20011615 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_20011011

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
3oln G?i? -
C 2,7?;245-
10
'NCD?E
NR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
2001
Subject:
Dear Mr fern A ti NA-0
`[?v+ o u r CA (L) ovl
Cl
DWQ#
NBRRO (D (?- 1 y 3 _
-10A,t? County
rnrn ??
This office has reviewed the ' oc
information submitted on , 200 relevant to
the subject property and I conducted a site visit for the above referenced project on
2001. This project is referenced by the Raleigh Regional Office as NBRRO
C9 " ( It was determined that the drainage feature depicted on the USGS and Wake
County Soils is at least an intermittent stream' and therefore subject to the Neuse River Basin:
Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy Protection and Maintenance of Existing Riparian
Areas, Administrative Code T15A:02B.0233 (NC C 0233).
In order to impact this stream and buffer,itten approval from DWQ is required unless the
project is an exempt activity as outlined in these r les.
Thank you for your attention to this matter an if this office can be of any assistance or if you
have any questions please do not hesitate to contac us.
Sincerely,
John Dorney Cp , V-Q_
CC: Steve Mitchell; DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
Central Files
File Copy
E ) NIL 4
-?'?`
Jan at?ir% 1G
(Dox
Weti nds/401 Unit • 1650 Mail Service C • Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Tel - 33-1786 • FAX # [phone]
qual Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
50% recycled110% post consumer paper
5 C .???6 D - 0 6 S)
NOV-01-2001 THU 05:41 PM
.z P,7
+15
B. W. Wells Association
Capital Croup Sierra Club
Coltserva.dan Council of North Carolina
Eno Ritter Association
Friends of State Parks
Headwaters Group Sierra Club
New Hope Audubon Society
Neuse River Foundation, Inc.

North Carolina Herpetological Society
North Carolina Wildlife Federation
North Carolina Wild Flower Preservation Society
!range Chathan, Group Sierra Club
Raleigh Ski and Outing Club,, Inc.
Rockingham Naturalist's Club
Society for the Preservation o Jockey's vRk1ge
wake Audubon Society § i? f
L5
November 1, 2001 NOV - 3 !l?if
?. .?: ,
To: J. Russell Allen - City Manager, Raleie;h Tor gyo .. 3 pip-?a; -
John Domey, NC. Department of *Environmental and Natural Resourceat-;Division of Water
Quality (.DWQ) 133 - 59x'9
Steve Mitchell, NC Department of Environmental and Natural Resources -Division of Water
Quality, Raleigh Regional Office -QV 5411- y 7 / y
.from: Dr. Jean Spooner, Chair, The Umstead Coalition
Re: S-37-01, Harbourgate Subdivision. and Raleigh's "5tormwater Control and Watercourse
:Duffer Regulations"
cc: Mayor Coble and Raleigh City Council Members
David Betts, Raleigh :Planning Department
Sill Brower, Conservation l~ngineer, Raleigh Inspection Department
R. Gene Ellis, Director, Raleigh Inspection Department
George Chapman, :Director, Raleigh Planning Department
Kenneth Haywood, Attorney, Herring McBennett Mills & Finkelstein, PLLC
't'his memo serves as a formal request from The Umstead Coalition'for the reassessment of the
water features subject to protection tinder the Neuse Buffer Rules on property for S-37-01,
Harbourgate proposed subdivision. We also request that Raleigh request the same. The basis far
this request is to resolve the conflict bctweetn various sources of information:
The Wake County Soils map clearly shows an intermittent tributary to Emory Branch that
extends upgradicnt of the Cp&L easement.
The iniatial assessment by DWQ on.May 'i'7, 2001 was based upon a preliminary site plan
which does not correspond to the site plan subsequently submitted to the City of Raleigh.
S&EC (Soil & Environmental Consultants, inc) performed a "Preliminary Wetland
Approximation" for the hlarbourgate Development clearly indicates that the tributary is
subject to the Neusc .Buffer Rules upgradient from the CP&L easement. (copy attached)
Because of these inconsistencies, we request thut.DWQ do a reassessment of this site. And we
request that Raleigh also request IWQ to perform a reassessment.
JEAN SPOONER
19198285859
P. 01
The Umstead Coalition
P.O. Box 10654
Raleigh, NC 27605-0654
[phone]
Mtp:!/umsteadc..oalit"pr n•org
9 The Umtitead Coalition V
Dedicated to Preserving the Natural Integrity of W.R. Umstead State Park and the Richt.Ind (:reek I4atrmil Area
NOV-01-2001 THU 05:42 PM JEAN SPOONER
10
Maps and dotaboaee arc public Information supplied
by various govarnment agenolea. The author and/or
aallor of the software program are In no way
responsible or liable for the Information depicted
herein. (nquirieo concerning the data aheuld be
directed to the appropriate government agency.
19198285859 P. 02
k t ? \NUFAM f- - .-- -?-- 1)11
r 8otl Eaoltoamaptel Consulumts, Inc.
11010 Rgvan Ridge Road, Raktgtt. North Caroline 27614
Phone: [phone]p0 Ft [phone]
` Project: ME ConaWfIri-13benezer ChJM?h, Rd
j Date: 4130141
J
Prelltmlaesy Wetland Approzlmettloa
svimblr fer Prellagnmy Plamilng 0*
"tog ree-Vee the right to away dds map based an Mom tleidwork,
wavgad ddlnaatlaea and say $*W addhlmW WME11 mn.
APpta 1 111P11111 a?eitPed urine WPOV%** maps am gmund trgdung.
If dww arose w b bo Weed, dreg must be appewd and
PanaAtrd M dw UAL Armes carpe of gngftteere.
1\

? .1 rt J 0,

MapVU.E
(i
0 99 197 286 396
APR
Scale In Frei _ 27, 2001

14CDWO Stream Classification Form
'roject Name: c. er River Basin:« County: Evaluator:
)WQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: ,RAA. Latitude: Signature: _ `•° .
)ate: fon) n USGS QUAD: Ok. Longitude: Location/ erections:
-PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary.
Jso, if in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream-this
citing system should not be used*
'rimary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
,) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
') Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 - 2
*NOTE: If Bed & Bank Caused By Ditching And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score=0*) _
0) Is A 2"d Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Topo Map And/Or In Field) Present? Yes=3 No e'h
'RIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
1. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
) Is There A Groundwater
'RIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR
'RIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
>econdary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
?) Does Topography Indicate A
iECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
1. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
.) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaflitter
I) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since r0 j .5 1 1.5
iECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: V,'
II. Biology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
L Are Fish Present? .5 1.5 _
Are Amphibians Present? .5 1.5
3) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly,?1'L
l' NOTE: If Total Absence Of All Plants In Streambed 2 .75 .5 0 0
As Nnfed Ah- U-;8 71,t? Qfon TTNT.ARC.CAV Pro aanf*1 top' 1%
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINT
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary)=_.-(If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At Lea,
;) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 1.5
N C:1) W0 Stream C;lassitication Forin
k /
,
ru ert N;Ilnc:t? P-. tivu 1lasin: r
I ? F ,va:Comity: I;v;lluatril•: J?? F:.
a
I )\\'O Project Number: ? Nearest Named Stream: 1"Ititude: Signalur?. ??. d
Date:
(?,y?6 $ l1SGS QUAb: Longllude: Location ' ections:
'`PIA"AS E No TE': if ewthuttor and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary.
Also, i/'in /he Ge.%•t pri)%c'ssional.itti4,etnett! ol'the era/ttator, the feature is a nuut-made ditch and not a titodi/ied natctutI sireaut-this
ratin,r; s.psYeor should not be used"
,a
PI'IIT1i1I., ]field Indicators:(Circle Otte NumberPerLine) tt7./' #AV C)
'Vs
1. Geollti_orpholol!y Absent Weak Moderate
1) Is,_I'llc•re A-Rit'tIC-Pool _se(luclice
2) is Tllc USDA Texture In Streambed --- ---
I)(II'rr::!lt I_Its)il_urns,u(ulii)g.'I'?rr_iin'?.----- ---- 0..
(t:
I

i) \re N•)tu1 tl I CVCeS P1-CS .nt r
I h? (I
tll
I) I
CI Sinuous'? .
----------
--- ------..._
----.._..---- 2 -
0
-
I-t
-------
) ---
-----
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic:) .-
F.k!qdp!,1il1 Present '? _0
G) 1? I I c (h uuu_I Braided? _ l
7)AI(., & ent nllm l tl.l_kposiits_Presenl'?._ - ------
!i)_l _I'llere A I_3anikill Bcnch Present'?_-- 0 1 C
(I) Is A Conlinuous lied r? Hank Present'? 0 I ----?
('t!fbU.1' l)iolli!ls..r!!lll. l lrl'l'Il(1 T.:tii!l w?.VitJ.'Pwit
-3----
10) Is A '"' Order Or Cheater Channel (As indicated
PRMARY G1;OAIO1l1'11OLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
3
_ 3
3
If. I1ydroloRy Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) IS "There A Groundwaler -
I_ my/Diu_li_u_ge Present'? 0
I'Rl /1,1;1 R I' ll)'DROLOG )' I NDI C,4 7'OR POINT S: j ---- -- - -_
lLr?re Fibruus-R_iots Prese ll in Strevntled'? I 0
2) /1n. Rc?olcd 1?lants I'res?_nl In Slreambed'i 2 --?-` I ---------p'?--------- --- -
2 _._-_?-•--3 •------------ --
41 f\le_Bivalves.Present'! --- --- I 2 t---- -- f: --
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POIN7,S. -?
Secondary Field II>Idieatol'S: (Cirrh•OneNumber PerOne)
1. Geonu?ruboloL.
1) I0.1cre A Ile
Al
Mo
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Nnlur,ll Drain; tl g_ Way's - .. -- - - --------(-)---- - •5
•SEC'ONDA RY GIsOA1ORPHOLOGY INDIC.'ATOR POINTS: 15
H. llLrolo);?- Absent Weak Moderate 'irony
I Is'I'his 1'ctij;;x,(()r Last's) I,cafliltcr --
2Z_Is Sedi.Me1 Qn'la Q-r Debris 1'res?nt't -' 0 5 ctb -- - 1.5--
3) Arc Wracl: 1_iiies'Present'? -- 0 --- 'S -- ---I.S -
4) Is Water In Channel A nd >48 1Irs. Since 0 .5 - 1 - O
5
1iltolPn I2y)111? (I'(( t h 1,rr irr er In NrI AAui•e.5'kip 7%rle,5t4Pilnd 1/S Brdu,v+) _ °"
5) iTher(: Wafer In Cbun'iiel During Dry 0 .5 pT 1.5
C(mdilimis (h,_I.n (lrowing.Season 't
G).nr I-lydric,` gds.Present.Ill Sides 0[CI)tmne1)1- in lfe_(I t es'=/_S No=0
SECOi\'I AR)' MPROLOGY INDICATOR POINT'S: ___--
A
5 1.5
2 Are Airi?hLh lay 21-1- sell(*? --_5 t - --- I.5 - - ----
3?_Ar l\tltiatic"I ultl?ti_I'r?s4lit'?-•------ - - _- _ - .S 41-Are
C 1 a1 hsh l'rc s?llt' -------- _ -._ I ---- -5 ---------- -- -
- -- - -----
5) Are 1`1 icl(,brmlpis Present'?
I.5---- ----
Gi ,\r? hlrc,li Oxidi?:ing 13;Ict?:rialC?un pus Present'? 0 .5
7) Is Filamenlo AIVLUu,l'(c.tie_nC? _I s
I ?5 1.5 S, .\ 1\Wc(land Plants In Sttc,uttbcd7 T,.k Mostly 0111 Mostly FAC'W Mostly F AC Nlw-ll) FlU1.1' Mostly (11'1.
F`; \'. -7'F.: /j!in<rl ;Ile rnrr Ol':il.' I'!r,u,.r !n ,S'trrv,ndv d 2 1
> .75 .` O
U
:?_ t?`._!?:'/,llg,r?• 1'k 1, lli_? .S1l? (h\'!,!i?S.? .1_r11! 19e??•i,r! ):-_-------
?-___?__-.____....--•-----•_ -- ? ., _.-__.. -- -__
`?E::'ONDARYhll)LOG)'INDICATOIZ POINTS: r,wuxot
A _7
A i • P0INT'r: (Prinuiry -1- .5'ecoluhlr =- I
II it Or Equal To 19 Points The,Stream Is At Least Intermittent)
rte--cb
NCDW Stream Classiiicatio><i I(oj-jjj , N'??vir,
I'rujcrt Nantc: 9 ?t oo,, r Basin: Counly: Iivaluatr+r:
MVO Proicct Number: Nearest Named Stream: ititude: Signature:
Date: ? USGS QIJAb. Longitude: Location/ u-ecti ).I,
*PLEAS E' NOTE: 11'evrrlrrrrtor and larrdou'uer agree thaf the feature is a man-made dilh, then use of lhis fmn is not necessary.
Aho, ij'iu Me best prf jecciururt•jurrTr,'e„rent ojfhe evaluator, the feature is et man-trade ditch and nor a modified natund sireant-this
Truing . aywenr should nol be used"
0 OL_ 4A
J?1'llllill Fidd 111(liCfltOl'S: (Circle OneNunber Per Line) r
1. Geoltlr?rllllology Absent Weak Nj(!jk
ate Slrun?
LiI?.:I'Itirct\_Itil'I'le-I)ool. uluencc? 0 I -
3) Is The IJSI)A Texture In S(reambed
._.._I)illcr.;nt..l_I.0)ii burn>uiul.in,a'crr_in?---------0
l??
_3__!VC N__uur..tl Levees Present'? 0 C4?? ----
4).I.•:.1.1 ('h;lnne- _Slnutllll?_..--_---- 0 - 1 ---
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic:) - ---
G1_[. he C Wtlliel Braided'?_?---__ -- 1 - 1 - -
IZec?n.t AM vial.DC.hiisits P Lsgil?_ 0 C ----
ti1.1, I'hcl-c A 13_iiikf 111 Bend, Present?--- 0 I
9) is A Conlinuot!s Bed & Bank Present? 0 I
/(ftrd !K.. PwA.' ( •!!1m-d /tl'.i?!'I!'ili!!s tl!!!i, 11'_1'1'ltO?/( ??!!tllrr.cj .'.T.?rg!!,5'r r?r 0*)..- ---
Ill) Is A '"`t Order Or Cheater Channel (As indicated --
---On__I'r_rho Mah_ti1r1401L1n I igld Present? Yes=3 _-?
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS

3

P
2
.3
_

If. 11j,drolol j, Absent Weak Moderate QtronL
1) Is "['here A Oroundwater „
L Iclw/Diualargc 1'rc?cl!t?- ._.-.--_ -' __ _-1 ----- 3
PRIMA R I' 11 YDROLOGY INDIGI TOR POINTS `? . --
3) _IIs-I'erihhyh>n Present'?---_-_--- A
-!) ?\re 13iv;tlves ['resent? _ _
PRIMARY /BIOLOGY INDiCiTOR POINTS:
Secondary Field I11diCat01-S: (C'irrh OneNurnGerl'erl.irtc)
G
A
3) Does'(OPTI-ahhy Indicate A
Nalur;tl Dr, inage.
_Way?
- ----- - U _
.S'1:C ONDARY GisOIIIORPHOLOGY INDIC.'ATOR'1'OI
eak Mode
t ro
".1ly(lrolo?-_ Absent Weak Moderate Slronit
I) Is This Yeiij x.iOr Last's) Leaiflittel.
--
_.._ I'reu;nt Il>tr?sllllll??l ---- ------ --1-5 I _
.S 0
11.Is Scdilncn Iants_COr k_1)Js I'rrti?nt'? 0 ?' 5 1 -- - 1.5--------------
,?1_?rc
....... .-.---
-
) Is Water In Channel rlnd >48 ilrs. Since O .5 I
Ittitllr!INrt iZili... ('^rV(I'(•f _/'li•Ir !!ulir•a er(/n_/J9i1 ,urt_•S?('ilr ?/ti.?'.Sf! AnrLS l1?•/utv*L
5) Is I hoc Willer in Channel During Dry 0 5 - I - 5 - ---- - -
C'on-l-uullti Uiln (yillo Season
??---_-- e?
!) ?\re I I)dlic Sr.?!I, I'teti?:nt In Sides nl_Chlutncu Or in 1(eadcut '
en. Yes Nr O
SPC.ONDAKI'll IPROLOGYINDiCAT'OR POINT.: -----
M.lliol(t;y Absent Weak Moderate tilrontt
11_nrc riti?, I?tesen['t- - 5 ( 1.5
21 At.? AmOhihians Present'? - _?_T_" - 5 --- ( - ---- 15------- ------
?11_l?l? C s tylt?h l'l?ti,.nt' __--___.--•--•- -- ? ---..-.--- I --•-______--.__.._ 1-5
5) Are IVl ictubt mhr, _ 1'ie,c+it.?_.----- .5-=_-..-- 1 ----- ~-_---1-5--- -- ---- --
¢i .\rc In,ii_O iidizing l3;ly l?;ria/f I le S Pr?S0
71 I:: I d -!------loos nlg t2..l'rcu.t!t'?
tir .\, c. ?;'?lland I'ianls In SU?amhed'? 1V Mostly OBIT Mostly hACM -=Mostly FAC 1w.11), FACO Mttslly ill'! --'
r Vf!'!'R: l,'Ii,rrtl rllrew•r O/':if' l'Irua.+' ht.VN'enurl.a ? ? I .75 ..`> 0 O
re.1'll,77 !i+.Vtr,(/rV/,li_titiJ'rll!!'?'errty('??:----- °= - -
"is'C'ONDARY BUOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: _-`------- ------ _.----_---.-- -_--- -- _-.._- _
r i r? ? r i `I d+yg -
f)1 ?t 1,.1 f)INI ?? (1'f ittntr? + .S?e'cutular = W( Fr 1'llan Or Isynal To 19 Points The Stream Is Al Least Intermittent)

I CnNH...:'. ;.1.

l - /OFUR: 3

I -/ x ;.-0\t P? fNDNY O 0
/ JO ?Hdh G \tH PEA KOp DUTCH q EQ' H ¢ ,.
r ?.
i\ ^ _ SH' GZ . DEy q P?? P `E `S r
_.
C?

D
TNOM
ASYILlF
R I
1 fl
O S1 2 DAYSTA u
fe W
rFI PLEASANT GROVE
Sco UNBELTCy 2 SUNSHADOW LA;
G
o
aleLgh? le \kan; N (0[.JE
LPL
y
, ° SHERL I(
?

L EWS
_• -
.? !
9O s`,p F;LI^h V?`5o2S,
' J
N
y
Z
/
r
T 0
o i
IJOU
1 .. '.fT PIN o S? r^NSCAPE ° ?? o?
'
\\
L (.RFORQI '?. SUrltlERN000 J?s? St. _
/
Q S
E
L~ q I aFAVERLAKE
`Y ! iI?i LS J'
:t 3 ¢

r
. / ?FH oQ

- \I SEE GRID A, K1 own L e MMI p
° ° O G 9 f 65
1 BARTONS LANDING RE) `SQui hop CIR 1
?
'P \N o° 9' s GUY S

\
r n
..
$ Rv \ p
T WHISPERING FALLS RUN RD Ctr T m r Rpq
3 INLAND TR EOGERTON IQ RF F + t
I B " IPRIL ~
R i
h V
?
"- ' '
..
SENOEflp ?
=
I
LLWATER POINT DR CT leigh
/ RIVER OAK TURN WNS P[g L W oten "A
R
qH

?l DOCKSIDE CIR s 4q/
a Sta I ]
T tf '3
7 SPRINGCREEK COVE py'?F ??p ,., 9 Pk :
Pleasant I
West m
op? > c?
Valle
Promena e o
T
Le
` Ole, -- R,?a' 1 \ y
I
ndin
F
°U pR MENT E DRg o rOYldenC ,? ~lY Shop Ctf QUEEN
CTjP ! E[
dt ?
Rp
T
Ba
?
R
S?
1 ?p?e 91iF.SO r 4 iiR LE MIMOSA q?qq It Park j a PAP
k
?
I
VdO DS Z °CtF? I O Ey pq SN
t
A`AK
E
b y?

'.

_ PPiFn oEa
ErOak?o -
a n x ya
GIs
poo °R
1
Oq
STEA
°5°
L
- pGq?
ICRO
MC U
1 VL R - .,
L_ I o
r
e
o
E
L1
°°
ZO
9
Q¢ `'rFyq ?O°
o¢
y
00 QEM
F,
9
A
PAR
L
c
Duralei
c° F
h
g
,I
o
h
0 Presh `A11 ER
I

- o
N t '. - ON a z4; Q c? £ ?o
i J '? (P Y i 2 GPI"E °° C ?¢ ! o ¢ A O?
0 Ertx y?Eq y OQ °° S°P ??`" '4i
V\v?
?4
A G) ?
Ey A°,d pfMRgp
o

`:?"?- ?
o
r/O
O
G [ ° O t
.,.. -._ s. mv.. 2 'MfTCq[F Cpyy 9? Oo n 1
°9 `? HU L 0 DPI
AVER K 'C Oe o
/

46.

/ 1
PL o °
j `\ I ? oo Fe`EZ EANHPM ? ? \POp. Crab
a
EP tree
FL
?
_
\ ? 2
a
g .Fn.

-
- L
< P 3 MCALLIS7fR
Mosby
tt
y
P[
q tt
Pond(
` 9 4400
' ' u
? az4D

c)r Gtr

edmont Beech GA .. oe
AZALEA. I f °-
\ D '
RD / = m2 >
a ?l? 10 °q o
°
S
B[
¢
edy

? atural Area R o
LAUREL a
t?
p r "'H ps,,? ¢ ,?„ CIR
I
ROC
"
° L

? W
KW000 pR g 9F w od m
a
AUREL

ke y ? ;.. JUNIPER ST $? rltLL. V i
MILL mo

. V ; Fq?H C
m 002: RD .
O 5 80KW000= " flp y\? l °x i
y?p, z ?\ Ciq° VET ?ul 4500 pq4, t?.: o yE ?° .OQ' O
fi
I '
Q
E
T
(??
[H. Wph' pe ing r., O\
¢ I pUS
ON J
C? T OO
° S
" bc? 6? c c?yNpE _ nP o R?OO ° _"j E
?C? `_`oy f?FFS \
k i qq/
l .W
..'? T
1
4q
DR 2
/
ree
¢ [
Q?I ?
? c oc3
n0
EO/
j
lo
/
o
?
LOBLOLLY .v O `Os
- !
CAF F00 PE
F OtKS E SON o CARRIAGE ?
?lF 1 F S?f ?[
CIR
q
S:
FF ?MILLP 1
L??,?? Co
?6? ALL g WEL M I •oy
j L

?- i ,
i o
CTSTG EFty,` 61RNS ;'PQ°`? v PEER 's Laurel
Hill
p °? 9 5°
FO

\

I
6

-

?py ??? i ',
9 s
P
ay
?'Y
q '! c S .y?aFgR[ g I
Park
AKGREE r E`NE `S I - _°c ['09? m C y U[T °o 8LUHERRY I
CT 'O it voa a J
t s STONER)) DGE 9/- 0[S[R JHO pR 12 4,
Q 2
F
REN
y
iO9y?si Q,`
! ?
G II
T
C p Q
.. -CTS A
WYAI
RES
1
Q' - i
S
Eq

t RO
{ :..
_
O
/
9
(n
1000 ?i°s?. PR E_ ?OHHRIE? y'P y Q' EOGEMONt4R-'-'_'"' _ L „
H o
F?F O LNEC i HUMP
! Saint DOGE
NDi (v
e
o .2
. P
wg
y
R
y
___\
/ y?Y
?
?
auis
.,..PA
Gp?P?
'
dG
t N
- ro MILL ¢ t3 01deAalei h
O
e
i
\NOV ? _.

i SPR G'CT 0 S v
pEN • .E m CT v " 60 6° 9?E OQC i ?s
'Y
,
= TSTONE GAP
GA `
?
O?
?/ Oq o
I
. P
O M RNIN IDE s
Trinity.
f
?y g ERS gN /Sq/
ev t ''sf q0 o cROU Cpi6EE t9
\ s \ _O, sp ,. OPen! ., e`oE l99? TAL
RA ?? E? ?lohness ` I? - Hm?"
' 3
ED
D IDfl
P P`
D

"? s

C
i ?
O
?
S^ V! FOREST Y 610\
l
U ARD
" VIEW. :c'0 - c
IF n WUUUW L I?
1 ° ?a?` CARL ALWIN SCHEN <-` iCRO REEK ?E CATAL A

r0 -? t
I j I JE
uKE
k9

SO
? MEMORIAL F
i ?
OREST NORTH CAROLINA - ?91 x
CF
Q FORE
???
'
o L - I
s. ?
I Oj
\ O
I
tiR c
ST VIEW
e °
a J
qF
R°
Exit-!

Exit-2 1
F
I _
!!
"i ak Boone®
Q4 h?o Da I 3,? r
T
ONE 3 00
Ye ¢Q Q?
OR E
/09EEe I FAIRMEA w 00 LA 4IDO
.
1P _ STATE H''?sf UNIVERSITY; < L+ aP?`?oQ cl .
J I ?a RO I o `
g 'P I S HS
- ET
i AD F no -+ ? HARDE o 4 9_dnann °? '
78°44'15" 2,080,000 FT 78°43'30" Joins Ma 1353 78°42'45" NC GRID VVV
irN ? p - 78°42'00"2.090,000 FTC ALLEXAND
:, ?°
HERRING MCBENNETT
MILLS & FINKELSTEIN,PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Two HANNovER SQUARE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27601
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone]
PO Box 1677 FACSIMILE: [phone]
RAmGKNC 27602 EMAIL: HERMCBAHERMCB.COM

OCT I l 2001
E. PARKER HERRING *
LARRY D. MCBENNETT
BOBBY D. MILLS * °
MARK A. FINKELSTEIN
SCOTT E. ALLEN
KENNETH C. HAYWOOD
STEPHEN W. PETERSEN
ELIZABETH A. KANE
*BoA CER'IIF®FA YLAW SPSCLN
-Me -A-c AcADB -
ADO -Arrotuaexs
October 11, 2001
*** BY HAND DELIVERY ***
Mr. John Domey
Division of Water Quality, Wetlands Section
2321 Crabtree Blvd
Raleigh, NC 27699
00 ?0
Y? -t
O?

RE: Harbourgate Subdivision, DENR file no. NBRRO 01-143
Dear Mr. Domey:

This letter is in reference to our pending request for a review determination of the applicability of
riparian buffer rules to the above-referenced property (see letters dated September 24 and 28, 2001,
enclosed).
In a letter from John Bennett dated September 5, he states his belief that our contentions regarding
the riparian buffer rules are unfounded (see highlighted portion of enclosed letter). We would like to
note for the record that our request for review is based on the opinion of DENR representative Steve
Mitchell, who inspected the site in question and indicated his opinion that the Neuse River buffer
rules applied to a water feature near the north side of the property. Another employee of DENR,
Charles Brown, stated in a May 17, 2001 letter his determination that the buffer rules did not apply
to the feature. Based on these conflicting assessments of the applicability of the riparian buffer rules,
we requested a review of whether the buffer rules apply.
Aside from the riparian buffer area we also have major concerns of the impact this development will
have on Emory Branch Creek downstream to the pond located in Richland Valley and eventually
Crabtree Creek. City of Raleigh staff has determined that it is better to allow the increased runoff
into these creeks instead of impounding the water on site and releasing at predevelopment rates. We
disagree with the decision of staff of the City of Raleigh and believe that the water should be
contained on site as released at predevelopment rates. The size of the development of 12 lots on
such a small tract of land with a city standard road will result in as much as 66% impervious surface.
The City of Raleigh is in the process of reviewing the developers' application for various permits.
My understanding is that the city manager has requested that city staff hold off on the granting of
further permits while the riparian buffer review is under way. I understand that councilman Benson
Kirkman has discussed this matter with you. For this reason, we would greatly appreciate your
department's immediate action on our request.
October 11, 2001
Page 2
I would appreciate your confirming this request in a very brief letter or fax so that I can represent its
status to the City of Raleigh, to help substantiate its suspension of the permit approval process.
I'm enclosing materials that may be helpful to you in performing the review. If there is anything else
you need, please let me know as soon as possible.
Very truly yours,
Elizabeth. Kane
HERRING MCBENNETT
MILLS & FINKELSTEIN, PLLC
,A
ATTORNEYS AT LAW E. PARKER HERRING'
TWO HANNOVER SQUARE LARRY D. MCBENNETT
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27601 BOBBY D. MB.LS' °
EIN
MARK A. TrE.ALALLEN
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] SCOTTE. KENNETH C. HAYWOOD
PO Box 1677 FACSIMILE: [phone]
RALEIGH, NC 27602 I EMAIL: HERMCBnIFERMCB.COM ftpy STEPHEN W. PETERSEN
ELIZABEPH A. KANE
*BO CMDM:DFAMLLYLAWSPEQA=
.IIILW xAMEPICANACADEWOF
ADDPDDD AiIORNlYS
September 24, 2001
VIA FACSIMILE AND US MAIL (733-6893)
Mr. John Dorney
Wetlands 401 r"-i
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
RE: Harbourgate Subdivision, DENR file no. NBRRO 01-143 I
Dear Mr. Dorney:
I represent property owners in the Arden Forest and Stoneridge Subdivisions that are located off
Ebenezer Church Road. An adjacent tract of land has received preliminary subdivision approval by
the City of Raleigh. The property owners I represent have serious concerns as to whether the riparian
buffer shown on the subdivision plan complies with the riparian buffer rules.
Specifically, a water feature on the site was inspected previously by DENR. A letter from Charles
Brown dated May 17, 2001 stated that it had been determined that the buffer rules did not apply to
the feature. However, my understanding is that there were conflicting assessments of the
applicability of the riparian buffer rules at the time of different site visits. It has been suggested,
therefore, that we contact you for a second evaluation of the situation.
Please accept this letter as 'a formal request for a review of the riparian buffer determination for the
site. The water feature in question is a stream or intermittent stream located in the north west portion
of the site, and is located possibly as far east as the southeast corner of lot 5 in Stoneridge
subdivision (see indication on enclosed map) near a white fence.
I would note that the developer has received preliminary site plan approval from the City of Raleigh.
The subdivision plan has not been recorded yet. Our concern is that the review of the situation take
place before site disturbance begins. Therefore, we would appreciate your action on this request as
soon as possible.
I would appreciate your confirming this request so that I can represent its status to my clients. If you
need any further information, please do not hesitate to give me a call.
Very truly yours,

Elizabeth A. Kane
*************** -COMM. JOURNAL- ******************* DATE SEP-24-2001 ***** TIME 10:48 *** P.01
4
MODE = MEMORY TRANSMISSION START=SEP-24 10:48 END=SEP-24 10:48
FILE NO.= 103
STN NO. COM ABBR NO. STATION NAME/TEL.NO. PAGES DURATION
001 OK a 7336893 001/001 00:00134"
-HERRING,MCBENNETT... -
************************************ -HERRING,MCBENNET- ***** - 9198211816- *********
HERRING MCBENNETT
MILLS & FINKELSTEIN, PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Two HANNovERSQuARE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27601
MA1um0 ADDRESS. TELF7MONE: [phone]
PO Wx 1677 EAnir6N: [phone]
R?GK NC 27602 EmAw HERMC=HERMCB.OOM
{
E. PARKER HERRING •
LARRY D. MCBENNETT
BOBBY D. Mall • •
MAR): A. FNKELSTEN
SWIT E. ALIEN
((???} [ KENNEM C. MAYWOOD
STFPIEN W. PETERSEN
EMADETHA. KANE
_._ •ao,oeenw+.nrw,ar,.,r.wu.,m
• 14Mr Aa,1ilf.Nl MnDSIr W
. .. 1 .wss,nnmrtw
September 24, 2001
VIA FACSIMILE AND US MAIl. (733-6893)
Mr. John Dorney
Wetlands 401
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
RE: Harbourgate Subdivision, DENR file no. NBRRO 01-143
Dear Mr. Dorney:
I represent property owners in the Arden Forest and Stoneridge Subdivisions that are located off
Ebenezer Church Road. An adjacent tract of land has received preliminary subdivision approval by
the City of Raleigh. The property owners I represent have serious concerns as to whether the riparian
buffer shown on the subdivision plan complies with the riparian buffer rules.
Specifically, a water feature on the site was inspected previously by DENR. A letter from Charles
Brown dated May 17, 2001 stated that it had been determined that the buffer rules did not apply to
the feature. However, my understanding is that there were conflicting assessments of the
applicability of the riparian buffer rules at the time of different site visits. It has been suggested,
therefore, that we contact you for a second evaluation of the situation.
Please accept this letter as a formal request for a review of the riparian buffer determination for the
site. The water feature in question is a stream or intermittent stream located in the north west portion
of the site, and is located possibly as far east as the southeast corner of lot 5 in Stoneridge
subdivision (see indication on enclosed map) near a white fence.
I would note that the developer has received preliminary site plan approval from the City of Raleigh.
The subdivision plan has not been recorded yet. Our concern is that the review of the situation take
place before site disturbance begins. Therefore, we would appreciate your action on this request as
soon as possible.
I would appreciate your confirtning this request so that I can represent its status to my clients. If you
need any further information, please do not hesitate to give me a call.
Very truly yours,
iElizabeth A. Kane
HERRING MCBENNETT
MILLS & FINKELSTEIN, PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
TWO HANNOVER SQUARE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27601
MAILING ADDRESS: I TELEPHONE: [phone]
PO Box 1677 FACSIMILE: [phone]
RALEIGH, NC 27602 EMAIL: HERMCW&HERMCB.COM
E. PARKER HERRING *
LARRY D. MCBENNETT
BOBBY D. MTLLs * * FINKELsT copy MARK COTT E. TrE. LELEN
N
SC AL
KENNETH C. HAYWOOD
STEPHEN W.PETERSEN
ELIZABETH A. KANE
• Baron CMn%nM FAMILY I.U. SPE A n
° MFMB AAQRrC ACADFMYO
ADOPI%X1 ATORNEYS
*** BY HAND DELIVERY ***
Mr. John Dorney
2321 Crabtree Blvd
Raleigh, NC 27699
RE: Harbourgate Subdivision, DENR file no. NBRRO 01-143

Dear Mr. Dorney:
I am re-transmitting the following request, which was originally faxed and mailed on September.24, '
2001 but I understand not received by you to date.
I represent property owners in the Arden Forest and Stoneridge Subdivisions that are located off
Ebenezer Church Road. An adjacent tract of land has received preliminary subdivision approval by
the City of Raleigh. The property owners I represent have serious concerns as to whether the riparian
buffer shown on the subdivision plan complies with the riparian buffer rules.
Specifically, a water feature on the site was inspected previously by DENR. A letter from Charles
Brown dated May 17, 2001 stated that it had been determined that the buffer rules did not apply to
the feature. However, my understanding is that there were conflicting assessments of the
applicability of the riparian buffer rules at the time of different site visits. It has been suggested,
therefore, that we contact you for a second evaluation of the situation.
Please accept this letter as a formal request for a review of the riparian buffer determination for the
site. The water feature in question is a stream or intermittent stream located in the north west portion
of the site, and is located possibly as far east as the southeast corner of lot 5 in Stoneridge
subdivision (see indication on enclosed map) near a white fence.
I would note that the developer has received preliminary site plan approval from the City of Raleigh.
The subdivision plan has not been recorded yet, but I understand that the City's approval process is
under way. Our concern is that the review of the situation take place before site disturbance begins.
Therefore, we would appreciate your action on this request as soon as possible.
I would appreciate your confirming this request so that I can represent its status to my clients. If you
need any further information, please do not hesitate to give me a call.
Very truly yours, -
Elizabeth A. Kane
September 28, 2001
SEP-21-2001 FRI 06:11 PN
JOgN n. EENNlTT •,
J. RAY DUAL
JA47C M. SAWYER
•WAST&O OF Lwws rV TAXATION
• 3101.AD Clarinto iYtOtncaaT
tN rgT^rs KJ%NNINC ANa
VWDATa LAW
Mate Scruggs, Councillor
P.O. Box 590
Raleigh. NC 27602
Re: Harbourgate Subdivision
Ebenezer Church Road
Raleigh, NC
Dear Councillor Scruggs:
DC 2001
It was a pleasure to talk with you on Thursday, August 29, 2001. Thank you for
promptly returning my call.
P. 02
TZLUPHONZ
(x.18) 004•q,y4O
rAGtI1?1t8
(73e) "A-Isaae
As I mentioned to you, I work with Charles A. Manning, M who is the developer of the
Harbourgate Subdivision.
I believe our discussion enlightened you to some facts that have been either overlooked or
misunderstood.
This letter is to summarize the kcy clcments of our conversation. Upon review of this
letter, please inform main writing of any part of this summary that you do not believe correctly
reflects the nature o£gt)r discussion.
4biections RaienA t'" You
In your letter to Mr. Manning dated August 23, 2001 you stated that at least two
councillors have strong objections to this neighborhood for six (6) reasons:
1. Placement of contiguous street and lot locations in proximity to existing
neighborhoods.
Re9pottsa: We did not specifically discuss the objections and on its face value, I
am unable to discern what the objections are since all neighborhoods in the city
are contiguous to adjacent neighborhoods.
Ra (C"; A- 9 W%
D
SEP 17 2001
OFFICE OF CITY COUNCIL
NCSU !DATER QUALITY 19195157448
$ENN - TT DX&L & S,A?WTER. -p=C
ATTOMWXyg AT LAW
3017 SOUTH CHURCH 9TRRET
DUNLINCTOir. WORTH CAxOL111A aye,,,
September 5.200I
s0iza =-Dvd H9I31V1 J 7IoNnoo Aiic C.CAP-0C3---- --
SEP-21-2001 FRl 06:12 PM NCSU WATER QUALITY 19195157448
P, 03
Marc Scruggs, Councillor
September S, 2001
Page 2
n
n i 1 lG.
2. Inadequate buffering between existing neighborhoods causing lighting, noise and
public safety concerns. A brick fence would be one of the more appropriate
solutions.
Response: In your letter you suggested that we build a brick fence along the back
of homes in Arden Forrest.
= Prior to receiving your letter, at a first meeting with the homeowners, we offered a
solution which would provide for a six (6) foot brick. fence, plus dense vegetation
of up to-twelve (12) feet high to address these concerns. However, to date, the
residents have not agreed to discuss such an alternative.
In our next mectins with the residents, Parker Herring, who is a resident and
family law attorney, in the law firm of Harting, McBennett 1%13113 & Finkelstein,
PLLC, stated that that oficr was "unacceptable." However, no particular reason
was given as to why this solution would be unacceptable.
I spoke with Kenneth Haywood, who represents the homeowners, on August 29,
2001 and told him that at ournextrneeting, which is scheduled for Fridays
September 7, 2001, that we would like to discuss the solution which'would allow
tts to build the buffer. He stated that he would have to confer with his clients.
3. Violation of state riparian buffer rules leading to adverse effects an the Emory
Branch of Richland Creek.
Ra arise: This was not discussed in our conversation on August 29'". Let me
assure yop that we are not violating any such rules. We have had extensive
studies performed and have had the North Carolina Department of Water Quality
investigate the issue some rime ago as part of our devcloomrnt procedures.
I do not know who provide you with the information that this development
violated any riparian buffer rules, but they were grossly misinformed.
4. The inability to adequately handle run-off from a ten year storm once all
impervious surfaces such as driveways, patios, etc. are in place.
Zganonsi: As you stated during our telephone conference on August 29, 2001,
the City of Raleigh's engineers have studied this plan and have stated that is
meets all the requirements to handle a ten year storm. However, we have offered
to put DOT standard storm drains in place as an added protection.
SO/E6 39VJ H9137da nioNnoo Aim PC LIC_nco_[Tr
____ •__ •__
SEP-21-2001 FRI 06:12 PN NCSU WATER QUALITY 19195157448
Marc Scruggs, Councillor
September S. 2001 0CT
Page 3
S. The inevitable destntction of some very old trees.
P. 04
Rcsnonse: We will do everything possible to mitigate damages to the old trees.
6. _- Your first case, which was denied by the Planning Commission. should hays been
appealed to the Council.
Rmporsa' We would very much like to work with you to develop a working
plan. We have not taken a back door approac.'i b; cu:r.'ng down the size of the
plan, it is just what we were told by the City we could do.
If you am offering a mechanism for us to work out a solution, we welcome the
offer with open arms, since the revised plans we are currently working with
limited economic viability.
Comrnunicat gna with neiehpors
We are more than willing to work with the neighbors. We have
spoken with them a
number of months ago. The first time we received any indication front a xjgighbor thar-•there was
a spccitlc concern regarding safety or storm runoff, was by reading the article in the News and
Observer on August 23, 2001.
We welcome the opportunity to address every concern you have expressed, because we
had the very same concerns before we began the project- I believe a public airing of these issues
will shed the light on wkat is truth and what is unfounded inuendo. Please feel free to have a
public meeting. We are in 100% agreement,
Division of water Quality Review
You mentioned in your letter wanting to have the Division of Water Quality review the
storm water plans. Please feel free to request any review by any agent you desire. We will
gladly provide you with our engineering work, a well as written approval from the Department of
Water Quality.
S0/00 3SVd H9I31Vm 771M o_7 A t TI ocnc_nc r" __-_ ._- ._ _
SEP-21-2001 ERI 06:12 PM NCSU 'dA,TER QUALITY 19195157448 P. 05
Marc Scruggs, Councillor ACT i
September 5, 2001
Page 4
Response to your Request
In the last paragraph of your letter dated August 23, 2001, you stated that the "bottom
line" is to:
1. Improve storm water and runoff problems;
2. Improve the plan buffer,
3. Move the street away from the neighbors; and
4. Build a working and cooperative relationship with the neighbors.
1 believe we are in compliance with your requests.
I ain going to assume that this letter reflects your understanding of facts surrounding
these issues unless you notify me otherwise. We remain at your service if we can provide you
with any additional information.
Sincerely yours,
John R. Bennett
Cc: Mayor Coble and City Councillors
City Manager _4llen
City Attorney McCormick
City Planning Dir=er Chapman
Planning Commission Director, Neal Hunt
JRB:lw
sai90 39vd H9=V? l 7mNnn^ Alit PCLiC _QaP-LTG Scl * Cc Tnn? ,T? Irn
'00T i Llv
co
7
or
Y
h
m
L
MM
C2
co
0
co
?C
O
C
O
L
H
y
'pm
O
.C
w
3
m
U
3
y
Y
C
m
Y
C
C
.C
C
m
^LS'
LL
C
V
L
C
f3
Y
VJ
y?
V
Nm
I.L

W H ?Q
Y2
to
f,
OCT `i 120o! b
5 tNg G(R 40 '?1b. 'y t
O` L RGI? 1 [ r 9$ d6 .. ?',`
' Y'I y??1p,¢ll ? 6 n6aA ne0 tiQ J
° ?^w m0 n0N ?n y?C? "?/ ??s61 6? a p ?t9
ots f6 o ?dm
fP ti.0 llB
1 m a' N b ¢ st R oB
a? o° aA`? ry?" a? ate' ¢? ¢M a °R
108
h ° ???? X121 '{
a ?+ 50 c o h ` A v, M ?? vOL.- 65 s 3N (IS
v N ,y .- e g 8S 9L ° BB
N
(141) ?l 1µ.5 ej 220 0 "°.,^,0 6 a s o 2 ^ 1
Q
B .. ?' ap ,p a ?Q a ry u n 0?
L4Z 1 ° YZ inA? ? p100 VY N? 9L
? O A O m h ?O ? N N p ?? 5O? A
m
t) ¢ N ° 111 52 `? 'R H7?100 SCOURa A?
a 'r 114 6 `?J B1 ? ? 10Q y?
y LL p 9m N N F2A A %? O ?6
yQ-6 O y°n GORINCO m" 10?? tO tip' n ye e
c? n (gal
nah ¢ Z '? ' P m` cam' c, `3
1a3 Q 01 ' ?? A J 1 OOai N` nC `f? ?'1 eip'i
3
f M N
3?s p r 338 a o g m 11 °? a m <
QQ` Ob m- a 132 e m 6 ° O o ^C"
Ga m .o p `?3c td ? o
155 ' m 4vm? ?? ama 4
Y N 01 Q. ?
153 re? v? f '{. lb Y o
311 r M ° ° ba L ? 06
m ¢ ? r dZ A%P ss es
y•; ?' ? N f
36b A N 165 Q`t`?•0? 06
`a
A N o p s
w mA Y iN0 C: O' Q bm Qmm N
° 8! d r ° N d o
n Q vy O < 183 W Y y o N of o mh o
P°. c cW9 m M M^ O N„ N JL1'?6,?OO 1 6 r? 100
Q LL '? O tJ r,
01
` 337 m Z° 190
O
n 51 r n yA m ?° `?B??m
M S r 114 a m
S n c A ? P a m Q m ?? ? m°nm r
` ¢ < 6 ?? v G, ° `off 150 pO
?? 96E a < ?° Q A _ 131 h
o P ra v °` "m'? ? ? ??$
a 382 m 0?1F,F m e°?i ` 30 is ° 1 96 A6 'N m a
q- n R a f op
Z1 ? ? ^ ? T `pP??`? ° eo ^ N b N ~ ? y
Oy 42d'! M o m ° n a
365
a .- nnA ?.L r `18 a ¢ 1ti141
3 °
5
0h m l
ti1A g ¢ ? ?
W q ¢y R '?
? m
m
• t+, t 'f ,dr, ,:••;;.: ;:;•: rs ! '•::i'>' ' <!}. y.. 2 3'% Sy = t i s4 r r.`
t. ::....
.> • ` t . \:L.:•`?'>•iC.
... :2 J' ,•. • : ?ti'?}. `- : 4 i:{:;,? •.i:.- ?r:.•.. " .- ; `
J ? . ??':. ilN• ` `aft \ ?Sw::; ,'•,.t?. ?r ??? t`
kz lot.
C f t'1?
a I\?,?t\? ?+;
71
A g.8 2
r • ` r •
r
le.
xm,c
M ` iU} 3A .5 b ' it;x? t ' h` ,'si (A ? tr 1 f,'
• + t?rr? M R'?? i K a '; ,1 ; ;l?{. ? ?S ?1?? ? •t " x?? i! :?,, d b•'` ;? ?'??jp;2V 'i ,.
.? y> .t. M1"]3 `2'? ?:fy 4.i '•f: } ??? ?S'?,1. `?? ••??1 ? ? tt,+r `ti` \ ,,
A"b
, v
xa• h., s ??t, $ ?, \ tit. •y?. ?? <>
P 'W s. :o f :•r{ ? ? ' ar, ?t A i::? jai{ . ? X \
C •: ? •- i• ?t?•Y f9 `'N,.' t . d t c0.::} 'r, . , + ,,? .c. P :, j'.
r 'sa,i. s s o ? }. , ? s ! ; ` ftZt?lt` \? >?iuM-0t • t\ >
>is'. <:: •.:'•;t•1 ice. y is..:.;
CC)
CeC2 . , : .
?
(Joins sheet
s 0
--
l
- - -
--- -- - - 5
5 000 4 000 i 000 2 000 1000 ow f
Scale 1:15840
'
? oo w a
t N N
(Joins sheet 37) o
/d9
N t 2? a 80 w *
??a???T' •1?:. ?/ l.h, ?, c? Le 2 .p0 'C e. _
`` `• l? 8 i vVwF
n \ A/o' .? Y?
M •L. - ce b'? _ i
r?i ?. ?3 .,=? 45n '?, vs!¢4?t ?y??\
,Z08?
j D
O ?
. D
?N
JR.
5CT-11-2001 THU 09:58 PM NCSU WATER QUALITY 1919blb-/448 F. uiiue
14 71? 7
It. W. Wells Association
Capital Group Sierra Club
Conservation Council of North Carolina
Eno River Association
Friends of State Parks
Headwaters Group Sierra Club
New Hope Audubon Society
Neuse River Foundation, Inc.
The Umstead Coalition
P.O. Box 10654
Raleigh, NC 27605.0854
[phone]
htt .,Aymsteadc gll on.oW
North Carolina Herpetological Society
North Carolina Wildlife Federation
North Carolina Wild Flower Preservation Society
Orange-Chatham Group Sierra Club
Raleigh Ski and Outing Club, Inc.
Rockingham Naturalist's Club
Society for the Preservation of Jockey's Ridge
Wake Audubon Society
October 11, 2001
To:
Mayor Coble and Raleigh City Council Members
From: Dr. Jean Spooner, Chair, The Umstead Coalition
Re: S-37-01, Harbourgate Subdivision and Raleigh's
Buffer Regulations"

cc: J. Russell Allen - City Manager, Raleigh
David Betts, Raleigh Planning Department
Bill Brower, Conservation Engineer, Raleigh Inspection Department
Gene Ellis, Director, Raleigh Inspection Department
George Chapman, Director, Raleigh Planning Department
Kenneth 14aywood, Attorney, Herring McBennett Mills & Finkelstein, PLLC-
Charles A. Manning, III, Developer, Harbourgate Subdivision
John Dorney, NC Department of Environmental and Natural Resources - Division of Water
Quality (DWQ)
Steve Mitchell, NC Department of Environmental and Natural Resources - Division of Water
Quality, Raleigh Regional Office
I am writing on behalf of the Umstead Coalition. We have concerns regarding the detrimental
impacts of the proposed Subdivision Plan S-37-01 on the downstream flooding and water quality.
In my review of the draft subdivision plan, it is my opinion that the proposed subdivision plan does
not comply with the "Neuse River Basin. Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy:
Protection and Maintenance of Existing Riparian Buffers" (Administrative Code TI SA NCAC 28
.0233 aka Neuse Buffer Rules), the "NC Neuse River Basin: Model Stormwater Progrant for
Nitrogen Control," or Raleigh's Division II Code of General Ordinances, Part 10, Chapter 9
"Stormwater Control and Watercourse Buffer Regulations." This new development must comply
with these regulations.
We would like to request that Raleigh 4M the current proposed subdivision plan and require the
developer to resubmit a plan in compliance with these regulations. We also request that the City of
Raleigh ask DENR DWQ to assess the streams on site subject to 401 Permits and the Neuse Buffer
Rules.
V The Umstead Coalition
Dedicated to Preserving the Natural Integrity of W.B. Umstead State Park and the Riceland Creek Natural Area
OCT-11-2001 THU 09:58 PM NCSU WATER QUALITY 19195157448 P. 02/06
The subdivision plan should be-modified to:
1) Decrease impervious area to encourage infiltration and decrease stormwater surface runoff
2) Protect stream channel buffers.
3) Install stormwater BMPs (preferably those that facilitate infiltration and increase stream
baseflow, decrease stormwater flow, and decrease nitrogen loadings from the site). The BMPs
might include: vegetative swales instead of curb & gutter, bioretenion gardens, sand filters,
narrower street and driveways, constructed stormwater wetlands. These BMPs can be very
attractive and increase the sale value of lots.
4) Require residential subdivisions to utilize Method 2 for quantifying nitrogen export by
estimated a realistic footprint size of the planned houses. (or show both Method 1 and 2 and
utilize which ever one is cater.
.
5) Encourage the developer to have format discussions with representatives of the adjacent
neighborhoods and The Umstead Coalition to .facilitate the planning of a subdivision that would
provide better protection of environmental resources and address neighbor concerns.
I have outlined a few of my specific comments below:
Violation of the Nauss Buffer Rules and 401 Permit Regulations
In ray review of the Wake County Soil Survey map (southwest corner of Sheet 38) and on-site
inspections, that there is a defined surface water intermittent stream (flowing into Emory Creek) on
the north boundary of this property that should be protected under the Neuse Buffer Rules, but are i of
protected in the proposed subdivision plan. In fact, this `intermittent stream' has flowing water much
or most of the year.
The draft Grading Plan shows effluent from a temporary sediment basin entering a "natural swale" on
the northwest property boundary (the same intermittent stream we believe should be protected). The
sediment basin effluent would travel about 660 ee to Emory Creek. It is our understanding in
talking with city staff the storm water from this subdivision would not be retained on site, but routed
to and through this "natural swale" which would be rip-rapped. The submitted grading plan shows no
attempt to hold stormwater runoff on site, but rather to facilitate the direct flow of stormwater into the
rip-rap channel and into Emory Branch.
A key problem is that this proposed use of the "natural swale" as a rip-rap stormwater drain. is that we
believe it is, in fact, an ints 'tten stream that should be protected under the NC Neuse Huffer rules.
The proposed plan to rip-rap this stream reach and utilize it for a storm water drain should not be
allowed.
We recognize that there was an initial assessment by DWQ on May 11, 2001, but I respectively
request that the City request a thorough re-review of the site by NC DWQ to ensure a proper
identification of stream required to be protected under the Neuse Buffer Rules and 401 permitting
regulations.
a
v The Unutead Coalition v
Dedicated to Preserving the Natural Integrity of W.B. Umstead State Park and the Richland Creek Natural Area
OCT-11-2001 THU 09:58 PM NCSU WATER QUALITY 19195157448
P. 03/06
Violation of Raleigh's Stormwater Control and Watercourse Buffer Regulations
As stated in this Raleigh Code, the purpose is to "protect, maintain, and enhance the public health,
safety, and general welfare by establishing minimum requirements and procedures to 2Q trp of the
adverse effects of stormwater runoff associated with new develo- moment, to aide in the reduction of
nutrient pollution in the Neuse, j er, and to promote water quality, reduction of nitrogen loads and
proper management of stormwater runoff and establishment of watercourse buffers will minimize
damage to public and private property, insure a functional drainage system, reduce thg effects of
development on land and watercourse channel erosion, assist in the attainment and maintenance of
water quality standards, enhance the local environment associated with the drainage system, re uce
local flooding and drainage problems, and reduce nitrogen load fMM new developlnota, Maintain the
pre-developed runoff charactefistics of the area, and facilitate economic development by mitigating
associated flooding -and drains a im ac s.
It is my assessment that the proposed subdivision plan does not comply with the intent of the code.
Also, the specifics of the code are not met either.
1. See. 10-9023; STORMWATER RUNOFF CONTROLS. The subdivision plan does NOT
maintain "the peak stormwater runoff leaving (the) site for the two-year storm" "no greater for
post development conditions than pre-development conditions." Since the proposed subdivision
development has greater than 15% impervious area, the development MUST comply with this
Section.
The proposed subdivision plan has a direct conduit (via a rip-rap channel) of stormwater runoff
into the Emory Creek floodplain. In my assessment of the State regulations and City of Raleigh
Code, such a direct rip-rap conduit 'would be in violation of these regulations because there is no
attenuation of runoff peak flow during post-development.
The developer has asked for an exception based upon :Sec. 10-9023 (b) (3) "Compliance with the
runoff limitations in subsection (a) above would result in greater adverse downstream impact, such
as local flooding, as determined by City approved engineering studies."
However, we do not believe that this exception should be granted because:
a) The proposed development flows into Emory Branch, a tributary of Richland Creek. The
confluence of Emory Creek and Richland Creek is downstream of Richland Lake (a Wake
County flood control impoundment). The above mentioned exemption is most applicable
when the proposed development may increase the use peak flow as it travels
downstream. However, since this development impacts Richland Creek just downstream of a
flow control structure - it is the downstream peak flow in Crabtree Creek, which is of the
most concern - and peak flow mitigation (e.g., NOT allowing the exception) at this site would
be helpful in decreasing peak flow downstream.
b) Emory Creek drains into Camp Pond about 1200 feet downstream from this proposed
development. Camp pond is a private pond and it maintained at a level that is about 8" below
the emergency spill way. It is not designed as a stonYiwater pond. The Camp Pond dam
and emMencv snillwav is within the City qJ Raleigh righkof? for Richland Drive, a
3.
v The Urnstead Coalition •
Dedicated to Preserving the Natural Integrity of W.B. Umstead State Park and the Richland Creek Natural Area
OCT-11-2001 THU 09:58 PM NCSU WATER QUALITY 19195157448 Y. U4/Ub
public Raleigh City Street. The dam is classified by the State of NC as a "IM _ Iffazard
Dam" because of habitat structures (e.g., houses) down gradient of the dam. This
classification was given by DENR - Dam Safety in the mid 1995's when the City of Raleigh
approved a new development on Richland Drive, upgraded the principal and emergency
spillways, and extended and converted Richland Drive into a City Public street.
c) Camp Pond has received about 6' of new sediment deposition during the past 10 years, in part
due to upstream development. Stormwater controls that assist in infiltration will minimize the
sediment leaving Harbourgate Subdivision and subsequent sedimentation of Camp Pond.
2. Sec. 10-9022: NITROGEN REDUCTION. The Harbourgate Subdivision Planner has
submitted their estimated nitrogen export from the site at 4.34 lb/acre/year utilizing Method 1
(p. 3-2,4/26/01 version City of Raleigh Stormwater Management Design Manual). As written
in the code, this calculation method is allowed. BUT, consider the following:
To achieve the same level of N export using Method , (stated by the City Manual and the
State of NC's "Neese River Basin: Model for Stoimwater Program for Nitrogen Control" as
"more accurate," the house footprints would be about 775 sq. ft. (see attached worksheet
using Method 2.) Since most of the lots are not conducive for finished basements and height
limitations will limit most homes to 2-stories, this would be equivalent to planning for ONLY
1,550 sq. ft. homes. Given the anticipated selling price of the lots, it would be much more
realistic to expect house footprints substantially greater than this. Therefort th
utilization of Method 1 substantially -underestimates the xrue Nitrogen export expected
from the site.
3. Section 10-9023. (e) Additional runoff controls. The city code states: "Notwithstanding
subsections (a) and (b), the City reserves the right to require stormwater runoff control measures
for projects without any measures ,rind the City reserves the right to require additional
stormwater runoff control measure for projects which are complying with subsection (a) if
stormwater runoff from the site will cause adverse effects on other properties including without
limitation public streets, greenway, and utility easements. "
V The Umstead Coalition v y
Dedicated to Preserving the Natural Integrity of'W.Xi. Uinstead State Park and the Richland Creek Natural Area
OCT-11-2001 THU 09:59 PM NCSU WATER QUALITY 19195157448 P. 05/06

h

t= 3
o a

H S

N ? ro

O
b V
3 !?
O .H

? V '
c N . ? ? o coo p cp• sa
N a 'O C A U tG V L
$ 7 p y co
O O N car!
O a~p, i c?D e?
?
? ? ? ? ~ r w ch
to 0 ? b
41 ?t to
"CI
W
N? S G
m
p
?..
M-
V •V y
d ^ co
O N N
r cat
r
w
N N
cm
' N
rri
N

'H.

.? b
t: A N
Q1 •C1 ? G b J
r
? 1?
a b

b
d C ? Aa th
rr Z
µ E M M M
4Q $
O
v
; v
- I
h tC
3 c O Lo C d O fem.

c d y

z M
cb S]
°
'
1

I cm ? m m

o '0 In
`$
L
3
G
b ?^ L Chi' '
" ?•
N 3 U) i
3 dam
aa> ' a w
y e
3 a
E b as y ?'' w a+ yi `p

i P
C
04 5 1
%
t
I L j l t?

_ tz I ?L a .9 PL

OCT-11-2001 THU 09;59 PM NCSU WATER QUALITY 19195157448 P. 06/06
. . .

o

u
o

A
N

tt
N
,
,
v
y

G yGy
t?
41
L
L
i
4? N w LO c i
j i
tp
M
4n
o?p
N
s
+
!
O c4 p
O O
C C
e- ?
a- t M
P
N

r
r
U) j
O

? lp a- ., •? • ? ? a m
•e Q ff55 a $, ?l ? Ei
Q N +C. ?i £ w H N
Q?
N v ?
N ? O
?
` N ` N ? 3 O
4 O O w
EL

y

O y
Q?
*6
N
C
N

m CQ

C 0 co

7 C
?
m
(0
3
??
y
m
1p
G N .8_ ?
d
y d
E w E o? E o'$ ? N N @