m
0 t'
m
- c
U
i = y
1-04
r
J
OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Received Request #
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
r
Variance Request Form
Neuse River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy
Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rule (15A NCAC.0233)
NOTE. This form maybe photocopied for use as an original.
Part 1: General Information
1. Applicant's name (the corporation, individual, etc. who owns the project):
Rlcµo-r?g N, WIL45-5
2. Print Owner/Signing Official (person legally responsible for the facility and its compliaiiC??)`" ? QUA
Name: Fdl"A.rt.o 4. 0-JI1.ES
Title: VJ Ali JAN L2_2004
Street address: I13 e&-.p FE" Tier dG
City, State, Zip: cAAq .,j c-
;
Tele hone: 1 341- 3X92 *rrdC1?. ?`' _
Fax: { 3) 32q -rj oz.o _
3. Project Name (Subdivision, facility, or establishment name - consistent with project name on
plans, specifications, letters, operation and maintenance agreements, etc.):
?¢rtc..ta,? R-?'? i u EJ?1GE
4. Location of Facility
Street address: IJ 3 R-Epa-ZAJ D 24VE7
City, State, Zip: C ,JC 7-7511
County: VJA
Latitude/longitude: -,I6. 791;-86& 7-1 K 3 5.72.3Ontvoq O 7-
5. Directions to facility from nearest major intersection (Also attach a map):
6.
Contact person who can answer questions about the facility:
Name: Co14AA1 E Hoye
Telephone: l 1 ) 36? LiZ? -Kni
Fax:
Email: SO?f?-?-L.,?QI?f.lJ+'?? ---____ --_ .__.- ----?-
7. Requested Environmental Management Commission Hearing Date: Dom. l o1 2003
Version 1: September 1998
Part 2: Demonstration of Need for a Variance
NOTE: The variance provision of the Neuse Riparian Area Rule allows the Environmental Management
Commission to grant a variance to an affected party when the following conditions apply on a given project:
(a) practical difficulties or hardships would result from strict application of the rule:
(b) such difficulties or hardships result from conditios which are peculiar to the property involved; and
(c) the general purpose and intent of the Rule would be preserved, water quality would be protected and
substantial justice would be done if the variance were granted.
This part of the application is to explain how the project meets criteria (a) and (b)
1. Attach a detailed description (2-3 pages) explaining the following:
• The practical difficulties or hardships that would result from strict application of the Rule.
• How these difficulties or hardships result from conditions that are unique to the property
involved.
• Why reconfiguring and/or reducing the built-upon area to preserve a greater portion of the
riparian area is not feasible on this project. If economic hardship is the major
consideration, then include a specific explanation of the economic hardship and the
proportion of the hardship to the entire value of the project.
Part 3: Water Quality Protection
NOTE: This part of the application is to explain how the project meets criterion (c): the general purpose and
intent of the Rule would be preserved, water quality would be protected and substantial justice would be done if
the variance were granted.
1. Briefly summarize how water quality will be protected on this project. Also attach a detailed
narrative (1-2 pages) describing the nonstructural and structural measures that will be used
for protecting water quality and reducing nitrogen inputs to surface water.
5ce a-tf a.cte d
2. What is the total project area in acres? • q1_4044
3. Which of the following permits/approvals will be required for this project?
CAMA Major
Sediment/Erosion Control
401 Certification/404 Permit
no?u Op alwe
Variance Request Form, page 2
Version 1: September 1998
Part 3: Water Quality Protection, continued
4. Complete the following information for each drainage basin. If there are more than two
drainage basins in the project, attach an additional sheet with the information for each basin
provided in the same format as below.
Project Information Drainage Basin 9 Drainage Basin 2
Receiving stream name sloA r, ycWiPT
CAU-
Receiving stream class' 6 IIL - K1 5W
Drainage basin area (total) 3. 'kq(0 awes
Existing impervious area3 (total) 0-746 'r
Proposed impervious area3 (total)) z
% Impervious area3 (on-site) -9441 a
% Impervious area3 (total) 2I 9n
Impervious area3 Drainage basin I Drainage basin 2
On-site buildings 3-J I&
On-site streets 47qs
On-site parking 10'
On-site sidewalks (Dys
Other on-site
Total on-site: 14 .2a",-
Off-site 1.332 acv's
Total 1.53- v
' The Internet site for this information is httpYlh2o.enr.state.nc.us/strmclass/alpha/neu.html
2 Total means on-site plus off-site area that drains through the project
3 Impervious area is defined as the built upon area including, but not limited to, buildings, parking areas,
sidewalks, gravel areas, etc.
5. How was the off-site impervious area listed above derived?
see atfac iad
6. What will be the annual nitrogen load contributed by this site after development in pounds per
acre per year without structural BMPs (stormwater pond, wetland, infiltration basin, etc)?
Attach a detailed plan for all proposed structural stormwater BMPs.
Drainage
basin Size of
drainage
basin
ac Post-development
nitrogen loading rate
without BMPs'
Ibs/a r BMP nitrogen
removal
efgciency5
% Final nitrogen
loading rate
(Ibs/ac/yr) Final nitrogen
loading from
drainage basin
lbs
7 3. ?k{to da. 10.9 GtG. Y. 26-'`10%. B.Z-6.6 bs( r, 33,99 16y .
2 -
3
4
5
Totals
" Attach calculations and references.
s Attach calculations and references.
Variance Request Form, page 3
Version 1: September 1998
Part 3: Water Quality Protection, continued
7. The applicable supplemental form(s) listed below must be attached for each BMP specified:
Form SWU-102 Wet Detention Basin Supplement
Form SWU-103 Infiltration Basin Supplement
Form SWU-105 Curb Outlet System Supplement
Form SWU-106 Off-Site System Supplement
Form SWU-107 Underground Infiltration Trench Supplement
Form SWU-109 Innovative BMPs Supplement
Part 4: Submittal Checklist
A complete appplication submittal consists of the following components. Incomplete submittals
will be returned to the applicant. The complete variance request submittal must be received 90
days prior to the EMC meeting at which you wish the request to be heard. Initial below to
indicate that the necessary information has been provided.
Applicant's Item
Initials
• Original and two copies of the Variance Request Form and the attachments
listed below.
eta • A vicinity map of the project (see Part 1, Item 5)
eAr • Narrative demonstration of the need for a variance (see Part 2)
00 • A detailed narrative description of stormwater treatment/management (see Part
3, Item 1)
eck • Calculations supporting nitrogen loading estimates (see Part 3, Item 6)
• Calculations and references supporting nitrogen removal from proposed BMPs
c'?lr (see Part 3, Item 6)
• Location and details for all proposed structural stormwater BMPs (see Part 3,
Item 6)
• Three copies of the applicable Supplement Form(s) for each BMP and/or
narrative for each innovative BMP (see Part 3, Item 7)
• Three copies of plans and specifications, including:
0 Development/Project name
_ 0 Engineer and firm
0 Legend and north arrow
0 Scale (1" = 100' or 1" = 50' is preferred)
0 Revision number & date
0 Mean high water line (if applicable)
0 Dimensioned property/project boundary
0 Location map with named streets or NC State Road numbers
0 Original contours, proposed contours, spot elevations, finished floor
elevations
0 Details of roads, parking, cul-de-sacs, sidewalks, and curb and gutter
0 Footprint of any proposed buildings or other structures
0 Wetlands delineated, or a note on plans that none exist
0 Existing drainage (including off-site), drainage easements, pipe sizes, runoff
calculations
0 Drainage basins delineated
0 Perennial and intermittent streams, ponds, lakes, rivers and estuaries
0 Location of forest vegetation along the streams, ponds, lakes, rivers and
estuaries
Variance Request Form, page 4
Version 1: September 1998
Part 5: Deed Restrictions
By your signature in Part 7 of this application, you certify that all structural stormwater best
management practices required by this variance shall be located in recorded stormwater
easements, that the easements will run with the land, that the easements cannot be changed or
deleted without concurrence from the State, and that the easements will be recorded prior to the
sale of any lot.
Part 6: Agent Authorization
If you wish to designate submittal authority to another individual or firm so that they may provide
information on your behalf, please complete this section:
Designated agent (individual or firm): 5oU+ky4 #i 6ayde-v%. I vic .
Mailing address: -P 0•750V 8o8
City, State, Zip: Qpt} N4 27502-
Telephone: 342. - Soso
Fax: 979 - :3(03- gZ7-7-
Email: 5oa a @ do (. cun-?
Part 7: Applicant's Certification
I, 'aIC- uaR-o q. WIL--S (print or type name of person
listed in Part I, Item 2), certify that the information included on this permit application form is
correct, that the project will be constructed in conformance with the approved plans and that the
deed restrictions in accordance with Part 5 of this form will be recorded with all required permit
conditions.
Signature:
Date:
Title:
Variance Request Form, page 5
Version 1: September 1998
w'? a wit
Part 2
Question 1
Richard N. Wiles and Anne Wiles
Lot #54 Regency Park Estates
Cary, NC
This application is for a major variance for a residential lot located in the Neuse Riparian Buffer
zone. The need for this application has arisen due to a series of events that unfortunately have
resulted in impervious surface area being installed within the 30 foot buffer zone of an unnamed
creek that flows through this lot during a portion of the year.
Lot #54 is a .91 acre lot located in Regency Park Estates Subdivision in Cary, NC. Regency
Park Estates was platted and approved as a subdivision in 1989. The home on Lot #54 was
finished in April 2000. The home was permitted by the town of Cary in 1999, and a survey was
completed by Cooper and Associates. That survey does record setbacks and easements that were
on record at the time of the approval of the subdivision in 1989. Cooper and Associates, the
surveyor, says that it is not customary for a surveyor to record easements that have arisen after
the original platting of the lot. As a result this Neuse Riparian Buffer is not a part of the survey.
Unfortunately, when the house was permitted to be built in 1999, the Neuse Riparian Buffer was
not being acknowledged or enforced by the town of Cary planning department. As a result the
house itself is sited, significantly within the 30'setback zone from the bank of the creek; the
house actually is 10' from the creek. The creek runs along the edge of the lot for approximately
190 ft. of the 300 ft. long property line along that side. The creek enters the lot and meanders
within the 15 foot buffer setback zone along the southern boundary of the property.
The lot is shaped in a pie. It is significantly encumbered with requisite set-backs, buffers, and
easements. The sanitary sewer line for the development actually is located through the center of
the property, with a manhole access located near the front door of the home. The house was
moved back on the property to accommodate the sewer easement. A suitable "shotgun" style
floor plan was implemented to properly fit the site. The house is sited significantly to the rear of
the lot. There is a stream that is indicated on the GIS Maps on the north boundary of the
property, but upon field investigation by Steve Mitchell on December 1, 2003, he determined
that this is ephemeral drainage only.
The town of Cary determined that the hot tub installation did not require a general building
permit. The only permit required was the electrical permit. The electrician did not obtain the
electrical permit prior to beginning the work, contrary to the indication that he had the permit in
his possession. Hence the problem started.
Much of the rear of the property is subject to flooding and is low lying, but no flood plain notes
are on the survey. In consideration of the topography and stream there, the tub was sited to avoid
potential flooding, both from the stream that has exceeded it's banks historically, and from
upland water surface runoff that collects and flows heavily on the opposite property line from the
stream .
Setting the tub further away from the stream was a possibility. During the initial review of the
site to determine the best location, existing vegetation and water flow were considered. The area
that was selected required the least amount of vegetation to be removed. This site also required
the least amount of disturbance and minimized collection to the existing flow of surface water.
There is a significant vegetated buffer that is located on the north most property line, further
away from the stream, but does sit squarely in the route of offsite water runoff that is introduced
onto Lot 54. Pushing this installation further into that vegetated buffer would also concentrate
the surface flow into more of a channel, rather than the flatter Swale that currently exists.
Prior to construction on Lot 54 (Wiles property), considerable grading was done off site. The
town homes that are built backing up to Lot 54 cleared all of the native vegetation up to and over
the lot line and re-graded, introducing the majority of the surface water onto Lot 54. Moving this
tub toward the native vegetative buffer would have required clearing of a heavily wooded area
consisting of native beech, gum, poplar, beautyberry, deciduous holly and pine.
The hot tub was set 26 feet from the stream. With additional clearing, there is sufficient space to
have moved the vessel another 10 or 15 feet easily, but the unit is now installed sub-grade, and is
quite difficult to move. We have also added trees, shrubs, and groundcover in the area to screen
the tub, utilize surface water, and control erosion. Access pathways in the area are all ground
woodchips, supporting the homeowner's desire to keep the natural feeling of the site.
The final electrical inspection wore on, and it became apparent that the electrician did not have
the necessary permit to finish the job. At that point we learned of the Neuse Riparian Buffer and
the encroachment into the setback zone. This encroachment was unintentional, and we would
have been pleased to have sited the vessel further from the bank of the creek, and could easily
have done so by removing native vegetation. Now it is not so easy.
The tub itself weighs about 7500 lbs., and requires a heavy crane to move it. The accessibility
route has now been closed off as we worked our way out during installation. There was existing
concrete driveway that was used for accessibility, and once the tub was set, the concrete has been
removed. It would require removal of 400 sq. ft. of concrete apron that has been poured on the
perimeter of the tub, and removal of 150 cu. yds. of soil and gravel that have been backfilled, and
removal of a CMU retaining wall that was installed to stabilize the gravel and soil backfill. The
tub itself is a $45,000 tub, requiring $25,000 installation costs, and approximately $20,000 in
naturalized landscaping. The cost to move the tub over is very difficult to estimate. The tub
itself may no longer be moveable without damage to the vessel.
The original site had a large amount of the native vegetation removed during the development
and construction phase in 1999. The first phase of landscaping that was done at conclusion of
the house construction during 2000 did include some native vegetation along the stream bank to
hopefully assist in stabilization of the area during storms and high water flow in the stream.
Those river birch and native azalea have become established and done very well. We have
mulched the denuded area and keep it covered in order to limit erosion. We are in the process of
adding ground cover and native plantings to assist in stabilization of the soils and prevent
erosion, increase infiltration of surface water to reduce runoff as a part of the hot tub installation.

/ r
• • ( T

i
i i

i
I
i

W I LES_
?vr X54
c.AM,t ? VJA1'?ff GPJ?! ? ?'
_ G4VE APPS 9 i H _
Of 1?'
Part 3
Question 1.
Richard N. Wiles and Anne Wiles
Lot # 54 Regency Park Estates
Cary, NC
Lot #54 is the closest lot in the 3.116 acre watershed to the unnamed stream that empties
eventually into the Swift Creek. The current grading of the lot and the adjacent lots that flow
surface water through this property are fed through sheet flow. The area above the Wiles
property is heavily developed, resulting in 52% impervious surface area of the watershed. There
is a significant amount of water that flows through this lot. The homeowners have attempted to
manage the water flow. They have established grass cover and ground cover to help prevent
erosion. All pervious surface areas are maintained with mulch or wood chips.
The Wiles have agreed to the installation of a bio-retention area to manage the surface water that
is being introduced into the no name stream. Southern Garden, Inc., North Carolina Registered
Landscape Contractor #1049 will construct the bio-retention area. Referencing the Stormwater:
Best Management Practices (April 1999), we are proposing a bio-retention area device to assist
and filter the water that does flow through this property. Attached is a survey of Lot #54 that
shows the proposed location of the filtration device. Understanding that current information
available may be more appropriate in the design of the treatment device, Southern Garden will
work with both DEHNR and DWQ to determine the most appropriate design of the bio-retention
area.
Water will enter the rain garden device through a gradual sloping (< 5%) sheet flow. This sheet
flow area is currently densely vegetated with native population of primarily3"-6" caliper yellow
popular and sweet gum tree cover. The opening to the rain garden will be shaded, and 3 species
of plant materials, tree, shrub, and groundcover that are suited to shady locations will be selected
from the Guidelines for Riparian Buffer Restoration (January 2001) for planting. We will remove
no native trees larger than 6" to construct the garden. All clearing will be greater than 50' from
the actual no name stream.
Approximately 200 sq. ft. of impervious driveway surface area was removed in the course of this
installation. Drainage from the roof gutters that is currently being directed onto the edge of the
lot and is entering the buffer untreated, will be directed into the new treatment device. Surface
water that is currently introduced from adjacent lots and flows through the Wiles property and
into the buffer untreated will be retained and treated in the proposed device.
Soils on this site are currently Chewacla Series (Cm). The Wake County soil survey describes
this soil as a sandy loam to silty loam surface layers 4" to 12" thick. Beneath the surface layer
there is a sandy loam, silty loam to clay layer. The total thickness of the profile is 34" - 72" and
the infiltration rate is good with slow surface runoff. Permeability is .63 - 2.0 inches per hour.
Part 3
Question 5
The total nitrogen export of the Wyles property was calculated using ArcView GIS
software, geographic data obtained from Wake County GIS, and guidance from the
Neuse River Basin Model Stormwater Program for Nitrogen Control (guidance
document).
Wake County topographic data (2-foot contour interval) was used to delineate the target
property's off-site drainage basin area. The resulting polygon (drainage area) was 3.116
acres. The drainage area was then overlaid on 1999 aerial photography and cut into
smaller polygons representing land cover types. The target property had not been
improved at the time of the photograph. However, all other tracts in the drainage area
were developed. One property, adjacent to the north of the target property, was under
construction at the time. The adjacent residential structure was completed.(exterior),
and the driveway was estimated to calculate this lot's impervious surface area.
Three land cover categories were delineated within the drainage area, based on the
guidance document, including: Permanently protected undisturbed open space;
Permanently protected managed open space; and Impervious surfaces. Total nitrogen
export coefficients are provided for each land cover type in the guidance document.
Method 2 (Quantifying TN Export from Residential/IndustriaVCommercial Developments
when footprints of all Impervious Surfaces are Shown) was followed.
Land Cover Area (ac) TN export coefficient TN export
(Ibs./ac./yr.) (Ibs./yr.)
Undisturbed
Open Space 0.648 0.6 0.3888
Managed
Open Space 0.936 1.2 1.1232
Impervious
Surface 1.532 21.2 32.4784
TOTAL: 3.116 - 33.9904
The drainage area (3.116 ac.) contributes 33.9904 lbs. of nitrogen per year to the target
property. This breaks down to 10.9 Ibs./ac./yr. Total nitrogen export.
The bioretention area proposed by Southern Garden, Inc. has a planning TN removal
rate of about 25%, based on figures provided in the guidance document. Conversations
with DWQ staff found that, although sound for planning purposes, this is probably an
underestimate. The bioretention area will eliminate 8.5 lbs. of nitrogen (25%) each year
from reaching surface waters. Total nitrogen removal may actually reach 13.6 lbs. per
year (40%).
The existing development (drainage area) has no stormwater collection or nutrient filter
in place. On a per-acre basis, the 10.9 Ibs./ac./yr. current situation, will be reduced to
8.2 - 6.6 Ibs./ac./yr.
M `
r ` 7 c? D
CL U)
a J{ !?•yao ?+??Fl?i j a- -J
Ica
Irti?J?`r. .'
CD 0
°--° _ ?=?`?;` ?' ? -„?.^ `• =-`?may" ?y_- r, ,ni ?• ?
(') CD
t
-F7 -1
%
fir !, t ,E., ti CTl
CO
s.
E` ? --! day
O
lD :-t
0 .?
O c ski _
CD
N
inage area polygon was then laid
99 aerial photography and cut into
used on land cover.

)ently Protected Open Space
a
ntly Protected Managed Open Space
•arget Property removed to
alculate off-site nitrogen
xport.
rLK rf
Lill
r,• ;;
Map prepared by
Robert J. Goldstein & Associates, Inc.
6480 Garvey Drive - Raleigh, NC 27616
[phone]: fax[phone]
URL: vwvw.rjgaCarolina.com

t
I

Z11>

A) 0
zcu 83

(D 0
rl-
O > w
/
\fltV

W ?
Tl CD
cn
Q "U
(D O
3-0
(D
C
(D
Z
(D
z°
n >
IV ((D
-4 m
C.l'1
C'`'`AL
0
3
(D
0 T
n
?t
0
0
YJ
C -7
W (D
(D
} e-1O
C tD
`? S31
CO O
? J
J
V
C
N
?O
N
a
i
co
4
O
CD
U)
n -0
(D O
1 -o
CD
(D o.
i --I
n r*-
m m
rt
z ?
n
IV CD
?4 M
CJ1

LD
M p-
m N
Q U
c Z
o ?
c m
m U
t
o m
m ?
?,•c
m c
Q
o m
L
n
m
of
m
r-:
a
ti
o)
r
c
L
0
++
0 f?
V
N :3
Iif CO
- O
7+
O ?
O
1.10
0 m
AO ?
L
(L
p
E E
m m
cn o 0
Q ?. ai ?• v)
E C 0 C Q
co (v - (v o
V) o 46-
a L aJ
to ?(D >2 > L9
L3 cu m 2 a) (U L
CL-0 CL) -0
a)
Nr C) _0
Cam? 0- V m :? U cv cu

co
vi o C4
Z
cu N
=m E
N GI O
N ? v
fu r (6
X O
i
co Co cu
N •?
Co
?
a 'anti m
m o m
C? ?-
C1 - N
CD M r -
i 0 m
CL CD ?.j
.0 Co CD
m p tr?;; X
M co v
x
m
m
LL
0
0
co
0
0
m

0
0
m

spuupamou/sn•ou•;)Irls•iua•oZW/:dllq)'(xu;) £689-££L-616 '(ouogd) 98LI-££L (616)
(uorluoov 09ZZ-V09LZ ?IZ'ggTap g pn?g aan%ID IZ£Z
(ssasppV $ullTrw) 0591-669LZ 3M'q$T.a1uT-MIuQD 93-;)S ImW 0591
11tufl uopuagtuaD sp-plA IOb'Alrluna ialutil do uoisiniQ •D •H
ngool

:suoilanalsui luiaads ao sajoN
:Iaags aaeoa 2uipnl3ui sa?ud jo aagmnN
U
:# xu
(x;, /z-?-"J
£689-££L-616 :# x-ed
98LT-££L-6I6 :## auoud :UOIIUuiao,Tul PUJUOD
S.? 1
099I-669LZ DIN ` IOlu2T
i03uaD aatniaS ireJN 0591 :ssaappv fuiPUN
09ZZ-tO9LZ DN VIOPU
OSZ almS `p.n?nainog aaiq-ejD IZ£Z :ssaappv I0311S
llull TOP/sPAluIlaM
saaanosa-d IeanjuN puu lquatumainug jo juatulauda(I
Sl.ImC) njuAi jo uoisiniQ
Alquna ialuhl;o uoisrniQ
iolaanQ 4ndaQ 'sucllnS -H uaatoD
Clquna ialub;o uoisinrQ
.(I .g.d )jauIIrA 'M UClV
1013a.11
saosnosag Iu=rN pue luamuoiinug;o luauiuudaQ uurioiu:) quoH
diulaioaS "if ssog •D =111!M
iovianoD •,ialseg'3laugolW
:Sunduzoa
: os xns
?. a
lyM F

I 1

TIN a?

r '
, r r
. I
I I
r ,
1 ? I I

I <W\
I
I
I I
vr1 , ?
I
` I I ?

i I
I 1

I
1 _
Ic-
?n
M ti
? N
Q U
C- z
0
v U
a ?
o v
m >
a ?
n
v ?
Q
o v
d. ?
v
v
Q -P
Q
O
O_ U)
t[5 4-J
U N
O tix
i..L
i
80
N
OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Received q
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
!Variance Request Form
Neuse River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy
Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rule (15A NCAC .0233)
NOTE: This form may be photocopied for use as an original.
Part 1: General Information
1. Applicant's name (the corporation, individual, etc. who owns the project):
-_t21 ;14 p 14. V41 LCS
2. Print Owner/Signing Official 101 MOUP
(person legally responsible for the facility and its compliancy) `
Name: Rtc1a/yrz.o N. ?.t_tlt.?5
Title: 7'ixv-?it-? ouJi?t??-_------_..__ 1.?`j._._2.._.200?
Street address: -LL3 2?e2? D2? ?c '---
City, State, Zip: cAA-q,&1e-
Telephone: Ll?) 3-f f- 3z9y fCTfO?J
Fax:
I Project Name (Subdivision, facility, or establishment name -consistent with project name on
plans, specifications, letters, operation and maintenance agreements, etc.):
4. Location of Facility
Street address: 11 3 R-t?FJ512 ? Dt24VE-
City, State, Zip: C _., AAx, AJC. 7.7511
County:
------ ----- - 46- E:
Latitude/longitude: ---
-79 . 7q?Z8o? `{?tZ?- oc -3 S.7Z ooi,v00032=
5. Directions to facility from nearest major intersection (Also attach a map):
_TURnI ON 71-1 JY?G ?GY p•4t2ku/tiy 12_ /00! P . FOLLD ? TIf9OU& 61 n AVc
LA?? 'TU_?i?'_oNI_a_?tlENll?_yF?} Esr?4?
6. Contact person who can answer questions about the facility:
Name: COM011 E NOyLs
------------------ -----------
elephone: !-) 36z - LtLSQ 9!9__(??L? 0110__ --_
Fax: {q1? r---3G3- g_?_Z? .-------------------- -____ __- ---------- -
Email:
7. Requested Environmental Management Commission Hearing Date:. Dt?.
f
Version 1: September 1998
Part 2: Demonstration of Need for a Variance
NOTE. The variance provision of the Neuse Riparian Area Rule allows the Environmental Management
Commission to grant a variance to an affected party when the following conditions apply on a given project.
(a) practical difficulties or hardships would result from strict application of the rule:
(b) such difficulties or hardships result from conditios which are peculiar to the property involved, and
(c) the general purpose and intent of the Rule would be preserved, water quality would be protected and
substantial justice would be done if the variance were granted.
This part of the application is to explain how the project meets criteria (a) and (b).
1. Attach a detailed description (2-3 pages) explaining the following:
• The practical difficulties or hardships that would result from strict application of the Rule.
• How these difficulties or hardships result from conditions that are unique to the property
involved.
• Why reconfiguring and/or reducing the built-upon area to preserve a greater portion of the
riparian area is not feasible on this project. If economic hardship is the major
consideration, then include a specific explanation of the economic hardship and the
proportion of the hardship to the entire value of the project.
Part 3: Water Quality Protection
NOTE. This part of the application is to explain how the project meets criterion (c): the general purpose and
intent of the Rule would be preserved, water quality would be protected and substantial justice would be done if
the variance were granted.
1. Briefly summarize how water quality will be protected on this project. Also attach a detailed
narrative (1-2 pages) describing the nonstructural and structural measures that will be used
for protecting water quality and reducing nitrogen inputs to surface water.
See aJdg_6-.mod
2. What is the total project area in acres? • 4i aqV
3. Which of the following permits/approvals will be required for this project?
CAMA Major
Sediment/Erosion Control
401 Certification/404 Permit
nora op al,aWe
Variance Request Form, page 2
Version 1: September 1998
Part 3: Water Quality Protection, continued
4. Complete the following information for each drainage basin. If there are more than two
drainage basins in the project, attach an additional sheet with the information for each basin
provided in the same format as below.
Project Information Drainage Basin 1 Drainage Basin 2
Receiving stream name on + -'P?Wwr CAU_
Receiving stream class' 6 RL - KI SW
Drainage basin area (total2) 3. v aaeas
Existing impervious area3 (total2) 074-6 Z
Proposed impervious area3 (total2) 72-15 LT I
% Impervious area3 (on-site) 8441 1Z
% Impervious area3 (total2) 21 17o
Impervious area3 Drainage basin 9 Drainage basin 2
On-site buildings 337&
On-site streets 47qS
On-site parking 10,
On-site sidewalks (oys
Other on-site 101?
Total on-site 074-6 .ZagL
Off-site 1.332 acy'a
Total I.$32 c'vu
The intemet site for this information is httpJlh2o.enr.state.nc.uslstrmclasslalpha/neu.html
2 Total means on-site plus off-sito area that drains through the project.
3 Impervious area is defined as the built-upon area including, but not limited to, buildings, parking areas,
sidewalks, gravel areas, etc.
5. How was the off-site impervious area listed above derived?
see 8tfached
6. What will be the annual nitrogen load contributed by this site after development in pounds per
acre per year without structural BMPs (stormwater pond, wetland, infiltration basin, etc)?
Attach a detailed plan for all proposed structural stormwater BMPs.
Drainage
basin Size of
drainage
basin
ac Post-development
nitrogen loading rate
tvvithoutBMPs4
lbs/ac/ r BMP nitrogen
removal
eif<ciencys
% Final nitrogen
loading rate
(lbslac/yr) Final nitrogen
loading from
drainage basin
Ibs
7 3.2at; dci. 10.4 QG. t/. 25-4x% 8.2-6.6 knk- r. 33.99 16.5.
2
3
4
5
Totals
Hrracn carcutauons and references.
5 Attach calculations and references.
Variance Request Form, page 3
Version 1: September 1998
Part 3: Water Quality Protection, continued
7. The applicable supplemental form(s) listed below must be attached for each BMP specified:
Form SWU-102 Wet Detention Basin Supplement
Form SWU-103 Infiltration Basin Supplement
Form SWU-105 Curb Outlet System Supplement
Form SWU-106 Off-Site System Supplement
Form SWU-107 Underground Infiltration Trench Supplement
Form SWU-109 Innovative BMPs Supplement
Part 4: Submittal Checklist
A complete appplication submittal consists of the following components. Incomplete submittals
will be returned to the applicant. The complete variance request submittal must be received 90
days prior to the EMC meeting at which you wish the request to be heard. Initial below to
indicate that the necessary information has been provided.
Applicant's ??
Initials
• Original and two copies of the Variance Request Form and the attachments
listed below.
A vicinity map of the project (see Part 1, Item 5)
----fir • Narrative demonstration of the need for a variance (see Part 2)
-- • A detailed narrative description of stormwater treatment/management (see Part
3, Item 1)
-----? k Calculations supporting nitrogen loading estimates (see Part 3, Item 6)
-- Calculations and references supporting nitrogen removal from proposed BMPs

P'tr (see Part 3, Item 6)
• Location and details for all proposed structural stormwater BMPs (see Part 3,
Item 6)
- -- ---- -- • Three copies of the applicable Supplement Form(s) for each BMP and/or
narrative for each innovative BMP (see Part 3, Item 7)
• Three copies of plans and specifications, including:
0 Development/Project name
----- --- 0 Engineer and firm
0 Legend and north arrow
0 Scale (1" = 100' or 1" = 50' is preferred)
0 Revision number & date
0 Mean high water line (if applicable)
0 Dimensioned property/project boundary
0 Location map with named streets or NC State Road numbers
0 Original contours, proposed contours, spot elevations, finished floor
elevations
0 Details of roads, parking, cul-de-sacs, sidewalks, and curb and gutter
0 Footprint of any proposed buildings or other structures
0 Wetlands delineated, or a note on plans that none exist
0 Existing drainage (including off-site), drainage easements, pipe sizes, runoff
calculations
0 Drainage basins delineated
-- 0 Perennial and intermittent streams, ponds, lakes, rivers and estuaries
0 Location of forest vegetation along the streams, ponds, lakes, rivers and
estuaries
Variance Request Form, page 4
Version 1: September 1998
Part 5: Deed Restrictions
By your signature in Part 7 of this application, you certify that all structural stormwater best
management practices required by this variance shall be located in recorded stormwater
easements, that the easements will run with the land, that the easements cannot be changed or
deleted without concurrence from the State, and that the easements will be recorded prior to the
sale of any lot.
Part 6: Agent Authorization
If you wish to designate submittal authority to another individual or firm so that they may provide
information on your behalf, please complete this section:
Designated agent (individual or firm): _Soufflg" Gaydch Ivic.
Mailing address: 'Po. P ov Bob
City, State, Zip: Apa7 M4 27507-
Telephone: Fax: `i?2-3_G 3 - ?1iiz
Email: '770 rcl?_1r _(a? &_o_/, cult ?_
Part 7: Applicant's Certification
1, 'Z IC-a A-Q. O '`l. W I L.ES (print or type name of person
listed in Part I, Item 2), certify that the information included on this permit application form is
correct, that the project will be constructed in conformance with the approved plans and that the
deed restrictions in accordance with Part 5 of this form will be recorded with all required permit
conditions.
Signature:
Date:
Title:
nlou-. 6-. - 26v
-?-"-?wU -ow4-e-,r-
Variance Request Form, page 5
Version 1: September 1998
Part 2
Question 1
Richard N. Wiles and Anne Wiles
Lot #54 Regency Park Estates
Cary, NC
This application is for a major variance for a residential lot located in the Neuse Riparian Buffer
zone. The need for this application has arisen due to a series of events that unfortunately have
resulted in impervious surface area being installed within the 30 foot buffer zone of an unnamed
creek that flows through this lot during a portion of the year.
Lot #54 is a .91 acre lot located in Regency Park Estates Subdivision in Cary, NC. Regency
Park Estates was platted and approved as a subdivision in 1989. The home on Lot #54 was
finished in April 2000. The home was permitted by the town of Cary in 1999, and a survey was
completed by Cooper and Associates. That survey does record setbacks and easements that were
on record at the time of the approval of the subdivision in 1989. Cooper and Associates, the
surveyor, says that it is not customary for a surveyor to record easements that have arisen after
the original platting of the lot. As a result this Neuse Riparian Buffer is not a part of the survey.
Unfortunately, when the house was permitted to be built in 1999, the Neuse Riparian Buffer was
not being acknowledged or enforced by the town of Cary planning department. As a result the
house itself is sited significantly within the 30'setback zone from the bank of the creek; the
house actually is 10' from the creek. The creek runs along the edge of the lot for approximately
190 ft. of the 300 ft. long property line along that side. The creek enters the lot and meanders
within the 15 foot buffer setback zone along the southern boundary of the property.
The lot is shaped in a pie. It is significantly encumbered with requisite set-backs, buffers, and
easements. The sanitary sewer line for the development actually is located through the center of
the property, with a manhole access located near the front door of the home. The house was
moved back on the property to accommodate the sewer easement. A suitable "shotgun" style
floor plan was implemented to properly fit the site. The house is sited significantly to the rear of
the lot. There is a stream that is indicated on the GIS Maps on the north boundary of the
property, but upon field investigation by Steve Mitchell on December 1, 2003, he determined
that this is ephemeral drainage only.
The town of Cary determined that the hot tub installation did not require a general building
permit. The only permit required was the electrical permit. The electrician did not obtain the
electrical permit prior to beginning the work, contrary to the indication that he had the permit in
his possession. Hence the problem started.
Much of the rear of the property is subject to flooding and is low lying, but no flood plain notes
are on the survey. In consideration of the topography and stream there, the tub was sited to avoid
potential flooding, both from the stream that has exceeded it's banks historically, and from
upland water surface runoff that collects and flows heavily on the opposite property line from the
stream .
Setting the tub further away from the stream was a possibility. During the initial review of the
site to determine the best location, existing vegetation and water flow were considered. The area
that was selected required the least amount of vegetation to be removed. This site also required
the least amount of disturbance and minimized collection to the existing flow of surface water.
There is a significant vegetated buffer that is located on the north most property line, further
away from the stream, but does sit squarely in the route of offsite water runoff that is introduced
onto Lot 54. Pushing this installation further into that vegetated buffer would also concentrate
the surface flow into more of a channel, rather than the flatter swale that currently exists.
Prior to construction on Lot 54 (Wiles property), considerable grading was done off site. The
town homes that are built backing up to Lot 54 cleared all of the native vegetation up to and over
the lot line and re-graded, introducing the majority of the surface water onto Lot 54. Moving this
tub toward the native vegetative buffer would have required clearing of a heavily wooded area
consisting of native beech, gum, poplar, beautyberry, deciduous holly and pine.
The hot tub was set 26 feet from the stream. With additional clearing, there is sufficient space to
have moved the vessel another 10 or 15 feet easily, but the unit is now installed sub-grade, and is
quite difficult to move. We have also added trees, shrubs, and groundcover in the area to screen
the tub, utilize surface water, and control erosion. Access pathways in the area are all ground
woodchips, supporting the homeowner's desire to keep the natural feeling of the site.
The final electrical inspection wore on, and it became apparent that the electrician did not have
the necessary permit to finish the job. At that point we learned of the Neuse Riparian Buffer and
the encroachment into the setback zone. This encroachment was unintentional, and we would
have been pleased to have sited the vessel further from the bank of the creek, and could easily
have done so by removing native vegetation. Now it is not so easy.
The tub itself weighs about 7500 lbs., and requires a heavy crane to move it. The accessibility
route has now been closed off as we worked our way out during installation. There was existing
concrete driveway that was used for accessibility, and once the tub was set, the concrete has been
removed. It would require removal of 400 sq. ft. of concrete apron that has been poured on the
perimeter of the tub, and removal of 150 cu. yds. of soil and gravel that have been backfilled, and
removal of a CMU retaining wall that was installed to stabilize the gravel and soil backfill. The
tub itself is a $45,000 tub, requiring $25,000 installation costs, and approximately $20,000 in
naturalized landscaping. The cost to move the tub over is very difficult to estimate. The tub
itself may no longer be moveable without damage to the vessel.
The original site had a large amount of the native vegetation removed during the development
and construction phase in 1999. The first phase of landscaping that was done at conclusion of
the house construction during 2000 did include some native vegetation along the stream bank to
hopefully assist in stabilization of the area during storms and high water flow in the stream.
Those river birch and native azalea have become established and done very well. We have
mulched the denuded area and keep it covered in order to limit erosion. We are in the process of
adding ground cover and native plantings to assist in stabilization of the soils and prevent
erosion, increase infiltration of surface water to reduce runoff as a part of the hot tub installation.
? 20' 3T'o2M. SC:We'Ta_ 1?1£?:htWr•
.
NATIVE -rj?eE L•'4
• ? of
m• '
' W l LES `Ptzt?PEi?T?
LOT 54
tcy PatizV- S5m 15
-GAMi V,/Qe-? GJJt?}t+?/ ?Ci
5c APAZOV I " - 50'
Of
toD
r-rrr-
Part 3
Question 1.
Richard N. Wiles and Anne Wiles
Lot # 54 Regency Park Estates
Cary, NC
Lot #54 is the closest lot in the 3.116 acre watershed to the unnamed stream that empties
eventually into the Swift Creek. The current grading of the lot and the adjacent lots that flow
surface water through this property are fed through sheet flow. The area above the Wiles
property is heavily developed, resulting in 52% impervious surface area of the watershed. There
is a significant amount of water that flows through this lot. The homeowners have attempted to
manage the water flow. They have established grass cover and ground cover to help prevent
erosion. All pervious surface areas are maintained with mulch or wood chips.
The Wiles have agreed to the installation of a bio-retention area to manage the surface water that
is being introduced into the no name stream. Southern Garden, Inc., North Carolina Registered
Landscape Contractor #1049 will construct the bio-retention area. Referencing the Stormwater:
Best Management Practices (April 1999), we are proposing a bio-retention area device to assist
and filter the water that does flow through this property. Attached is a survey of Lot #54 that
shows the proposed location of the filtration device. Understanding that current information
available may be more appropriate in the design of the treatment device, Southern Garden will
work with both DEHNR and DWQ to determine the most appropriate design of the bio-retention
area.
Water will enter the rain garden device through a gradual sloping (< 5%) sheet flow. This sheet
flow area is currently densely vegetated with native population of primarily3"-6" caliper yellow
popular and sweet gum tree cover. The opening to the rain garden will be shaded, and 3 species
of plant materials, tree, shrub, and groundcover that are suited to shady locations will be selected
from the Guidelines for Riparian Buffer Restoration (January 2001) for planting. We will remove
no native trees larger than 6" to construct the garden. All clearing will be greater than 50' from
the actual no name stream.
Approximately 200 sq. ft. of impervious driveway surface area was removed in the course of this
installation. Drainage from the roof gutters that is currently being directed onto the edge of the
lot and is entering the buffer untreated, will be directed into the new treatment device. Surface
water that is currently introduced from adjacent lots and flows through the Wiles property and
into the buffer untreated will be retained and treated in the proposed device.
Soils on this site are currently Chewacla Series (Cm). The Wake County soil survey describes
this soil as a sandy loam to silty loam surface layers 4" to 12" thick. Beneath the surface layer
there is a sandy loam, silty loam to clay layer. The total thickness of the profile is 34" - 72" and
the infiltration rate is good with slow surface runoff. Permeability is .63 - 2.0 inches per hour.
Part 3
Question 5
The total nitrogen export of the Wyles property was calculated using ArcView GIS
software, geographic data obtained from Wake County GIS, and guidance from the
Neuse River Basin Model Stormwater Program for Nitrogen Control (guidance
document).
Wake County topographic data (2-foot contour interval) was used to delineate the target
property's off-site drainage basin area. The resulting polygon (drainage area) was 3.116
acres. The drainage area was then overlaid on 1999 aerial photography and cut into
smaller polygons representing land cover types. The target property had not been
improved at the time of the photograph. However, all other tracts in the drainage area
were developed. One property, adjacent to the north of the target property, was under
construction at the time. The adjacent residential structure was completed .(exterior),
and the driveway was estimated to calculate this lot's impervious surface area.
Three land cover categories were delineated within the drainage area, based on the
guidance document, including: Permanently protected undisturbed open space;
Permanently protected managed open space; and Impervious surfaces. Total nitrogen
export coefficients are provided for each land cover type in the guidance document.
Method 2 (Quantifying TN Export from Reside ntial/IndustriaUCommercial Developments
when footprints of all Impervious Surfaces are Shown) was followed.
Land Cover Area (ac) TN export coefficient TN export
(Ibs./ac./yr.) (Ibs./yr. )
Undisturbed
Open Space 0.648 0.6 0.3888
Managed
Open Space 0.936 1.2 1.1232
Impervious
Surface 1.532 21.2 32.4784
TOTAL: 3.116 - 33.9904
The drainage area (3.116 ac.) contributes 33.9904 Ibs. of nitrogen per year to the target
property. This breaks down to 10.9 Ibs./ac./yr. Total nitrogen export.
The bioretention area proposed by Southern Garden, Inc. has a planning TN removal
rate of about 25%, based on figures provided in the guidance document. Conversations
with DWQ staff found that, although sound for planning purposes, this is probably an
underestimate. The bioretention area will eliminate 8.5 lbs. of nitrogen (25%) each year
from reaching surface waters. Total nitrogen removal may actually reach 13.6 lbs. per
year (40%).
The existing development (drainage area) has no stormwater collection or nutrient filter
in place. On a per-acre basis, the 10.9 Ibs./ac./yr. current situation, will be reduced to
8.2 - 6.6 Ibs./ac./yr.
n .1, ?r r J Tt ivy- 1,.?! (I
:I 1 ` f r?) ti 1 +r r r I
•/? /. , f i J??l t In,?r r ?;?, I? / If ???` f '
I. •i^''?: p ? y.,,'C •O /-?
67
?, , ,?,? Y'• 1 ( 1 A , f ! ' t sue- ?_V.
%'.? ` C ,, ?':? ?r ? c? ICr- ? (J?::- t +? ,'?i / .,? f ?:il r k?'•`'??''v ? O rnrn
I,?/?,?r,f?.? ??ti •._? ?•r!'n" \ tllyj j'i ?I f a? f ?- r''?1 _ ' J ,? it / +`?i?' A _ ? ? ("?
W 6{ys},3_??•?I'.5?' ?????? il('ri t? i e? +(y')I ?p' ??+ ?`?. ?r . ?' _ I ,' O r-t-
?___ fi I 1 J
O 1)y? !-_? r-+7} ZY -n
O `s!'Vl -r}f t) `f X1.1 ° L. ;i f 1 ?`' J r 4 II t ty n
.r 'Irk 1 li !r '1 i
??"J?? t c "'i( x ??` a?'1 I.l\t .!? _ ` t s5 ^Y ?l ?' fT? Y 1 1 , k. l _
??,? ?`~'r:`C %? li' ,)11 +:4;I? ? ?.?r?Y" vta•^r } v t?` t r ? ?? (D 7{
y-`-\ A? 15 i'
t -??l c'.I -t t fly \,?i+l L *z,,,? fJ??l ?i I:r' l -D
Q
C7 --4
s' r' ti L ct f I 'ice S4 .?? p. t \ ! Aylr ?r T Isyr s a (D
7y
?T1
-?.,,}r t G '1• - + I?k L? Ifi' r>.?/y
:?j "ft'1t ? lir"?J?t,r?;t r r ?f (?5?y 1 t ,, ?•1•.? ,.t ? ?ff?` ',"' ?;?
jQ^G`r".,?7• ?.
jr.:L-?i, ,M, ..x,4`}1 ?I r, \ Ir Jlfi? __?.....-! /p`? "•f ;.? ?'_j
Z { ` ? `L'`?r , •?, y i' Jr. ?? ' 1. J / ?Fr-_. ?i t f/ p1 S`?.??? • - 1? ? ,- r.? .' /"et,.. ? ? ?ie?- •a s? ,
.? ? ? ? -+'? r ,? .?? 1? ?• .? ?.- ? ?• 1 ? C -r"^-? -'i'ce ::?.
I.. lM ??• `??- r ' lry? tr1??? >, lil' tiF"?-'?. : t ? r'C ,?• 'C-•
O t r ? ? ? i ^ .f'r, 11 5 '+SY..- ?'K'S , t t ' \ ? ?'• I ?_ >' TTT ? ? r t I ,
' ?] rll ?sz- ,, d-'w 1, ?l r-r•Y? ?{ - i ' ?.-' I 5 ,1 ti i.' .a
g::,i?ly r-M,r?f(? f ' `fM ,,?} •+tVJz s,. ?,?' r?{?_ ,t IJ -?
•r?? 7?rt ry'+1 '?..?•-u•.'/ r .S r js ?J ?L? .? - ?? ?i? r_.'` (xl ?C
Y''-r"_;?Y`r? y+i' < 1 `. ,'I ?)xl,Fla 1`\r i ?.``?' ? as 4? ;1 _ n? {, 1` N
?r'? /?l'?11 ?? r??e ,'`. 1??tG I Jb2?, } ??-a-.•'?. ?!? \ f L ?^?a ?_ ?t:,v kf?i
'?r Sr??+I} .'`?j?iyt :?.'? I Zt l?:•- ?'2 I t •zA Q.
'S `^ 1 r r r,? .1 >\ a--J?4?' I 1Ys.- v,ti }} Z'- CD p
??..(-. ? r f?? tF ,rl tax Ir • .+. ??r+ U^•'•? '?`kyt+; u?'afiaC @ t iri -D
JJ' `? f xa;a? r -rev i `S ?, S?.s??* z A ( - (
C) ?t
SYrl D
r _
? N 1 i? ?? I ?t?. ' '• f _ ' , t'"yf-•r??`?eft?',- Z t . :. - . lrV+ti - v? ?{,? `.
?' +?.'_k .?.? i ? ? •?ISl ? 1f ?r -JS .).."5-?,:"••;. ; ' r -ti^? = . \. ;+t! ?? •- • fir; .'4„ ?i? '}sr?9••-rt 3.s? w_ ?.
O '?ti T ! ?i inl / Y .3:.. ?W?•, C? ,•?,, ?.•; \ z,?`,? • „? 3n
O ?` r 1 1• - - .a 'gip ( s? ' J ,'? ^ ?c 4 C
O •r - O ' I , ,(??`.?\"Jj' } •5 1ti1+?Si'?•'?? i r{ +r?'z ,re,G?'t1i, r_1y? D O
(D • ? r tit \.'.. t 'M I', r.
(D T?/ r 3 `?Yti? r - t `y ;; A rs ?1 + a 'rs? t I .sJ :T CD
rrt - _? y"t--•? r? ? l? ?X .t _I ,J u i.- t ?? .,i -- c '. a L??- ?'1 1 1vs ? ?^' ? - ? •?i-
?j _
i ?), L ', .1'x'1. , :: 'j } NI 1 ( ?{' w ,? tiµit.i l(• ` ..ri= r i tst ?? O
4??. ? { ? r- 'rr? S ? t ! r"? '; i ? k'? v i -y ?- -- ? +.? -..,..,. t• y ,r? Y t .r, Z D
`; '3 } - .-,{„ K Y r r i?. 1 y 5\yi••-?s{q; ^ II (? _-r.?iJt?•,,-f ?} 1?? n
.i;.,-? ?!? tL •z-r`''• jl Il.. Y .(?• ? r f (D
?sr' ? -4 !y
(I?lyr.-J
'. yi^, 1t1''b? <f r •. .'J (vqf '?l\: s?•4 >?.•^ y ?l`i W ?r ... jf! r ?` f 4 '
`i r Y i, `i? r S rI[? k' 4 _ - s '_ , l _ i/ y'j'S C?i ?,.
r , t.
J,-
"' `. 3 'a, :. 7 ? s ?• ??^ ?-?.7f _ •^i ? ter- ) (t ?ry1/ ?r;'f
rl.?i: jyl 1i ', r l T ..•\ It
t.r' F•''' n ?'C: r•`J r t?,.
O
C ?co?
?'"O
r CO c
co Q ;L O '
tO ID c p
m p
< O CD
voQ
A 4 sQ
< (D < O
- t po n
E3 4
N00
?N- CD
CF) 7 .
p N
? 0
CY)
Explanation of Photogrametric Calculations
of Land Cover Types in the Target
Property's Drainage Basin.
Wyles Property Bioretention Area
113 Redfern Drive - Cary NC, 27511
Wake County GIS topographic data were
used to identify the drainage area of the
target property. Using ArcView GIS, the
total area was calculated to be 3.116 acres.
I The drainage area polygon was then laid
over 1999 aerial photography and cut into
pieces based on land cover.
Impervious Surface
?---Permanently Protected Open Space
i ?PermanentJy Protected Managed Open Space
,1 ww°°.?Rn Target Property removed to
calculate off-site nitrogen
export.
Again using ArcView software to calculate
areas of each land cover type:

ri
s

Protected open space ------- 0.648 acre
Protected managed open space ----- 0.936 acre
Impervious surface area ------- 1.532 acres
Nitrogen load calculations based on Neuse
River Basin Stormwater Program for Nitrogen
Control and TN export coefficients provided.
0.648 ac = (0.6 Ibstac/yr) = 0.3888 Ibsfyr
0.936 ac" (1.2 lbs/aclyr) = 1.1232 lbs/yr
1.532 ac 1 (21.2 Ibs/ac/yr) = 32.4784 Ibs/yr
3.116 acres contribute 33.9904 Ibs/yr
= 10.908 Ibs N/ac/yr

I
blap prepared by
Robert J. Goldstein a Associates, Inc.
8480 Garvey Drive - Raleigh, NC 27616
[phone]: fax[phone]
URL: vvvow.rjgaCarollna.com
N
0
O
0
(D
r-1-
0 >
(D
14.
1
0
CI3 0
D?
r,- -a
W?
Q -v
(D O
3-0
CD
o?
C Co
?(D
?CD
z°
C7 D
rv (
CD
-?
cn
w N
O
0
O
T
(D 0
o rl"
o A
C -`
(D
_ ? S11
UI O
O
C
N
^ ? n
? N
O
-s
s
Cfl
? C1
W?
m
rn
0
O
(D
(D
.-r
2
o i
?-moCa
m??a
4 al t_ CO
?a ? a
CD O
J -< Q CD
to -4 CL
j"_ N a
? -p Z (D
?CD ax t 9,
v `o;u>
o
3 C?; U2
4
16Z
N O Y)
NJ F7_
C"
CD
ti
cT\ N cm J
l?0 , ? `Y t CO M CD 3
0 cm L n n (D
CL CL
ID 70 CD C=)
CD m.70 co cn to w
CD < " < (D
(D m •rx
(n
o
U) U) 0
-0 0 =1 En
CD -a 0- Er 3
E
3
Q. -v
(D o
e
2 ' C
m O
2
(D
Z O
nA
N CD
v m
C71
* -13
w
0
0
0
W
O
O
0)
O
O
-n
(D
(D
rr-
x
C m?m3
Zl . o v
f-?oCT)a
m Q C a
V v L CO
??(D . 13
O { O Q O
- `
(---<
V vQ 0.
v A a.
,<
0 CD
m m
C3 X 3
_ 2 go
a1 .? p
N
O O
3 y 3 n
Z CD
N_ OP
'A V 7
C
CD
^ N
7N (D tD ((D j-n
(0D 7
CD Q- C3 A
CL CD cn n ? Q?@ ?Q
O (D (?7 `C N
U) •? #-I- •? r O
O (n
p O
CD rL -C3
U) 'C co `CL O
3 3
\V
?' O.
(D o
t7
0 ?
O
c m
Cn
C/) o
O =
C/) su
o
o
O
s
0
i
CD
"i
O
3
W `C
X (D
U)
(D T
Q
" ?
(D O
1 -a
O
M. "<
C W
O O
O
Z O
IV ((D
v M
U1
DIU ;DATER [QUALITY
Ar?R
Q
-I
Fax: [phone] Jan 27 '04, 15: t 1 P. wl I
Wt~3C AQenila Item 43
Mlphaul F. Easloy, Ccv©mor
William G_ Rosa Jr_, Socretary
North Carolina Departrrmantof Envirorinwtand Natural Rosourcos
Alan W. Klimek, P. E. Diroctor
Division of Water Quality
Colocn H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Wntcr Quality
Consideration of a Request for a Major Variance from the
Neuse River Riparian Area Protection Rule
Rex Hospital, Raleigh, Wake County, NO
December 10, 2003
A request has been received for the Water Quality Committee to grant a variance frcin the Neuse River riparian area
protection rule (15A NCAC 2B .0233) for the "Rex Medical Office Building and Parking Garage Expansion" project. The
project is located at 4420 Lake Boone Trail, Raleigh, NC.
The applicant, Rex Hospital, Inc., is proposing to impact buffers along a modified stream and oxisting pond to develop an
office building and parking garage. The unnamed stream is a tributary to House Creek (classified as °C NSW'J. The
stream begins at an existing stormwater outfall and flows into an existing stormwater pond. Protected riparian buffers,
125 feet of modified stream and an existing jurisdictional stormwater pond will be irnpacted by the proposed project. The
applicant proposes to pipe the stream and to reconstruct the pond to current best management practices design
requirements.
The stream receives stormwater runoff from the hospital buildings and parking lots. In addition, the stream receives
condensate from several large air-conditioner units. This condensate appears to contribute a significant amount of flour
to the stream. Staff sampled the stream and determined that it contains aquatic life (see attached memorandum). Staff
determined the stream to be a modified, intermittent stream subject to the Neuse Buffer Rule.
The US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) determined that the pond is jurisdictional undor Sioctlon 404 regulations.
However, the USACE determined that the stream above the pond is not jurisdictional under Section 404 regulations. As
such, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification will be required for the impacts to the pond, but not the stream above the
pond.
Preliminary Findings & Recommendation:
1. The Division of Water Quality (Division) Staff believe that the applicant's request has mot all of the requirements
[(identified within 15A NCAC 23 .0233(9)(a)] for granting a variance.
2. The Division staff believe that the applicant is proposing sufficient nitrogen removing stormwater measures.
North Carolina Division of Water Ouslity. 401 Wetlands Certification Unit.
1650 Mail Service Conter. Raleigh, NO 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crobtroo Blvd., Raleigh, NO 27604-2260 (location)
"In 'o 4.7 i..r...-% o?o.?a?srto? Ifavi t,"-//h9n.unr.statc.ne.uz/ncwettande!
JAN-27-2004 TUE 14:45 TEL:[phone] NAh1E:DWO-WETLANDS P. c
Fax t?tossago From =
Jan 27 '04 15:08
Name: DIV WATER. QUALITY
Fax Number: 9197155637
NCDENR - DIV OF WATER Planning Branch
JAN-27-2004 TUE 14:45 TEL:[phone] NAHE:DHO-HETLAIIDS) P. 1
DIV WATER CUA_ITY Fax:[phone] Jan 27 '01 15:0*- F.02
Pao
3. Additional Conditions - The Division staff believe that the following conditions should be added to the variance if
approved.
a) A final, detailed stormwater management plan shall be approved by the Division prior to impacting the stream
and buffors.
b) The applicant shall receive any required 401 Water Quality Certifications prior to impacting the pond.
c) i) The applicant shall provide full buffer mitigation as per 15A NCAC 02B.0242 prior to impacting the
buffers.
ii) The applicant shall provide retrofit, stormwater management facilities that remove nitrogen for currently
untreated stormwater. The applicant shall provide a stormwater management plan to the Division for
approval prior to impacting the buffers. The stormwater management plan shall incorporate methodology
described in the `Proposal for a method of determining compensatory buffer rnitigatiorr credit via nutrient
removal for projects that require a Major. Varianc© from the Riparian Area Protection Rules (Revision 2.0)".
The plan shall be acceptable to the DWQ, otherwise full buffer mitigation as described within (c)(i) above will
be required.
The Division Staff believe that tlxe project meets the requirements for granting a variance. Staff
.recommend that this variance bequest be approved with the conditions fisted above.
JAN-27-2004 TUE 14:45 TEL:[phone] MANE:DWQ-WETLAHDS PI. 3
OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Received _------ . Request #
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Variance Request Form
Neuse River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy
Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rule (15A NCAC .0233)
NOTE. This form maybe photocopied for use as an original.
Part 1: General Information
1. Applicant's name (the corporation, individual, etc. who owns the project):
91 G is 4-R.p N . %N LES
2. Print Owner/Signing Official (person legally responsible for the facility and its compliance)
Name: RIGNA4LO hl. L-UIL?US
Title: ?T)20F-dW--r%f 0t41a _c>?
Street address: /I -:? PERM -Dgr Vc
City, State, Zip: --C? ,, &.I cc-
Telephone: 34 1- 329
Fax: 32-q-_ 1p
3. Project Name (Subdivision, facility, or establishment name - consistent with project name on
plans, specifications, letters, operation and maintenance agreements, etc.):
..r a,? i u ?cE
4. Location of Facility
Street address: 113 9-EDFW-AJ ?r???E ___-___.?___._?_____ _ _-_.._________
City, State, Zip: 7-7511 _--
County: ---- - --
Latitude/longitude: __.-..-7e....'zq_I7-B062-1.7_ 7z3,we,0000.32.___...
5. Directions to facility from nearest major intersection (Also attach a map):
_LU ??N 1 GF 1G?/ p?b2ku??y___t ?-o?-e, Z7-?- o?1 24 _ Fpm LOc cJ _T- i WVCs bl NAXig
IET
CN,I?+?J V _ Ta ___ E?2L _ R I1/c -66E Ale, •_ _? ?2N__..L45F.T.- -OM7 . UENUG or 71F Esi?b
S
6. Contact person who can answer questions about the facility:
Name: coMIL41 E Ho CS
Telephone:
Fax: q?r1__)_-3b3 q-, Z, 2 -.__.__..
Email: --SQ_?c3fc-ten-2-_clol cowl.-_..____
7. Requested Environmental Management Commission Hearing Date: ,-_-Dtlr-. /0, 2003 ___
Version 1: September 1998
Part 2: Demonstration of Need for a Variance
NOTE. The variance provision of the Neuse Riparian Area Rule allows the Environmental Management
Commission to grant a variance to an affected party when the following conditions apply on a given project:
(a) practical difficulties or hardships would result from strict application of the rule:
(b) such difficulties or hardships result from conditios which are peculiar to the property involved; and
(c) the general purpose and intent of the Rule would be preserved, water quality would be protected and
substantial justice would be done if the variance were granted.
This part of the application is to explain how the project meets criteria (a) and (b).
Attach a detailed description (2-3 pages) explaining the following:
• The practical difficulties or hardships that would result from strict application of the Rule.
• How these difficulties or hardships result from conditions that are unique to the property
involved.
• Why reconfiguring and/or reducing the built-upon area to preserve a greater portion of the
riparian area is not feasible on this project. If economic hardship is the major
consideration, then include a specific explanation of the economic hardship and the
proportion of the hardship to the entire value of the project.
Part 3: Water Quality Protection
NOTE: This part of the application is to explain how the project meets criterion (c): the general purpose and
intent of the Rule would be preserved, water quality would be protected and substantial justice would be done if
the variance were granted.
1. Briefly summarize how water quality will be protected on this project. Also attach a detailed
narrative (1-2 pages) describing the nonstructural and structural measures that will be used
for protecting water quality and reducing nitrogen inputs to surface water.
See a da.e4c c(
2. What is the total project area in acres? • 41
3. Which of the following permits/approvals will be required for this project?
CAMA Major
Sediment/Erosion Control
_ 401 Certification/404 Permit
Variance Request Form, page 2
Version 1: September 1998
Part 3: Water Quality Protection, continued
4. Complete the following information for each drainage basin. If there are more than two
drainage basins in the project, attach an additional sheet with the information for each basin
provided in the same format as below.
Project Information Drainage Basin 1 Drainage Basin 2
Receiving stream name #10AMe, --?''IWIFt' C
Receiving stream class' 6 IIL - NSW
Drainage basin area (total) 3. to ac*z5
Existing impervious area3 (tota 12) 074-6 'r
Proposed impervious area3 (totalz) z
Impervious area3 (on-site) C14Q 11Z
Impervious area3 (totalz) 21 'In
Impervious area3 Drainage basin 1 Drainage basin 2
On-site buildings 337b
On-site streets L+ qs
On-site parking 'Cr
On-site sidewalks (o2S
Other on-site
Total on-site 44 2o ym
Off-site I . X32 awls
Total 1-50- LVU
' The internet site for this information is http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/strmclass/alpha/neu.html
2 Total means on-site plus off-site area that drains through the project.
3 Impervious area is defined as the built-upon area including, but not limited to, buildings, parking areas,
sidewalks, gravel areas, etc.
5. How was the off-site impervious area listed above derived?
she _VANdia
6. What will be the annual nitrogen load contributed by this site after development in pounds per
acre per year without structural BMPs (stormwater pond, wetland, infiltration basin, etc)?
Attach a detailed plan for all proposed structural stormwater BMPs.
Drainage
basin Size of
drainage
basin
ac Post-development
nitrogen loading rate
without BMPs°
Ibs/ac/ r BMP nitrogen
removal
effi'ciency5
% Final nitrogen
loading rate
(Ibs/ac/yr) Final nitrogen
loading from
drainage basin
Ibs
7 3.?-q6 ac. 10.9 jilac
?.
26-4o7•
g.2-6.6bsl-.?r.
33,99 IbS.
2
3
4
5
Totals ------ ------ ------
Attach calculations and references.
5 Attach calculations and references.
Variance Request Form, page 3
Version 1: September 1998
Part 3: Water Quality Protection, continued
7. The applicable supplemental form(s) listed below must be attached for each BMP specified:
Form SWU-102 Wet Detention Basin Supplement
Form SWU-103 Infiltration Basin Supplement
Form SWU-105 Curb Outlet System Supplement
Form SWU-106 Off-Site System Supplement
Form SWU-107 Underground Infiltration Trench Supplement
Form SWU-109 Innovative BMPs Supplement
Part 4: Submittal Checklist
A complete appplication submittal consists of the following components. Incomplete submittals
will be returned to the applicant. The complete variance request submittal must be received 90
days prior to the EMC meeting at which you wish the request to be heard. Initial below to
indicate that the necessary information has been provided.
Applicant's Item
Initials
Original and two copies of the Variance Request Form and the attachments
listed below.
. A vicinity map of the project (see Part1, Item 5)
. Narrative demonstration of the need for a variance (see Part 2)
• A detailed narrative description of stormwater treatment/management (see Part
3, Item 1)
---------------?tk - Calculations supporting nitrogen loading estimates (see Part 3, Item 6)
------------------ Calculations and references supporting nitrogen removal from proposed BMPs
(see Part 3, Item 6)
----t''tr Location and details for all proposed structural stormwater BMPs (see Part 3,
Item 6)
--- ---"- --- • Three copies of the applicable Supplement Form(s) for each BMP and/or
narrative for each innovative BMP (see Part 3, Item 7)
-- --- • Three copies of plans and specifications, including:
- -- -- -- 0 Development/Project name
---""- - " 0 Engineer and firm
----."----- 0 Legend and north arrow
- 0 Scale (1" = 100' or 1" = 50' is preferred)
- 0 Revision number & date
0 Mean high water line (if applicable)
0 Dimensioned property/project boundary
0 Location map with named streets or NC State Road numbers
0 Original contours, proposed contours, spot elevations, finished floor
elevations
0 Details of roads, parking, cul-de-sacs, sidewalks, and curb and gutter
0 Footprint of any proposed buildings or other structures
-------- ----- - 0 Wetlands delineated, or a note on plans that none exist
0 Existing drainage (including off-site), drainage easements, pipe sizes, runoff
- calculations
- ------------ 0 Drainage basins delineated
------- - 0 Perennial and intermittent streams, ponds, lakes, rivers and estuaries
0 Location of forest vegetation along the streams, ponds, lakes, rivers and
estuaries
Variance Request Form, page 4
Version 1: September 1998
Part 5: Deed Restrictions
By your signature in Part 7 of this application, you certify that all structural stormwater best
management practices required by this variance shall be located in recorded stormwater
easements, that the easements will run with the land, that the easements cannot be changed or
deleted without concurrence from the State, and that the easements will be recorded prior to the
sale of any lot.
Part 6: Agent Authorization
If you wish to designate submittal authority to another individual or firm so that they may provide
information on your behalf, please complete this section:
Designated agent (individual or firm): __50U+fW+'yw 6"dc-v), I v c-
Mailing address: 'Ro•Pioit 808
City, State, Zip: ------------ apu? N?__??7Sc?z_...-------_ --- - ------- .__.._ -- ...
Telephone: ?l?_ 3Gz - /oso
Fax: gzzz
Email: So J a rd?rn C-? & ?. c-rw
Part 7: Applicant's Certification
I, _-ZicU v.ia-o . WILES (print or type name of person
listed in Part I, Item 2), certify that the information included on this permit application form is
correct, that the project will be constructed in conformance with the approved plans and that the
deed restrictions in accordance with Part 5 of this form will be recorded with all required permit
conditions.
Signature:
Date:
Title:

Variance Request Form, page 5
Version 1: September 1998
Part 2
Question 1
Richard N. Wiles and Anne Wiles
Lot #54 Regency Park Estates
Cary, NC
This application is for a major variance for a residential lot located in the Neuse Riparian Buffer
zone. The need for this application has arisen due to a series of events that unfortunately have
resulted in impervious surface area being installed within the 30 foot buffer zone of an unnamed
creek that flows through this lot during a portion of the year.
Lot #54 is a.91 acre lot located in Regency Park Estates Subdivision in Cary, NC. Regency
Park Estates was platted and approved as a subdivision in 1989. The home on Lot #54 was
finished in April 2000. The home was permitted by the town of Cary in 1999, and a survey was
completed by Cooper and Associates. That survey does record setbacks and easements that were
on record at the time of the approval of the subdivision in 1989. Cooper and Associates, the
surveyor, says that it is not customary for a surveyor to record easements that have arisen after
the original platting of the lot. As a result this Neuse Riparian Buffer is not a part of the survey.
Unfortunately, when the house was permitted to be built in 1999, the Neuse Riparian Buffer was
not being acknowledged or enforced by the town of Cary planning department. As a result the
house itself is sited significantly within the 30'setback zone from the bank of the creek; the
house actually is 10' from the creek. The creek runs along the edge of the lot for approximately
190 ft. of the 300 ft. long property line along that side. The creek enters the lot and meanders
within the 15 foot buffer setback zone along the southern boundary of the property.
The lot is shaped in a pie. It is significantly encumbered with requisite set-backs, buffers, and
easements. The sanitary sewer line for the development actually is located through the center of
the property, with a manhole access located near the front door of the home. The house was
moved back on the property to accommodate the sewer easement. A suitable "shotgun" style
floor plan was implemented to properly fit the site. The house is sited significantly to the rear of
the lot. There is a stream that is indicated on the GIS Maps on the north boundary of the
property, but upon field investigation by Steve Mitchell on December 1, 2003, he determined
that this is ephemeral drainage only.
The town of Cary determined that the hot tub installation did not require a general building
permit. The only permit required was the electrical pen-nit. The electrician did not obtain the
electrical permit prior to beginning the work, contrary to the indication that he had the permit in
his possession. Hence the problem started.
Much of the rear of the property is subject to flooding and is low lying, but no flood plain notes
are on the survey. In consideration of the topography and stream there, the tub was sited to avoid
potential flooding, both from the stream that has exceeded it's banks historically, and from
upland water surface runoff that collects and flows heavily on the opposite property line from the
stream .
Setting the tub further away from the stream was a possibility. During the initial review of the
site to determine the best location, existing vegetation and water flow were considered. The area
that was selected required the least amount of vegetation to be removed. This site also required
the least amount of disturbance and minimized collection to the existing flow of surface water.
There is a significant vegetated buffer that is located on the north most property line, further
away from the stream, but does sit squarely in the route of offsite water runoff that is introduced
onto Lot 54. Pushing this installation further into that vegetated buffer would also concentrate
the surface flow into more of a channel, rather than the flatter swale that currently exists.
Prior to construction on Lot 54 (Wiles property), considerable grading was done off site. The
town homes that are built backing up to Lot 54 cleared all of the native vegetation up to and over
the lot line and re-graded, introducing the majority of the surface water onto Lot 54. Moving this
tub toward the native vegetative buffer would have required clearing of a heavily wooded area
consisting of native beech, gum, poplar, beautyberry, deciduous holly and pine.
The hot tub was set 26 feet from the stream. With additional clearing, there is sufficient space to
have moved the vessel another 10 or 15 feet easily, but the unit is now installed sub-grade, and is
quite difficult to move. We have also added trees, shrubs, and groundcover in the area to screen
the tub, utilize surface water, and control erosion. Access pathways in the area are all ground
woodchips, supporting the homeowner's desire to keep the natural feeling of the site.
The final electrical inspection wore on, and it became apparent that the electrician did not have
the necessary permit to finish the job. At that point we learned of the Neuse Riparian Buffer and
the encroachment into the setback zone. This encroachment was unintentional, and we would
have been pleased to have sited the vessel further from the bank of the creek, and could easily
have done so by removing native vegetation. Now it is not so easy.
The tub itself weighs about 7500 lbs., and requires a heavy crane to move it. The accessibility
route has now been closed off as we worked our way out during installation. There was existing
concrete driveway that was used for accessibility, and once the tub was set, the concrete has been
removed. It would require removal of 400 sq. ft. of concrete apron that has been poured on the
perimeter of the tub, and removal of 150 cu. yds. of soil and gravel that have been backfilled, and
removal of a CMU retaining wall that was installed to stabilize the gravel and soil backfill. The
tub itself is a $45,000 tub, requiring $25,000 installation costs, and approximately $20,000 in
naturalized landscaping. The cost to move the tub over is very difficult to estimate. The tub
itself may no longer be moveable without damage to the vessel.
The original site had a large amount of the native vegetation removed during the development
and construction phase in 1999. The first phase of landscaping that was done at conclusion of
the house construction during 2000 did include some native vegetation along the stream bank to
hopefully assist in stabilization of the area during storms and high water flow in the stream.
Those river birch and native azalea have become established and done very well. We have
mulched the denuded area and keep it covered in order to limit erosion. We are in the process of
adding ground cover and native plantings to assist in stabilization of the soils and prevent
erosion, increase infiltration of surface water to reduce runoff as a part of the hot tub installation.

1
W I DES 'Pt2CV"
5?-
a.. a-Af;Emcy.rr 1
i
;EMT: mr--. e
`c?Y1GS ?
i
t
OjFq"c,y PAxv- E5MTE'5
5c APftV I"-P'

OIL fop
Part 3
Question 1.
Richard N. Wiles and Anne Wiles
Lot # 54 Regency Park Estates
Cary, NC
Lot #54 is the closest lot in the 3.116 acre watershed to the unnamed stream that empties eventually
into the Swift Creek. The current grading of the lot and the adjacent lots that flow surface water
through this property are fed through sheet flow. The area above the Wiles property is heavily
developed, resulting in 52% impervious surface area of the watershed. There is a significant
amount of water that flows through this lot. The homeowners have attempted to manage the water
flow. They have established grass cover and ground cover to help prevent erosion. All pervious
surface areas are maintained with mulch or wood chips.
The Wiles have agreed to the installation of a bio-retention area to manage the surface water that is
being introduced into the no name stream. Southern Garden, Inc., North Carolina Registered
Landscape Contractor #1049 will construct the bio-retention area. Referencing the Stormwater:
Best Management Practices (April 1999), we are proposing a bio-retention area device to assist and
filter the water that does flow through this property. Attached is a survey of Lot #54 that shows the
proposed location of the filtration device. Understanding that current information available may be
more appropriate in the design of the treatment device, Southern Garden will work with both
DEHNR and DWQ to determine the most appropriate design of the bio-retention area.
Water will enter the rain garden device through a gradual sloping (< 5%) sheet flow. This sheet
flow area is currently densely vegetated with native population of primarily3"-6" caliper yellow
popular and sweet gum tree cover. The opening to the rain garden will be shaded, and 3 species of
plant materials, tree, shrub, and groundcover that are suited to shady locations will be selected from
the Guidelines for Riparian Buffer Restoration (January 2001) for planting. We will remove no
native trees larger than 6" to construct the garden. All clearing will be greater than 50' from the
actual no name stream.
Approximately 200 sq. ft. of impervious driveway surface area was removed in the course of this
installation. Drainage from the roof gutters that is currently being directed onto the edge of the lot
and is entering the buffer untreated; 50% of the 3500 sq. ft. of downspout water will be directed into
the new treatment device. Surface water that is currently introduced from adjacent lots and flows
through the Wiles property and into the buffer untreated will be retained and treated in the proposed
device.
Soils on this site are currently Chewacla Series (Cm). The Wake County soil survey describes this
soil as a sandy loam to silty loam surface layers 4" to 12" thick. Beneath the surface layer there is a
sandy loam, silty loam to clay layer. The total thickness of the profile is 34" - 72" and the
infiltration rate is good with slow surface runoff. Permeability is .63 - 2.0 inches per hour.
By April 15, 2004, a design would be submitted for approval to DWQ. The device will be
implemented by June 15, 2004, and DWQ will be called to inspect the installation. The permanent
recording of the easement will be done by July 1, 2004. Each year thereafter for 3 years an annual
report of the inspection of the device will be submitted to the DWQ by June 1, 2005, 2006, 2007.
Part 3
Question 5
The total nitrogen export of the Wyles property was calculated using ArcView GIS
software, geographic data obtained from Wake County GIS, and guidance from the
Neuse River Basin Model Stormwater Program for Nitrogen Control (guidance
document).
Wake County topographic data (2-foot contour interval) was used to delineate the target
property's off-site drainage basin area. The resulting polygon (drainage area) was 3.116
acres. The drainage area was then overlaid on 1999 aerial photography and cut into
smaller polygons representing land cover types. The target property had not been
improved at the time of the photograph. However, all other tracts in the drainage area
were developed. One property, adjacent to the north of the target property, was under
construction at the time. The adjacent residential structure was completed (exterior),
and the driveway was estimated to calculate this lot's impervious surface area.
Three land cover categories were delineated within the drainage area, based on the
guidance document, including: Permanently protected undisturbed open space;
Permanently protected managed open space; and Impervious surfaces. Total nitrogen
export coefficients are provided for each land cover type in the guidance document.
Method 2 (Quantifying TN Export from Residential/Industrial/Commercial Developments
when footprints of all Impervious Surfaces are Shown) was followed.
Land Cover Area (ac) TN export coefficient TN export
(Ibs./ac./yr.) (Ibs./yr.)
Undisturbed
Open Space 0.648 0.6 0.3888
Managed
Open Space 0.936 1.2 1.1232
Impervious
Surface 1.532 21.2 32.4784
TOTAL: 3.116 --- 33.9904
The drainage area (3.116 ac.) contributes 33.9904 Ibs. of nitrogen per year to the target
property. This breaks down to 10.9 Ibs./ac./yr. Total nitrogen export.
The bioretention area proposed by Southern Garden, Inc. has a planning TN removal
rate of about 25%, based on figures provided in the guidance document. Conversations
with DWQ staff found that, although sound for planning purposes, this is probably an
underestimate. The bioretention area will eliminate 8.5 lbs. of nitrogen (25%) each year
from reaching surface waters. Total nitrogen removal may actually reach 13.6 Ibs. per
year (40%).
The existing development (drainage area) has no stormwater collection or nutrient filter
in place. On a per-acre basis, the 10.9 Ibs./ac./yr. current situation, will be reduced to
8.2 - 6.6 Ibs./ac./yr.
d l: tt???'?''•7' b•t/.'1 ?I, i?!..!'? ''f'tlJ': n-in I. ral ?` tti.7l I` 'r.=''iy{f -rs''lft.?l`;-(t
• p:. ? ,6=F`•. \ •?+"l?t?l, ?.tl, ?Jl', t..t` }1tr"{??}??+' ?`! ? _?i ?r' _. ,{?i--??Y?? y..
?_ ?+rl t,• ? •._kt \ ``+Y \.:,}.i?+y'•?. ?,v ??t',l .J'?t???•.1J{?r?{/1?t ? I ? ??f + 't?_ ? ?' ?? ? +` ?
• ?.a ll }? ?7 ?j i. a r
p1 ++ * ;r?k,'f f .? I y J£r O r1_
j i' _? t)'+h?)' f ,tart L? I,T?? ??t 6t" ` O ?•
• + T II! r L r __. +? r rw ?. 1r 71 1 ?r 0
I%Y 1 rJ?t 1 a''? I?$? •O O r-f-
? j,SyL,s. ?. ?°?;?,. S I ;l „j: t•. ;.?,`i` :,? ,), 1?''? t.,,'•'1,, ? ' ? - ,,,rte
??'?l??.?`}?•FI ti`:' jIF^.j?t?l?f'•`•.'?-, ???., ?• ? ??.??r1,?.f ,V;.j? ti M?,? ..% 3..•1?;? ? O D ?"?.
O •"t`? ?`?i?^? ?`??°?u,? ;"` ' a ` r?I? S,th.?' Jc \,?'F , ; 7 ?l '? _ m x ?.
.Lg Y • f+ +'-?) ?? ?`, ill. ??;, ?y• { ?'" , -? (? a ? -;, ,? r--' !,'
'~?C'??l•.;?t.? ?'}}:+.' r^R ?•)'i.?;:•?•ir,??it5\ j`i'-?C^"f. ;?? =.?+ r. d: Z
?L ?-_-=j???? ? y S ; ?1 - ) jC`?.'tbd????•\'``.- J ?'1. S)? 'ti:' ?{*f "?c?...cs,, -?'?L - r - I t 1 (r') - - tJ7 n
;?,= f:•.?,-x s iti'.. )? ` f Ji?i' .1 3., !x. a I^? j? _ (D
+," +?
rAr
% 1 I lrl? at 1At rf,,'T!r 1}J r f°?l• J^ AL 3 ?.
I,- -?? L ?, ' :?.?li,`• ? T? I f J?_i!M• ? ?"l4ii?' { ?? , { i ?,r_.?`•}'? `"{. n6iC
%i•'? , ? SARI `' :;+y r r } _ / l y': _
I'•?.? ? ,`Y?at? RXt, k f •,1t:, ?.<_ r \d 1rY' ?pt +?? ?y
O 7 ;;? }{ '1 ?f"???' t 4[+y.? I t '.`l .?r? s S f r `r'I?'r`vinl 11 ?^ -? C
? 4` hI zx ? +C
t5 z
CD w
j•' ,I, hl ?t 1 `1•\? ` _ ?.? • 1 1 ) #1 f.? (D
'??,f f?; r?? .?`e ?"?aG,pl?r,?Jr',<+. "?- .!?`.=?"??..?>•=':1 xti ^ ? '?.°cf 1 ?(?' n. ?
rill
(D 0
Z) (D
?'F,;y' ;:.• rr'r' tiJi<%H ?I .i (/L-?\?. ??' i??,'` ?1.,,?,,?yyy'..?..??? S J1\?. .?
(D `Z1`'r. I)`., ii - ! ` ?'c'?'.'?i` t `'??41.{ ,/, y? y y ?:a --c 1 -•s.
cy)
O ' 1' l r --?. O i '?--,- Y?r" ' t •C ,"??'., Nk'' 1? • ?? - a' £ F?, a- ?,,,4'?Y r _" ; .
-0 (D
'yI' ???,? sz l3rst% ?a]?t ,•w '? n ((D
-11 y--f ;.?yAll,
` fl/i ti r9+?i -.r ! ''':a ` i :C•'_ . ti J'.•?f'??,j., h • ,ice ?1, ^.a "-S ,?.
,O..f. -?- L'• •+i-4, j
u
O
t ? ? r ?F `?• f'3`?it?+- r -+,?, t ?? 7c' ?.a .--- ? - - aTSr"- ---i"r-" i"` as•.+? ' - ?
Gs SiVrY? 1 .)' c +''' a345'N ?'? -? i \v ?Y ? nD
,,Ft,
t-- f Cry , f_
?' ?'.?, y '-Na#4 3 t " . ''? ,j yb t \'U?-+i,ot 5 - , ' } f •r-?
.?f??f?Y ?!7-' ,?!• If1?`\t. t ??-..l' `f ? t 'J°? l l(?? ' ?'?t ? ?
t? •t } .4?V1 JJ ,1(?`` ?(Y3ft°t r ryl) •' ;'?Y it
ti i
kr U1
_ `i'ta, f ?t t?`tE ?' ?' :A ! •O J- -?? -1 1?.-f`:I?-,Z 1 S ?t??"`l?sY'j Y /lj7'J).
Vf,?
t"rr:-. e! s ?K1 .? _ ?,c?• +-? fix- y-
;u ct 0
r m
cDOcr a
t
OD0;1. O :1
-4 m ?- CO
rn G? m
-> ¢ o cu • '
r a n _?
m
90 p n
o x
;:u A or
0 (D SD m
-4 p E5*
m
NzCD co
N n ?
(D
? - co
.a 0
(T
Explanation of Photogrametric Calculations
of Land Cover Types in the Target
Property's Drainage Basin.
Wyles Property Bioretention Area
113 Redfern Drive - Cary NC, 27511
Wake County GIS topographic data were
used to identify the drainage area of the
target property. Using ArcView GIS, the
total area was calculated to be 3.116 acres.

Again using ArcView software to calculate
areas of each land covertype:
Protected open space --------- 0.648 acre
Protected managed open space ----- 0.936 acre
Impervious surface area -------- 1.532 acres
Nitrogen load calculations based on Neuse
River Basin Stormwater Program for Nitrogen
Control and TN export coefficients provided.
0.648 ac * (0.6 Ibs(aclyr) = 0.3888 Ibs/yr
0.936 ac * (1.2 Ibs(ac/yr) = 1.1232 Ibs/yr
1.532 ac * (21.2 Ibs/ac/yr) = 32.4784 Ibs/yr
3.116 acres contribute 33.9904 Ibs/yr
= 10.908 Ibs N/ac/yr
The drainage area polygon was then laid
over 1999 aerial photography and cut into
pieces based on land cover.
Impervious Surface
Permanently Protected Open Space
Permanently Protected Managed Open Space
Target Property removed to
calculate off-site nitrogen
export.
.1 s. rY' Cst ??r
k44- 1 .5
1 ?
Map prepared by
Robert J. Goldstein & Associates, Inc.
8480 Garvey Drive - Raleigh, NC 27616
[phone]: fax[phone]
URL: vwwv.rigaCarolina.com
N
0
0
(D 0
C ?-+
O >
(D
O
?l} O
rt- 'O
`C
w `<
(D
U)
CD o
m
O ?
C C[)
m o'
m
m
z I
nD
-I
N (D
? m
Ul
.f
w
to
CD
i
CD
0
0
(D
(D
rt
_>
C ' A O v
- cv co
ao 0 : a
4 v L CD
-' p (D
to -4 Q d.
0 C (D
SI) (D
O_ 9C 2 ?
7 C?fl .? p
N
n ? (D U1
0 C3
z m
N_ OP
a) n
CF)
03 (
;51 c) n I (D (D ZY,
(D s
O ('l O - n I C7. (D
O O- O = A -
Q CD (Q Q_ (Q c n 0) n
I (D W _0
O !y
CD (D 0 (DD Q In
CD O 1
.
O r
FIT
O
-0 ET
(D -0 0-
Q
(D UlK `C
ch CD
O O (n
? of
3
i

Z.. O .
(D {? 'M
o rf•
0
V/1
r
/ 0?./
U)
rti
0
O
i
tD
^4
O
CD
LO
-n -S
cD o
1 -0
m
{'
(D o
m
(D
? wry„
,7 1
N (D
U1
1
1
A'
Ftot •ru3 - i '
f / 131
of
4 • r
4? O • ,
o ?•
W I
W I LES `PTZCP"
I LD7r y54
f?OT 1V& fJX,-Ll.Wr ?MFrtiGT: ajMgvjay FAXV- E?iTATI<7
30 ? JJrF(? C>?crtoAc.t1A.?Etilt ? ? ? 5 ? !?
SD P- OFFaz LkI:,zoAc p u oJS = 500
Of too l
r
c • d SO IU-l18h1-C1M(7 :8WUH

2689222-6T6:-13i zE : b 6 id-I t UUd-U'2--NVI'
r
1
f
.• _ it iii;.
.lie
?I

l
.1
1
i
f
•I
i
1
1?F{?
,n .
? W I LE 5 VTZ.C1PE"
LOT # 54-
"F.-A, -&4wr ' wo•-r
fAiF;"tz n??,:RrrAG141lA1•?r _ r $'x
r ?? ?SFr-vt. r tik"rzapc.?? ?„ a,v.Jf ` ?r- oo rd'
V,fMq" C, ( FAIML ESTAW5
GvJrJ?+j? L
e-" r ?NaLe
5c k: APM9 IM - F'
I ,oa
d9t, : a0 to OE uer
-d S(71Id-1811-Cif°10:911dN 26892216%:-191 22:bZ IdJ V002-02-radr

/• u
M
r?rn " F,-Am ttwr rMf 1
:i4 ? {i?1?Gt,C, r?1r tlrrAr.M?.ll>>r - I ? S '?
`-'?, 1?"?Ft-W. C ?k"?La'pc.t? a?,v.l[' • 500 r?
i _

r?

r
• ? 1
].d ? 't(v2M. SrL1+R7tr ?'??r
1
? 7t-Y pia: , I
FfUT'-h?j

' ? 7 1
iy
;F
ci
I

W I LEES Vfza9E"
LD-r It s4-
r2 { C, ? PAS VTAWS
C ML4 t Vic. iz CC'V&Yr (F r"j e,
?, Sao
Z? 'd 2-26-£9E-GT6 d9t,:aD I'D oc Uer
�� i
,, �
� i.
'� _ �:•� .
'1 "�
�`,
�,
..� �� � �.
G
c �� -
��� ��
;�
.� � � _
�, C`�. I, �, - -
��_ .

OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Received Request #
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Variance Request Form
Neuse River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy
Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rule (15A NCAC .0233)
NOTE. This form maybe photocopied for use as an original.
Part 1: General Information
1. Applicant's name (the corporation, individual, etc. who owns the project):
l c 1a G.P_p 1-4. \N I l,Es
2. Print Owner/Signing Official (person legally responsible for the facility and its compliance)
Name: RicNA rt» N. %-Ul""5
Title:
L?-I?C-1 --
Street address __lL3 _.fz EERY RZ4 yc
City, State, Zip: c,?t
Telephone: [phone]-
Fax: ; 336 3zq-_So?-o__
3. Project Name (Subdivision, facility, or establishment name - consistent with project name on
plans, specifications, letters, operation and maintenance agreements, etc.):
Fbz!r0J-J at R-?? i? ?cE _
4. Location of Facility
Street address: _11_3_ R-ED aDaA3 D rZ4VE-
City, State, Zip: C l?,?_.. tI C Z7511
County: tN??c L
Latitude/longitude: - 7P. T31 7-B66 iZ 17
_3 57.72-3 a)8vooo32
5. Directions to facility from nearest major intersection (Also attach a map):
_TUQN c TU > GavGY R4JZ Ay _-FizotA_ 7gyoA1 R-0 FoU_oW TH-90 Uc- k .NMU6
CFI-/ &r- Tv at?2? 1ppjVc _ Q Wpoi L4gS. T094 LEFT ONTa AUENag or 77f EStAre-S
7V;W. 1--f _ 61FTb aEQi7oW _.DPVE..- VbND OF CUB oE' SAC
6. Contact person who can answer questions about the facility:
Name: coNti.tt E H,9 yES
Telephone: _qIq 361. _/00 _ ql q - 6(v q- 0110_
Fax: qi4 3&3-_q? az _
Email: 5oG,9rd n, a- lot-Corn.
7. Requested Environmental Management Commission Hearing Date: DtG. 1D1 Z0o3
Version 1: September 1998
Part 2: Demonstration of Need for a Variance
NOTE: The variance provision of the Neuse Riparian Area Rule allows the Environmental Management
Commission to grant a variance to an affected party when the following conditions apply on a given project:
(a) practical difficulties or hardships would result from strict application of the rule:
(b) such difficulties or hardships result from conditios which are peculiar to the property involved; and
(c) the general purpose and intent of the Rule would be preserved, water quality would be protected and
substantial justice would be done if the variance were granted.
This part of the application is to explain how the project meets criteria (a) and (b).
1. Attach a detailed description (2-3 pages) explaining the following:
• The practical difficulties or hardships that would result from strict application of the Rule.
• How these difficulties or hardships result from conditions that are unique to the property
involved.
• Why reconfiguring and/or reducing the built-upon area to preserve a greater portion of the
riparian area is not feasible on this project. If economic hardship is the major
consideration, then include a specific explanation of the economic hardship and the
proportion of the hardship to the entire value of the project.
Part 3: Water Quality Protection
NOTE. This part of the application is to explain how the project meets criterion (c): the general purpose and
intent of the Rule would be preserved, water quality would be protected and substantial justice would be done if
the variance were granted.
1. Briefly summarize how water quality will be protected on this project. Also attach a detailed
narrative (1-2 pages) describing the nonstructural and structural measures that will be used
for protecting water quality and reducing nitrogen inputs to surface water.
See oJdaxAit d
2. What is the total project area in acres? .-q IacVt4, , _._.._ _. 11 3. Which of the following permits/approvals will be required for this project?
CAMA Major
Sediment/Erosion Control
401 Certification/404 Permit
110AL oP cllaw-
Variance Request Form, page 2
Version 1: September 1998
Part 3: Water Quality Protection, continued
4. Complete the following information for each drainage basin. If there are more than two
drainage basins in the project, attach an additional sheet with the information for each basin
provided in the same format as below.
Project Information Drainage Basin 1 Drainage Basin 2
Receiving stream name 110A G ?qu)IPT CAM-
Receiving stream class' 6 IIL - 111 SW
Drainage basin area (total) 3. t0 aove5
Existing impervious area3 (tota 12) 074-6 'T
Proposed impervious area3 (tota 12) 72-S LT
% Impervious area3 (on-site) 94Q
% Impervious area3 (total2) 2I ?n
Impervious area3 Drainage basin 1 Drainage basin 2
On-site buildings 3171,4
On-site streets 47q-,
On-site parking
On-site sidewalks (v7?S
Other on-site
Total on-site .2auu
Off-site 1.332 a cyGS
Total I•$3Z- LVU
The internet site for this information is http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/strmclass/alpha/neu.html
2 Total means on-site plus off-site area that drains through the project.
3 Impervious area is defined as the built-upon area including, but not limited to, buildings, parking areas,
sidewalks, gravel areas, etc.
5. How was the off-site impervious area listed above derived?
see_ dtfaGl'led _ _ _ __ --------.__
6. What will be the annual nitrogen load contributed by this site after development in pounds per
acre per year without structural BMPs (stormwater pond, wetland, infiltration basin, etc)?
Attach a detailed plan for all proposed structural stormwater BMPs.
Drainage
basin Size of
drainage
basin
ac Post-development
nitrogen loading rate
without BMPs°
!bs/ac/ r BMP nitrogen
removal
efficiency,
% Final nitrogen
loading rate
(lbs/ac/yr) Final nitrogen
loading from
drainage basin
lbs
1 3.2g6 aa. 10.9 p-lac
r•
25-40%
6.6 Px(x/)
3_3,99 165
2
3
4
F 5
Totals ------ ------ ------
' Attach calculations and references.
5 Attach calculations and references.
Variance Request Form, page 3
Version 1: September 1998
Part 3: Water Quality Protection, continued
7. The applicable supplemental form(s) listed below must be attached for each BMP specified:
Form SWU-102 Wet Detention Basin Supplement
Form SWU-103 Infiltration Basin Supplement
Form SWU-105 Curb Outlet System Supplement
Form SWU-106 Off-Site System Supplement
Form SWU-107 Underground Infiltration Trench Supplement
Form SWU-109 Innovative BMPs Supplement
Part 4: Submittal Checklist
A complete appplication submittal consists of the following components. Incomplete submittals
will be returned to the applicant. The complete variance request submittal must be received 90
days prior to the EMC meeting at which you wish the request to be heard. Initial below to
indicate that the necessary information has been provided.
Applicant's Item
Initials
• Original and two copies of the Variance Request Form and the attachments
listed below.
A vicinity map of the project (see Part 1, Item 5)
Narrative demonstration of the need for a variance (see Part 2)
- -- --- ---- A detailed narrative description of stormwater treatment/management (see Part
3, Item 1)
-- - C LA Calculations supporting nitrogen loading estimates (see Part 3, Item 6)
- - - Calculations and references supporting nitrogen removal from proposed BMPs

t??k (see Part 3, Item 6)
- - - Location and details for all proposed structural stormwater BMPs (see Part 3,
Item 6)
- Three copies of the applicable Supplement Form(s) for each BMP and/or
narrative for each innovative BMP (see Part 3, Item 7)
Three copies of plans and specifications, including:
_ 0 Development/Project name
0 Engineer and firm
0 Legend and north arrow
0 Scale (1" = 100' or 1" = 50' is preferred)
0 Revision number & date
0 Mean high water line (if applicable)
0 Dimensioned property/project boundary
0 Location map with named streets or NC State Road numbers
0 Original contours, proposed contours, spot elevations, finished floor
elevations
0 Details of roads, parking, cul-de-sacs, sidewalks, and curb and gutter
0 Footprint of any proposed buildings or other structures
- - - -- 0 Wetlands delineated, or a note on plans that none exist
0 Existing drainage (including off-site), drainage easements, pipe sizes, runoff
calculations
--- 0 Drainage basins delineated
0 Perennial and intermittent streams, ponds, lakes, rivers and estuaries
0 Location of forest vegetation along the streams, ponds, lakes, rivers and
estuaries
Variance Request Form, page 4
Version 1: September 1998
Part 5: Deed Restrictions
By your signature in Part 7 of this application, you certify that all structural stormwater best
management practices required by this variance shall be located in recorded stormwater
easements, that the easements will run with the land, that the easements cannot be changed or
deleted without concurrence from the State, and that the easements will be recorded prior to the
sale of any lot.
Part 6: Agent Authorization
If you wish to designate submittal authority to another individual or firm so that they may provide
information on your behalf, please complete this section:
Designated agent (individual or firm): ___s?tsf-hw?^h Gwclen, Iv?G. __
Mailing address: _ 'R0 •'P?otc8o8
City, State, Zip:
Telephone:
Fax:
Email: ___________ _ ___ _SocJ a rcle?n.__ ? o 1!
Part 7: Applicant's Certification
I, 'IZ?ctlan.q ?. w?t.Es (print or type name of person
listed in Part I, Item 2) certify that the information included on this permit application form is
correct, that the project will be constructed in conformance with the approved plans and that the
deed restrictions in accordance with Part 5 of this form will be recorded with all required permit
conditions.
Signature:
Date: Zo_.-n! ov,- 2ov 3
Title:
Variance Request Form, page 5
Version 1: September 1998
Part 2
Question 1
Richard N. Wiles and Anne Wiles
Lot #54 Regency Park Estates
Cary, NC
This application is for a major variance for a residential lot located in the Neuse Riparian Buffer
zone. The need for this application has arisen due to a series of events that unfortunately have
resulted in impervious surface area being installed within the 30 foot buffer zone of an unnamed
creek that flows through this lot during a portion of the year.
Lot #54 is a.91 acre lot located in Regency Park Estates Subdivision in Cary, NC. Regency
Park Estates was platted and approved as a subdivision in 1989. The home on Lot #54 was
finished in April 2000. The home was permitted by the town of Cary in 1999, and a survey was
completed by Cooper and Associates. That survey does record setbacks and easements that were
on record at the time of the approval of the subdivision in 1989. Cooper and Associates, the
surveyor, says that it is not customary for a surveyor to record easements that have arisen after
the original platting of the lot. As a result this Neuse Riparian Buffer is not a part of the survey.
Unfortunately, when the house was permitted to be built in 1999, the Neuse Riparian Buffer was
not being acknowledged or enforced by the town of Cary planning department. As a result the
house itself is sited significantly within the 30'setback zone from the bank of the creek; the
house actually is 10' from the creek. The creek runs along the edge of the lot for approximately
190 ft. of the 300 ft. long property line along that side. The creek enters the lot and meanders
within the 15 foot buffer setback zone along the southern boundary of the property.
The lot is shaped in a pie. It is significantly encumbered with requisite set-backs, buffers, and
easements. The sanitary sewer line for the development actually is located through the center of
the property, with a manhole access located near the front door of the Home. The house was
moved back on the property to accommodate the sewer easement. A suitable "shotgun" style
floor plan was implemented to properly fit the site. The house is sited significantly to the rear of
the lot. There is a stream that is indicated on the GIS Maps on the north boundary of the
property, but upon field investigation by Steve Mitchell on December 1, 2003, he determined
that this is ephemeral drainage only.
The town of Cary determined that the hot tub installation did not require a general building
permit. The only permit required was the electrical permit. The electrician did not obtain the
electrical permit prior to beginning the work, contrary to the indication that he had the permit in
his possession. Hence the problem started.
Much of the rear of the property is subject to flooding and is low lying, but no flood plain notes
are on the survey. In consideration of the topography and stream there, the tub was sited to avoid
potential flooding, both from the stream that has exceeded it's banks historically, and from
upland water surface runoff that collects and flows heavily on the opposite property line from the
stream .
Setting the tub further away from the stream was a possibility. During the initial review of the
site to determine the best location, existing vegetation and water flow were considered. The area
that was selected required the least amount of vegetation to be removed. This site also required
the least amount of disturbance and minimized collection to the existing flow of surface water.
There is a significant vegetated buffer that is located on the north most property line, further
away from the stream, but does sit squarely in the route of offsite water runoff that is introduced
onto Lot 54. Pushing this installation further into that vegetated buffer would also concentrate
the surface flow into more of a channel, rather than the flatter swale that currently exists.
Prior to construction on Lot 54 (Wiles property), considerable grading was done off site. The
town homes that are built backing up to Lot 54 cleared all of the native vegetation up to and over
the lot line and re-graded, introducing the majority of the surface water onto Lot 54. Moving this
tub toward the native vegetative buffer would have required clearing of a heavily wooded area
consisting of native beech, gum, poplar, beautyberry, deciduous holly and pine.
The hot tub was set 26 feet from the stream. With additional clearing, there is sufficient space to
have moved the vessel another 10 or 15 feet easily, but the unit is now installed sub-grade, and is
quite difficult to move. We have also added trees, shrubs, and groundcover in the area to screen
the tub, utilize surface water, and control erosion. Access pathways in the area are all ground
woodchips, supporting the homeowner's desire to keep the natural feeling of the site.
The final electrical inspection wore on, and it became apparent that the electrician did not have
the necessary permit to finish the job. At that point we learned of the Neuse Riparian Buffer and
the encroachment into the setback zone. This encroachment was unintentional, and we would
have been pleased to have sited the vessel further from the bank of the creek, and could easily
have done so by removing native vegetation. Now it is not so easy.
The tub itself weighs about 7500 lbs., and requires a heavy crane to move it. The accessibility
route has now been closed off as we worked our way out during installation. There was existing
concrete driveway that was used for accessibility, and once the tub was set, the concrete has been
removed. It would require removal of 400 sq. ft. of concrete apron that has been poured on the
perimeter of the tub, and removal of 150 cu. yds. of soil and gravel that have been backfilled, and
removal of a CMU retaining wall that was installed to stabilize the gravel and soil backfill. The
tub itself is a $45,000 tub, requiring $25,000 installation costs, and approximately $20,000 in
naturalized landscaping. The cost to move the tub over is very difficult to estimate. The tub
itself may no longer be moveable without damage to the vessel.
The original site had a large amount of the native vegetation removed during the development
and construction phase in 1999. The first phase of landscaping that was done at conclusion of
the house construction during 2000 did include some native vegetation along the stream bank to
hopefully assist in stabilization of the area during storms and high water flow in the stream.
Those river birch and native azalea have become established and done very well. We have
mulched the denuded area and keep it covered in order to limit erosion. We are in the process of
adding ground cover and native plantings to assist in stabilization of the soils and prevent
erosion, increase infiltration of surface water to reduce runoff as a part of the hot tub installation.
? 20' 9Tn2t..t.. 5[WL'y?.., ?.,t7N{Td1"
rY - '
tto
M
' WILES PrzQpErt?
l L_t)T 54
P?CfEl?Gy PA•IZIL E?iTA`lE7
GA M? t14 Y$ co ooN / fi
r
Part 3
Question 1.
Richard N. Wiles and Anne Wiles
Lot # 54 Regency Park Estates
Cary, NC
Lot #54 is the closest lot in the 3.116 acre watershed to the unnamed stream that empties eventually
into the Swift Creek. The current grading of the lot and the adjacent lots that flow surface water
through this property are fed through sheet flow. The area above the Wiles property is heavily
developed, resulting in 52% impervious surface area of the watershed. There is a significant
amount of water that flows through this lot. The homeowners have attempted to manage the water
flow. They have established grass cover and ground cover to help prevent erosion. All pervious
surface areas are maintained with mulch or wood chips.
The Wiles have agreed to the installation of a bio-retention area to manage the surface water that is
being introduced into the no name stream. Southern Garden, Inc., North Carolina Registered
Landscape Contractor #1049 will construct the bio-retention area. Referencing the Stormwater:
Best Management Practices (April 1999), we are proposing a bio-retention area device to assist and
filter the water that does flow through this property. Attached is a survey of Lot #54 that shows the
proposed location of the filtration device. Understanding that current information available may be
more appropriate in the design of the treatment device, Southern Garden will work with both
DEHNR and DWQ to determine the most appropriate design of the bio-retention area.
Water will enter the rain garden device through a gradual sloping (< 5%) sheet flow. This sheet
flow area is currently densely vegetated with native population of primarily3"-6" caliper yellow
popular and sweet gum tree cover. The opening to the rain garden will be shaded, and 3 species of
plant materials, tree, shrub, and groundcover that are suited to shady locations will be selected from
the Guidelines for Riparian Buffer Restoration (January 2001) for planting. We will remove no
native trees larger than 6" to construct the garden. All clearing will be greater than 50' from the
actual no name stream.
Approximately 200 sq. lt. of impervious driveway surface area was removed in the course of this
installation. Drainage from the roof gutters that is currently being directed onto the edge of the lot
and is entering the buffer untreated; 50% of the 3500 sq. Ft. of downspout water will be directed into
the new treatment device. Surface water that is currently introduced from adjacent lots and flows
through the Wiles property and into the buffer untreated will be retained and treated in the proposed
device.
Soils on this site are currently Chewacla Series (Cm). The Wake County soil survey describes this
soil as a sandy loam to silty loam surface layers 4" to 12" thick. Beneath the surface layer there is a
sandy loam, silty loam to clay layer. The total thickness of the profile is 34" - 72" and the
infiltration rate is good with slow surface runoff. Permeability is .63 - 2.0 inches per hour.
By April 15, 2004, a design would be submitted for approval to DWQ. The device will be
implemented by June 15, 2004, and DWQ will be called to inspect the installation. The permanent
recording of the easement will be done by July 1, 2004. Each year thereafter for 3 years an annual
report of the inspection of the device will be submitted to the DWQ by June 1, 2005, 2006, 2007.
Part 3
Question 5
The total nitrogen export of the Wyles property was calculated using ArcView GIS
software, geographic data obtained from Wake County GIS, and guidance from the
Neuse River Basin Model Stormwater Program for Nitrogen Control (guidance
document).
Wake County topographic data (2-foot contour interval) was used to delineate the target
property's off-site drainage basin area. The resulting polygon (drainage area) was 3.116
acres. The drainage area was then overlaid on 1999 aerial photography and cut into
smaller polygons representing land cover types. The target property had not been
improved at the time of the photograph. However, all other tracts in the drainage area
were developed. One property, adjacent to the north of the target property, was under
construction at the time. The adjacent residential structure was completed (exterior),
and the driveway was estimated to calculate this lot's impervious surface area.
Three land cover categories were delineated within the drainage area, based on the
guidance document, including: Permanently protected undisturbed open space;
Permanently protected managed open space; and Impervious surfaces. Total nitrogen
export coefficients are provided for each land cover type in the guidance document.
Method 2 (Quantifying TN Export from Residential/Industrial/Commercial Developments
when footprints of all Impervious Surfaces are Shown) was followed.
Land Cover Area (ac) TN export coefficient TN export
(Ibs./ac./yr.) (Ibs./yr.)
Undisturbed
Open Space 0.648 0.6 0.3888
Managed
Open Space 0.936 1.2 1.1232
Impervious
Surface 1.532 21.2 32.4784
TOTAL: 3.116 --- 33.9904
The drainage area (3.116 ac.) contributes 33.9904 Ibs. of nitrogen per year to the target
property. This breaks down to 10.9 Ibs./ac./yr. Total nitrogen export.
The bioretention area proposed by Southern Garden, Inc. has a planning TN removal
rate of about 25%, based on figures provided in the guidance document. Conversations
with DWQ staff found that, although sound for planning purposes, this is probably an
underestimate. The bioretention area will eliminate 8.5 lbs. of nitrogen (25%) each year
from reaching surface waters. Total nitrogen removal may actually reach 13.6 lbs. per
year (40%).
The existing development (drainage area) has no stormwater collection or nutrient filter
in place. On a per-acre basis, the 10.9 Ibs./ac./yr. current situation, will be reduced to
8.2 - 6.6 Ibs./ac./yr.
1.7 ` Ir,- A•1 ?,yr71. ?, I r ?,- ? ??.r? ? ?p•?
• ,7+- ,r,l,. `ce-FT=t .1 .1 ?.ft1•+--r r.,lltu ,A? ' r} L3 O O /???J
•i?,;! i f$` •t)?'',1?: ;??; ?4r", Ix. f? (r '?tj,,` -la ? AY~ O V
NO
?,
(a 0 (D
l\fJrx '.?y• l(fixi`` ?Ifri.r- ;k,?(G.,,1 - ft} y'
?..? f'_• 114 ' J 1 [ ??, i• ? a" I '' ? O
=a?'}';,v_ l11•?j??i?f ?? .{ .J ,? r?{ f? ,?i ?I??tA. `-'7? ?..fi•JJ 1 .
R . r@-?d# LL- `Y _
C)
CD _?bf c ;>>?. rs~y rI l ?,i?•f ! 'l?ti, i 4 % f r PUS
C) X
Yr - 83-
L ?.?tili '.i ,:`?_•J `t f n'• ti r?IJ•.?,\°+ :`S'am;:' `? ?)t? /?-i
-0 c
r4 4?cy?f
(3y -Z
.' ?1S J '1 f 1 =. lf1 V
'?-?~--J ?f`_} f !l-*_-+" x f .F r J \\ i 1. - SLS ,.,1_? . 7tiy r Q
3• }+-.??. }?!•?_?-c? :-_ .c 4 1 rt?"-'yl tJ} „?i•? I ???iY'•_????y?C? J
CD 0
crl
- ?,1 7 cr i? i; * tlA' i z
'rte 1 ?± ;'s F ? 9 t r f ' yj` J .? ? ,? %, ?.?•' ` i , ?I ' j
w0 '? / 3?:? Irk w t?•_%?? ' ,-'!-''Sd',tyl ?i''?r•L t -.??^ - .°?..t s '•'• -;'j,,;.'. ?' 1?''Y-?itt '?. ? C
OO J f!PIL
`t?? / ??'''•i ?tq .'. t-a-f J. ••1u ,.,f441 .'q? 1 ?'?.. ?. _. • I• (:: '4, U)
r ? ? ; . 1?? ,t , t f,'.f: ?' J j? 5 -iv-• +-. r't ?. 1 [ •? ? j. '? 1` .. 1 •--h
? .l".--Jf 5 s '.?y'lQ J ?? j i = ..:J, J \ /Nqq `?? ; , -'tom 0
(D 0
:? S4 I -,, . (ila'JI , ,? =it` =?••;' .j?1 ,?^?Jlr-` 'a?? ,, s? '"-s'
1? U) i ?ll ? ?=?••? yT? _ ?- '3r 't yip ? `C
< Cl)
OOSrt r ./ r?.'?•?{- j _ :t?. ,`; S €?•? -rt Wic:, 4 CD
O 4_l a 77 - ,2i ,qy f I I '- 1 F y?Yf ?x Q, t I O
-ff n 7 n ?r'
CDtTV?L uyiYw g.?? In > L iJ' CDDr
L k .3
a . ?r t
I(J t11? s..l,`-', J, v !.r•''?Z Ff'_`--1 tlt ?'-"r It ?t'_r-{y'.l.?s ?i l J
.7, rlj (D
~fJ"???J tS-. ?'. ?. ?FL?/- ????-? ?pi,?o? ?, ?`. 'r•---^?l.' ? ??,? ij?- +?. P.'??i? -mil ?
J
0
C co ;u K
CO ID
r ° o
CD
co O u
V m L 0
73
O
to
O l D
spa -D
m ?. ? :s
`
m
o o
it `
o x a s» ? n
'(D ;;o
>
1-
ao ty ?
o o n
o
3 m ? Q, N
o v
\
.
N Z (
CD
{
O
N (7 N ? ?
Q]
Explanation of Photogrametric Calculations
of Land Cover Types in the Target
Property's Drainage Basin.
Wyles Property Bioretention Area
113 Redfern Drive - Cary NC, 27511
Wake County GIS topographic data were
used to identify the drainage area of the
target property. Using ArcView GIS, the
total area was calculated to be 3.116 acres.
4j,f 1) The drainage area polygon was then laid
over 1999 aerial photography and cut into
pieces based on land cover.
Impervious Surface
V" Permanently Protected Open Space
, .; -~---, - - . -Permanently Protected Managed Open Space
,i w,w.ropary Target Property removed to
5Again using ArcView software to calculate

areas of each land cover type:
r
calculate off-site nitrogen
export.

Protected open space --------- 0.648 acre
Protected managed open space ----- 0.936 acre
Impervious surface area -------- 1.532 acres
Nitrogen load calculations based on Neuse
River Basin Stormwater Program for Nitrogen
Control and TN export coefficients provided.
0.648 ac * (0.6 Ibs(aclyr) = 0.3888 Ibs(yr
0.936 ac * (1.2 lbs/ac/yr) = 1.1232 lbs(yr
1.632 ac * (21.2 Ibs/ac/yr) = 32.4784 Ibs/yr
3.116 acres contribute 33.9904 Ibs/yr
= 10.908 Ibs N/ac/yr
Map prepared by
Robert J. Goldstein & Associates, Inc.
8480 Garvey Drive - Raleigh, NC 27616
[phone]: fax [phone]
URL: www.rjgaCarolina.com
N
O
O
_Q
S}J O
(.
(D 0
C) r-F-
O >
C -
(D
rF
1
G) 0
U} o
V v
l<
W `C
(D
N
(D -O
(D O
? -O
(D
< Cl)
O O
1 (
(D
(D
O
n D
N ((D
-4 m
Cil
C -u
W
0
l?
o -
O ?
CD >?
O
Q)
CD
CD
,1
(D
(D
_>
1
C ? OMM
A
i
- vo C3
oo O a
h.l C ? v
O (D
lQ -4 Q Q
A N a
0 C m K
go (D
al
O X t ?
v >
N
n ? m cn
m=Y-o
?z?
N OP
A -4
_rn n
CY)

(?D h7 CD CD CD O'
O Q] (_7 0-(-). C7 CD
CL 0- C)
CD O (Q fD (fl cil CA v
CD CL CL) C-)
CL) CD nl io
O CD_ (D
CD n K N
rt :3 O (
V) V) n
0CO (n( ??
_0 O O ?
CD Q -o Q O
U) { CD 7C3
Ul CD
O O_ (n
? fl1
lV
SSA
r 4
S11 O
? (D.
tD 0
oh
o D
?(D
?W
Cl) o
o =
(D
0
0
0
7
?N
0
1
7
s
iD
T(11
N CD
Q v
(D O
(D
C
O O
2 m
m
o
np
N ((D
v m
Ul
??F W A rF9p Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
0 G North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, 1'. E. Director
0 6V????ddd ??V?._ ?` Division of Water Quality
Colecn 11. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
Consideration of a Request for a Major Variance from the
Neuse River Riparian Area Protection Rule
Richard N. Wiles, Cary, Wake County, NC
February 12, 2004
Introduction:
A request has been received for the Water Quality Committee to grant a variance from the Neuse River Riparian
Area protection rule (15A NCAC 2B .0233) for the unauthorized impacts to 750 square feet of riparian buffer. The
project is located at 113 Redfern Drive, Cary, NC.
The applicant, Richard N. Wiles, has impacted 750 square feet of riparian buffer by the unauthorized installation of
a hot tub within riparian buffer zone. It has been explained to DWQ staff that Mr. Wiles was unaware of the buffer
rules. Mr. Wiles also explained that the Town of Cary did not require a general building permit or an Erosion and
Sedimentation control plan for the installation of the hot tub. Thereby, compliance with Neuse River Riparian Area
protection rules was not initially addressed through the typical review methods.
However, the Town of Cary did require a permit for the electrical work associated with the hot tub installation. Mr.
Wiles and Ms. Connie Hoyes (the landscape contractor) explained that it was their understanding that the electrician
had secured the electrical permit prior to beginning the work. Unfortunately, the permit had not been initially
obtained. Upon the eventual electrical permit review by the Town of Cary, the Town was unwilling to issue the
permit until such time that site came into compliance with the Neuse Riparian Buffer Rule.
At present, the amenity (a 750 sq. ft. impact to the Neuse Buffer for hot tub installation) has been constructed, it is
in violation of buffer rules, and is without final electrical permit approval from the Town of Cary. The subject
stream is an unnamed tributary to Swift Creek, WS III- NSW in the Neuse River Basin.
Tile applicant wishes to leave the hot tub at its present location. In order to satisfy the Nitrogen export reduction
requirements, the applicant proposes the following: 1) instillation of a bio-retention area (designed to current best
management practices requirements to treat a 3.116 acre catchment), 2) remove 200 square feet of impervious
driveway (this has already been removed), and 3) convey approximately 1750 square feet of rooftop drainage to the
bio-retention area (currently this stormwater is being conveyed through rilled preferential flow pathways to the
unnamed tributary). The applicant has also explained that the hot tub cost approximately $45,000, installation costs
were approximately $25,000, and associated landscaping costs were $20,000. As such, the project cost
approximately $90,000. (Note: If the variance is not authorized the applicant's losses will include costs associated
with landscaping and instillation. Further, the applicant has significant concerns regarding whether the hot tub-
could be move without incurring structural damage.)
The DWQ has conducted a preliminary findings as required under 15A NCAC 02B .0233(9)(a). Section
.0233(9)(a)(i)(D) of the Rule requires that, "The applicant did not cause the hardship by knowingly or
unknowingly violating the Rule." The DWQ believes the hot tub could have been installed within Zone 2
only. This would have avoided the impacts to Zone 1, minimized the over-all impact to the protected
,'N:CDENA
N. C. Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
[phone] (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwctlands
Mr. Wiles
Neuse River Buffer Rule
Variance Request
Page 2 of 2
buffer and could have been approved by staff under a Minor Variance. Therefore, the DWQ believes that
the initial hardship was caused by violating the Rule. However, the DWQ believes if the measures
proposed in the variance request coupled with the below mentioned additional recommendations are not
required and the variance is not approved, the existing hardship (possibly relocating the hot tub, the
retaining wall, concrete surround, fence, etc.) and restoring the buffer would result in markedly less water
quality protection and a greater amount of nutrients entering the Neuse River Basin. As such, the DWQ
believes that the applicant's request has met the requirements for granting a variance.
Preliminary Findings and Recommendation:
1. The Division of Water Quality Staff believe that the applicant's request has met all of the
requirements [(Identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233 (9) (a)] for granting a Variance.
2. The Division Staff believe that the applicant is proposing sufficient Nitrogen removing stormwater
measures.
3. Additional conditions -Tile Division staff believe that the following conditions should be added to the
variance if approved:
a. by, April 15, 2004, the applicant must provide designs/plans and secure written DWQ approval for the
bio-retention measures proposed in the application.
b. by June 15, 2004, the applicant shall provide full buffer mitigation as per 15A NCAC 02B .0242
c. by, June 15, 2004, the applicant must install all of the stormwater management measures approved in
the approved by this variance. Also, the applicant will contact the Raleigh Regional Office staff of the
Division of Water Quality and inform them of the complete installation of stormwater control measures.
d. by, July 1, 2004, the applicant must record stormwater easements for all of the structural stormwater
best management practices (a permanent recording of the stormwater easements, the easements will run
with the land, that easement cannot be changed or deleted without concurrence from the State, and that
easement will be recorded prior to the sale of any lot).
e. For three (3) years after the installation of the stormwater measures (2005- 2007) the applicant must
provide the Raleigh Regional Office of DWQ a written account detailing that the bio-retention
measures are in place, the best management practices are functioning, and detail any maintenance
efforts that have been required. This information must be provided to the RRO by June 1 of each year.
This correspondence must submitted to the attention of Ken Schuster at the Raleigh Regional Office of
the Division of Water Quality at 3800 Barrett Drive, Raleigh NC 27609 approved by the Division.
4. The Division of Water Quality Staff believe that the project meets the requirements for granting a
variance. Staff recommend that this variance request be approved with the conditions listed above and
consideration of the following: 1) Tile nutrient removal functions of the bio-retention measure for the 3.116
acre catchment, 2) enhanced stormwater treatment for 1,750 square feet of rooftop drainage, 3) reduction of 200
square feet of impervious driveway surface, and 4) avoiding the increased soil compaction (retarding
infiltration) that would coincide to the use of heavy machinery necessary to move the hot tub further up slope.