SW8030404_Compliance Evaluation Inspection_20200518

Johnson, Kell
From: Johnson, Kelly
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 3:19 PM
To: McLain, Carolyn; Sams, Dan
Cc: Hall, Christine
Subject: RE: [External] FW: Sunset South - Expert Designation for Sam Watts ATTORNEY CLIENT
COMMUNICATION
Carolyn,
I am available tomorrow.
Christine,
I spent more time that I would like to admit trying to organize/code this file per the scanning instructions. It has five
versions, and quite a bit of compiiance. I need to figure cut how to organize the compliance v/s the letters for each
version because they seem to comingle among categories. It is currently organized per version but not yet by
date. (Linda also has binder -clipped things together that I am hesitant to un-do because of the sensitive nature of
this.) This is obviously an administrative issue that Carolyn doesn't need to be in on, but maybe we can chat tomorrow
about this as well? It is on the file review table.
Kelly
From: McLain, Carolyn [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 3:02 PM
To: Sams, Dan <[e-mail]>; Johnson, Kelly <[e-mail]>
Cc: Hall, Christine <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] FW: Sunset South - Expert Designation for Sam Watts - ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATION
Clli j f10N: �■ ��_� i . a r. ■ c r.
ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATION
Ali,
Just as a follow-up and for clarification, Sam Watts with S&ME is Petitioner's expert witness and that we have received a
records request from an expert witness at such a late date (discovery closed in December 2019) is highly irregular and
concerning. In addition, I will potentially have to depose him soon and wi!I need to make sure that i have every piece of
paper that he has, so if he has a 24x36 copy of the plats/schematics/plans, I need them as well.
So Dan is correct that I do need to do a review for privilege, but there is more to it for this particular records request as
well.
Would it be helpful to set up a quick conference call about this? Today is out for me but I could do tomorrow sometime
— let me know.
Thanks,
Carolyn
From: Sams, Dan <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 8:48 AM
To: Johnson, Kelly <[e-mail]>

Cc: Hall, Christine <Christine.Hall(EDncdenr.gov>; McLain, Carolyn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [External] FW: Sunset South - Expert Designation for Sam Watts - ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATION
Kelly
Carolyn's concern is pretty much limited to documents within the file that would trigger Attorney -Client
confidentially, so the plan and its details are not really material that 1) would fall under that category and 2)
would be something that we would be allowed to withhold anyway. Carolyn basically needs the file's
documents especially all written (non -permit) correspondences.
Please organize the documents according to Annette's categories and send them electronically to Carolyn. If
we limit the file material to 8 1/2 by 11 sheets, we should be able to supply it fairly quickly. If upon reviewing
the documents, plan details become necessary, we can get plans sheets to her at a later date. I don't if cell
phone cameras would be detailed enough to give her clear pdfs, but we might try that once we get all 8 1/2 by
11 documents scanned.
Thanks....
clan
From: Johnson, Kelly <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 8:35 AM
To: Sams, Dan <[e-mail]>
Cc: Hall, Christine <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: [External] FW: Sunset South -Expert Designation for Sam Watts ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATION
Dan,
I was going to go to the office later and get this file to organize it for scanning. This will be the first one I have done and
so it will take some time to figure out how to do that. Carolyn wants to review it, and it sounds like she wants it
electronically. But, once we have it scanned we can't redact it (I don't think?). Should we send her the hard copy, and if
so do I need to organize it before we send it, or just go ahead and send it before it is organized? I am just not sure on
how to do the logistics here.
Thanks,
Kelly
From: McLain, Carolyn [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 8:22 AM
To: Hall, Christine <[e-mail]>; Sams, Dan <[e-mail]>; Johnson, Kelly
<kelly.p.iohnson@ncdenr..Rov>
Cc: jpayne <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] FW: Sunset South - Expert Designation for Sam Watts - ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATION
3
ail kiOmen ?5 ctr'� ana&ment to
�1l� �.'a3 tot 1� Unki or � ��ts unfes3 ��
ar • `+w
ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATION

All,
Given that this is currently in litigation, please hold off on ary further production of records until such time as I can
review the records for privileged and other information.
Also — it is important that we back off the original date by which we agreed to produce documents. Please tall Ashley
that:
While we had previously indicated a schedule for providing the records to you, given that this permit is the subject of
ongoing litigation, internal reviews need to be conducted. We will provide you additional information n-gcrding your
request at a later date.
Please avoid giving her any estimates on when the documents mi& be provided to her. Please copy me en the email to
her about this.
To that end, let's try to figure out a way for me to review the records which we intend to produce to her — Maybe a
SharePoint site or something of that nature.
! have a Status Report due today for this case so have to focus :an that, but wanted to address the records request ASAP.
Thanks and please let me know immediately if anything else comes up.
Carolyn
From: Hall, Christine <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 3:39 PM
To: McLain, Carolyn <[e-mail]>; Sams, Dan <[e-mail]>; Johnson, Kelly
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] FW: Sunset South - Expert Designation for Sam Watts - ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATION
It looks like her first email was sent at 10:36 this morning.
** Please note the change to my direct phone number **
Christine Hall
Wilmington Regional Stormwater Program Supervisor
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources — State Stormwater Program
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Office: 910 796 7215
Direct: 910 796 7338
Email: christine.hallO-ncdenr.gov
Address: 127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
.-- Q .
iddress �sr subject to the
:tsclosed to third r,,3
From: McLain, Carolyn [mailto:[e-mail]
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 3:36 PM
To: Hall, Christine <[e-mail]>; Sams, Dan <[e-mail]>; Johnson, Kelly
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] FW: Sunset South - Expert Designation for Sam Watts - ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATION

No worries. When did the initial request come in?
-------- Original message --------
From: "Hall, Christine" <Christine.Hall(ci%ncdenr.gov>
Date: 5/15/20 3:30 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: "McLain, Carolyn" <CMcLain0ancdoJ.gov>, "Sams, Dan" <dan.sams(a7,ncdenr.gov>, "Johnson, Kelly"
<ke llye. i ohnson(&ncdeny. gov>
Subject: RE: [External] FW: Sunset South - Expert Designation for Sam Watts - ATTORNEY CLIENT
COMMUNICATION
Carolyn,
I'm sorry you weren't looped in sooner. We received the attached email from Ashley Bentz with S&ME requesting
copies of the file for this project, Sunset South, SW8 030404. Specifically, her request states:
We are currently trying to track down any as builtplans, SCMpermit modification documentation, site
drainage plans, or any other plan sets. We have a copy of the permit transfer (attached), but I would be
happy to accept any additional documentation you may have.
The second attachment is from the specialist sending pdfs of permits, compliance reports, and certifications from our
server. It does not include the plans she was asking for. I offered a recent addition to our file reviews, which is to have
the entire file scanned at a nearby copy shop that their expense. (We are in the process of trying to organize our files to
scan and make them available online, and this is one avenue to accomplish that.) You will see that she is expressed an
interested in that option. Please advise how to move forward.
Kelly, I'm going to pull the file and leave it on your chair so you can prep it for scanning. If there is privileged information
that should be excluded from the public/scanned record, we can use a subfolder, to separate those out.
** Please note the change to my direct phone number **
Christine Hall
Wilmington Regional Stormwater Program Supervisor
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources — State Stormwater Program
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Office: 910 796 7215
Direct: 910 796 7339
Email: christine.hall(a)ncdenr.gov
Address: 127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
c,? ail cc:rc13perd&nc to and from ;i ; 2C(' ss ;s pub,?cct'o the
,-rth Ca, :air Put ' c A.� coru's Law ai,d m3 t : ,^Ica,:�r'to fhirrpsrtioc.
From: McLain, Carolyn [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 3:17 PM
To: Sams, Dan <[e-mail]>; Hall, Christine <Christine.Hall 2ncdenr.gov>
Subject: RE: [External] FW: Sunset South - Expert Designation for Sam Watts - ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATION
as an attachment to
4

Yes please. To the extent that you have not previously responded, please wait to do so.
-------- Original message --------
From: "Sams, Dan" <dan.sams(a�,ncdenr.gov>
Date: 5/15/20 3:13 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: "Hall, Christine" <Christine.HallAncdenr.gov>, "McLain, Carolyn" <CMcLainnncdoj. ov>
Subject: FW: [External] FW: Sunset South - Expert Designation for Sam Watts - ATTORNEY CLIENT
COMMUNICATION
Christine:
Please supply Carolyn with the contact information of the S&ME employee who contacted Brian and we will let her
(Carolyn) weigh in on the file request.
We should also have it prepped for digital copying.
Tha n ks...
clan
From: McLain, Carolyn <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, March 02, 202010:16 AM
To: Sams, Dan <[e-mail]>
Cc: Johnson, Kelly <[e-mail]>; Payne, John <[e-mail]>; Lucas, Annette
<[e-mail]>; Hall, Christine <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] FW: Sunset South - Expert Designation for Sam Watts - ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATION
V dr i� jFJi� crEei> 1" wwW- Smdalampidam+em*As an t to
Dan,
This is SUPER helpful. Thank you!
Yes, iet me take a look at this and I'll give you a call tomorrcw. I appreciate your prompt response!
Carolyn
From: Sams, Dan <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, March 2, 2020 10:07 AM
To: McLain, Carolyn <[e-mail]>
Cc: Johnson, Kelly <[e-mail]>; Payne, John <[e-mail]>; Lucas, Annette
<[e-mail]>; Hall, Christine <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] FW: Sunset South - Expert Designation for Sam Watts - ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATION
Carolyn
Neither I nor the staff that I have been able to ask know of Sam Watts. We don't normally get Stormwater application
plans from geologists and his firm S&ME, Inc. more commonly provides a soils report to a separate engineering
consultant who prepares a Stormwater plan. We do not get very many applications from them.
There is a statewide monitoring requirement of Erosion & Sediment Control approved projects and the accompanied
NCG10000 NPDES General Stormwater Permit (which is different than the State (Coastal) Stormwater Permit), and those

who obtain the NCSU/NCCE certificate do so traditionally to make themselves marketable as a monitoring
inspector. That does not preclude State (Coastal) Stormwater, but from my review of his Project Experience listings only
3, AlbertJ. Eillis Airport Rent-A-Car site in Onslow County, Barbour Boat Works of New Bern, and Port Pungo C&D
Landfill in Hyde County even fall within the State's coastal jurisdiction. The Rent-A-Car facility would a small portion of
the airport's overall stormwater plan, the landfill would probably be a low density BUA, and I have no knowledge of the
boat works.
It is possible that Circle K's or the Walmart facilities he was responsible for inspecting were in coastal NC counties.
Kelly is out sick today, but I am available either today or tomorrow, but not Wednesday or Thursday.
Thanks...
dan.sams
From: McLain, Carolyn <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2020 9:32 AM
To: Sams, Dan <[e-mail]>
Cc: Johnson, Kelly <[e-mail]>; Payne, John <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] FW: Sunset South - Expert Designation for Sam Watts - ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATION
an Wtkach ment to
Dan,
Do you have some time today or tomorrow to discuss? Have you ever heard of this guy?
Thanks!
Carolyn
From: Shannon Arata <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2020 3:43 PM
To: McLain, Carolyn <CMcLain@ncdo!.gov>; Payne, John <[e-mail]>
Cc: Jim Conner <[e-mail]>; Karen Fetter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sunset South - Expert Designation for Sam Watts
Good afternoon,
Please find attached the Petitioner's Notice of Designation of Expert Witness for Sam Watts, as well as Mr.
Watts' CV, professional history, and stormwater certification. Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Shannon
Shannon Arata
Calhoun, Bhella & Sechrest, LLP
4819 Emperor Boulevard, Suite 400
Durham, North Carolina 27703

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER
SUNSET SOUTH OWNERS ASSOCIATION
Petitioner,
V.
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY, DIVISION OF ENERGY
MINERAL & LAND RESOURCES
Respondent.
TO: James L. Conner, II, Esquire
Calhoun, Bhella & Sechrest, LLP
[e-mail]
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
19 EHR 04806
RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO
PETITIONER'S FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES, REQUESTS FOR
ADMISSION, AND REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Respondent, N.C. Department of Environmental Quality, through counsel, hereby answer
Petitioner's First Set of Interrogatories, Requests for Admissions, and Requests for Production of
Documents to Respondent. The requests for interrogatories, admissions, and production of
documents have been restated, as authorized by N.C. R. Civ. P. Rule 33(a), Rule 36(a), and Rule
34(b), respectively, and are followed by the Respondent's answers.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1. The Respondent objects to the scope of the definitions and instructions which
preface Petitioner's request for admissions, interrogatories and request for production of
documents (hereinafter, "Petitioner's requests") to the extent that they attempt to impose
requirements on the Respondent that exceed the requirements of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
2. The Respondent further objects to the scope of these requests to the extent that they
1

seek information relating to: (1) information prepared or obtained in anticipation of litigation or
for trial; (2) information encompassed within the attorney -client and work product privileges; or
(3) any other information that is not properly discoverable under the Rules of Civil Procedure,
State statutes, or the common law.
3. The Respondent further objects to these requests to the extent they seek documents
and/or information that are not within the possession, custody or control of the State defendants.
4. The Respondent further objects to these requests as unduly burdensome and
oppressive to the extent they seek documents and/or information already in Petitioner's possession.
5. The Respondent further objects to these requests to the extent they assume facts
that do not exist or are incorrect.
6. The Respondent further objects to the Petitioner=s over broad definition of
"Identify" which prefaces Petitioner's requests to the extent that it seeks the residential address of
state employees because such information is protected as confidential under N.C.G.S. " 126-22
and 126-24.
7. The Respondent assumes no duty to supplement its answers except to the extent
required by Rule 26(e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The Respondent reserves the right to
modify, amend, or add to its responses or objections.
To the extent applicable, the Respondent incorporates by reference all of these General
Objections into its Responses below.
INTERROGATORIES
1. Identify by date, people involved, and type of contact (e.g., email, telephone, letter,
in person, etc.) each contact You have had with Amy Wang, other persons at Ward & Smith law
firm, and any other representative of WHA or HEO regarding Sunset South, the Stormwater
AA

System, or the Permit since September 28, 2017.
ANSWER:
Upon information and belief, the people who were involved and had contact with Amy
Wang, other persons at Ward & Smith, or any other representative of WHA or HEO regarding
Sunset South since September 28, 2017 are as follows:
LINDA/GEORGUTE TO ADD HERE.
2. Describe the information, guidance, and agency protocol(s) You relied upon to
determine that the Permit transfer from WHA to Petitioner was authorized under the General
Statutes and Your Rules.
ANSWER:
Respondent objects to this request on the ground that it ambiguous, overly broad, unduly
burdensome. Without waiving said objection, Respondent develops, plans and implements
statewide stormwater control policies, strategies and rules to protect surface waters of North
Carolina from the impacts of stormwater pollutants and runoff. Applicable statutes are found out
Article 21 of Chapter 143 of the North Carolina General Statutes. Session Law 2011-256
authorizes certain transfer of permits. Regulations are compiled at 15A NCAC 02H .1001 -
1062. The Stormwater Design Manual can be found here:
hgps:/.,'deg.nc.eovlabout/divisions/energy-mineral-land-resources/energy-mineral-land-permit-Quidancelstormwater-
burp-manual
Additionally resources can be found here:
baps://deg.nc. gov/about/divi sions/energy-mineral-land-resources/stormwater
I-IINDA AND GEORGETTE — ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS
WHICH MERIT MENTION HERE?
3

3. Discuss any instances not meeting N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-214.7(c2)'s requirements
when You have transferred a state stormwater permit to a proposed permittee who did not request
and does not want that state stormwater permit, and discuss the relevant General Statutes and
regulations authorizing those transfers. If there are none, answer "None".
ANSWER:
Respondent objects to this request on the ground that it ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly
burdensome. Respondent does not track or otherwise maintain records of information regarding
when or speculating reasons why a proposed permittee "does not want that state stormwater
permit". Subject to and notwithstanding Respondent's objection and based upon information and
belief, Petitioner filed the only challenge to a state stormwater permit.'i'r2Vi, Aw_
4. As to each Request for Admission to which You have answered other than
"Admitted", describe in full every reason for Your non -admission.
ANSWER:
Respondent objects to this request on the ground that it ambiguous, overly broad, and
unduly burdensome. Subject to and notwithstanding Respondent's objection, please see the
answers contained in the Request for Admissions.
rd

�1 1,lul 1
1. Admit that the Permit holder, immediately preceding Petitioner, was WHA.
Admitted.
S-j`2, fUlt � SL—
'If
2. Admit that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-214.7(c2) is the lone provision that allows a
Permit transfer, if conditions are met, without consent of the party receiving the Permit.
ANSWER:
Admitted
3. Admit that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-214.7(c2) authorizes You to transfer the Permit
"from the declarant of a condominium or a planned community to the unit owners association,
owners association, or other management entity identified in the condominium or planned
community's declaration."
ANSWER:
Admitted.
4. Admit that HEO is the stated Declarant under the Declaration of Covenants,
Conditions, Restrictions and Easements of Sunset South (attached as Exhibit A).
ANSWER:
Admitted to the extent that HEO is the Declarant.
5. Admit that WHA is not the stated Declarant under Declaration of Covenants,
Conditions, Restrictions and Easements of Sunset South (attached as Exhibit A).
ANSWER:
Admitted to the extent that HEO is the stated• declarant in Article I(8) of the Restrictive
G

Covenants.
6. Admit that WHA is not named, mentioned, or referred to in any part of the
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements of Sunset South (attached as
Exhibit A).
ANSWER:
Admitted.
7. Admit that WHA is a public body.
ANSWER:
Respondent objects to this request on the ground that it ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly
burdensome. The term "public body" is not defined. Subject to and notwithstanding this
objection, the information provided to the Department by WHA in the Department's files
reflects that WHA is a "housing authority", as defined by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 157-3(1).
8. Admit that HEO is a nonprofit corporation.
Respondent objects to this request on the ground that it ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly
burdensome. Respondent objects on the grounds that the term "nonprofit corporation" is not
defined. Subject to and without waiving this objection, the information provided by WHA in
the Department's files reflects that HEO is a "nonprofit corporation".
,n

9. Admit that Sunset South Owners Association has communicated to You that it does
not want the Permit transferred to it.
ANSWER:
Admitted to the extent that the attorney representing Sunset South Owners Association
(SSOA), James Conner, indicated to DEMLR that it should not transfer the permit because of
an alleged violation of the terms of the settlement agreement between WHA and Petitioner.
10. Admit that Your regulations promulgated at 15A NCAC 02H .1045 provide the
requirements for a Permit transfer.
Denied. The regulations promulgated at 15A NCAC 02H .1045 became effective on January
1, 2017; therefore, permit transfer requests submitted prior to that date are not subject to those
regulations. Prior to then, the requirements for permit transfers were set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. §
143-214.7(c2). Additionally, all state stormwater rules, including 15A NCAC 02H .1045, must be
�j read in conjunction with their authorizing Statutes; here, N.C. Gen. Stah § 143-214.7(c2).
DAdmit that 15A NCAC 02H .1045(2)(d) requires that You receive "a copy of a
signed and notarized operation and maintenance agreement from the proposed pernuttee" before
You may transfer a Permit. i
MQj
ANSWER: r6e
Admitted to the extent that state stormwater permit transfer requests are subject to 15A NCAC
02H .1045, which became effective on January 1, 2017.
12. Admit that Sunset South Owners Association has not provided You with a signed
and notarized operation and maintenance agreement regarding the Stormwater System.
ANSWER:
7

Admitted to the extent that a signed and notarized operation and maintenance agreement regarding
the Stormwater System is not necessary for DEMLR to transfer the Permit under N.C. Gen. Stat.
§ 143-214.7(c2).
to it.
13. Admit that You have not received a request from Petitioner to transfer the Permit
ANSWER:
Admitted to the extent that a request from Petitioner to transfer the Permit is not required pursuant
to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-214.7(c2) in order for the Department to lawfully transfer the Permit.
14. Admit that there is no requirement in the North Carolina General Statutes or Your
regulations that requires an owners association of a community to be the state stormwater permit
holder for that community. / w,
ANSWER: 1;61- ' -y' 4/W 6� �16 e/li ecl, 6(1 % �P
�.er to fi per
(Eed)-f the owners association of a community falls within the purview of N.C. Gen. Stat. § lov�'�
143-215.1, a permit is required. 43 — 214,7 ,-2� 7'pt -C ,
15. Admit that the attached Exhibit A is a true and accurate copy of the Declaration of
Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements of Sunset South.
ANSWER:
Admitted to the extent that the copy of Exhibit A matches the document which is contained in
DEMLR's file.
8

16. Admit that the attached Exhibit B is a true and accurate copy of the Articles of
Incorporation of Housing and Economic Opportunities, Inc.
ANSWER:
Admitted to the extent that the copy of Exhibit B matches the document which is contained in
DEMLR's file
17. Admit that the attached Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of a letter You sent to
WHA on August 1, 2017.
ANSWER:
Admitted to the extent that the copy of Exhibit C matches the document which is contained in
DEMLR's file.
18. Admit that the attached Exhibit D is a true and accurate copy of Your letter to
James Conner dated August 2, 2017.
ANSWER:
Admitted to the extent that the copy of Exhibit D matches the document which is contained in
DEMLR's file.
19. Admit that the attached Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of a letter You sent to
Petitioner on July 23, 2019.
ANSWER:
Admitted to the extent that the copy of Exhibit E matches the document which is contained in
DEMLR's file.
6

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
1. All written communications (whether now or originally in paper, electronic or other
format —please note that this includes, inter alia, emails and texts) You have had with Amy Wang,
other persons at Ward & Smith law firm, and any other representative of WHA or HEO regarding
Sunset South, the Stormwater System, or the Permit since September 28, 2017.
Please see attached documents.
2. All documents pertaining the Permit's issuance and amendments received or
generated by You or Your predecessor permitting agency, the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality, on or before May 31, 2017.
RESPONSE:
Please see attached documents.
3. All documents pertaining to the Permit's issuance and amendments received or
generated by You on or after August 2, 2017.
RESPONSE:
Please see attached documents.
4. All documents pertaining to the Permit's transfer from HEO to WHA in Your
possession or control, whether now or originally in paper, electronic or other format, and whether
10

received or generated by You or Your predecessor permitting agency, the North Carolina Division
of Water Quality.
Please see attached documents.
5. All notes of telephone or in person communications, calendar entries, and other
evidence of verbal communications You have had with Amy Wang, other persons at Ward &
Smith law firm, and any other representative of WHA or HEO regarding Sunset South, the
Stormwater System, or the Permit since September 28, 2017.
RESPONSE:
Please see attached documents.
Permit.
6. All meeting attendance sheets and phone logs related to the Stormwater System or
RESPONSE:
Please see attached documents.
This the 11 to day of November, 2019.
11
JOSHUA STEIN
Attorney General
Carolyn McLain
Assistant Attorney General
NC Bar No.: 41267
NC Department of Justice
Post Office Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO
PETITIONER'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION AND
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS has been served on the counsel for
Petitioner by electronic service as follows:
James L. Conner, II, Esquire
Calhoun, Bhella & Sechrest, LLP
[e-mail]
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
This the 11 "' day of November, 2019.
13
Carolyn McLain
Assistant Attorney General

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
VERIFICATION
I, Alida Lewis, in my capacity as Environmental Engineer of the NC Department of
Environmental Quality, Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources, and on behalf of
Respondent in Case Number 17 EHR 05445 before the Office of Administrative Hearings, being
first duly sworn, deposes and says that I have read the foregoing responses to Petitioner's First Set
of Interrogatories, Request for Admissions and Request for Production for Documents to
Respondent, and the responses are true to my knowledge except as to any matters stated on
information and belief and as to those matters I believe them to be true.
This the day of , 2019.
Alida Lewis, Environmental Engineer
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
Wake County, North Carolina
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day by Alida Lewis.
This the day of , 2019.
(SEAL)
Signature of Notary Public
Printed Name of Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
14

Lewis,Linda
From: Lewis,Linda
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2019 6:06 PM
To: McLain, Carolyn; Scott, Georgette; Sams, Dan
Q: Payne, john; Ansel, Doug!as R
Subject: RE: [External] Sunset South - ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATION
Tuesday or Wednesday is fine. I'm just trying to get permits out and my office files cleaned up.
I came up with a list of names in response to Interrogatory #1, with a brief blurb about who they are.
You can cut as you see fit if they should not be included:
Linda Lewis (me) 8FTL-
Philip Norris, P.E. Norris & Tunstall (he's the consultant) UTL
Jim Conner, Attorney 6L.
Dan Sams, DEMLR Regional Engineer - CCf(d On G
Georgette Scott, Stormwater Supervisor - cc p(od CA C
Teriann O. Eubanks (admin for Amy Wang) - UL
Carolyn McLain (Attorney)
John Payne (Attorney)
Katrina Redmion (CEO Wilmington Housing Authority) - UL
Rob Gordon (PE with the City of Wilmington Stormwater program) - received a copy of the
transferred permit Ic
Beth Wetherill (New Hanover County's Sediment program) - received a copy of the transferred permit
Kim Johnston (purported president of the Sunset South HOA / resident / complaint about flooding)
Wayne L. Wagner (another purported president of the Sunset South HOA) 6
Julia Shaw (Wilmington Housing Authority - Phil Norris copied her on an email)
Jim Conlon (Real Estate - WHA) 45
David Winstead (RIFTS Soils Engineering & Testing) - he did the soils investigation to find out what
was wrong with Basin #4 Copyof L—
Alex C. Dale (Ward & Smith) authored a letter dated January 16, 2018 demanding transfer of the
permit. L,
LL
From: McLain, Carolyn <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2019 1:16 PM
To: Lewis,Linda <[e-mail]>; Scott, Georgette <[e-mail]>; Sams, Dan
<dan.sams@ ncdenr.gov>
Cc: Payne, John <[e-mail]>; Ansel, Douglas R <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Sunset South - ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATION
AI I,
I would like to set up a meeting this week to discuss a couple things:
1. Wish Linda a happy happy retirement and

E = email / T = Telephone / L = Letter
WHA = Wilmington Housing Authority
HEO = Housing and Economic Opportunities, Inc.
DEMLR = Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
Copies of the emails, letters and phone logs already provided have the applicable dates.
Interrogatory #1 — the people who were involved and had contact with Amy Wang, other persons at Ward & Smith,
or any representative of WHA or HEO regarding Sunset South since September 28, 2017.
E/T/L Linda Lewis
E/T/L Phil Norris, PE (Consultant)
E/L Jim Conner, Attorney for Sunset South HOA
E/T Dan Sams, DEMLR Regional Engineer
E/T/L Georgette Scott, WiRO Stormwater Supervisor
E/L Teriann O. Eubanks (Admin. Asst. to Amy Wang) she emailed Amy's letters to us.
E/L Katrina Redmon (CEO for WHA)
E Kim Johnston (purported president of the Sunset South HOA / flooding compliant) she emailed me a street
flooding complaint after Hurricane Florence when the basins were "within inches of overtopping."
E Wayne L. Wagner (another purported president of the Sunset South HOA) he was copied on some emails.
E Julia Shaw (WHA) — Phil Norris copied her on an email he initiated.
E Jim Conlon (WHA Real Estate) — he was copied on some emails.
L Alexander C. Dale (Attorney with Ward & Smith in their Wilmington office) — authored a letter
demanding that DEMLR transfer the permit to the HOA.

!0-! Sri I
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER
SUNSET SOUTH OWNERS ASSOCIATION
Petitioner,
V.
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY, DIVISION OF ENERGY,
MINERAL AND LAND RESOURCES,
Respondent.
IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
19 EHR 04806
PETITIONER'S FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES. REQUESTS FOR
ADMISSIONS. AND REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
NOW COMES Petitioner, Sunset South Owners Association (hereinafter "Petitioner")
pursuant to Rules 33, 34, and 36 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, and serves upon
Respondent North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Energy, Mineral
and Land Resources (hereinafter "Respondent") the following First Set of Interrogatories,
Requests for Admissions, and Requests for Production of Documents:
The Interrogatories are made pursuant to Rule 33 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil
Procedure. You are required to answer these Interrogatories within thirty (30) days under oath and
you are required to furnish all information available to you, including information in the possession
of your attorney or any Person acting in your or your attorney's behalf, and not merely such
information as is known of your own Personal knowledge. If any interrogatory cannot be answered
in full, answer to the extent possible and specify reasons for inability to answer.
The Requests for Production of Documents are made pursuant to Rule 34 of the North
Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. In response to the Requests for Production, you are requested
to produce for inspection and copying all Documents described below which are in your
possession, custody or control at the offices of Calhoun, Bhella & Sechrest, LLP, 4819 Emperor
Boulevard, Suite 400, Durham, North Carolina 27703, within thirty (30) days after service hereof.
In lieu of producing originals for inspection and copying, Petitioners will accept copies delivered
at the above Address within thirty (30) days after service hereof.

The Requests for Admissions are made pursuant to Rule 36 of the North Carolina Rules of
Civil Procedure and request that you admit the truth of the matters of fact set forth in these requests
for the purposes of this action only and subject to all pertinent objections to admissibility which
may be interposed at trial. Each of these matters of which an admission is requested shall be
deemed admitted, unless within thirty (30) days you serve on Petitioner admissions, denials, or
objections as provided for in Rule 36 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. A denial
shall fairly meet the substance of the requested admission, and when good faith requires that a
party qualify his answer or deny only a part of the matter of which an admission is requested, he
shall specify so much of it as is true and qualify or deny the remainder. An answering party may
not give lack of information or knowledge as a reason for failure to admit or deny unless he states
that he has made reasonable inquiry and that the information known or readily obtainable by him
is insufficient to enable him to admit or deny.
You are reminded that you are under a duty to seasonably supplement your answers to
these Interrogatories, Admissions, and Requests, and to seasonably amend a prior response if you
obtain information upon the basis of which (a) you know that the response was incorrect when
made, or (b) you know that the response, though correct when made, is no longer true. Any such
supplemental response is to be filed and served upon counsel of record for the Respondent within
fifteen (15) days after receipt of such information.
DEFINITIONS and INSTRUCTIONS
Unless otherwise indicated, the following definitions shall be applicable to these
Interrogatories, Requests for Admissions, and Requests for Production of Documents:
1. "Address" shall mean the street number, street name, city, and state of the Person,
business or other entity.
2. "Complaint," "Petition," or "Litigation" shall mean the Petition for a Contested
Case Hearing filed on August 23, 2019 in the Office of Administrative Hearings bearing the case
number 19 EHR 04806 and all subsequent supplemental and amended complaints and all judicial
disputes or actions flowing therefrom.
3. The word "Document" as used herein shall be interpreted in its broadest sense to
include any medium that stores, records, or preserves information that is in or subject to the
possession, custody, or control of Respondent, however generated or received. Documents shall
include, without limitation: all originals and non -identical copies and reproductions, whether
different from the original by reason of any notation made on such copies or otherwise (including
without limitation all drafts, modifications, changes and amendments), of all written, reported,
recorded, or graphic matter within the scope of North Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 26, however
produced or reproduced, which is now, or was at any time, in the possession, custody, or control of
Respondent and/or its agent(s) including, but not limited to, all reports, memoranda, notes (including
reports, memoranda, and notes of conversations and conferences), financial reports, statistics,
records, letters, envelopes, telegrams, messages, studies, analyses, books, articles, magazines,
newspapers, booklets, circulars, bulletins, notices, instructions, accounts, pamphlets, pictures, films,
microfiche, microfilm, motion pictures, maps, contracts, work papers, arithmetical computations,
2

minutes of all communications of any type (including inter- and infra -office communications),
purchase orders, invoices, statements of account, questionnaires, receipts, returns, summaries,
applications, permits, plans, drawings, surveys, graphs, file wrappers, indices, telephone calls,
meetings or printouts, teletypes, telefax, worksheets, recordings, video or audio tapes, punch cards,
removable computer storage media such as tapes, discs and cards, magnetic tapes, drives, data cells,
drums, printouts, Document image files, x-rays, hard drives, broken or discarded hard drives,
mainframes, LANs, file servers, servers, PCs, PDAs, Personal cellular telephones, company -issued
cellular telephones, `Blackberry" devices, "Treo" devices, iPhones, any other hand-held
communication and/or data storage devices, flash drives, external hard drives, compact flash
memory cards, memory sticks, zip drives, CD-ROMs, CD- RWs, DVDs, DVD- ROM, DVD-R,
DVD recordable drives, floppy discs, optical discs, files and tapes, external hard drives, voicemails,
archived tapes, computer and network activity logs, printouts, screen prints and screen "captures" of
websites on the Internet and the company's intranet, Web pages, databases, spreadsheets, software,
records and electronic data contained in off -site storage, e-mail and attachments, "deleted" e-mail,
portable laptop computers, magnetic, optical or electronic recordings and other data compilations
from which information may be obtained.
4. "HEO" means Housing and Economic Opportunities, Inc., and if appropriate in
context, its employees, directors, officers, attorneys, agents, and associates.
5. "Identify" or "identification," when used with reference to a Person, shall mean to
state the full name, present or last known Address of said Person, telephone number(s) and email
Address(es).
6. "Identify" or "identification," when used with reference to a Document, shall mean
to state its date, author or signer, type of Document and all other means of identifying it and its
present or last known location or custodian; if any Document was, but no longer, is in your
possession, custody, or control, state what disposition was made of it and the reason for its
disposition.
7. "Identify" or "identification," when used with reference to an oral communication,
conference or meeting means to state the date of the communication, conference or meeting, the
identityof all parties to the communication, conference or meeting, and to state the subject matter
of the communication, conference or meeting, and the general substance of what was said and/or
transpired.
8. The words "or" and "and" each mean "and/or."
9. The phrases "relating to," "relate to" and "related to" are used in their broadest
sense, and mean exposing, explaining, summarizing, detailing, listing, compiling, noting,
proposing, terminating or otherwise referring or pertaining to the subject matter of the request.
10. "Permit" and "the Permit" mean State Stormwater Management Permit No. SW8
030404, or the state stormwater permit covering Sunset South neighborhood if known by a
different number.
11. "Person" shall mean any individual, partnership, firm, association, corporation or

other business, governmental or legal entity.
12. "Petitioner" shall mean Sunset South Owners Association.
13. "Respondent" shall mean the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality, Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources as well as its attorneys, employees,
agents, or representatives and all other Persons acting on its behalf.
14. "Stormwater System" means the stormwater system permitted under the Permit.
15. "WHA" means the Wilmington Housing Authority, and if appropriate in context,
its employees, directors, officers, attorneys, agents, and associates.
16. "You" or "Your" shall mean the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality, Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources and each of its attorneys, employees,
agents, and representatives and all other Persons acting on its behalf.
17. All requested Documents are to be produced in PDF format.
MUND1,11, liff—W13 1311
1. Identify by date, people involved, and type of contact (e.g., email, telephone, letter,
in person, etc.) each contact You have had with Amy Wang, other persons at Ward & Smith
law firm, and any other representative of WHA or HEO regarding Sunset South, the
Stormwater System, or the Permit since September 28,
ANswER: c,V-e o-f� noh -comp/,f e4c
r��JQ e�
f
V
C2��5h !u ofe?( WiA
6./ Describe the information, guidance, and agency protocol(s) You relied upon to
determine that the Permit transfer from WHA to Petitioner was authorized under the General
Statutes and Your Rules.
ANSWER:
4

Discuss any instances not meeting N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-214.7(c2)'s
requirements when You have transferred a state stormwater permit to a proposed permittee who
did not request and does not want that state stormwater permit, and discuss the relevant General
Statutes and regulations authorizing those transfers. If/ there are noon, answer "None"..
ANSWER: Z%L �I ( 1/7
Gov As to each Request for Admission to which You have answered other than
"Admitted", describe in full every reason for Your non -admission.
5

0 �2rn�yh WI JO
M OW
TAdmit that the Permit holder, immediately preceding Petitioner, was WHA.
ANSWER:
(2.J Admit that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-214.7(c2) is the lone provision that allows a
Permit transfer, if conditions are met, without consent of the party receiving the Permit.
ANSWER:
QAdmit that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-214.7(c2) authorizes You to transfer the Permit
"from the declarant of a condominium or a planned community to the unit owners
association, owners association, or other management entity identified in the condominium
or planned community's declaration."
ANSWER:
0 4J Admit that HEO is the stated Declarant under the Declaration of Covenants,
Conditions, Restrictions and Easements of Sunset South (attached as Exhibit A).
05. Admit that WHA is not the stated Declarant under Declaration of Covenants,
Conditions, Restrictions and Easements of Sunset South (attached as Exhibit A).
ANSWER:
0

06 Admit that WHA is not named, mentioned, or referred to in any part of the Declaration of
Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements of Sunset South (attached as Exhibit A).
ANSWER:
V Admit that WHA is a public body.
ANSWER:
0 Admit that HEO is a nonprofit corporation.
6) Admit that Sunset South Owners Association has communicated to You that it
does not want the Permit transferred to it.
10. Admit that Your regulations promulgated at 15A NCAC 02H .1045 provide the
requirements for a Permit transfer.
ANSWER:
(119 Admit that 15A NCAC 02H .1045(2)(d) requires that You receive "a copy of
a signed and notarized operation and maintenance agreement from the proposed permittee"
before You may transfer a Permit. ram.
ANSWER: P5 rV `
7

12. Admit that Sunset South Owners Association has not provided You with a
signed and notarized operation and maintenance agreement regarding the Stormwater
System.
ANSWER:
13 Admit that You have not received a request from Petitioner to transfer the
Permit to it.
ANSWER:
44. Admit that there is no requirement in the North Carolina General Statutes or
Your regulations that requires an owners association of a community to be the state stormwater
permit holder for that community.
',
15. Admit that the attached Exhibit A is a true and accurate copy of the Declaration
of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements of Sunset South.
(D6 Admit that the attached Exhibit B is a true and accurate copy of the Articles of
Incorporation of Housing and Economic Opportunities, Inc.
ANSWER:
8

G
Admit that the attached Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of a letter You sent
to WHA on August 1, 2017.
(89 Admit that the attached Exhibit D is a true and accurate copy of Your letter to
James Conner dated August 2, 2017.
19. Admit that the attached Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of a letter You sent
to Petitioner on July 23, 2019.
ANSWER:

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMEN
1. All written communications (whether now or originally in paper, electronic or
�J
other format —please note that this includes, inter alia, emails and texts) You have had with b, f �� S•
Amy Wang, other persons at Ward or, Smith law firm, and any other representative of WHA or (•�
HEO regarding Sunset South, the Stormwater System, or the Permit since September 28,
2017.
,ww
2. All documents pertaining the Permit's issuance and amendments received or
generated by You or Your predecessor permitting agency, the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality, on or before May 31, 2017. --t`r'Q ,'12S
RESPONSE:
3. All documents pertaining to the Permit's issuance and amendments received or
generated by You on or after August 2, 2017.
RESPONSE:
4. All documents pertaining to the Permit's transfer from HEO to WHA in Your
possession or control, whether now or originally in paper, electronic or other format, and whether
received or generated by You or Your predecessor permitting agency, the North Carolina Division
of Water Quality.
RESPONSE:
10

5. All notes of telephone or in person communications, calendar entries, and other
evidence of verbal communications You have had with Amy Wang, other persons at Ward &
Smith law firm, and any other representative of WHA or HEO regarding Sunset South, the
Stormwater System, or the Permit since September 28, 2017.
RESPONSE:
6. All meeting attendance sheets and phone logs related to the Stormwater
System or Permit.
V�Pfa am
Respectfully submitted, this 9 b day of October, 2019.
CALHOUN, BHELLA & SECHREST, LLP
James L. Conher-IT—
NC State BaJNo. 12365
for Boulevard, Suite 400
Durham, North Carolina 27703
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorney for Petitioner
11

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned attorney hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing PEITITONER'S
FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, AND
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS was served on the following parties to
this action by: (X) email () Facsimile () Federal Express () hand delivery (X) by depositing a
copy of the same in the United States Mail postage prepaid and addressed to:
John A. Payne, Special Deputy Attorney General
Carolyn McLain, Assistant Attorney General
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT
NC Department of Justice
Post Office Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602-0629
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
This the 9t' day of October, 2019
CALHOUN, BHELLA & SECHREST, LLP
By: j James L. Connnitrif —
1 NC State Bar TA' o. 12365
'494Q,Empci,dr Boulevard, Suite 400
Durham, North Carolina 27703
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorney for Petitioner

FILED
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
09/18/2019 3:41 PM
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER 19 EHR 04806
Sunset South Owners Association,
Petitioner,
V.
NC Department of Environmental Quality,
Div. of Energy Mineral & Land Resources,
Respondent.
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY STAY OF
AGENCY ACTION
THIS MATTER is before the undersigned upon Petitioner's Motion for Preliminary
Stay of Agency Action ("Motion"), filed on August 23, 2019, and Respondent's Brief in
Response to Petitioner's Motion for Preliminary Stay of Agency Action ("Response"), filed
on September 5, 2019. Upon consideration of the filed motion and response, the
undersigned DENIES the Motion as follows:
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On August 23, 2019, Petitioner filed a Petition for Contested Case Hearing
("Petition") alleging that Respondent had substantially prejudiced Petitioner's rights by
exceeding its authority or jurisdiction, acted erroneously, failed to use proper procedure,
acted arbitrarily or capriciously, or failed to act as required by law or rule when it
"putatively transferred State Stormwater Permit No. SW8 030404 to Petitioner in violation
of law." (Petition, p. 1).
Simultaneously filed with the Petition, Petitioner filed the Motion requesting the
"[i]ssuance of a Preliminary Stay of Agency Action suspending transfer of the Permit until
a full evidentiary hearing can be had on the merits" and "[s]uch other relief as this tribunal
may find just and proper." (Petition, p. 4). Petitioner essentially seeks a preliminary
injunction as provided in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15013-33(b)(6) and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1,
Rule 65.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
An Administrative Law Judge is authorized to "[s]tay the contested action by the
agency pending the outcome of the case, upon such terms as [s]he deems proper, and
subject to the provisions of G.S. 1A-1, Rule 65 [.]" N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15013-33(b)(6).
A preliminary injunction "will be issued only (1) if a [petitioner] is able to show the
likelihood of success on the merits of his case and (2) if a [petitioner] is likely to sustain

irreparable loss unless the injunction is issued, or, in the opinion of the Court, issuance is
necessary for the protection of a [petitioner's] rights during the course of litigation."
Letendre v. Currituck Cty., 817 S.E.2d 73, 85 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018), writ denied, temporary
stay dissolved, 822 S.E.2d 641 (N.C. 2019).
In seeking relief under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 65, and specifically for a
preliminary injunction as Petitioner seeks in the Motion, the burden is on the petitioner to
establish the right to a preliminary injunction. Pruitt v. Williams, 288 N.C. 368, 372, 218
S.E.2d 348, 351 (1975) (citations omitted).
RULING
The parties in this matter have been provided notice as required under N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 1 A-1, Rule 65(a); see Helbein v. Southern Metals Co., 119 N.C. App. 431, 433,
458 S.E.2d 518, 519 (1995). Upon consideration of Petitioner's Motion and Respondent's
Response, the undersigned has determined that a hearing is not necessary to the
development of a full and complete record on which a proper decision can be made. 26
NCAC 03 .0115(b).
Upon review of Petitioner's Motion, the undersigned finds no allegation whatsoever
that Petitioner will suffer irreparable harm absent issuance of a preliminary injunction.
Since no irreparable harm has been alleged by Petitioner, analysis of the likelihood of
Petitioner's success of the merits of its case is not required.
The undersigned also determines and concludes that Petitioner failed to show that
the issuance of a preliminary injunction is necessary for the protection of Petitioner's
rights during the course of this contested case proceeding. Based upon the foregoing,
the undersigned DENIES Petitioner's Motion for Preliminary Stay of Agency Action.
This contested case will proceed according to the Scheduling Order issued by the
undersigned on August 28, 2019 unless otherwise requested by the parties.
This the 18th day of September, 2019.
Melissa Owens Lassiter
Administrative Law Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2

The undersigned certifies that, on the date shown below, the Office of
Administrative Hearings sent the foregoing document to the persons named below at the
addresses shown below, by electronic service as defined in 26 NCAC 03 .0501(4), or by
placing a copy thereof, enclosed in a wrapper addressed to the person to be served, into
the custody of the North Carolina Mail Service Center who subsequently will place the
foregoing document into an official depository of the United States Postal Service:
James L Conner II
Calhoun Bhella & Sechrest LLP
[e-mail]
Attorney for Petitioner
Carolyn Ann McLain
N.C. Department of Justice
[e-mail]
Attorney for Respondent
John Abb Payne
N.C. Department of Justice
[e-mail]
Attorney for Respondent
This the 18th day of September, 2019.
Jerrod Godwin
Administrative Law Judge Assistant
Office of Administrative Hearings
6714 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-6700
Telephone: [phone]
3

Filed Sep 5, 201912:20 PM Office of Administrative Hearings
a15/, C,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER 19 EHR 04806
SUNSET SOUTH OWNERS
ASSOCIATION,
Petitioner,
V.
NC DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, DIVISON
OF ENERGY MINERAL & LAND
RESOURCES,
Respondent.
BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO
PETITIONER'S
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY STAY
OF AGENCY ACTION
NOW COMES Respondent, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality,
Division of Energy Mineral and Land Resources ("Respondent"), by and through counsel, Carolyn
McLain, Assistant Attorney General, and John A. Payne, Special Deputy Attorney General, and
hereby submit its response in opposition to Petitioner's Motion for Preliminary Stay of Agency
Action. In support of this Response, Respondent respectfully shows as follows:
BACKGROUND
1. On December 15, 2016, the Housing Authority of the City of Wilmington
("WHA"), then the permittee under Stormwater Permit SW8 030404 ("Permit"), requested that
the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Energy, Mineral and Land
Resources ("DEMLR") transfer the Permit to Sunset South Owners Association, Inc. ("Sunset
South").

2. The pertinent Stormwater statute regarding transfer of permits is N.C.G.S. § 143-
214.7(c2). Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 143-214.7(c2), upon request of the permittee, DEMLR shall!
transfer a permit to an owners association or other management entity identified in the community
declaration if DEMLR finds that certain conditions have been met. The statute and conditions are
quoted in full below.
The Department shall transfer a permit issued under this section for a stormwater
management system from the declarant of a condominium or a planned community
to the unit owners association, owners association, or other management entity
identified in the condominium or planned community's declaration upon request of
a permittee if the Department finds that
(i) common areas related to the operation and maintenance of the stormwater
management system have been conveyed to the unit owners association or
owners association in accordance with the declaration;
(ii) the declarant has conveyed at least fifty percent (50%) of the units or lots to
owners other than a declarant; and
(iii) the stormwater management system is in substantial compliance with the
stormwater permit issued to the permittee by the Department.
In support of a request made pursuant to this subsection, a permittee shall submit
documentation to the Department sufficient to demonstrate that ownership of the
common area related to the operation and maintenance of the stormwater
management system has been conveyed from the declarant to the association and
that the declarant has conveyed at least fifty percent (50%) of the units or lots to
owners other than a declarant. For purposes of this subsection, declarant of a
condominium shall have the same meaning as provided in Chapter 47C of the
General Statutes. and declarant of a planned community shall have the same
meaning as provided in Chapter 47F of the General Statutes.
N.C.G.S. § 143-214.7 (c2).
A compliance inspection performed by DEMLR on February 14, 2017 identified three issues with
the system: 1) unapproved additions of sidewalk within the common area, 2) standing water in
Basin #4, and 3) lack of documentation verifying that no lot had exceeded the built -upon area
(`BUA") limit. (See Exhibit A) Since filing of its request for transfer in 2016, WHA has been
1 See Stark v. N.C. Dep't of Env't & Nat. Res., 224 N.C. App. 491, 510, 736 S.E.2d 553, 565 (2012) (holding that
with the term "shall", the DEMLR has a positive obligation to issue and/or transfer a permit.)
2

working to bring the stormwater management system into substantial compliance with the
stormwater permit requirements, as required pursuant to Subsection (iii) of N.C.G.S. § 143-
214.7(c2).
3. To address issues #1 and #3, WHA provided documentation that no lot in the Sunset
South community exceeded the maximum permitted BUA limit of 2,500 square feet with the
exception of one of 130 lots, Lot 126. Lot 126 contains an extra patio that exceeded their BUA by
250 square feet. DEMLR required a permit modification in order to address that situation as well
as additional sidewalk that had been added within one of the common areas. DEMLR's review of
the modified application and sealed design calculations showed that the existing infiltration basin
that received this additional runoff had sufficient capacity to accept the additional runoff and thus
the stormwater system could perform as needed. Based upon this determination and assurance,
DEMLR approved the permit modification on August 1, 2017 to allow for additional sidewalk and
to allow for Lot 126 to have an additional 250 square feet of BUA. Thus, the maximum allowed
total BUA for the permitted basin will not have been exceeded and the BUA allocation for the
Permit was determined to be in compliance.
4. To address issue #2, WHA proposed and was allowed to redesign Basin #4.On July
18, 2019, DEMLR conducted an inspection of Basin #4 and determined that it was in compliance
with the redesigned standards. As a result, on July 19, 2019, DEMLR issued to WHA a letter
indicating that the stormwater management system was now in substantial compliance. (See
Exhibit B)
5. Because all of the requirements of N.C.G.S. § 143-214.7(c2) were met, DEMLR
completed transfer of the Permit from WHA to Sunset South by letter dated July 23, 2019. (See
Exhibit C)
3

6. Petitioner Sunset South filed a Petition for a Contested Case Hearing and its Motion
For Preliminary Stay of Agency Action at the Office of Administrative Hearings ("OAH") on
August 23, 2019, arguing that DEMLR has acted erroneously, arbitrarily and capriciously, failed
to follow proper procedure and law and exceeded its authority by transferring the Permit. In its
Motion for Preliminary Stay of Agency Action, Petitioner cites to a settlement agreement between
itself and WHA, which it acknowledges DEMLR is not party to, but argues the status of the
settlement agreement "shows the lack of urgency regarding the Permit transfer." (Petitioner's Mtn,
¶ 5) Then, in lieu of substantive argument in its Motion, Petitioner instead cites to a letter sent
from Petitioner's counsel to DEMLR dated July 21, 2017 See Petitioner's Mtn, Exhibit 2), stating
that the letter provides the reasoning why the Permit transfer is prohibited and therefore that
probable cause exists that Petitioner will prevail on the merits. In its Motion For Preliminary Stay
of Agency Action, Petitioner requests that this Court stay the transfer of the Permit pending the
outcome of the contested case. However, Petitioner has not met the requirements for issuance of a
preliminary injunction and its request should be DENIED.
STAY OF AGENCY ACTION/PRELINIINARY INJUNCTION
7. A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary measure and will be issued "only (1)
if a plaintiff is able to show likelihood of success on the merits_of his case and (2) if a plaintiff is
likely to sustain irreparable loss unless the injunction is issued, or if, in the opinion of the Court,
issuance is necessary for the protection of a plaintiff s rights during the course of litigation." Ridge
Community Investors, Inc. v. Berry, 293 N.C. 688, 701, 239 S.E.2d 566, 574 (1977) (emphasis in
original) (citations omitted). To show a likelihood of success, Petitioner must not only set out
specific allegations as a basis for relief but produce evidence to support those allegations. Plott v.
Board of Comm'rs, 187 N.C. 125, 121 S.E. 190 (1924); see also Travenol Laboratories, Inc. v.
0

Turner, 30 N.C. App. 686, 692, 228 S.E.2d 478, 483 (1976) ("[a] plaintiff must show... probable
cause of success on the merits at trial[.]").
8. To show the likelihood of success, Petitioner must set forth specific allegations that
DEMLR acted arbitrarily and capriciously, exceeded its authority, acted erroneously, failed to use
proper procedure or failed to act as required by rule or law when it transferred the Permit. N.C.G.S.
§ 150B-23. "The `arbitrary or capricious' standard is a difficult one to meet." ACT -UP Triangle
v. Comm'n for Health Services, 345 N.C. 699, 707,483 S.E.2d 388, 393 (1997) (citations omitted).
"The reviewing court does not have authority to override decisions within agency discretion when
that discretion is exercised in good faith and in accordance with law." Id. "Administrative agency
decisions may be reversed as arbitrary or capricious if they are `patently in bad faith, `or
`whimsical' in the sense that `they indicate a lack of fair and careful consideration' or `fail to
indicate any course of reasoning and the exercise of judgment."' Id. (quoting Comm'r of Ins. v.
Rate Bureau, 300 N.C. 381, 420, 269 S.E.2d 547 573 (1980)). When reviewing whether an
agency's action is arbitrary and capricious, a reviewing court should not "replace the [agency]'s
judgment as between two reasonably conflicting views, even though the court could justifiably
have reached a difference result." See Thompson v. Wake County Bd. of Educ., 292 N.C. 406,
410, 233 S.E.2d 538, 541 (1977). Respondent's interpretation of the statutes and rules they
administer and enforce should be given "due deference unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent
with the regulation." Pamlico Marine Co. v. N.C. Dep't of Natural Resources & Cmty. Dev., 30
N.C. App. 201, 206, 341 S.E.2d 1008, 112 (1986). "[A] reviewing court should defer to the
agency's interpretation of a statute it administers so [] long as the agency's interpretation is
reasonable and based on a permissible construction of the statute)." County of Durham v. North
5

Carolina Dep't of Env't. & Natural Res., 131 N.C. App. 395, 396-97, 507 S.E.2d 310, 311 (1998),
disc. rev. denied, 350 N.C. 92, 528 S.E. 2d 361 (1999) (citations omitted).
9. Irreparable "injury is one to which the complainant should not be required to submit
or the other party permitted to inflict, and is of such continuous and frequent recurrence that no
reasonable redress can be had in a court of law." A.E.P. Indus., Inc. v. McClure, 308 N.C. 393,
302 S.E.2d 754 (1983). Conclusory allegations of irreparable injury are insufficient to determine
whether an injunction should be issued. See Town of Knightdale v. Vaughn, 95 N.C. App. 649,
383 S.E.2d 460 (1989) (court vacated preliminary injunction).
PETITIONER WILL NOT SUCCEED ON THE MERITS
10. In this case, Petitioner has not shown either a likelihood of success on the merits or
that it is likely to sustain irreparable loss if the preliminary injunction is not issued. Petitioner
offers only Petitioner's July 21, 2017 letter to DEMLR to show that it will succeed on the merits
and makes no statements about what harm Petitioner may suffer should the Permit transfer stand.
11. The requirements of N.C.G.S. § 143-214.7(c2) control how DEMLR proceeds and
reviews permit transfers. The terms of a separate settlement agreement to which Respondent was
not a party are irrelevant to whether or not DEMLR appropriately transferred the Permit. In this
case, the settlement agreement does not and cannot release DEMLR from its obligation to review
and transfer the Permit if all conditions are met. Respondent takes the position that if Sunset South
has an issue with the alleged breach of their settlement agreement with WHA, that the parties
resolve their issues in the appropriate forum. Petitioner has known since WHA submitted its
request for Permit transfer to DEMLR on December 15, 2016 that WHA sought to transfer the
Permit. Petitioner has had over 2.5 years to seek appropriate redress from the court with
3

jurisdiction on this matter — or come to some form of resolution with WHA - yet has failed to do
SO.
12. In the current case, Sunset South's allegations do not demonstrate that they are
likely to prevail on the merits of the case with respect to their claim that DEMLR's action was
arbitrary and capricious, erroneous, or exceeded authority. Petitioner's argument that only the
declarant can transfer the permit is in direct contradiction of the clear language of this statute. The
statute states that the DEMLR "shall transfer the permit from a declarant ... upon request of a
permittee" if factors (i) through (iii) are met. N.C.G.S. § 143-214.7 (c2) (emphasis added). The
declarant can be, but need not necessarily be, the owner of the permit. In stormwater cases the
declarant can be in control of developing the property for the permittee or be in control of
development and own the stormwater permit. In this case, the declarant, the Housing and
Economic Opportunities, Inc., ("HEO"), is not the former Permittee, which was WHA. DEMLR's
understanding is that HEO is an instrumentality of WHA with the exclusive purpose to develop
and operate affordable housing and to promote comprehensive economic development for the City
of Wilmington. Pursuant to the clear language of the statue, "upon request of permittee," WHA,
as the Permittee, can and did request the transfer of the Permit.
13. Petitioner's argument that HEO, as the declarant, is the only entity that has the right
to transfer a stormwater permit would render the statutory language contained in N.C.G.S. § 143-
214.7 (c2), "upon request of the permittee," meaningless. Petitioner's selective reading would, in
effect, give all power to transfer a permit to the declarant, who does not own the permit, and the
owner of the permit, no right of transfer. "In construing statutes, courts normally adopt an
interpretation which will avoid absurd or bizarre consequences, the presumption being that the
legislature acted in accordance with reason and common sense and did not intend untoward
7

results." State ex rel. Commissioner of Ins. v. North Carolina Auto, Rate Administrative. Office,
294 N.C. 60, 68, 241 S.E.2d 324, 329 (1978). The inability of the owner of a permit to transfer its
own permit would have bizarre consequences. For example, in the current case, neither HEO nor
WHA own any lots within the subdivision nor do they have dominion over the real property subject
to the Permit. The area covered by the Permit is required to have a stormwater permit and Sunset
South was created, in part, "own, manage, maintain, and operate the Common Elements and
facilities located upon the Common Elements, specifically including, but not limited to, the ...
Stormwater Management Facilities." See Declarations of Sunset South, Petitioner's Mtn, Exhibit
A to Exhibit 2) Under Petitioner's scenario, a stormwater permit can never be transferred if the
declarant does not maintain ownership of real property within the subdivision, which is an
uncornmon practice. This Court should avoid this absurd result based upon Petitioner's misguided
interpretation.
14. To determine the meaning of the language in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-214.7 (c2) this
Court must apply the basic rule of construction which is to give meaning to the plain language.
N.C. State Bar v. Brewer & Hone., 183 N.C. App. 229, 236, 644 S.E.2d 573, 577 (1983).
Contrary to Petitioner's statement, DEMLR is not ignoring statutory language, but implementing
the law pursuant to clear standards. "When the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, it
'is the duty of [the courts] to give effect to the plain meaning ... and judicial construction is not
required."' Diaz v. Division of Social Services, 360 N.C. 384, 387, 628 S.E.2d 1, 3 (2006). "A
statute must be construed as a whole and construed, if possible, so that none of its provisions shall
be rendered useless or redundant." R.J. Reynolds Tobacco v. NC DENR, 148 N.C. App. 610, 616,
560 S.E.2d 163, 168 (2002) (citation omitted). "It is presumed that the legislature intended that
each portion be given full effect and did not intend any provision to be surplusage." Id. (citations
8

omitted). Reading N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-214(c2) in light of the particular facts and circumstances
of this case and giving ordinary meaning and significance to the plain language of this statute, it
is clear that the Permittee, WHA, and not HEO has the ability to request the transfer of its own
permit. This transfer is consistent with the overarching purpose of the statute, which is to allow a
permittee to transfer a permit to a home owners association regardless of consent.
15. Petitioner's argument that this Court should ignore the statute, N.C. Gen. Stat. §
143-214.7 (c2), and "revert to the general rule" cannot be accepted. Rules derive their authority
from statutes and are to codify or explain a statute. Here, 15A NCAC 02H .1045 derives its
authority directly from N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-214.7 (c2). "Whatever force and effect a rule or
regulation has is derived entirely from the statute under which it is enacted. An administrative
agency has no power to promulgate rules and regulations which alter or add to the law it was set
up to administer or which have the effect of substantive law." Hall v. Toreros, II, Inc., 176 N.C.
App. 309, 626 S.E.2d 861 (2006), affd, 363 N.C. 114, 678 S.E.2d 656 (2009). Thus, Petitioner's
argument has no merit.
16. Petitioner's claim that a provision included in 15A NCAC 02H .1045 would prevent
a transfer of the Permit in this case is patently false because Petitioner's reading of it is in direct
conflict with N.C.G.S. § 143-214.7(c2). The specific provision Petitioner cites is 15A NCAC 2H
.1045(2)(d), which requires that the applicant transferring the stormwater permit sign an operation
and maintenance agreement from the proposed permittee. Were this provision of the Rules given
effect as Petitioner argues, the intent and purpose of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-214.7(c2) to transfer a
stormwater permit without the approval of the proposed permittee would be nullified. Pursuant to
this provision, the proposed permittee would be able to refuse to sign the operation and
maintenance agreement, and thus stop the entire process of transferring the stormwater permit. The
6

purpose behind the Legislature passing N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-214.7 (c2) was to avoid the recipient
of the transfer from preventing a transfer despite having a stormwater permit in substantial
compliance and a majority of the property contained in the permit owned by the recipient or lot
owners. When reviewing whether an agency's action is arbitrary and capricious, a reviewing court
should not "replace the [agency]'s judgment as between two reasonably conflicting views, even
though the court could justifiably have reached a difference result." See Thompson v. Wake
County Bd. of Educ., 292 N.C. 406, 410, 233 S.E.2d 538, 541 (1977). Respondent's interpretation
of the statutes and rules they administer and enforce should be given "due deference unless it is
plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation." Pamlico Marine Co. v. N.C. Dept of
Natural Resources & Cm , . Dev., 30 N.C. App. 201, 206, 341 S.E.2d 1008, 112 (1986). "[A]
reviewing court should defer to the agency's interpretation of a statute it administers so [] long as
the agency's interpretation is reasonable and based on a permissible construction of the statute)."
County of Durham v. North Carolina Dep't of Env't. & Natural Res., 131 N.C. App. 395, 396-97,
507 S.E.2d 310, 311 (1998), disc. rev. denied, 350 N.C. 92, 528 S.E. 2d 361 (1999) (citations
omitted).
17. According to Petitioner's Motion, WHA and Sunset South have a settlement
agreement which dictates when WHA may transfer the permit to Sunset South. Petitioner argues
that the settlement terms have not been met and thus WHA cannot transfer the Permit, but admits
that this agreement is a matter between the private parties. Since DEMLR was not a part of this
action or agreement, DEMLR must abide by the laws set forth in the pertinent Stormwater
regulations and statutes.
10

PETITIONER DOES NOT AND CANNOT SHOW IRREPARABLE HARM
18. Here, the Petitioner makes NO ARGUMENT with respect to what injury,
nonetheless irreparable injury, it may be subjected to with the transfer of the Permit. Instead,
Petitioner states only that WHA, as the Permittee, "...will not be harmed now by a stay of the
transfer of that permit for several months while this Contested Case is prepared and tried.
Likewise, there is no harm to Respondent from preserving the status quo while this matter is
litigated and decided." (Petitioner's Mtn, ¶ 5) (emphasis added). Petitioner does not put forth an
argument regarding what irreparable injury it has suffered because it cannot. The stormwater
management system at Sunset South is in substantial compliance and only requires de minimis
operation and maintenance, including mowing. Furthermore, Sunset South was created, in part, to
"own, manage, maintain, and operate the Common Elements and facilities located upon the
Common Elements, specifically including, but not limited to, the ... Stormwater Management
Facilities." See Declarations of Sunset South, Petitioner's Mtn, Exhibit A to Exhibit 2)
Additionally, Sunset South, typical for HOAs across the State of North Carolina, has the authority
and right to collect fees to pay for operation and maintenance of the stormwater management
system. Id.
19. While a determination of what injury DEMLR may suffer is not an element of
determining whether a preliminary injunction should issue, Petitioner's speculative claim that
DEMLR will suffer no harm should the stay issue is not true. DEMLR has approximately 9,500
stormwater management permits in its database for the Wilmington area alone. A single engineer
in the Wilmington office is handling approximately 35 to 40 Permit transfer requests at various
stages. While the time, energy and resources required to defend a Petition for a Contested Case are
11

anticipated, the issuance of a preliminary injunction adds one more regulatory burden to an already
stressed, under-resourced and overtaxed system.
20. Petitioner has not shown there is any irreparable harm that will result from a transfer
of the Permit. If this Court determines that the transferred Permit should have remained with the
Permittee after a full hearing on the merits, DEMLR has the ability to transfer the Permit back to
WHA. Indeed, should this "stay" issue, DEMLR may have to do exactly that. Petitioner has not
offered or produced evidence to show that there would be any substantial cost associated with this
Permit. Petitioner has failed to show that it would suffer any harm, nonetheless irreparable harm,
now that the Permit has been transferred.
CONCLUSION
Petitioner has failed to forecast evidence sufficient to show that they are likely to succeed
on the merits of their claims and have failed to show what harm they suffer from the transfer of
the Permit. To the extent that Petitioner seeks redress of these alleged problems associated with
the transfer of the Permit, based on their settlement agreement in Superior Court, the proper action
would be to address these issues in Superior Court. Petitioner has not shown or produced any
evidence to overcome the high burden required to show that DEMLR acted arbitrarily or
capriciously, erroneously, or exceeded their authority, nor will they be able to. As such, the
Petitioner's Motion for Preliminary Injunction should be DENIED.
Respectfully submitted, this the 5t` day of September, 2019.
Z As an example of additional stressors DEMLR is subject to, Hurricane Dorian is anticipated to severely impact the
Wilmington region Thursday and Friday, September 511 and 6", 2019. The DEQ offices in Wilmington closed at
noon on Wednesday, September 4, 2019 and are not expected to open back up until Monday, September 9, 2619. On
top of personal life and property concerns, many DEMLR personnel have emergency response obligations
associated with the various programs DEQ has regulatory oversight for and are anticipating significant and long-
term response obligations associated with the after-effects of Hurricane Dorian.
12

JOSH STEIN
Attorney General
/s/Carolyn McLain
Carolyn McLain
Assistant Attorney General
N.C. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 629
Raleigh, N.C. 27602
[phone]
NC Bar No.: 41267
[e-mail]
/s/John A. Payne
John A. Payne
Special Deputy Attorney General
N.C. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 629
Raleigh, N.C. 27602
[phone]
NC Bar No.: 24966
[e-mail]
13

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
It is hereby certified that a copy of the foregoing BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO
PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY STAY OF AGENCY ACTION has been served
on the counsel for petitioner by electronic service as follows:
James L. Conner, II, Esquire
Calhoun, Bhella & Sechrest, LLP
4819 Emperor Boulevard, Suite 400
Durham, NC 27703
[e-mail]
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
This the 5t' day of September, 2019.
JOSH STEIN
Attorney General
/s/Carolyn McLain
Carolyn McLain
Assistant Attorney General
14

15G) 76 3a �-104
131a3ill
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFFICE OF
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
SUNSET SOUTH OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
Petitioner, )
V. )
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY STAY OF
AGENCY ACTION
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF )
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, DIVISION )
OF ENERGY MINERAL & LAND
RESOURCES )
Respondent. )
NOW COMES Petitioner Sunset South Owners Association ('Petitioner"), by and through
the undersigned counsel, and moves pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §150B-33(b)(6), 26 NCAC 3
0115 and Rule 65 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, for a Preliminary Stay of
Agency Action. In support of this Motion, Petitioners respectfully show as follows:
1. Petitioner is a homeowners' association for a community in Wilmington North
Carolina designed to be and in fact a low income, largely minority homeowners' community.
2. Housing and Economic Opportunities, Inc., a private corporation, developed the
community and is the Declarant in the Declaration of Covenants of Sunset South.
3. Wilmington Housing Authority (WHA), a public agency, holds the Stormwater
Permit for Sunset South, Permit Number SW 8 030404 (the Permit), and has held that permit for
many years.
1

4. WHA has been trying for several years to force the transfer of its Permit to
Petitioner. In 2009, it filed a Declaratory Judgment action against the Petitioner to attempt to force
permit transfer. That case was settled in 2011. The settlement agreement gave WHA three years
to complete certain tasks, after timely completion of which Petitioner agreed to accept transfer of
the Permit. If, however, WHA failed to complete those tasks within three years, it agreed "that
they will not take any action to have the stormwater management facilities or the Permit
transferred to Sunset South ...." The three years passed without the required actions being
performed. WHA is violating its contract by attempting now, six years later, to have the Permit
transferred over Petitioners' objections.
5. Though the foregoing paragraph concerns matters between private parties, it is
included here to show the lack of urgency regarding the Permit transfer. The Permittee has
allowed years to lapse while first sitting on its rights under the Settlement Agreement, and then
more years after it no longer had rights under the Settlement Agreement. It will not be harmed
now by a stay of the transfer of that permit for several months while this Contested Case is
prepared and tried. Likewise, there is no harm to Respondent from preserving the status quo while
this matter is litigated and decided.
6. On or about Thursday August 10, 2017, counsel for Petitioner received a letter from
Respondent stating that Respondent had received Petitioner's renewed written objections to the
Permit transfer, had sent those objections to counsel for Permittee, accepted that private counsel's
responses to Petitioner's objections, and "is moving forward with the modification, renewal and
transfer of permit #SW8 030404." Petitioner filed contested case 17 EHR 05445 challenging that
decision to transfer the permit. However, Respondent represented to this tribunal via Motion for
Summary Judgment that it had not made a final decision to transfer the permit, and this tribunal
2

dismissed the Petition as not being ripe for lack of a final agency action.
7. On August 8, 2019, Petitioner received notification from Respondent that
Respondent had transferred permit SW8 030404 to Petitioner (attached as Exhibit 1). Exhibit 1
indicates that this is the final agency action, and the matter is now ripe for review.
8. Transfer of the Permit is prohibited under applicable laws, as is set forth in Exhibit
2 (incorporated herein by reference) and as will be developed more fully in this case. Respondent
has acted arbitrarily and capriciously, acted erroneously, and exceeded its authority by moving
forward with the Permit transfer.
9. This Motion seeks to preserve the status quo, to keep the Permit assigned to the
Permittee has it has been for many years, until the legitimacy of the proposed transfer can be
determined by this tribunal. This is the proper purpose of a Preliminary Injunction , and by
extension, a Preliminary Stay of Agency Action. The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to
preserve the status quo pending trial on the merits. Setzer v. Annas, 286 N.C. 534, 212 S.E.2d 154
1975 . A.E.P. Indus., Inc. v. McClure, 308 N.C. 393, 302 S.E.2d 754 (1983).
10. Likewise, in the contested case context, the Administrative Law Judge is
specifically authorized by statute to "Stay the contested action by the agency pending the outcome
of the case". N.C. Gen.Stat. §150B-33(b)(6).
11. Exhibit 2 establishes that probable cause exists that Petitioner will prevail on the
merits and is incorporated herein by reference.
3

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests:
1. Issuance of a Preliminary Stay of Agency Action suspending transfer of the Permit
until a full evidentiary hearing can be had on the merits.
2. Such other relief as this tribunal may find just and proper.
Respectfully submitted, this the 23`d day of August 2019.
SECHREST, LLP
By
James L. Co r II
State 1�10. 12365
4819 Emperor Boulevard, Suite 400
Durham, North Carolina 27703
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: jconnergcbsatto.rneys.com
Attorney for Petitioners
4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned attorney hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY STAY OF AGENCY ACTION was served on the following parties to this
action by: ( X ) email ( ) Facsimile ( ) Federal Express ( ) hand delivery (X) by depositing a
copy of the same in the United States Mail postage prepaid and addressed to:
William Lane, General Counsel
N.C. DEQ
217 W. Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
And via email to:
[e-mail]
This the 23rd day of August 2019.
CALHOUN, BHELLA & SECHREST, LLP
By:
J es . Conner
State Bar No. 4365
48 f gro„ 3*Cevard, Suite 400
Durham, North Carolina 27703
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: jconnernu cbsattorneys.com
Attorney for Petitioners

FILED
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
02/22/2018 1:16 PM
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER 17 EHR 05445
Sunset South Owners Association
Petitioner,
V.
NC Department of Environmental Quality,
Division of Energy Mineral & Land Resources
Respondent.
FINAL DECISION
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Upon consideration of Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment, Respondent's Brief in
response thereto, Respondent's Motion to Summary Judgment, and for good cause shown pursuant
to Rule 56 of the N.C. Rules of Civil Procedure, the undersigned hereby GRANTS Summary
Judgment for Respondent, and DENIES Petitioner's Summary Judgment Motion. Based upon
Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, Respondent has not issued a Final Agency
Determination on the Wilmington Housing Authority's (WHA) application requesting a permit
transfer of Stormwater Permit No. SW8 030404 to Sunset South Owners Association, Inc.
(Petitioner). Since Respondent has not taken any final agency action on WHA's permit
application, Petitioner's petition is not ripe for review by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
FINAL DECISION
NOW, THEREFORE, based on the foregoing, the Undersigned hereby finds that
Respondent has not taken any final agency action on WHA's permit application, and Petitioner's
petition is not ripe for review by the Office of Administrative Hearings. For that reason, the
undersigned hereby DISMISSES this contested case petition.
NOTICE OF APPEAL
This is a Final Decision issued under the authority of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-34.
Under the provisions of North Carolina General Statute § 15013-45, any party wishing to
appeal the final decision of the Administrative Law Judge must file a Petition for Judicial Review
in the Superior Court of the county where the person aggrieved by the administrative decision
resides, orin the case of a person residing outside the State, the county where the contested case
which resulted in the final decision was filed. The appealing party must file the petition within
30 days after being served with a written copy of the Administrative Law Judge's Final
Decision.

In conformity with the Office of Administrative Hearings' rule, 26 N.C. Admin. Code
03.0102, and the Rules of Civil Procedure, N.C. General Statute lA-1, Article 2, this Final
Decision was served on the parties as indicated by the Certificate of Service attached to this
Final Decision. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15OB-46 describes the contents of the Petition and requires
service of the Petition on all parties. under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15013-47, the Office of
Administrative Hearings is required to file the official record in the contested case with the Clerk
of Superior Court within 30 days of receipt of the Petition for Judicial Review. Consequently, a
copy of the Petition for Judicial Review must be sent to the Office of Administrative Hearings at
the time the appeal is initiated in order to ensure the timely filing of the record.
This the 22nd day of February, 2018.
Melissa Owens Lassiter
Administrative Law Judge
'ra

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that, on the date shown below, the Office of Administrative
Hearings sent the foregoing document to the persons named below at the addresses shown below,
by electronic service as defined in 26 NCAC 03 .0501(4), or by placing a copy thereof, enclosed
in a wrapper addressed to the person to be served, into the custody of the North Carolina Mail
Service Center who subsequently will place the foregoing document into an official depository of
the United States Postal Service:
James L Conner
Calhoun Bhella & Sechrest LLP
'c� �onnerCcbsattorne -sue
Attorney For Petitioner
Carolyn Ann McLain
N.C. Department of Justice
cmclain(c�ncdo'. o,v
Attorney For Respondent
John Abb Payne
N.C. Department of Justice
jpayne2,ncdoj.gov
Attorney For Respondent
This the 22nd day of February. 2018.
W a"i &
»
Donna R Buck
Paralegal
N. C. Office of Administrative Hearings
6714 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-6700
Phone: [phone]

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER
SUNSET SOUTH OWNERS
ASSOCIATION,
Petitioner,
V.
NC DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, DIVISON
OF ENERGY MINERAL & LAND
RESOURCES,
Respondent.
IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
17 EHR 05445
BRIEF IN REPONSE TO PETITIONER'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
NOW COMES Respondent, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality,
Division of Energy Mineral and Land Resources ("Respondent"), by and through counsel, Josh
Stein, Attorney General, John A. Payne, Assistant Attorney General, and Carolyn McLain,
Assistant Attorney General and hereby submits its response in opposition to Petitioner's Motion
for Summary Judgment and Respondent's own Motion for Summary Judgment. In support of this
Response and Motion, Respondent respectfully shows as follows:
ISSUES
The issues presented by Petitioner's motion for summary judgment are whether there are
any genuine issues of material fact in the case and whether either party is entitled to summary
judgment in its favor as a matter of law.
FACTS
This matter arose on or around December 15, 2016, when the Housing Authority of the
City of Wilmington ("WHA"), the current permittee under Stormwater Permit SW8 030404

("Permit"), requested that the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of
Energy, Mineral and Land Resources ("DEMLR") transfer the Permit to Sunset South Owners
Association, Inc. ("Sunset South"). Sunset South is the h omeo-vvners association that has control
over the real property covered by the Permit. WHA's application included documentation
necessary to transfer the Permit. (See attached Exhibit A, incorporated herein by reference).
On July 21, 2017, Sunset South sent a letter to DEMLR detailing objections it had for
transferring the Permit. Sunset South stated that a settlement agreement between itself and WHA
dictated that the Permit should not be transferred unless certain terms had been satisfied, and those
terms had not been met. In its letter, Sunset South also stated other reasons for why it believed
DEMLR was prohibited from transferring the Permit. (See attached Exhibit B, incorporated herein
by reference) After receiving Sunset South's letter, on July 25, 2017, DEMLR sent Sunset South's
concerns to WHA by outlining all responses to Sunset South's objection to the transfer of the
Permit. On or about July 31, 2017 DEMLR received a response letter from the attorney
representing WHA. WIIA's letter addressed Sunset South's objections in detail. (See attached
Exhibit D, incorporated herein by reference)
On August 2, 2017, DEMLR answered Sunset South's original letter of concern dated July
21, 2017. In the response, DEMLR explained that Sunset South's objections stemmed from the
terms of the settlement agreement between Sunset South and WHA, to which DEMLR was not a
party. Accordingly, DEMLR stated it would move forward with the modification, renewal and
transfer of the permit per the applicable North Carolina laws and stormwater regulations, which it
is bound to follow. (See attached Exhibit E, incorporated herein by reference)
The transfer of the permit has not occurred as of the date of this filing because DEMLR is
still working with WHA to assure that the relevant stormwater system is in substantial compliance
2

pursuant to the applicable statute, N.C.G.S. § 143-214-7(c2). In this case, the declarant described
in N.C.G.S. § 143-214-7(c2) is the Housing and Economic Opportunities, Inc., ("HEO").
DEMLR's understanding is that HEO is an instrimentality of WITA with the exclusive Purpose to
develop and operate affordable housing and to promote comprehensive economic development for
the City of Wilmington. Neither HEO nor WHA own any lots within the subdivision nor do they
have dominion over the real property subject to the Permit. (Linda and G Amy told us this
information- Are you all also aware of this info?)
As part of one the requirements to transfer the Permit, WHA provided documentation that
no lot in the Sunset South community exceeded the maximum permitted built -upon area ("BUA")
limit of 2,500 square feet with the exception of one of 130 lots- Lot 126. Lot 126's owner' built
an extra patio that exceeded their BUA by 250 square feet. DEMLR's review of the property
showed that the one lot out of compliance had sufficient drainage area to accept the additional
BUA area and thus the stormwater system could perform as needed. Based upon this determination
and assurance, DEMLR modified the current Permit to allow for Lot 126 to have an additional 250
square feet and thus the maximum allowed total BUA will not have been exceeded.
On August 16, 2017, Sunset South filed a contested case, Temporary and Preliminary Stay
of Agency Action at Office of Administrative Hearings based on a notification letter DEMLR sent
to Sunset South. On August 28, 2017, Office of Administrative hearings granted a Stay of Agency
Action until a hearing could be held on the request. The parties consented to a stay of the transfer
of the Permit until any issue regarding a retention basin or any other non-compliance measure had
' The owner of Lot 126 is Susan C. MacDennid, who has also been presented to DEMLR as being on Sunset
South's executive board. (See Exhibit XXX, copy of deed for 244 Virginia Avenue) According to deed records, Ms.
MacDermid purchased the property directly from HEO on January 5, 2006.
3

been resolved per DEMLR's satisfaction. If all issues of the permit had been resolved to
DEMLR's satisfaction, and DEMLR planned to make the transfer of the permit prior to a hearing
on the merits, DEMLR was to provide written notice to Petitioner who could set the case for
hearing, be heard, and have the case decided prior to the transfer of the permit.
STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The North Carolina Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") sets forth the standard of
review in contested case hearings in the Office of Administrative Hearings. Specifically, the APA
provides that "[t]he Administrative Law Judge shall decide the case based upon a preponderance
of the evidence, giving due regard to the demonstrated knowledge and expertise of the agency with
respect to facts and inferences within the specialized knowledge of the agency." N.C. Gen. Stat.
§ 15013-34(a). This statement of the standard of review appears to reflect an affirmation by the
General Assembly of the principal that actions by State officials are presumed to be made lawfully
and in good faith. Painter v. Wake County Bd. of Ed., 288 N.C. 1655 217 S.E.2d 650 (1975); see
also Huntley v. Potter, 255 N.C. 619, 122 S.E.2d 681 (1961); Albemarle Elec. Membership Corp
v. Alexander, 282 N.C. 402, 192 S.E.2d 811 (1972). Our appellate courts have stated that there is
a rebuttable presumption that an administrative agency has acted properly in performing its official
duties. In re Appeal from Civil Penalty, 92 N.C. App. 1, 373 S.E.2d 572 (1988), rev'd on other
grounds, 324 N.C. 3 73, 379 S.E.2d 30 (1989). The burden is upon the party asserting the contrary
to overcome the presumption by competent and substantial evidence. Overcash v. N. C. Dept of
Env't & Natural Res., 179 N.C. App. 697, 635, 448 S.E.2d 442 (2006); see also Styers v. Phillips,
277 N.C. 460,178 S.E.2d 583 (1971). Moreover under North Carolina case law, it is well accepted
that an agency's interpretation of its own regulations are accorded deference, unless such
interpretation is clearly erroneous. Elliot v. N.C. Psychology Board, 126 N.C. App. 453, 456, 485
.19

S.E. 2d 882,884 (1997), rev'd in part on other grounds, 348 N.C. 230, 498 S.E.2d 616 (1998).
In this summary judgment motion, the burden is on Petitioner to show that, in DEMLR's
anticipatory transfer of the hermit, that the agency-
(1) exceeded its authority;
(2) acted erroneously;
(3) failed to use proper procedure;
(4) acted arbitrarily or capriciously; or
(5) failed to act as required by law or rule.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-23(a) (in pertinent part).
"Summary judgment shall be allowed `if the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, admissions, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue
of material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."' Reo Props. Corp.
v. Smith, -- N.C. App. --, -- 743 S.E.2d 230,232 (2013) (citing N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c)).
"G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56(c) does not require that a party move for summary judgment in order to be
entitled to it." McNair Constr. Co. v. Fogle Bros. Co., 64 N.C. App. 282, 289, 307 S.E.2d, 200,
205 (1983) (citation omitted) "When appropriate, summary judgment may be rendered against the
party moving for such judgment." Blades v. City of Raleigh, 280 N.C. 531, 544, 187 S.E.2d 35,
43 (1972).
As is demonstrated above and as the evidence will show, DEMLR clearly acted and
continues to act within its authority and in accordance with the requirements of State statutes and
rules. Petitioner cannot show that the agency's alleged anticipatory actions run afoul of any of the
standards set out in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15011-23(a).
ARGUMENT and RESPONSE
1. This matter involves the transfer of Stormwater Permit SW 8 030404 ("Permit) from
the current permit holder, WHA, to Petitioner Sunset South. Petitioner correctly notes that the
5

transfer has not yet occurred. However, Petitioner incorrectly stated that the transfer has not
occurred because of its filing a Preliminary Injunction and a Stay Order issued by this Court. The
transfer of the permit has not occurred because DEMLR is still working with WHA to assure that
the relevant stormwater system is in substantial compliance pursuant to the applicable statute,
N.C.G.S. § 143-214-7(c2). (Scott Affidavit ) As the Permit has not been transferred, DEMLR
has not taken a final agency action in this case.
Without a final agency action, Petitioner has no standing to bring forth this case at this
time. The facts show that on August 2, 2017, DEMLR sent a courtesy letter to Petitioner regarding
moving forward with modifying, renewing and transferring the Permit pursuant to North Carolina
laws and regulations. (See Exhibit A and Scott affidavit) However, as of this date, certain
technical issues with one of the stormwater basins continue to prevent WHA from reaching
substantial compliance and thus DEMLR has not transferred the Permit. DEMLR and WHA are
diligently working to ensure the basin will function in proper working order prior to any transfer.
Accordingly, Petitioner's claims cannot be redressed by a favorable decision of this Court.
Standing is a prerequisite for subject matter jurisdiction. Marriott v. Chatham County, 187 N.C.
App. 491, 496, 654 S.E.2d 13, 17 (2007), disc. rev. denied, 666 S.E.2d 122 (2008). The party
invoking subject matter jurisdiction has the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. Templeton
v. Town of Boone1208 N.C. App. 50, 53, 701 S.E.2d 709, 712 (2010). Petitioner has not proven
that a courtesy notice of moving towards transferring a permit invokes subject matter jurisdiction.
A notice of the intent to transfer a permit is clearly not an agency action nor has it even been
defined as a final agency action. While DEMLR continues to review the Permit to reach a
determination that all statutory and regulation requirements to transfer the Permit have been met,
and until the Permit is transferred, this case is not ripe for hearing.

Only a "person aggrieved" may contest an agency action pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §
150B-23. A "person aggrieved" is "any person or group of persons of common interest directly
or indirectly affected substantially in his or its person, property, or employment by an
administrative decision." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-2(6) (2011). "`In order for [a] petitioner to
prevail on her claim to status as a `person aggrieved' under the NCAPA, [a] petitioner must first
demonstrate that her personal, property, employment or other legal rights have been in some way
impaired."' Diggs v. N.C. Dep't ofHealth and Human Servs., 157 N.C. App. 344, 347, 578 S.E.2d
666, 668 (2003) (quoting In re Denial of Request for Full Admin. Hearing, 146 N.C. App. 258,
261, 552 S.E.2d 230, 232, disc. rev. denied, 354 N.C. 573, 558 S.E.2d 867 (2001)). Petitioner has
failed to show how any of its rights have been impaired by the courtesy notice at issue. Therefore,
Petitioner lacks standing and this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See In re Petition of
Wheeler, 85 N.C. App. 150, 152, 354 S.E.2d 374, 376 (1987) (treating standing as an issue of
subject matter jurisdiction).
As Petitioner has stated, DEMLR has not yet transferred the Permit to Petitioner, although
it may do so in the future. Thus, the matter currently presented in not ripe for appeal. See Lide v.
Mears, 231 N.C. 111, 117, 56 S.E.2d 404, 409 (1949) (stating in its review of the Uniform
Declaratory Judgment Act that "the inherent function of judicial tribunals is to adjudicate genuine
controversies between antagonistic litigants with respect to their rights, status, or other legal
relations") While the ripeness doctrine is commonly applied in the context of judicial review, it is
equally applicable in the context of a contested case proceeding. See Citizens for Clean Industry,
Inc. v. Lofton, 109 N.C. App. 229, 427 S.E.2d 768 (1993), overruled on other grounds by Empire
Power Co. v. N. C. Dep't of Env't, Health & Natural Res., Div. of Envtl. Mgmt., 337 N.C. 569, 447
S.E.2d 768 (1994).
7

2. Petitioner objects to the transfer of the Permit on the grounds that it has the right to
object to a transfer and can prevent a transfer unless one particular general statute is invoked and
certain requirements met. Petitioner correctly states that the applicable statute for this Court, to
review is N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-214-7(c2).
3. This case involves the transfer of a Permit, not an application for a new permit by
Sunset South, and does not override any general rule, as stated by Petitioner. (CHECK THIS
STATTMENT L&G) The proper provision for review, as mentioned above, is N.C. Gen. Stat. §
143-214.7(c2). Pursuant to this law, upon request of a permittee, DEMLR shall transfer a permit
to an owners association or other management entity identified in the planned community's
declaration if DEMLR finds that the specified conditions have been met. The statute and
conditions are quoted in full below.
The Department shall transfer a permit issued under this section for a stormwater
management system from the declarant of a condominium or a planned community
to the unit owners association, owners association, or other management entity
identified in the condominium or planned community's declaration upon request of
a permittee if the Department finds that
(i) common areas related to the operation and maintenance of the stormwater
management system have been conveyed to the unit owners association or
owners association in accordance with the declaration;
(ii) the declarant has conveyed at least fifty percent (50%) of the units or lots to
owners other than a declarant; and
(iii) the stormwater management system is in substantial compliance with the
stormwater permit issued to the permittee by the Department.
In support of a request made pursuant to this subsection, a permittee shall submit
documentation to the Department sufficient to demonstrate that ownership of the
common area related to the operation and maintenance of the stormwater
management system has been conveyed from the declarant to the association and
that the declarant has conveyed at least fifty percent (50%) of the units or lots to
owners other than a declarant. For purposes of this subsection, declarant of a
condominium shall have the same meaning as provided in Chapter 47C of the
General Statutes, and declarant of a planned community shall have the same
meaning as provided in Chapter 47F of the General Statutes.

N.C.G.S. § 143-214.7 (c2).
4. Petitioner's argument that only the declarant can transfer the permit is in direct
contradiction of the clear language of this statute. The statute states that the DEMLR "shall transfer
the permit from a declarant ... upon request of a permittee" if factors (i) through (iii) are met.
N.C.G.S. § 143-214.7 (c2) (emphasis added). The declarant can be, but need not necessarily be,
the owner of the permit. In stormwater cases the declarant can be in control of developing the
property for the Permittee or be in control of development and own the stormwater permit. (See
Scott Affidavit and N.C. Gen. Stat. 47F-1-103) In this case, the declarant, the Housing and
Economic Opportunities, Inc., ("HEO"), is not the Permittee, which is WHA. DEMLR's
understanding is that HEO is an instrumentality of WHA with the exclusive purpose to develop
and operate affordable housing and to promote comprehensive economic development for the City
of Wilmington. (See Scott Affidavit If ) Pursuant to the clear language of the statue, WHA, as
the Permittee, can request the transfer of the permit.
5. Petitioner's argument that HEO, as the declarant, is the only entity that has the right
to transfer a stormwater permit would render the statutory language contained in N.C.G.S. § 143-
214.7 (c2), "upon request of the permittee," meaningless. Petitioner's selective reading would, in
effect, give all power to transfer a permit to the declarant, who does not own the permit, and the
owner of the Permit, no right to transfer it. "In construing statutes, courts normally adopt an
interpretation which will avoid absurd or bizarre consequences, the presumption being that the
legislature acted in accordance with reason and common sense and did not intend untoward
results." State ex rel. Commissioner of Ins. v. North Carolina Auto, Rate Administrative Office,
294 N.C. 60, 68, 241 S.E.2d 324, 329 (1978). The inability of the owner of a Permit to transfer a
9

permit would have bizarre consequences. For example, in the current case, neither HEO nor WHA
own any lots within the subdivision nor do they have dominion over the real property subject to
the Permit (See Georgette affidavit �D. The area covered by the Permit is required to have a
stormwater permit and Sunset South was created, in part, "own, manage, maintain, and operate the
Common Elements and facilities located upon the Common Elements, specifically including, but
not limited to, the ... Stormwater Management Facilities." (See Declarations) Under Petitioner's
scenario, the permit can then never be transferred if the declarant does not maintain ownership of
real property within the subdivision. This Court should avoid this absurd result based upon
Petitioner's interpretation.
6. To determine the meaning of the language in N.C.G.S. § 143-214.7 (c2) this Court
must apply the basic rule of construction which is to give meaning to the plain language. N.C.
State Bar v. Brewer & Honeycutt, 183 N.C. App. 229, 236, 644 S.E.2d 573, 577 (1983). Contrary
to Petitioner's statement, DEMLR is not ignoring statutory language, but implementing the law
pursuant to clear standards. "When the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, it 'is the
duty of [the courts] to give effect to the plain meaning ... and judicial construction is not required."
Diaz v. Division of'Social Services, 360 N.C. 384, 387, 628 S.E.2d 1, 3 (2006). "A statute must
be construed as a whole and construed, if possible, so that none of its provisions shall be rendered
useless or redundant." R.J. Reynolds Tobacco v. NC DENR, 148 N.C. App. 610, 616, 560 S.E.2d
163, 168 (2002) (citation omitted). "It is presumed that the legislature intended that each portion
be given full effect and did not intend any provision to be surplusage." Id. (citations omitted). .
Reading N.C.G.S. § 143-214(c2) in light of the particular facts and circumstances of this case and
giving ordinary meaning and significance to the plain language of this statute, it is clear that the
Permittee, WHA, and not HEO has the ability to request the transfer of its own permit. This
10

transfer is consistent with the overarching purpose of the statute, which is to allow a permittee to
transfer a permit to a home owners association regardless of consent. (See Scott Affidavit ¶ )
7. Petitioner's argument that this Court should ignore the statute, N.C.G.S. § 143-
214.7 (c2), and "revert to the general rule" cannot be accepted. Rules derive their authority from
statutes and are to codify or explain a statute. "Whatever force and effect a rule or regulation has
is derived entirely from the statute under which it is enacted. An administrative agency has no
power to promulgate rules and regulations which alter or add to the law it was set up to administer
or which have the effect of substantive law." Hall v. Toreros, II, Inc., 176 N.C. App. 309, 626
S.E.2d 861 (2006), affd, 363 N.C. 114, 678 S.E.2d 656 (2009). Thus, Petitioner's insistence on
ignoring the law that the rule is based upon has no merit.
8. Petitioner argues that the applicable rule for the transfer of stormwater management
permits in this case is 15A NCAC 02H .1045. This rule does not apply in the current case because
WHA submitted its application in a letter dated December 15, 2016, prior to 15A NCAC 2H .1045
becoming effective. As the rule was promulgated to codify the statute, even if it were effective,
the result of the ability to transfer would be the same (ADD or correct IF NECESSARY Linda
and G (Scott Affidavit If )
9. Petitioner's claim that a provision included in 15A NCAC 02H .1045 would prevent
a transfer of the Permit in this case is patently false because Petitioner's reading of it is in direct
conflict with N.C.G.S. § 143-214.7(c2). The specific provision Petitioner cites is 15A NCAC 2H
1045(2)(d), which requires that the applicant transferring the stormwater permit sign an operation
and maintenance agreement from the proposed permittee. Were this provision of the Rules given
effect, the intent and purpose of N.C.G.S. § 143-214.7(c2) to transfer a stormwater permit without
the approval of the proposed permittee would be nullified. Pursuant to this provision, the proposed
11

permittee would be able to refuse to sign the operation and maintenance agreement, and thus stop
the entire process of transferring the stormwater permit. The ability to hold the Permittee hostage
with such a measure was the reason why N.C.G.S. § 143-214.7 (a) was passed by the Legislature.
(Scott Affidavit �) When reviewing whether an agency's action is arbitrary and capricious, a
reviewing court should not "replace the [agency]'s judgment as between two reasonably
conflicting views, even though the court could justifiably have reached a difference result." See
Thompson v. Wake County Bd. of Educ., 292 N.C. 406, 410, 233 S.E.2d 5383 541 (1977).
Respondent's interpretation of the statutes and rules they administer and enforce should be given
"due deference unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation." Pamlico Marine
Co. v. N.C. Dep't of Natural Resources & Cmty. Dev., 30 N.C. App. 201, 206, 341 S.E.2d 1008,
112 (1986). "[A] reviewing court should defer to the agency's interpretation of a statute it
administers so [] long as the agency's interpretation is reasonable and based on a permissible
construction of the statute)." County of Durham v. North Carolina Dep't of Env't. & Natural Res.,
131 N.C. App. 395, 396-97, 507 S.E.2d 310, 311 (1998), disc. rev. denied, 350 N.C. 92, 528 S.E.
2d 361 (1999) (citations omitted).
10. Petitioner's reference that 15A NCAC 2H .1045(2)(e) would also prevent the
Permit from being transferred is inaccurate as the Permit's requirements are satisfied. The rule
states that there needs to be "a copy of the recorded deed restrictions and protective covenants
where required by the permit" and documentation that the maximum allowed per lot BUA or the
maximum allowed total BUA has not been exceeded pursuant to 15A NCAC 2H .1045(2)(e). The
Permittee provided documentation that no lot in the Sunset South community exceeds the
maximum permitted built -upon area (`BUA") limit of 2,500 square feet with the exception of one
12

of 130 lots; Lot 126. Lot 126's owner' built an extra patio that exceeded their BUA by 250 square
feet. In this case, DEMLR's review of the property showed that the one lot out of compliance had
sufficient drainage area to accept the additional BTJA area and the stormwater system could
perform as needed. (See Scott Affidavit ¶ ). Based upon this determination and assurance,
DEMLR modified the current Permit to allow for Lot 126 to have an additional 250 square feet
and thus the maximum allowed total BUA will not have been exceeded. As a result, Sunset South's
contention that they will be in the "cross hairs for enforcement action" is patently false.
Another important distinction to make is that Sunset South will not be out of compliance
with the Permit when they receive it, but will only be out of compliance with the terms of their
Declaration, over which they have control. To reach compliance with the Declaration, either the
owner of Lot 126 can remove the patio or the Declaration can be modified3. Since WHA is no
longer an owner of any lot, which is required in the Declaration to call a vote, only Sunset South
or an owner of a lot in subdivision, can call a meeting to change the BUA on Lot 126. (See Exhibit
) However, this issue pertains to the Declarations, not the Permit, as DEMLR has modified the
Permit to allow for additional BUA on Lot 126.
11. Petitioner, in its final argument, argues that a settlement agreement executed as part
of litigation which Respondent was not a party to, should dictate the terms by which DEMLR may,
or may not, transfer the Permit. This argument is meritless and incorrect. Petitioner admits that
2 The owner of Lot 126 is Susan C. MacDermid, who has also been presented to DEMLR as being on Sunset
South's executive board. (See Exhibit XXX, copy of deed for 244 Virginia Avenue) According to deed records, Ms.
MacDermid purchased the property directly from HEO on January 5, 2006.
3 It is unclear to what extent Ms. MacDermid and/or Sunset South's executive board have considered requiring Ms.
MacDermid remove the patio, but Sunset South is now using Ms. MacDermid's personal installation of a patio as a
reason for challenging transfer of the Permit.
13

this agreement is a matter between private parties, yet continues to suggest that the terms of this
settlement agreement, whatever they might be, should take precedent over DEMLR's obligation
to uphold and enforce the North Carolina General Statutes pertaining to stormwater management
systems. Whether or not the agreement has been breached is irrelevant, since Respondent is not a
party to it. Petitioner then argues that Respondent, as a state agency, should not assist WHA,
"another agency of the State", to breach the agreement. As a matter of law, WHA is not an agency
of the State. Instead, WHA is a housing authority which is a local government agency created by
a municipality, whether that be local residents or city councils. See N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 157-3, -6.
Petitioner then states that Respondent is "bending over backwards" to help WHA fix the
permit to allow for transfer of the Permit. Petitioner's hyperbole aside, Respondent's obligations
pursuant to the statutes and regulations for stormwater management inherently require DEMLR to
evaluate and respond to applicants and permittees in terms of their compliance measures. See N.C.
Gen. Stat. 143-214.7(c2) ("The Department shall transfer a permit ...")(emphasis added). There
is no language in the statute indicating that an applicant has only once chance to submit the correct
documentation or otherwise allowing DEMLR to refuse transfer of the permit if the transfer
requirements have been met. The goal of every stormwater permit is that it functions properly and
complies with the law and regulations .... (Linda and Georgette add in here as necessary (See
Scott Affidavit ¶ ) DEMLR has assisted WHA in a similar manner and method that it assists all
entities who seek permit transfers or who otherwise operate and maintain stormwater systems
throughout the state. (Scott Affidavit ID
12. Petitioner has also not shown there is any harm that will result from a transfer of
the Permit. Petitioner has not offered or produced evidence to show that there would be any
substantial or particularly unique cost associated with obtaining this Permit. Indeed, one of the
14

primary functions of Sunset South owners association to own, operate, maintain and pay for the
Permit.
"'i]n addition to the foregoing, the Association has as its purposes the acceptance
of the transfer of the [Stormwater] Permit from Declarant and to take all actions
and pay all fees required to effect such transfer of the Permit, and thereafter to
oversee, inspect, manage and, when necessary, repair and replace all Stormwater
Management Facilities located within the Common Elements or on individually
owned Lots."
Id. (emphasis added)
According to the Declarations, Sunset South, like all owners associations throughout the
State of North Carolina, has the ability to collect assessments for operation and maintenance of
common elements, including stormwater management systems. See Declarations, Section IV.
Within the Wilmington area, there are multiple low-income housing communities which operate
and maintain stormwater management systems. (Scott Affidavit ¶ )
Moreover, prior to transferring the permit, part of the statutory requirement included in
N.C.G.S. § 143-214.7 (c2), is that the property is in substantial compliance, which will minimize
or eliminate any undue financial burden on the entity receiving the Permit. As a result, Petitioner
has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims, Petitioner's Motion
for Summary Judgment should be denied and summary judgment should be granted in DEMLR's
favor.
CONCLUSION
The undisputed facts in this case show that DEMLR has not transferred the Permit and
when they do transfer the Permit, that DEMLR acted reasonably and in accordance with in the
laws and its statutory duty. Therefore, when DEMLR transfers the Permit, it will not have acted
arbitrarily or capriciously, erroneously, or exceeded its authority.
15

For the foregoing reasons, Respondent respectfully requests that the Administrative Law
Judge find that there are no genuine issues of material fact and grant summary judgment in favor
of Respondent. As such, the Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment should be DENIED.
Respectfully submitted, this the h day of January, 2018.
JOSH STEIN
Attorney General
/s/John A. Payne
John A. Payne
Assistant Attorney General
N.C. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 629
Raleigh, N.C. 27602
[phone]
N.C. State Bar No. 24966
jpayn.egncdoj.gov
/s/Carolyn McLain
Carolyn McLain
Assistant Attorney General
CMeLainnncdoj. ov
16

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
It is hereby certified that a copy of the foregoing BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO
PETITIONER'S i�T G T ION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOT ION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT has been served on the counsel for petitioner by electronic service as follows:
James L. Conner, II, Esquire
Calhoun, Bhella & Sechrest, LLP
4819 Emperor Boulevard, Suite 400
Durham, NC 27703
[e-mail]
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
This the 28t' day of January, 2018.
JOSH STEIN
Attorney General
/s/John_A. Payne _
John A. Payne
Assistant Attorney General
17

SUNSET SOUTH OWNERS ASSOCIATION v. NC DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENT QUALITY
Alida Linda Lewis on 12/15/2017 Page 101
1 I, ALIDA "LINDA" LEWIS, do hereby certify that I
2 have read the foregoing deposition and that the above and
3 foregoing transcript is a true and correct record of my
4 testimony, including any corrections (if any) attached.
5 No corrections to be
6 made.
Errata page attached.
8
E
10
11
12 ALIDA "LINDA" LEWIS
13 SUBSCRIBED and SWORN TO before me this day of
14 201_Z.
15
16
17
18
19 NOTARY PUBLIC a+e+p+`�0LL��`'3(e�®asP���� "
p Aim .a..nn.ae.p•N
20 My commission expire`_
21 �Z
2 2 A, .
��p�coutAk i o%
23
24
25
www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers 800-333-2082
Charlotte — Atlanta — Washington, DC — New York — Houston -- San Francisco

SUNSET SOUTH. OWNERS ASSOCIATION v. NC DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENT QUALITY
Alida Linda Lewis on 12/15/2017 Page 102
1
ERRATA SHEET
2
The witness states
she wishes to make the following
3
corrections in
testimony as originally given:
4
PAGE LINE
SHOULD READ REASON
5
23 25
5A Wal¢r5 '� Ordhof�/Islypr izf
If
6
,41 J
infi�fr2rhoh $2Sin D,dnof ahsW-Aafway
7
TZ
Eye24eG - nGFCOLrSe" hdf
6 1'5 A!�
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
SUBSCRIBED
and SWORN TO before me this day of
16
201
17
18
19
NOTARY PUBLIC
20
My Commission
expires:
21
22
23
24
25
www.huseby-.com Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers 800-333-2082
Charlotte — Atlanta — Washington, DC — New York — Houston — San Francisco

SUNSET SOUTH OWNERS ASSOCIATION v. NC DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENT QUALITY
Alida Linda Lewis on 12/15/2017 Page 23
1 asked me about the general requirements -
2 Q Yes, ma'am. Please do.
3 A - for the permit? As I was saying, this
4 particular project is also - is meeting the County
5 requirements, so it has large basins, and our State stormwater
6 rules just say, you know, you have to deal with the first inch
7 of rain, in this case, the first inch of rain, but the County
8 decided that they - since they - excuse me. The permittee
9 decided because they didn't want to have a bypass structure
10 for - I don't know.
11 Gosh, this is the difficult part is trying
12 to explain the - the stormwater rules. Infiltration basins in
13 2003 were required to have offline bypasses. We offered an
14 alternative to everybody - didn't matter - not just this case,
15 but anybody who wanted it, there was an alternative that if
16 they could store more than the design storm that we required,
17 then we could waive the requirement for the offline bypass. So
18 none of these infiltration basins have an offline bypass.
19 Everything is expected - according to the engineering report
20 and the calculations that were provided to us, everything was
21 expected to infiltrate.
22 Q Okay. And what is the design storm for the
23 State program?
24 A It varies, depending upon whether you're
25 within a half mile of - class borders or not, and it varies
www.husehy.com Huselby, Inc. Regional Centers 800-333-2082
Charlotte — Atlanta — Washington, DC — New York — Houston — San Francisco

SUNSET SOUTH OWNERS ASSOCIATION v. NC DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENT QUALITY
Alida Linda Lewis on 12/15/2017 Page 41
i rrfi lk2b6m
1 options was, yes, you can convert the-pefid basin to be a wet
2 detention pond by adding this structure, showing us that
3 you've met the requirements to be a wet detention pond and do
4 the modification based on that.
5 They chose to go a different route, which is
6 to try to fix the problem to create the - keep it as an
7 infiltration basin but just make some changes to that basin so
8 that it will function better.
9 Q Okay. And you have not yet had an
10 opportunity to review those calculations or that work, is that
11 right?
12 A I have riot, no, that is correct.
13 Q Okay. In addition to reviewing the
14 calculations in the paper that you get, will you also make an
15 inspection, physical inspection of the site to determine what
16 they've done out there or -
17 A After it's done?
18 Q Yes, ma'am.
19 A It won't - the inspection won't occur before
20 the permit - issued, but it would occur after they send in the
21 designer certification saying that they've met the - the new
22 permit requirements, that they've done the work and finished
23 it and they're ready to be inspected, and the inspection would
24 occur - would have to occur again when they submit the request
25 to transfer.
www.huseby.com Huseby, Inc. Regional Centers 800-333-2082
Charlotte - Atlanta - Washington, DC - New York - Houston - San Francisco

SUNSET SOUTH OWNERS ASSOCIATION v. NC DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENT QUALITY
Alida Linda Lewis on 12/15/2017 Page 56
1 were built that you were talking about - the crisscrossing
2 sidewalks on the grassy area. Have I got those three right?
3 A As far as I know, yes.
4 Q Okay. Are there any other ways in which the
5 project is out of compliance either now - let me start with
6 that, one question at a time. Any other ways that the
7 project's out of compliance now, that you're aware of?
8 A Not that I'm aware of now.
9 Q Okay. Since you've been involved for about a
10 year, during that year, has there - have there been any other
11 ways it was out of compliance?
12 A Not that I'm aware of.
13 Q Now, there's this excess built upon area -
14 well, let me ask you an educational question.
15 A Sure.
16 Q So built upon area and impermeable surface,
17 what's the difference?
18 A They're not. Their terms are used
19 interchangeably.
20 Q Okay. That's what I thought. I just wanted
21 to make sure. Thank you, /'%y _anSWg Ar,/ �R_e.
22 A Of course. This - there's a continuing
23 issue, if I understand it correctly, with the fact that the
24 the declaration of covenants is required to say in it that the
25 built upon area will not be increased beyond a certain point
www.huseby.com Huseiby, Inc. Regional Centers 800-333-2082
Charlotte - Atlanta - Washington, DC - New York - Houston - San Francisco

G•
r+
o
cd
... . .
. �.,
.r
2 _
fl
D
b
-
❑
:r 4
IJ
t
t
w
•
W �yy
1
0
C) A
:�y
c n
ti
0
N
-'
i
It
Q
❑x
a
w/
W
_
-
T)
_
)
y
M
I
0
(D
N
d
U)
d
0
O
CD
N
(0
a
m
2

¢� c
Eo
�
Q
�
t
a
-
v.
-c
ea
c
a
:o
• s r. ��7:er,L
e'
cn
D
z�
n�
U
�
Q
o
z
--
o
_
U
M
10
a
�7
u
'�1 O
�
D
0 Lo
d
m
cn
d
'c
or
0
0
C7
N
0
m
co
2

4-4
-
-s a
SC 'i :ii: �, 1+;y�• fry � h a : 4.•1+.... R'-
U LS
• r, v+ � Y
U� ccLu
C
r
w o
Yim
Y
3 x
m
� iY .L Lx•
Ji Q
xt
Afen°ft„
3 Z M
a
is c, � ❑
p y Li a s i:Li
r.
w� i•� d u
z o sr z f
A �
In
_ C
a o
a�
o
El
cn
O% L.
co
Qi 3
.g
O M G u
Rt
d a
+
mac•
0
0
rn
a
a�
ro
rn
C7
r-
0
N
ca
m
cc
rL

FILED
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
08/28/2017 10:51 AM
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER 17 EHR 05445
Sunset South Owners Association
Petitioner,
10
NC Department of Environmental Quality,
Division of Energy Mineral & Land Resources
Respondent.
TEMPORARY STAY OF
AGENCY ACTON (TRO)
THIS MATTER came before the undersigned on Motion of Petitioner Sunset South
Owners Association ("Petitioner"), by and through the undersigned counsel, pursuant to N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 150B-33(6), 26 NCAC 3 .0115 and Rule 65 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil
Procedure, for a Temporary Stay of Agency Action (Temporary Restraining Order) and for a
Preliminary Stay of Agency Action.
Having considered the Motion, exhibits, and applicable law, the undersigned
Administrative Law Judge finds as follows:
1. Petitioner is a homeowners' association for a low-income homeowners'
community in Wilmington, North Carolina.
2. Wilmington Housing Authority (WHA), a public agency, holds the Stormwater
Permit for Sunset South, Permit Number SW 8 030404 (the Permit).
3. Respondent agency gave notice to Petitioner that it intends to transfer the Permit
to Petitioner over Petitioner's objections. Petitioner filed this Contested Case to contest that
transfer, and subsequently filed a Motion for Temporary and Preliminary Stay of Agency Action
(TRO).
4. The Motion seeks to preserve the status quo, to keep the Permit assigned to the
Permittee as it has been for many years, until the legitimacy of the proposed transfer can be
determined by this tribunal. This is the proper purpose of a Temporary Restraining Order, and
by extension, a Temporary Stay of Agency Action. The purpose of a temporary restraining
order, issued ex parte, is, "to preserve the status quo pending a full hearing." Huff v. Huff, 69
N.C. App. 447, 317 S.E.2d 65 (1984). Likewise, the purpose of a preliminary injunction is to
preserve the status quo pending trial on the merits. Setzer v. Annas, 286 N.C. 534, 212 S.E.2d
154 (1975); A.E.P. Indus., Inc. v. McClure, 308 N.C. 393, 302 S.E.2d 754 (1983).

5. It further appearing to the undersigned that if an immediate Temporary Stay is not
issued, this Permit may be transferred to Petitioner before a hearing can be held on a Preliminary
Stay, thereby effectively deciding the case on the merits, and courts should use the tool of the
temporary restraint to avoid this result. A.E.P. Indus., Inc. v. McClure, 308 N.C. 393, 302 S.E.2d
754 (1983).
6. Petitioner has further shown that the transfer of the Permit could result in (1)
immediate damages and undue hardship on the Petitioner, as this low-income community does
not have the means to maintain and upgrade a stormwater system; and 2) the Petitioner has
provided documentation that there is a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits, which
requires Respondent be restrained from transferring the Permit described in this Temporary
Restraining Order. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-33(6), 26 NCAC 3 .0115 and Rule 65 of the North
Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.
7. Due to the nature of this order, no security as a condition of its issuance is
required.
WHEREFORE, the undersigned rules that:
l . The Motion for a Temporary Stay of Agency Action prohibiting the transfer of
the Stormwater Permit for Sunset South, Permit Number SW 8 030404 until a hearing can be
held on the request herein is GRANTED;
2. Respondent shall not transfer the Permit to Petitioner unless and until this stay is
dissolved.
3. The parties, unless they report to this Office that they have reached agreement to
consent to the entry of a Preliminary Stay, shall appear before the undersigned on September
13, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. in order that arguments may be heard regarding the entry of a Preliminary
Stay.
This the 28th day of August, 2017.
Melissa Owens Lassiter
Administrative Law Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that, on the date shown below, the Office of Administrative
Hearings sent the foregoing document to the persons named below at the addresses shown
below, by electronic service as defined in 26 NCIAC 03 .05044), or by placing a copy thereof,
enclosed in a wrapper addressed to the person to be served, into the custody of the North
Carolina Mail Service Center who subsequently will place the foregoing document into an
official depository of the United States Postal Service:
James L Conner
Calhoun Bhella & Sechrest LLP
i connerra.cbsattorneys.com
Attorney For Petitioner
John Abb Payne
N.C. Department of Justice
jpayne(@,,ncdoj.gov
Attorney For Respondent
This the 28th day of August, 2017.
Donna R Buck
Paralegal
Office of Administrative Hearings
6714 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-6700
Telephone: [phone]

.SGv F G 30 40 4-
FILED
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
11/30/2017 4:35 PM
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER 17 EHR 05445
Sunset South Owners Association
Petitioner,
V.
NC Department of Environmental Quality,
Division of Energy Mineral & Land
Resources
Respondent.
ORDER CONTINUING HEARING AND
AMENDING SCHEDULING ORDER
Upon consideration of Petitioner's Motion to Amend Scheduling Order and continue the
hearing this contested case, with good cause shown, the hearing in this contested case is hereby
CONTINUED until the week beginning January 15, 2018. At least 15 days prior to the hearing,
the Administrative Law Judge will mail to the parties a more specific notice of the date, time and
location of the hearing.
The undersigned has further AMENDED the August 16, 2018 Scheduling Order as
follows:
Paper discovery shall be completed on or before December 1, 2017;
2. Any depositions desired by the parties shall be noticed by December 4, 2017;
3. All depositions shall be completed by December 20, 2017;
4. Dispositive motions shall be filed on or before January 8, 2018; and
5. The hearing on the merits is set for the week of January 15, 2018 in Bolivia,
North Carolina.
This the 30th day of November, 2017.
Melissa Owens Lassiter
Administrative Law Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that, on the date shown below, the Office of Administrative
Hearings sent the foregoing document to the persons named below at the addresses shown below,
by electronic service as defined in 26 NCAC 03 .0501(4), or by placing a copy thereof, enclosed
in a wrapper addressed to the person to be served, into the custody of the North Carolina Mail
Service Center who subsequently will place the foregoing document into an official depository of
the United States Postal Service:
James L Conner
Calhoun Bhella & Sechrest LLP
jconner e,cbsattorne s
Attorney For Petitioner
John Abb Payne
N.C. Department of Justice
jpay e, ncdoj.ov
Attorney For Respondent
This the 30th day of November, 2017.
LWV W &A J,
Donna R Buck
Paralegal
N. C. Office of Administrative Hearings
6714 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-6700
Phone: [phone]

STATE Of NORTII CAROLINA
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER
IN THE OFFICE OF
:AF1Mr-NISTRATIVP 141 :4RINGS
6714 MAII. SERVICE CFN fER
RAI F IGH. NC 27694-6700
FILE NO. 17 EHR 05445
4
SUBPOENA
(N.C. 0,cn, Stat. § 15013-27)
SUNSET SOUTH OWNERS ASSOCIATION 1 _,(- To app; ar in person _ To produce document or oh;rct
Petitioner, )
Party requesting subpoena:
Petitioner �V Rt�spondcnt
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, ) !'NO1T TO PARTIES NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL:
DIVISION OF ENERGY MINERAL & LAND RESOURCES, 1 Subpoenas may be produced at your request, but must b. signed and
Rbpon It nt. ) issued by the Otticc of Admmistrstrvc Ileum s
TO:
Linda (Alida,) Lewis Environmental Engineer
Natn� of person b•,:ing served
NC Dept. of Enviromental Quality
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Street address `post otiice box :Alternate addre as
Wilmington NQ 28405910-796-7915
Cir-'Stute,ZiplTelcphone City:-statv.2itiffelephone
VOG ARE COMMANDED TO: rcheck all that apply)
Appear and testify in the above -entitled contested case at the place. date, and time indi .ated below.
Appear and tebti.y, in the ubovc-t:ntGtIed roawstcd ease, at a deposition at thu place., date and time iridi awd below.
Produce, permit inspection and copying of the Iollowing items at the placQ, date_ and time initicdwd below.
N.trtte and Location of Ifew ing: Name ofPcnKm ur Agency Requesting Subpoena:
Brunswick County Government Complex, Room 4
310 Government Center Drive NE
Bolivia, NC 28422
January 19, 2018, at 9Q0 a,m. _
Date and Tune t<= Appcw.'P1:,duie
Jawary 12.2018 _
D aAj
0� -
Sign t::.tf persor. rs uing subpoena
Cbief Hearings C lerk AdministrativcLay. Judge
.Assistant Hearings Clerk V Attorney
Carolyn McLain Assistant Attorney General _
Namo 1,tie
NC Dept. of Justice
Post Office Box 629
Stre.:t'Pnst Offlicc Box
Raleigh, NC 27602
Cit) 'State: i<iF
919-716-6600
Telephone Number
DELIVER "RETMN OF SERVIC-L' TO
PARTY NAMED ABOVE
RETURN OF SERVICE
t certit7 that this �Qubpoona'w'lb r.;E.e'; id wr.d F-erved a� follevow-
Date reu:ived by authorized server
By de!i,�arirg a copy ofthis subpoena to
the person nan:t:d above
This subpc.na WAS NOT s;.ve.! for the:
following reasons:
Bytelephone communication with the person
named above (For use only by the Sheriffs office
for witness subpoenaed to appear wad testify)
By registered or certified mail. return receipt
mquested, on the party named above
Service Fee Paid
Due ^Dot;; S. d Signature and Title of Authorized Senior
NOTE TO PERSON REQI'L• STUNG SL 13POE NA: A copy- of"his subpoen"must be Lieliverm, mailed or faxed to the ;:ttomey for each
party in this .r:se. if fr party i. not represented by an _morncy, th:: copy tiiust W made d or doh'Wicd to the party.
(Please See Reverse Side)
U-05 k04.1 o± Page 142

NOM. Rule 45, North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, Parts (c) and (d).
(c) Protection Of. Persons Subject To Subpoena
tl) v t: vrd tt r.x a :tense. - A pa::y o: an tnorr.;•• responsih'e for
ttat issuanc,, and service of a subpoena shall titre reasonable steps u, avoid
imposiag, an undue burden or exp ns: on a person buhject to the suupaena. '!be
court s!;alf en arce this subdivision and impost upon the Mary or attorney in
violation or this requirement an anpropriv'z .auction that max in, itde
compct;.:tiny. the lxrson unduly burdened fi r la,.: ere ninis and t ar reasonable
zttorlcy's r,�es.
(2) ! :: grit tout ,� +ts he -ex ordr air h�•-l+da�mi ic.il T: c, r[ :. - �(:acre the
,:tl+r yen:a onrim ndrt env ;:;:s:idian ofput• ire records ur3ny .itsts•dia^+ of L«=spiral
v-t.ffcal rc-,ords, as defrw d in G 5, A-14.!; to appea frr the soie puti-ose of
XA3n certain records in the cuswo iacs castUdy the custa.+,ian subl•oenae3
seise;, it lien of personal appearuncv. U-auer to the court in wHch the action is
pending ht' reyistercd or certirted mail or by personal delivery, on or before tkt,
time spc;eitted in the subpoena, ccrtitit.d copis of she rz.utls rcLi"d(ed togcMwi
with a copy of the s ;bpoena and an atTrdacit by the custk,clian wstifl into that the
copses Girt: cue mid corn ct copies and that the: t words dvire mace anti k,:pt in the
rcLu' n cearbe of business, or no such recor.ls art: it. the custodian:: custody., an
affidavit to thatzffvct, Whm the copies of nxows cure pt(sonall) dclivomd unJ,:r
th;:, cn.,WiOsioo, a rove:pt a ;. !-7 obtainpd ir.m the p:rs;m receivim th^ r read=
At, original or c art: vJ tttpv a' ,&,arth or an affidavit deliver.- according to the
rras.sions of his subdivision unless otherwise ohtectionabo sl-,A be aJmboF:ble
in a1v action or procw;fin ; without further certification or autherlicatior.. Col: es
of itrespital medima? recu:da tendered un .cr ti.:s : ubdivWf -ki hall not be open to
insp ;huff at, copier= b) env person, e�czpt to theparti•.zs to the case ui proLecJing,
auJ thctrattorn; s in ddpositrons, until ordered put:- isheJ by ;%cjuut, at the time
of the hearing or trial. Nothing contained herein tic rtWued to waive the
l:`ty;,:eian- ,ati_r.;ii-.: i%:re or to rzquire any privtlz,. vJ c xuwuni;.ation under let;
(3, Writtcai abii^irm,t, _sulignima - Suk`uct to snbse,;tion (d ) of this rule, a
person commanded to appear at a deposition or to produce and p.nnit the
inspection and copying of records, nooks, papers. „o,:amcnis, cleetronicall,
rim J informatior or tangible things may, witkin to d n=s after service of the
subpxaa or bzfon the time specified for compliance if the time is Icsz than 10
days alter seM%;e, serer u;: ,;i thu is rty or the attorney dcsignutud in the subpoena
written objection tit t:tie subpoena, beam.p forth the sptctiC giounds err tl,..
ohieaon. The w;iti.^.n ours :fan .::h_ll sans; ;v with die. reiw ,=a c:` Rulc It,
Fach or the flitter r a1: F:round• m;.y b. st !'tieic<:t for ah;zcun5 to+.i vabpoe*:a:
A. Inc �ubpuuna t'.ii!- to ail, iw reasonable tire::• tar compliance.
b. Th cubpt 4-a requircr. lis:rasa rc of privileged or; �tl;er protect ;d maGer
and no exception or wraiyer applies to the privilege e- protetfon.
c. the: subpoena sunjccis n person :o an undue burden o: expens:.
:i. 'i'he subpo :eta .s otnt;w :x unreasmable or oppressi,.e.
e. 1 he subpoena s ptacedurally doiz.tive.
(4) fhaer of court re (ttiryxl to c+,_zn •, alr,,.�ctip.j. - It ti =jccfion is malt: urder
sobdts:bion (3) of this subsecc:on, the patty serving Jhc suhliveni< sumi not be
eutiUd to compel the subpoenaed petsoWs arpeararec at a d;ilxisition or to
inspoc` and copy materials v, which an objection has It= made tvp. tit pursLant
t.: an order of thL court. lfobir:;tion .is made, the party servair,, the tubporna may,
span notice to the subpoenaed person, ntwvr at env time for Sit order to coripel
t15: subpocnac.1 perrou's appearance at the deposition or the production of the
inawriais dt a . nated in the subpoena The mot on she:' be tiled in the court in the
county in whieb the: deprr itwil or production of ndtenals is to =cur.
14, aviation to quash or modify s - A _ crson command' to appear.at
a im, d;.p;-sition, ,,r to produc..ind n imil the inspection. at J .ops tint
of re.ord;.. buacs, f per:.+, docume.its, chxtionii:aG ..tort>,t:afb:matron, or other
tr.:t i this+}: etithin 10 dsys aster tzmv.,v n: the su^poona or Na*I,: the time
tmN.: flc.i for compliance ifinc tome is ltss'h:in 10 days aftek =mice, may file a
vlotia:, to gi�nF'a or nodifw'Se subpoena. ?he court shall ijavlt ar modify ;he
subpocnLL if lite sub tt,.naed person demonstrates. the existem,:e of any of tb
reason_ set forth in subdii tsu!a'3 j cifthis subset:;or, The maikkn shut b2 Cladiu
Iliz, court in the county in which.the trial, hearing, jzq)i-ition, or pro:idciiun •tf
m;: aWs :s to oc.:ur.
t-) Sir,'ex to Wrr.:&k exngn&i_., .,omp:y with subnoe::a, - When a coin Enters
an oiler compoiling, a &po,rtion or &z piju6axiot: of rc,:ot•;s, nooks, papers,
documm.n , eorikIjy str.reo; intormation, ,-ocher tint Wv things tho order
shall :protect eery N—in who is not a part' or an a; ent of d pi�T"' !or . i+ni!icant
e-,pen,.� :cst.Nup fmm cone^lying with the sul•7dena. Tl:, court may order this:
the persn-. to whom the subpoena is .addressed will be r,asonably compenswc:
for the cost at produtanb the recoro., .books, y4pers, documents, electronical.
.stored information, or tangioiz things spec:sed it the subpoena
',) Trade secrcis, conadential,intnrmatigp, - Wtun a subla.na requires
disclosure ,ii d trade sc:;ret or t,-ter eoaWent7A tes:arch. devele+pmvni,
Commercial rifo."m=lion, u co ort cozy to prote^t a p.:m n suhject to oraffbeted b•
the subpoena, q.:ash =^r modify the buhprena, or whcr, the party on whose bzh.tlf
the sabp(,:na r : er,d sbt u ,, a sohstantiai nra f for tfcu t mintor;: or material that
rannot r,thcrw ist be met v. ithout undui: 1%trdshi; the court may or'cr a t�trsoo to
makz an a1•pccirance or r :iduck� the act .ials oniv on speaEed condifons stated
in the order.
(„) Qyder to quash, t xoenses. - Wh:n a c-art n:sr. an order quashing ,r
moild ing .i[e cubpoona, the c*cut' may order the pare- on whose telit if ;it.
subpoena is issue a to pa) all or pay of the subWt n,,,d p%Ts&s i a_snnahle
e pe.t:ce; including adon c; s tic.
twit Duties In Responding To Subpoena
I) ° rp�ai resnonp,. - A perk, •n responding to a subpoena to produce rc.ordo,
books, dt•cume U, electroricat'.y stated informatim, or ringibte thito shad
produce them r:, they are kept. in ;ae usual course of businc...s err shall organize
acid t..abel them to correspond with ih: c itcgoties in the request.
2; I of:its of r .iti mg .cttonicall,- O)IJ information net sn..rrfioJ, if a
subpcnma ,outs nest spwif; a form fa p Lviucing 2lectronicalb}'stored inforn,atior.,
the persor n,spo•tdiac nunt produce it hi a form or forts in ..=ilea it ordinar l) is
m.intz'.ned or in a r a.,riaNy mc,.,Ne form or fat,ns.
31 _Kranrc,;, ��'•nit _ inf rm tign in nnie .use fi?rt�t, -?`r. p,­son rtspatiding
nixed not proJucr ;s: ,ame dectramcally stor f inic.mati('n in :nee that, on
form,
JtsacLessftrle t to tronit illy soured a lag. •- }'he parson responding
heed not pro%ide eisi;ot _r), of ciectiumvOy stored informw:on 5otr. s(--ces that
the person il;entifi.� as no: rcisonaul; au,msibly be:ausv ofunu:.e burden or cost
(11 motion !o camp,:l discovery or for a pre-techve order, the person respondin
mm: s:iow that the intormation is not masonatdv accL>siblc becartse at, dndw
burd,-nor costa l: that showing is ma4e. ttG court may nonetheless ocher J scu,icry
from z uch sources +fthe rcquestinl` party..hows :zood cause, atie: cuniiderin„ tine
limitati,•n of Rule 26(bk:i The co e:t ma) specify :onditiw---s for Jiscovery,
.int,luding -eq;tiring the part% thatsxks dig;overy from a nonpxty to bcai the costs
e+f lacatin.F, prc,.,zrving, tx:electing, :and produttng the clefrnpically stored
m1o;mation involved,
y) Spec licity of otyecttI v). - When tnt'oi oration subjeci to a subpoena is
vvithhe'd on the objeuton that it is subject to prot=;on .is ;real preparation,
mint cis: o; that it is otherwse pric Iel: _ tile oNecr.on :,hail be made wish
rl,ccirictty and siasll be supp,,rted. by a de:cnp:ion of the nature of the
coftartunications. ret;on;s, books; reapers, Jacements, e.eetronicltiy C',OAd
tntorms:ir.n; at other .angtc;t thii%,s rot produced, s:1ficieni felt this i-, 3u estmir
patty :9 contest the objection.
INFORMALTION I'OR WITNESS
: ae su!4oeua is a tuba! or& "uit ng eu to appearr on the day and ut the tint BMING OR THREATENING A ►t'.fCNM,
stated You Wait k;en Lallcd (suhpoei:aid! tube a witness :c a contested lac;. :t is a violation of star: lav, for anvore to attempt to hribe, threaten, harass, or
DI fH:SOFAWIrNF.SS intimidateawitness. tfxiyor-,a'tr..mptstodr,viyofihesr•hingsconcerningyour
1'nleai you are ei custodian of ffwjicJ yr public records, you must inv,)hant nt. as a wines- in aaontested case 7,1.ju should promptly re;xort tLe
ar-0 the hearns_ on the day and at the tine staled in the.scbpnenu. incident io tie administrative law judge.
• tinluss otherwise airected. by the adaunist di-.t. law indbq, yes mu-t W1TNLSS FEE
answer At quest�om t,.kA when yx a e .; on the stand giving A witness iti zutitle:J to a sm;i:l daily ice and travel :Spettse ie+.wurse ment t if it
testinse+ 4v. is bite, s_a y f tree r! ffum outsice the connty rn otter t o to d:iyJ. Fees ►or `expo rt
• Yotiranswers toaut--Uemmust li.L-ut^.ixi. witn,:sscs' at,; set by the adminisnatfi•a law jcige. Ai€er you hays beet
• It eau are commun:S.J -o pr�,1ice c:r) it::m,, you tu115* brui_; tik;n LlsA.a2grj as -1 vtiitn^ss, if aaa dwxir tv collect the 4attvary i8e you sh,wid
w.;th you w ihen c�,%ui� rmmctiiatcly (..+»taut tht: thief ttexinga; cF•rk and ecrtify tiour attendance as a
If you hav;- any q;:csticms about bei.i; subpo.no,:d iz ;: ;,;tnuss, you should m � av'It bt .:d m J
c,,w.;t the person wlto r,:quest;-,J ttto subyovna.
UNDERSTAND THE Qt'FSTIOHS AND SPEAK 01'T
When you ttAif), list4n vvzf:Ah tr all questions, anal make sure that you
underr.,md the flue-tions 1,J we yuu averopt to answer, If necesaaty', .ask t'•,at a
qu: sit.:n be xpeated before 1- cn it,, to ;n w r. When you answc:, spr, k c!i ry
and 10z"lly ev,retire'= tea lizard.
ii-t ((MA6) Pd_e.2 of
cut t. _ _,..i,,. J a i . I— ere )ou.
%itne% tees shall be yard by the r>arty rero ies Ifla the Sg¢pnem in ac.uraar:e
with N.C. lien, Stat. it 7A-5 4. llwmwer, State officials or emplovoes wt_i are
suh-mena;:J Aq W,, be entitled to wilt^.ss t.-ws, but they shall :ccef-.e C%Jr
normal salary and !tat: not be required to to .e any annual 1Lavt: for tote days they
bused as u witness. Travel expenses of Si:atc aittt:ials or emplo)eei who x,e
subpoenacd sh.c(1 be t_imbursed is proviJza in NC C. n, Sh4t , § 13&5

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER
SUNSET SOUTH OWNERS ASSOCIATION
Petitioner,
V.
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY, DIVISION OF ENERGY
MINERAL & LAND RESOURCES
Respondent.
TO: James L. Conner, H, Esquire
Calhoun, Bhella & Sechrest, LLP
4819 Emperor Boulevard, Suite 400
Durham, NC 27703
IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
17 EHR 05445
RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO
PETITIONER'S FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR
ADMISSIONS AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Respondent, NC Department of Environmental Quality ("DEQ"), through counsel, hereby
answers Petitioner's First Set of Interrogatories, Request for Admissions and Request for
Production of Documents. The request for interrogatories, admissions, and production of
documents have been restated, as authorized by N.C. R. Civ. P. 33(a) and 34(b) and 36(a) are
followed by the Respondent's answers.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1. Respondent objects to the scope of these requests to the extent that they seek
information relating to: (1) information prepared or obtained in anticipation of litigation or for
trial; (2) information encompassed within the attorney -client. and work product privileges; or (3)
any other information that is not properly discoverable under the Rules of Civil Procedure, State
statutes, or the common law.
1

2. Respondent objects to these requests as unduly burdensome and oppressive to the
extent they seek information already in Petitioner's possession.
3. Respondent further objects to these requests to the extent they assume facts that do
not exist or are incorrect.
4. Respondent objects to any request that seeks information that is irrelevant and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
5. Respondent assumes no duty to supplement its answers except to the extent
required by Rule 26(e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Respondent reserves the right to modify,
amend, or add to its responses or objections.
To the extent applicable, Respondent incorporates by reference all of these General
Objections into its Responses below.
INTERROGATORIES
1. Identify by date, people involved, and type of contact (e.g. email, telephone,
letter, in person) each contact You have had with Amy Wang, other persons at Ward &
Smith law firm, and any other representative of WHA or HEO regarding Sunset South, the
Stormwater System, or the Permit.
ANSWER: Upon information and belief, the people who were involved and had
contact with Amy Wang, other persons at Ward & Smith, or any other representative of WHA
or HEO regarding Sunset South are as follows:
December 15, 2016 —. letter from Amy Wang to Alida Lewis
January 10, 2017 — email / Amy Wang, K. Redmon, Karen Schraml, Alida Lewis
March 20, 2017- letter from Amy .Wang to Alida Lewis
March 21, 2017 — email / Amy Wang, Alida Lewis
2

April 26, 2017 — email / Amy Wang, Alida Lewis
May 23, 2017 — email / Amy Wang, Alida Lewis
May 24, 2017 — email / Amy Wang, Alida Lewis
June 14, 2017 — Conference Call / Amy Wang, Georgette Scott, Alida Lewis and Daniel Sams
June 14, 2017 — letter from Amy Wang to Alida Lewis
July 7, 2017 — email / Amy Wang, Alida Lewis
July 20, 2017 — email / Amy Wang, Alida Lewis
July 21, 2017 — letter from James Conner to Alida Lewis
July 26, 2017 — email / Amy Wang, Georgette Scott, Alida Lewis, Daniel Sams
July 27, 2017 — Conference Call / Amy Wang, Georgette Scott and Alida Lewis
July 31, 2017 — email / Amy Wang, K. Redmon, Georgette Scott, Alida Lewis, Daniel Sams,
Teriann Eubanks
August 1, 2017 — email / Amy Wang, K. Redmon, Georgette Scott, Alida Lewis, Daniel Sams,
Teriann Eubanks
September 29, 2017 — email / Amy Wang, Georgette Scott, Alida Lewis, Daniel Sams, John
Payne, Phil Norris, and James Conner
October 27, 2017- letter from Amy Wang to Alida Lewis
All the inspection_ reports listed in interrogatory #3.
2. If there are situations in which You would transfer a permit to an entity or
Person who did not request and does not want the permit, other than from a declarant to an
owner's association as authorized under N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 143-214.7(c2), Identify
every such other situation. If there are none, answer "None".
ANSWER: Respondent objects to this request on the ground that it ambiguous, overly
3

broad and calls for speculation. Without waiving said objection, the transfer of permits is
governed by and subject to N.C.G.S. 143-214.7. Based upon this statute, if there is a
request to transfer the permit, and the conditions contained in the provision are met, DWR
"shall transfer a permit issued under this section for a stormwater management system..."
3. State the date of and persons involved in every inspection of the Stormwater
System in which You have been involved or of which You are aware.
ANSWER: Upon information and belief, and per the BIMS system used for tracking
permits within DEQ, the following inspection dates and inspectors are noted as follows:
September 27, 2017 — Daniel Sams and Alida Lewis
February 14, 2017 — Daniel Sams and Alida Lewis
September 30, 2015 — Steve Pusey
October 13, 2014 — Steve Pusey
August 4, 2009 — David Cox
March 18, 2009 — David Cox
February 24, 2009 — David Cox
4. Describe each non-compliance, Permit violation, inconsistency with the
Permit, and violation of or inconsistency with applicable law and regulation, of the Sunset
South Stormwater System both presently and over the past five years.
ANSWER: Respondent objects to this request on the ground that it ambiguous, overly
broad, unduly burdensome and duplicative. Without waiving said objection, the inspection
reports listed in the answer to interrogatory #3 detail each non-compliance issue with the Permit.
Please also see attached documentation of the inspection reports.
5. Describe every requirement imposed on the holder of the Permit regarding the
C!

Stormwater System, including but not limited to: fees, inspection requirements, maintenance
requirements, repair requirements.
ANSWER: Respondent objects to this request on the ground that it ambiguous, overly
broad, and duplicative. Without waiving said objection, the Permit document contains all of
the requirements imposed on the holder including, but not limited to, inspecting the basin
monthly or after a run-off rain event, repairing eroded areas, mowing vegetated areas, and
removing accumulated sediment per specifications included in the Permit. Please see the
attached Permit.
6. Estimate the annual cost to the Permit holder of meeting those requirements.
ANSWER: Respondent objects to this request on the ground that it ambiguous, overly
broad and calls for speculation. Respondent also objects on the ground that this interrogatory
is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. Without waiving
said objection, the cost of a transfer is not a statutory or regulatory factor that DWQ is asked to
consider when issuing a permit. However, the cost would be based upon the maintenance of the
basin, including mowing and repair when and if needed. This is an issue between the two parties
transferring the Permit.
7. As to each Request for Admission to which You have answered other than
"Admitted", describe in full every reason for Your non -admission.
ANSWER: Respondent objects to this request on the ground that it ambiguous, overly
broad, unduly burdensome. Without waiving said objection, please see answer contained in the
Request for Admissions.
E

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
1. Admit that the Permit holder is WHA.
ANSWER: Admitted. The name of the permit holder is WHA.
2. Admit that HEO is the Declarant under the Declaration of Covenants,
Conditions, Restrictions and Easements of Sunset South (attached as Exhibit A).
ANSWER: Admitted to the extent that HEO is the Declarant.
3. Admit that WHA is not the Declarant under Declaration of Covenants,
Conditions, Restrictions and Easements of Sunset South (attached as Exhibit A).
ANSWER: Admitted to the extent that EEO is the stated declarant in Article I(8) of
the Restrictive Covenants.
4. Admit that HEO and WHA are not the same entity.
ANSWER: Respondent objects on the grounds that "entity" has not been defined by
Petitioner for the purpose of this request. Subject to and without waiving this objection, the
Department does not request nor require that these entities be the same and thus, upon
information and belief, does not have this information on file.
5. Admit that You have no information showing that either WHA or HEO is a
parent or subsidiary of the other.
ANSWER: Respondent objects on the grounds that parent or subsidiary have not
been defined by Petitioner for the purpose of this request. Subject to and without waiving this
objection, the Department does not request nor require that these entities are parents or
subsidiaries of each other and thus, upon information and belief, does not have this information
on file.
6. Admit that Sunset South Owners Association has indicated to You that it does
2

not want the Permit transferred to it.
ANSWER: Admitted to the extent that the attorney representing Sunset South
Owners Association. (SSOA.), James Conner, indicated. to DEMLR that it should not transfer
the permit because of an alleged violation of the terms of the settlement agreement between
WHA and SSOA.
7. Admit that in the past ten (10) years You have not transferred a permit to a
Person or entity who neither wanted nor requested the permit, other than from a declarant to an
owner's association as authorized under N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 143-214.7(c2).
ANSWER: Admitted to the extent that N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 143-214.7(c2) is the
lone provision that allows a transfer, if conditions are met, without consent of the party
receiving the Permit.
8. Admit that the attached Exhibit A is a true and accurate copy of the
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements of Sunset South.
ANSWER: Admitted to the extent that the copy of Exhibit A matches the document
which is contained in DEMER's file. (IS THIS IN DEMLR's file- was this provided?) YES
9. Admit that the attached Exhibit B is a true and accurate copy of the Articles of
Incorporation of Housing and Economic Opportunities, Inc.
ANSWER: Admitted to the extent that the copy of Exhibit B matches the document
which is contained in DEMLR's file. (IS THIS INDEMLR's file- was this provided?) YES
10. Admit that the attached Exhibit C is a true and accurate copy of Your letter to
James Conner dated August 2, 2017.
ANSWER: Admitted to the extent that the letter in Exhibit C matches that which is
contained in DEMLR's file.
7

11. Admit that Sunset South Owners Association has not signed an operation and
maintenance agreement regarding the Stormwater System.
ANSWER: Admitted to the extent that a signature is not required pursuant to
transferring the permit under N.C.G.S 143-214.7(c2).
12. Admit that the Stormwater System is in violation of the built upon area (BUA)
limitations in the Permit.
ANSWER: Admitted to the extent that the BUA limit has been exceeded, but the
permit was modified to reflect a new BUA allocation for the lot in question. A copy of the
recorded amendment to. legally change that lot's BUA limit has not been provided because only
the HOA can amend the covenants.
13. Admit that stormwater Basin #4 is in violation of either Permit or regulatory
requirements, or both.
ANSWER: Admitted to the extent that Basin #4 was not able to draw down water
within five (S) days, which it was designed to accomplish. The current Permit holder is in the
process of addressing this drainage issue.
14. Admit that the attached Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of a letter You sent
to WHA on September 28, 2017.
ANSWER: Denied. Exhibit C does not include a letter dated September 28, 2017.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
1. All written communications (whether now or originally in paper, electronic or
other format -please note that this includes, inter alia, emails and texts) You have had with Amy
Wang, other persons at Ward & Smith Amy Wang firm, and any other representative of WHA
or HEO regarding Sunset South, the Stormwater System, or the Permit.

RESPONSE: Please see attached documents.
2. All documents pertaining to the Permit (including a full and complete copy of
the Permit), the Stormwater System, or Sunset South in Your possession or control, whether
now or originally in paper, electronic or other format.
RESPONSE: Please see attached documents.
3. All notes of telephone or in person communications, calendar entries, and other
evidence of verbal communications You have had with Amy Wang, other persons at Ward &
Smith Amy Wang firm, and any other representative of WILA, or HEO regarding Sunset South,
the Stormwater System, or the Permit.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects to this request as duplicative in nature. Without
waiving said objection, please see answer to interrogatory #
E

This the 28 b day of November, 2017.
10
JOSH STEIN
Attorney General
John A. Payne
Assistant Attorney General
NC Bar No.: 24966
NC Department of Justice
Post Office Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

E
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO
PETITIONER'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGA.TORiES, REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND
REQUST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS has been served on the counsel for Petitioner
by electronic service as follows:
James L. Conner, II, Esquire
Calhoun, Bhella & Sechrest, LLP
4819 Emperor Boulevard, Suite 400
Durham, NC 27703
[e-mail]
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
This the ^'8'h day of November, 2017.
11
John A. Payne
Assistant Attorney General

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
VERIFICATION
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER
I, Alida Lewis, in my capacity as Environmental Engineer III of the NC Department of
Environmental Quality, Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources, and on behalf of
Respondent in Case Number 17 EHR 05445 before the Office of Administrative Hearings, being
first duly sworn, deposes and says that I have read the foregoing responses to Petitioner's First Set
of Interrogatories, Request for Admissions and Request for Production for Documents to
Respondent, and the responses are true to my knowledge except as to any matters stated on
information and belief and as to those matters I believe them to be true.
This the 2 e day of i ova m bef— 22017.
Alida Lewis, Environmental Engineer
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
New Hanover, North Carolina
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day by Alida Lewis.
This the day of C , 2017.
C��zQL d.
�� �e�eec4a:,eya� P'a Signature of Notary Public
a � s
Printed Name of Notary ublic
,�, My Commission Expir s:
�-a 'Al
12

Filed Jan 8, 2018 3:02 PM Office of Administrative Hearings
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFFICE OF
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
17 EHR 05445
SUNSET SOUTH OWNERS )
ASSOCIATION )
Petitioner, )
V.
PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT ) and
QUALITY, DIVISION OF ENERGY SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF
MINERAL AND LAND RESOURCES, ) LAW
Respondent. )
NOW COMES Petitioner SUNSET SOUTH OWNERS ASSOCIATION pursuant to
Rule 56 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 6 of the General Rules of Practice,
and 26 NCAC 03.0115, and moves this tribunal for Summary Judgment. In support of this motion,
Petitioner shows the court the following:
1. This matter involves the transfer of Stormwater Permit SW 8 030404 ("Permit") from the
current permit holder Wilmington Housing Authority (WHA) to Petitioner Sunset South
Owners Association (SSOA). The transfer has not yet occurred, pursuant to Petitioner's
Motion for Preliminary Injunction and the resulting Order to Stay Issuance of Permit and
Preliminary Injunction Hearing entered in this matter 12 September 2017.
1

2. Petitioner objects to the transfer of the Permit. Respondent may not transfer the Permit to
Petitioner over its objections unless one particular statutory section is invoked, its
requirements met, and the requirements of the implementing regulations are met.
The Special Statute: N.C. Gen. Stat. §143-214.7(c2)
3. That one statutory section overrides the general rule that permits are issued to those who
apply for them and meet the requirements for issuance, see, e.g. 15A NCAC 02H .0145,
not to bystanders who neither request nor desire to have a permit. See Response to Request
for Admission 7 ("..N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 143-214.7(c2) is the lone provision that allows
a transfer, if conditions are met, without consent of the party receiving the permit.") That
statutory section is N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-214.7(c2), which states in pertinent part:
The Department shall transfer a permit issued under this section for a stormwater
management system from a declarant of a condominium or a planned community
to the unit owners association, owners association, or other management entity ... upon
request of a permittee if... [a number of conditions follow].
(emphasis added). The entirety of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-214.7 is attached as Exhibit A.
4. The bolded language above is the key: the statute authorizes transfer of a permit from a
declarant to an owner's association. The declarant for the Sunset South community is
Housing and Economic Opportunities, Lnc. ("HEO"), a North Carolina corporation. See
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements of Sunset South,
attached hereto as Exhibit B (already in the record as Exhibit A to Exhibit B to Petitioner's
Motion for Temporary and Preliminary Stay of Agency Action, filed August 15, 2017).
See also, Response to Requests for Admission 2. Respondent's Response to Petitioner's
Request for Admissions is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
P]

5. While HEO is the declarant and would arguably have the right under the statute, if it met
all other conditions and requirements, to transfer a permit it held, HEO does not hold the
Permit. Instead, the Permit is held by WHA, a public agency. See, Response to Request
for Admissions 1. WHA is not the declarant. See, Response to Request for Admissions
3. The statute does not grant authority for DEMLR to transfer the Permit from its current
holder, WHA, to SSOA, because WHA is not the "declarant of a condominium or planned
community" and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-214.7(c2) therefore does not apply.
6. Respondent apparently intends to argue that this statutory language can be ignored by
DEMLR and should be ignored by this tribunal. To the contrary, it is a fundamental rule
of statutory construction that all the words of a statute are to be given meaning. See, e.g.
Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 U.S. 147, 152 (1883). It is also a rule of statutory construction
that exceptions to the general rule should interpreted narrowly. See, e.g., Commissioner v.
Clark, 489 U.S. 726, 739 (1989), quoting Phillips, Inc. v. Walling, 324 U.S. 490,
493 (1945) ("To extend an exemption to other than those plainly and unmistakably within
its terms and spirit is to abuse the interpretative process and to frustrate the announced will
of the people").
7. Since N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-214.7(c2) does not apply, we revert to the general rule: "permit
transfer applications shall be accepted by the Division ... upon the request of the current
and proposed permittee." 15A NCAC 02H .1045 (emphasis added). The proposed
permittee is SSOA, and SSOA does not request transfer of the permit. There is no authority
for Respondent to transfer the Permit to SSOA.
3

Applicable Regulations Prohibit Transfer of the Permit
8. Respondent has promulgated a Rule regulating transfers of stormwater management
permits. This Rule specifically applies, not only to stormwater permits generally, 15A
NCAC 02H .1045, but specifically to transfers under N.C. Gen. Stat. §143-214.7(c2)
(transfers from declarants to owners' associations) 15A NCAC 02H .1045(1)(b).
9. This Rule requires that an applicant for permit transfer "shall submit", inter alia, "a copy
of a signed and notarized operation and maintenance agreement from the proposed
permittee". 15A NCAC 02H .1045(2)(d). The applicant for the transfer of this Permit,
WHA, has not submitted an operation and maintenance agreement from the proposed
permittee (SSOA) because one does not exist. Dep. of Lewis pp. 61-67. The deposition
transcript of Alida Lewis is attached hereto as Exhibit D. Therefore, there is no complete
application for the transfer, and the transfer may not take place under the Rule.
10. In addition, the Rule requires a copy of the declarations and "documentation that the
maximum allowed per lot built -upon area or the maximum allowed total built -upon area
has not been exceeded." 15A NCAC 02H .1045(2)(e) In fact, both the maximum allowed
built upon area per lot and total have been exceeded. Dep. of Lewis p. 57, lines 12-18.
Respondent proposes to follow the advocacy of counsel for WHA and require SSOA to fix
this problem after the Permit has been transferred. This is not what the Rule requires; the
Rule requires that there be no exceedance and that this be documented as part of the
application for transfer.
It is very significant that Respondent proposes that SSOA fix this problem by
amending the declarations to increase the allowable built -upon area. This is significant
because there is no guarantee that SSOA can so amend the declarations. The only way the
4

declarations can be amended at this point is for 67 per cent of lot owners to sign a document
agreeing to the amendment. There is no guarantee that SSOA, which has no direct control
over lot owners, can achieve this. So, Respondent proposes that (1) it ignore its own Rule,
(2) that it impose a requirement on SSOA that does not appear in the Rule, and (3) that
SSOA be transferred the Permit while it is not in compliance with the Rule, under
circumstances that SSOA may not be able to fix, putting SSOA firmly in the cross hairs
for enforcement action.
Respondent Should Not Assist Another Public Aizency to Breach a Contract
11. WHA, the Permit holder, and Petitioner reached a settlement of Superior Court litigation
regarding transfer of this Permit over five years ago. This settlement was written into a
Settlement Agreement, executed by all parties, in which "WHA and .H FO agree that they
will not take any action to have the stormwater management facilities or the Permit
transferred to Sunset South. .. .", unless WHA and HEO had accomplished certain tasks
within three years of the date of the agreement. It is uncontroverted that WHA and HEO
did not accomplish those tasks. Therefore, by attempting to transfer the Permit, WHA is
breaching the agreement. Respondent, an agency of the State, should not assist WHA,
another agency of the State, in breaching the agreement. Respondent certainly should not
be bending over backwards, as they have done in this instance, to help WHA fix problems
with the permit and find a way to transfer the Permit when the Permit was not susceptible
to transfer as it came to Respondent. See, e.g., Response to Request for Admission 12;
Deposition Exhibits 8, 9 and 10 attached hereto as Exhibit E; Dep. of Alida Lewis, pp. 75-
79.
5

Therefore, for all the reasons argued above, Petitioner respectfully moves this tribunal to grant
Summary Judgment in its favor, ruling that Respondent shall not transfer the Permit to Petitioner
without Petitioner's agreement and consent.
Respectfully submitted, this the 8th day of January 2018.
CALHOUN, BHELLA & SECHREST, LLP
By:("*Ja
fs L. Conn�,,P.
NC State Bar N1. 12365
"1-9-,EMPSLQP13oulevard, Suite 400
Durham, North Carolina 27703
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Petitioner

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that he served a copy of the foregoing PETITIONER'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT and SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW
on the opposing party via electronic service and by placing a copy, contained in a first-class
postage -paid wrapper, into a depository under the exclusive custody of the United States Postal
Service, this 8t' Day of January 2018, addressed as follows:
John A. Payne
Attorney for Respondent
North Carolina Department of Justice
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Division
3paynenncdoj.gou
114 W. Edenton Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
7
CALHOUN, BHELLA & SECHREST, LLP
James L. Conner I
State Bar 12365
4819 Emperor Boulevard, Suite 400
Durham, North Carolina 27703
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: jconnerrcbsattorneys.com
Attorneys for Petitioner

FILED
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
08/29/2017 9:28 AM
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER 17 EHR 05445
Sunset South Owners Association
Petitioner,
V.
NC Department of Environmental Quality,
Division of Energy Mineral & Land Resources
Respondent.
NOTICE OF HEARING
ON PRELIMINARY STAY
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above -captioned case is scheduled for hearing on
the Petitioner's Motion for Preliminary Stay of Agency Action. The date, time, and location are as
follows:
DATE: September 13, 2017
TIME: 09:00 (or as soon thereafter as may be heard)
PLACE: NC Office of Administrative Hearings
Courtroom B
1711 New Hope Church Rd
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
This the 29th day of August, 2017.
Melissa Owens Lassiter
Administrative Law Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that, on the date shown below, the Office of Administrative
Hearings sent the foregoing document to the persons named below at the addresses shown below,
by electronic service as defined in 26 NCAC 03 .0501(4 ), or by placing a copy thereof, enclosed
in a wrapper addressed to the person to be served, into the custody of the North Carolina Mail
Service Center who subsequently will place the foregoing document into an official depository of
the United States Postal Service:
James L Conner
Calhoun Bhella & Sechrest LLP
[e-mail]
Attorney For Petitioner
John Abb Payne
N.C. Department of Justice
jpayne a,ncdoj.gov
Attorney For Respondent
This the 29th day of August, 2017.
Donna R Buck
Paralegal
N. C. Office of Administrative Hearings
6714 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-6700
Phone: [phone]

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER
SUNSET SOUTH OWNERS
ASSOCIATION,
Petitioner,
V.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, DIVISON
OF ENERGY MINERAL AND LAND
RESOURCES,
Respondent.
IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
17 EHR 05445
AFFIDAVIT OF ALIDA LEWIS
I, Alida Lewis, also known as Linda Lewis, being duly sworn, depose and state that:
1. As of August 28, 2017, I am currently employed as an Environmental Engineer
III, in the $tormwater Section with the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality,
Division of Energy Mineral and Land Resources ("DEMLR") in the Wilmington Regional
Office.
2. I have been involved in, and followed the progress of, Stormwater Permit No.
SW8 030404 ("Permit") held by Wilmington Housing Authority ("WHA") and visited the site
during the course of my employment.
3. In performing my job duties, I review, write, modify and transfer Stormwater
Permits and an familiar with water quality general statutes and the rules promulgated thereunder
regarding stormwater, including 15A N.C.A.C. 2H .1000 et sec.
4. On or about July 21, 2017, I received a letter from Sunset South Owners
Association, Inc. ("Sunset South") detailing objections it had for transferring the Permit from
WHA to their organization.
5. On or about July 25, 2017, I reviewed Sunset South's objections and sent their
concerns to the attorney representing WHA to provide the opportunity to respond to the
complaints. Many of the questions posed by Sunset South needed to be answered by the
Permittee because the information and/or the issues apparently stemmed from their settlement
agreement to which DEMLR was not a party.
6. I received a response letter dated July 31, 2017 from the attorney representing
WHA, addressing Sunset South's objections. WHA responded in detail to the questions posed
by Sunset South.

7. After careful review of the available information and responses from the attorney
representing WHA, I was able to make an independent determination that the terms of the
settlement agreement between WHA and Sunset South played no role nor precluded DEMLR
from its obligation to follow the applicable Stormwater regulations and statutes regarding permit
transfers.
8. If this Court determines, after a full hearing on the merits of this case, that the
transferred permit should have remained with the Permittee (the Housing Authority), then
DEMLR shall have the ability to transfer the Permit back to WHA.
9. Prior to transferring the permit, part of the statutory requirement included in
N.C.G.S. § 143-214.7 (c2), is that the property is in substantial compliance, so as not to cause an
undue financial burden on the entity receiving the Permit.
I certify that I have read the foregoing affidavit, and that the facts stated herein are true,
except to those matters stated on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to
be true.
This is the �� day of August 2017.
Alida R. Lewis
Environmental Engineer III, DEMLR
New Hanover County, North Carolina
I certify that the following person personally appeared before me this day, acknowledging
to me that he signed the foregoing document: Alida R. Lewis.
Date
a, �l
Official signature of notar}��
Notary's printed or typed name:
My Commission Expire

If
Lewis,Linda
From: Payne, John <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 8:55 AM
To: Lewis,Linda; Scott, Georgette; Sams, Dan
Cc: Vinson, Toby; Cole, Brad; Davis, Tracy, Ansel, Douglas R
Subject: Update in Sunset South Case
0
This has been an interesting case thus far and we have onlyjust begun. First, I want to thank Linda, Georgette
and Dan for assisting me on the defense of the Preliminary Injunction, which we filed with OAH. Although we
did not argue today, I think we had a strong argument to be made.
For various reasons, though, the parties agreed to a Stay in this matter. With the Stay, we retained the ability
to make the decision to transfer the permit on our own terms, and Sunset South retains the ability to
challenge the transfer with a Preliminary Injunction prior to the transfer if it so chooses, if we make the
decision to transfer and if it is prior to the hearing date of December 11th.
The down side is that we are just potentially punting this down the road to hear at a later date. The upside is
that we have the opportunity to strengthen our case, which we can discuss, and work a resolution between
the parties, as this issue is really about their settlement agreement.
Again, thanks to all again and we will be in touch about how to go forward.
John
John A. Payne
North Carolina Department of Justice
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Division
[phone]
[e-mail]
114 W. Edenton St., Raleigh, NC 27603
Please note messages to or from this address may be public records.
-----Original Message -----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:eC[[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 4:34 PM
To: Payne, John; Clark, Bonisha

Subj'act: e-OAH eService: A Document(OUT: Order to Stay Issuance of Permit and Preliminary Injunction
Hearing) has been issued in case: 17EHRO5445
An order has been issued in the above referenced case. You may use the link below to view the order or you
can log on eNCOAH to access the order.
https:/lwww.eNICOAH.oah.state.nc.us/eOrder.aspx?id=149903-65699-1742621-245454
Please DO NOT respond to this email. It was sent from an unattended mailbox.

Lewis,Linda
From: Lewis,Linda
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2017 12:36 PM
To: 'Amy P. Wang - 5516'
Cc: '[e-mail]'; Scott, Georgette; Sams, Dan; Teriann 0. Eubanks 5409
Subject: RE: Stormwater Permit No. SW8 030404 - Sunset South
Thanks Amy. Sorry, I was on the phone with another customer discussing a more complicated
transfer.
I think Georgette would just like to go ahead and forward your letter as is, to the Associations attorney
under our cover letter. Our cover letter will basically say that we received his concerns about the
transfer of the permit, and to please refer to the attached letter from Ms. Amy Wang, Attorney, which
addresses those concerns. We'll also indicate that we are moving forward with the inodification,
renewal and transfer of this permit per the applicable laws and regulations.
Thanks,
Linda
From: Amy P. Wang - 5516 [mailto:[e-mail]
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2017 12:13 PM
To: Lewis,Linda <[e-mail]>
Cc: '[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>; Scott, Georgette <[e-mail]>; Sams, Dan
<[e-mail]>; Teriann 0. Eubanks - 5409 <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Stormwater Permit No. SW8 030404 Sunset South
Linda,
I just left you a voicemail. I'm absolutely fine with your proposal below. I did compose a letter to Jim Conner last night
along the same lines and was giving it a little space before I reviewed it one last time with a fresh eve. Whichever wav
allows the Division to proceed with transferring the permit lawfully per DEMLR's requirements the soonest is the route
we prefer. Let me know what the three of you decide.
Amy
From: Lewis,Linda[mailto:Iinda.lewis(ancdenr.4ovl
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2017 10:52 AM
To: Amy P. Wang - 5516
Cc: '[e-mail]'; Scott, Georgette; Sams, Dan; Teriann 0. Eubanks 5409
Subject: FW: Stormwater Permit No. SW8 030404 - Sunset South
Amy:
As an alternative to rewriting the letter, we thought we might just include your letter under our cover
letter responding to Mr. Connor. Would you be OK with that?
Linda

From`: Amy P. Wang - 5516 [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 1:04 PM
To: Lewis,Linda <[e-mail]>
Cc: '[e-mail]'<[e-mail]>; Scott, Georgette <[e-mail]>; Sams, Dan
<[e-mail]>; Teriann O. Eubanks - 5409 <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Stormwater Permit No. SW8 030404 - Sunset South
Linda,
I didn't understand that nuance from our telephone conference last week, but I am sure ! can rework it and address it to
Jim Conner. If we do that, however, what resperise from him are you expecting that would alleviate the need for
general counsel to get involved? Sunset South has fought this transfer at every turn since 2009, and I don't expect this
to cause them to give up.
Amy
Amy P. Wang
Attorney I LEED Green Associate
Ward and Smith, P.A.
1001 College Court (28562) 1 Post Office Box 867
New Bern,2.67 NC 2 1 F: 25867
P: 252.672.5516 � F: 252.672.5477 1 M: 252.675.7269
V-card I www.wardandsmith.com 9113 Im
If you have received this confidential rnessn_,F;e in error, please de. troy it and any attachrilents without reading, printing.. copying or fo.rwardin
Please let us know of the error im�rniediati;ly so that we can prevent it Tiroin hapmming again. You may reply directly to the sender of this me
Neither the name of Ward and Smith. P. %. or its representative, nor transmission of this email from Ward and Sin.ith, P.A., shall be coasidere
electronic signature unless specifically stated oth:�rwise it this email by a licensed attorney employed by Ward and Smith, P.A. Thank yc��j.
From: Lewis,Linda[mailto:linda.lewis@)ncdenr.gov]
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 11:34 AM
To: Amy P. Wang - 5516
Cc: '[e-mail]'; Scott, Georgette; Sams, Dan; Teriann O. Eubanks - 5409
Subject: RE: Stormwater Permit No. SW8 030404 - Sunset South
Thank you for this excellent letter. We were hoping however, that you would address it directly to the
Association's attorney rather than to us. I understand that the original letter was addressed to the
Division, but neither Georgette, Dan nor I really want to get into a legal jousting match with an
attorney.
If that is not possible, then we will have to get our general counsel involved and that may delay the
transfer considerably while we wait for them to sort through the issues.
Linda
From: Teriann O. Eubanks - 5409 [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 10:58 AM
To: Scott, Georgette <[e-mail]>; Lewis,Linda <[e-mail]>
Cc: '[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>
Subject: Stormwater Permit No. SW8 030404 - Sunset South
The attached is being sent to you on behalf of Amy P. Wang. Any questions should be directed to Ms. Wang at
[e-mail].

Thank you,
Teriann O. Eubanks
Administrative Assistant
Ward and Smith, P.A.
1001 College Court (28562) 1 Post Office Box 867
New Bern, NC 28563-0867
P: 252.672.545409 1 F: 252.62.672.5477
V-card I www.wardandsmith.com 9113 ED
Ifyou h.5.c rce i-v;d this confidential message in error. plea,: dcstrcy it anti any attachments without readi;tg, printing, copying or fortiardin
'leas
-1, Ira us know of fife error immediately so that we can prevem_ it from happening again. You may reply directly to the sender of this mcs,,
Noithzr the name of Ward and Smith, P.A. or its representative; nor transmission of this email from Ward and Smith; P.A., shall be consider:
Jcctr:.mi; signature unles-, �.pecifically stated other%visc in this email by a licensed attorricy employed by Ward and Smith, P.A. Thank you.

NNSWARDANDSMITH,Rk AMY P. WANG, Attorney at Law
1001 College Court (28562)
Post Office Box 867
New Bern, NC 28563-0867
July 31, 2017
VIA EMAIL
ORIGINAL VIA U.S. MAII.
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Ms. Georgette Scott
Ms. Linda Lewis
N.C. Department Environmental Quality
Division of Energy, Minerals and Land Resources
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
RE: State Stormwater Permit Transfer Submittal
Stormwater Permit No. SW8 030404
Sunset South, New Hanover County, North Carolina
Our File 021074-00030
Dear Georgette and Linda:
P: 252.672.5516
F: 252.672.5477
[e-mail]
ECEIj2MBI?
AUG 0 2
B1f: S W 3v
Thank you for providing us with a copy of the July 21, 2017, letter from counsel for Sunset South
Owners Association, Inc. ("Association"), objecting to the request to transfer Stormwater Permit No.
SW8 030404 ("Permit") submitted by the Housing Authority of the City of Wilmington, North Carolina
("Permittee") on December 15, 2016. We appreciate the opportunity to respond to the issues raised.
First, counsel's statement that the "general rule is that a permit may only be transferred if both the
current and proposed permittees request it" is incorrect. Such a transfer is but one of three scenarios
identified in 15A NCAC 02H .1045(1). Further, the scenario stated by counsel referencing 15A NCAC
02H .I045(1)(a) does not apply to the Permittee's request for transfer of the Permit because Rule 15A
NCAC 02H .1045 became effective January 1, 201',, after the Permittee submitted its request.
Second, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-214.7 governs the treatment of Permittee's transfer request by the North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
("DEQ"). Permiee submitted its request under the general statutes governing Stormwater Runoff Rules
and Programs which states:
The Department shall transfer a permit issued under this section for a stormwater
management system from the declarant of a condominium or a planned community to the
unit owners association, owners association, or other management entity identified in the
condominium or planned community's declaration upon request of a permittee if the
ASHEVILLE GREENVILLE NEW BERN RALEIGH WILMINGTON
www.wardandsmith.com

WARDAND SMITH, EA.
Ms. Georgette Scott
Ms. Linda Lewis
July 31, 2017
Page 2
PECEIVEP
AUtl 0 2 2017
By:--
Department finds that (i) common areas related to the operation and maintenance of the
stormwater management system have been conveyed to the unit owners association or
owners association in accordance with the declaration; (ii) the declarant has conveyed at
least fifty percent (50%) of the units or lots to owners other than a declarant; and (iii) the
stormwater management system is in substantial compliance with the stormwater permit
issued to the permittee by the Department. In support of a request made pursuant to this
subsection, a permittee shall submit documentation to the Department sufficient to
demonstrate that ownership of the common area related to the operation and maintenance
of the stormwater management system has been conveyed from the declarant to the
association and that the declarant has conveyed at least fifty percent (50%) of the units or
lots to owners other than a declarant. For purposes of this subsection, declarant of a
condominium shall have the same meaning as provided in Chapter 47C of the General
Statutes, and declarant of a planned community shall have the same meaning as provided
in Chapter 47F of the General Statutes.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-214.7(c2). (Emphasis added.) This statute section is the general rule for the
transfer situation presented by the Permit. It is not an exception to the regulation, as stated by counsel,
because it predates 15A NCAC 02H .1045, having been signed into law on June 23, 2011.
The statute originated as Session Law 2011-256 to address circumstances similar to those faced by the
Permittee and Housing and Economic Opportunities, Inc. ("HEO"), the non-profit community
development instrumentality of Permittee organized exclusively to develop and operate affordable
housing and promote comprehensive economic development. Permittee applied for the Permit so HEO
could develop Sunset South, like developers and contractors working together on a subdivision project.
HEO developed the Sunset South community under Chapter 47 F of the General Statutes, known as the
North Carolina Planned Community Act, as reflected in the recitals of the beginning of the Association's
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, and Easements of Sunset South, recorded in Book
4253, Page 668 New Hanover County Register of Deeds ("Restrictive Covenants"), a copy of which is
attached. HEO is the declarant identified in Article I(8) of the Restrictive Covenants and is the declarant
as defined in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 47F-1-103(9). Sunset South is a planned community as defined in N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 4717-1-103(23), and the Association is the association of owners of lots in the Sunset South
subdivision as defined in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 47F-1-103(3) and Article I(3) of the Restrictive Covenants.
As the declarant, HEO formed the Association to "own, manage, maintain, and operate the Common
Elements and facilities located upon the Common Elements, specifically including, but not limited to,
the ... Stormwater Management Facilities." Restrictive Covenants, Article II. HEO established the
stormwater management system under the Permit as part of the common elements of the Sunset South
community, and enabled the Association to be responsible for the maintenance, management, and
operation of the stormwater management system. See Restrictive Covenants, Article III. HEO
empowered the Association to assess lot owners for common expenses (beginning at the rate of $360.00
per lot per year), and directed the Executive Board of the Association to establish an annual budget to
utilize a portion of the assessments for a reserve fund dedicated to the periodic maintenance, repair and

WARDAND SMITH, PA.
Ms. Georgette Scott
Ms. Linda Lewis
July 31, 2017
Page 3
ECEIVE
AUG o z 2017
BY:
replacement of common elements such as the stormwater management facilities. Restrictive Covenants,
Article IV (1), (2), and (5). HEO also authorized the Executive Board to collect delinquent assessments.
Restrictive Covenants, Article IV (4) and Article VI. Therefore, the Association is not without the
means to meet the obligations of the Permit.
HEO intended, and the Restrictive Covenants provide for, the Association to accept transfer of the
Permit upon approval by DEQ. Restrictive Covenants, Article XIV. The Permittee started the process
in 2009 by requesting the Association to accept transfer of the Permit by signing the form required by
the Stormwater Unit of DEQ at that time, but the Association refused to do so. The Permittee had no
choice but to exercise its right under Article XIV of the Restrictive Covenants to sue for specific
performance by filing a declaratory judgement action against the Association in 2009. A copy of
Permittee's and HEO's Complaint is enclosed. Never was DEQ made a party to the lawsuit.
The Permittee, HEO, and the Association settled the lawsuit in 2011 and entered into a Settlement
Agreement in 2012. DEQ is not a party to the Settlement Agreement. The Permittee and HEO
completed their obligations under the Settlement Agreement in 2016, albeit later than originally intended
under the Settlement Agreement. Meanwhile, Session Law 2011-256 was adopted.
Section 214.7(c2) of Chapter 143 of the North Carolina General Statutes is the standard for Permittee's
request to transfer the Permit to the Association. Contrary to counsel's assertions, it does not require the
Permittee and the declarant to be the same entity. It does require Permittee to request the transfer. Here,
the Pennittee has requested the transfer of the Permit governing the stormwater management facilities in
Sunset South that are under control of the declarant, HEO, to the Association. The Permittee has
provided to DEQ evidence that (i) the common areas related to the operation and maintenance of the
stormwater management system have been conveyed to the Association; (ii) HEO has conveyed over
fifty percent (50%) of the lots to owners other than itself; and, (iii) the stormwater management system
substantially complies with the Permit issued to the Permittee. Therefore, under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-
214.7(c2), DEQ shall transfer the Permit to the Association. Counsel's argument that the statute does
not apply to this transfer because Permittee is not also the declarant is a distinction without a difference.
Third, Sunset South need not sign an operation and maintenance agreement prior to transfer of the
Permit under 15A NCAC 2H .1045(2) because the regulation does not apply to this transfer. The
requirements for permit transfers and permit renewals under 15A NCAC 2H .1045 are effective for
transfer requests as of January 1, 2017. Statute Section 143-214.7(c2) controls this transfer and does not
require a planned community owners association to sign an operation and maintenance agreement.
Regarding the statutory requirement that the stormwater management system be in substantial
compliance with the Permit, the Permittee provided verification that no lot in the Sunset South
community exceeds the maximum permitted built -upon area ("BUA") limit of 2,500 square feet except
for one lot out of 130 lots. The owner of Lot No. 126 at 244 Virginia Avenue built an extra concrete
patio that exceeds the BUA limit by 250 square feet. Despite this deviation by a lot owner, Permittee
submits that the stormwater management system substantially complies with the Permit, particularly
since the drainage area in which Lot 126 is located can accept the additional BUA. However, to achieve

WARDAND SMITH, EA.
Ms. Georgette Scott
Ms. Linda Lewis
July 31, 2017
Page 4
strict and absolute compliance with the Permit, either the owner of Lot 126 must remove the additional
BUA or the Restrictive Covenants must be updated. The Permittee and HEO have not demanded that
the owner of Lot 126 remove the patio that exceeds the BUA per lot limit because control was
transferred to the Association long ago. Aside from DEQ, only the Association can enforce the BUA
limit on the owner of Lot 126 under Article VII of the Restrictive Covenants. The alternative is for the
Association to amend the Restrictive Covenants under Article XVII. This is a decision for the Executive
Board of the Association to make and is not within the authority of Permittee or HEO.
Fourth, as accounted for above, DEQ is neither a party to the declaratory judgment action nor to the
Settlement Agreement between Permittee, HEO and the Association. The Association long has
challenged DEQ's approval of the stormwater management system under the Permit and prior to
settlement, could have moved to bring DEQ into the lawsuit. It has not done so, and therefore cannot
enforce the Settlement Agreement against DEQ.
Last, DEQ's obligation is to apply the correct law to the circumstances. Here, it must transfer the Permit
from to the Association under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-214.7(c2). Therefore, Permittee respectfully
requests that DEQ complete the modification and renewal of the Permit and then transfer the Permit to
the Association.
Yours truly,
a4"
Amy P. Wan
ND: 4841-8463-9820, v
Enclosures
cc: Ms. Katrina Redmon (via email)
AUG 0 2 2DU
BY:

N'N% WARDANDST IITH,PA. AMY P. WANG, Attorney at Law
1001 College Court (28562)
Post Office Box 867
New Bern, NC 28563-0867
July 26, 2017
Ms. Linda Lewis
N.C. Department Environmental Quality
Division of Energy, Minerals and Land Resources
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
RE: State Stormwater Permit Modification, Renewal and Transfer
Stormwater Permit No. SW8 030404
Sunset South, New Hanover County, North Carolina
Our File 021074-00030
Dear Linda:
P: 252.672.5516
F: 252.672.5477
[e-mail]
On July 7, 2017, we mailed our letter of notice and explanation concerning the above to
Wayne L. Wagner, President of Sunset South Owners Association c/o Mr. James L.
Conner, Esq. A copy of this letter is enclosed for your reference. According to the enclosed
USPS Tracking Results, this letter was received on July 12, 2017. A copy of the Domestic
Return Receipt is also enclosed showing the signature of the recipient.
Should you have questions or need further information, please let me know.
ND: 4849-0519-7900, v. 1
Enclosures
cc: Ms. Katrina Redmon (via email)
Yours very truly,
Amy P. Wan
E IVE
JUL 2 8 207
BY:

USPS.com(& - USPS Trackingg Results
Page] of 3
USPS Tracking® Results
FAOs )(http://fag.usps.com/?articlold=220900)
AECENW
Track Another Package + JUL 2 0 209
Tracking Number: 70151520000128992963
P P 1
Product & Tracking Information
Postal Product: IFeatures:
Certified Mail -
DATE & TIME
STATUS OF ITEM
13ie
Remove X
Delivered
-R" Availabl-a Ammons
LOCATION
July 12, 2017, 2:34 pm Delivered, Front DURHAM, NC 27703
Desk/Reception
A&
Your item was delivered to the front desk or reception area at 2:34 pm on July 12, 2017 In DURHAM, NC
27703.
July 12, 2017, 10:01 am
July 8, 2017, 9:19 pm
July 8, 2017,1:00 pm
Arrived at Unit
Departed USPS Regional
Facility
Arrived at USPS Regional
Facility
DURHAM, NC 27703
RALEIGH NC DISTRIBUTION
CENTER
RALEIGH NC DISTRIBUTION
CENTER
See More v
https:Htools.usps. com/go/TrackConfiirtnActi on?tRef=fullpage&t... 7/20/2017

s
CALHOUN,
B FIEL iA c
SLC 1113, ST. LLP
July 21, 2017
Ms. Linda Lewis
N.C. Department of Environmental Quality
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Via email to [e-mail]
Re: Sunset South Stormwater Permit SW 8 030404 ("Permit")
Dear Ms. Lewis:
James L. Conner II
919.887.2607
[e-mail]
Z" EVE
,S'(tJG�40
�by:-___ .� m4
Vf2 2�►'12i l ._
This firm represents Sunset South Owners' Association ("SSOA"). I received a letter from Attorney
Amy Wang, who represents the Wilmington Housing Authority, regarding the above permit. She opened
that letter by saying that DEVILR had asked her to send the letter as "explanation on the transfer of State
Stormwater Permit SW8 030404." This was a shock to us, since that Permit should not be transferred to
SSOA. Amy and I litigated this several years ago, and came to a settlement that prohibited transfer of the
Permit unless certain conditions were met within three (3) years of that settlement. Those conditions
were not met, and WHA is obligated NOT to transfer the permit.
Perhaps more importantly, from your perspective, the Permit does not meet the legal
requirements for transfer.
I have been in touch with your office more than once over the past several years regarding this,
generally by telephone. I thought it might be helpful to add to those telephone contacts by putting our
objections to transfer of the Permit in writing to you.
Stormwater Permits generally may not be transferred without the recipient's consent
As you know, the general rule is that a permit may only be transferred if both the current and
proposed permittees request it. See, e.g. 15A NCAC 02H .1045 (1)(a). In this matter, the proposed
permittee, Sunset South Owner's Association, not only does not request transfer, but vehemently opposes
it.
The legislative special treatment of planned community declarants does not apply here
Session Law 2011-256 made an exception to the above general rule for declarants of planned
communities, which has been codified at N.C.G.S. 143-214.7(c2). It is a general rule of statutory
construction that exceptions to a general rule should be narrowly applied. That is, if it is not clear that
the exception applies, it should not be applied, and the general rule should be followed. This is especially
4819 Emperor Blvd, Suite 400, Durham, NC 27703 ph 919.887.2607 • fx 919,827.8806 • www.cbsotiorneys.com

+ ' Letter Conner to Lewis re Sunset South
July 21, 2017
Page 2
true where, as here, the proposed permittee is not capable of meeting the obligations of the permit.
Sunset South is a low-income community and does not have the wherewithal to maintain and upgrade a
stormwater system.
The exception does not apply to this Permit because the current permittee is not the declarant of
this planned community. The permittee seeking the transfer is Wilmington Housing Authority (hereinafter
WHA), a public agency. As you can see from the attached copy of the Declaration of Covenants of Sunset
South (Exhibit A), the Declarant is a private corporation, Housing and Economic Opportunities, Inc.
(hereinafter HEO) (Exhibit A, Declaration, top of 4" page). We are concerned that the permittee or its
counsel has somehow convinced you that this distinction does not matter, or that the two entities are
one and the same. It does matter, and they are not the same.
It matters because WHA—the permittee—is not the Declarant of this planned community, so
N.C.G.S. 143-214.7(c2) simply does not apply. WHA and HEO are not the same, obviously, nor can one
stand in for the other. WHA is a public body; HEO is a private corporation. A private corporation cannot
stand in for a public agency. I have attached the document that created HEO, its Articles of Incorporation
(Exhibit B). As you can see, WHA is not mentioned in that document, and the claim that HEO is some sort
of "arm" of WHA is simply meaningless.
In addition to the above, the regulatory requirements for permit transfer have not been met
The Environmental Management Commission has promulgated Rules regarding permit transfers.
Those Rules have the force of law, and DEQ employees may no more violate them than may a private
citizen. See, e.g. McCrann v. N.C. HHS, 209 N.C. App. 241, 704 S.E.2d 899 (2011).
The applicable Rule here is 15A NCAC 02H .1045(2) "Permit Transfer Submittal Requirements".
There may be other provisions of this Rule that are not satisfied, but there are certainly two that
are not. Subsection 2(d) requires that the parties seeking permit transfer submit "a copy of a signed and
notarized operation and maintenance agreement from the proposed permittee." In this matter, Sunset
South Owner's Association is the proposed permittee. It has not signed an operation and maintenance
agreement, notarized or otherwise. In fact, this is the very crux of the issue here. SSOA is not able to
afford to operate and maintain the stormwater system, and it has no intention of signing an operation
and maintenance agreement.
In addition, the Rule requires "documentation that the maximum allowed per lot built -upon area
or the maximum allowed total built -upon area has not been exceeded." This brings us back around to
Ms. Wang's letter to SSOA, in which she informs SSOA that "[o]nce DEMLR completes ... transfer of the
Permit to the Association" SSOA must amend the Declarations to adjust the BUA limit of Lot 126 to 2,750
square feet. There are two problems here. First, the Rule requires that BUA limits be complied with
before permit transfer may take place. Paragraph 2 of the Permit, on the very first page, limits the Permit
to "130 lots, each allowed 2,500 square feet of built -upon area." The construction at Sunset South is, and
has been since HEO completed the project, in violation of the Permit. Writing a letter to the proposed,
involuntary recipient of the permit transfer does not achieve Permit compliance, and does not comply
with the Rule. Second, the Board of SSOA has no authority to amend the Declarations. Section XVII of the
Declarations governs amendments. The only way the Declarations can be amended is by "affirmative vote

" 'Letter Conner to Lewis re Sunset South
July 21, 2017
Page 3
or written agreement signed by Owners of Lots to which at least sixty-seven percent (67%) of the votes in
the Association are allocated." Neither the Board of the SSOA nor anyone else can assure DEMLR that
67% of the owners in Sunset South will vote to amend the declarations. In addition, the Declarations do
not require Board involvement in collecting these signatures. The Current permittee could do this as well
as anyone else, and should not be allowed to pass the buck on this.
WHA and HEO are bound by contract not to transfer the Permit to SSOA and. DEMLR should not be
complicit in a breach of contract
A settlement agreement is a contract. The settlement agreement in the litigation between SSOA,
HEO, and WHA gave WHA three years to complete certain actions. If it completed those actions, SSOA
agreed that it would accept transfer of the Permit, and provided a signed transfer consent to transfer form
in trust to Ms. Wang. If WHA failed to complete those actions, then Ms. Wang was required to return the
signed consent form to me, unused, and the contract provides that in the event of that failure "WHA and
HEO agree that they will not take any action to have the stormwater management facilities or the Permit
transferred to Sunset South ...." The three years passed without the required actions being performed.
I requested that Ms. Wang return the signed consent form she had been holding in trust, and she
honorably and correctly did so.
This attempt by her clients to pressure you or DEMLR into transferring t1he permit in spite of all
this is wrong. I have attached a copy of a letter from me to WHA and HEO sent in December 2016
explaining this. (Exhibit C)
Summary
In summary, transfer of the Permit to SSOA would violate the law and cause a breach of contract.
It would also work hardship on a low income community, and jeopardize the continued operation and
maintenance of the system. It should not be done. We respectfully request that you not transfer the
Permit.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me
at 919-749-9943 or icon iE-i,Pcbsattornc-%ys.c;om
cc: Bill Lane, General Counsel, DEQ
Sunset South Board of Directors

NNSWARDANDSMITHY'k AMY P. WANG, Attorney at Law
1001 College Court (28562)
Post Office Box 867
New Bern, NC 28563-0867
July 7, 2017
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Wayne L. Wagner, President
Sunset South Owners Association
c/o Mr. James L. Conner, Esq.
Calhoun, Bhella & Sechrest, LLP
4819 Emperor Boulevard, Suite 400
Durham, NC 27703
RE: State Stormwater Permit Modification, Renewal and Transfer
Stormwater Permit No. SW8 030404
Sunset South, New Hanover County, North Carolina
Our File 021074-00030
Dear Mr. Wagner:
P: 252.672.5516
F: 252.672.5477
apw@wardan dsmith.corn
We have been asked by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Energy,
Minerals and Land Resources ("DEMLR") to provide Sunset South Owners Association ("Association")
this letter of explanation on the transfer of State Stormwater Permit SW8 030404 ('Permit").
As you may know, DEMLR issued to the Housing Authority of the City of Wilmington, North Carolina
("WHA") a Notice of Inspection and Inspection Report dated February 22, 2017, in which it requested
WHA to address certain issues in Sunset South related to compliance of the stormwater management
system with the Permit. WHA has since made improvements to stormwater basin #4, confirmed that the
community sidewalk built -upon area ("BUA") can be accommodated by the drainage areas in which it is
located, and provided information to DEMLR on individual lot compliance with the maximum 2,500
square foot BUA limitation in the Permit and Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, and
Easements of Sunset South (as re -recorded and amended, 'Restrictive Covenants"). Subsequently,
Norris & Tunstall Consulting Engineers P.C. ("Norris & Tunstall") submitted to DEMLR modification
and renewal packages for the Permit on behalf of WHA.
Regarding verification that no lot in the Sunset South community exceeds the maximum permitted BUA
limit of 2,500 square feet, WHA consulted internal development records and the New Hanover County
Tax Department to prepare calculations. Norris & Tunstall reviewed the documentation and concluded
that only one lot violates the BUA limits. Lot No. 126 at 244 Virginia Avenue exceeds the BUA limit
ASHEVILLE GREENVILLE NEW BERN
www.wardandsmith.com
RALEIGH WILMINGTON

WARDANDSMrrH,PA.
Wayne L. Wagner, President
July 7, 2017
Page 2
by 250 square feet. Norris and Tunstall confirmed that the drainage area in which Lot 126 is located has
the capacity to handle the additional 250 feet.
To accommodate the slight overage of Lot 126, the Restrictive Covenants must be amended to allow the
additional 250 square feet of BUA for Lot 126. Housing and Economic Opportunities, Inc., the
community development arm of WHA, turned over control of Sunset South to the Association and has
no ability to amend the Restrictive Covenants unilaterally. Instead, the Association and its members
have full authority to exercise amendment rights under the Restrictive Covenants. Once DEMLR
completes the modification, renewal, and transfer of the Permit to the Association, the Association can
and should amend the Restrictive Covenants to adjust the BUA limit for Lot 126 to 2,750 square feet.
Sincerely,
Amy P. Wang
ND: 4828-9890-6953, v. 3
cc: Ms. Linda Lewis, NCDEQ (via email)
Ms. Katrina Redmon (via email)

INSW.RDANDSMIT,PA AMY P. WANG, Attornev at Law
1001 College Court (28562)
Post Office Box 867
New Bern, NC 28563-0867
July 7, 2017
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Wayne L. Wagner, President
Sunset South Owners Association
c/o Mr. James L. Conner, Esq.
Calhoun, Bhella & Sechrest, LLP
4819 Emperor Boulevard, Suite 400
Durham, NC 27703
RE: State Stormwater Permit Modification, Renewal and Transfer
Stormwater Permit No. SW8 030404
Sunset South, New Hanover County; North. Carolina
Our File 021074-00030
Dear Mr. Wagner:
P: 252.672.5516
F: 252.672.5477
[e-mail]
COPY
ECEIVE
JUL 2 8 2017
BY:
We have been asked by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Energy,
Minerals and Land Resources ("DEMLR") to provide Sunset South Owners Association ("Association")
this letter of explanation on the transfer of State Stormwater Permit SW8 030404 ("Permit").
As you may know, DEMLR issued to the Housing Authority of the City of Wilmington, North Carolina
("WHA") a Notice of Inspection and Inspection Report dated February 22, 2017, in which it requested
WHA to address certain issues in Sunset South related to compliance of the stormwater management
system with the Permit. WHA has since made improvements to stormwater basin #4, confirmed that the
community sidewalk built -upon area ("BUA") can be accommodated by the drainage areas in which it is
located, and provided information to DEMLR on individual lot compliance with the maximum 2,500
square foot BUA limitation in the Permit and Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, and
Easements of Sunset South (as re -recorded and amended, "Restrictive Covenants"). Subsequently,
Norris & Tunstall Consulting Engineers P.C. ("Norris & Tunstall") submitted to DEMLR modification
and renewal packages for the Permit on behalf of WHA.
Regarding verification that no lot in the Sunset South community exceeds the maximum permitted BUA
limit of 2,500 square feet, WHA consulted internal development records and the New Hanover County
Tax Department to prepare calculations. Norris & Tunstall reviewed the documentation and concluded
that only one lot violates the BUA limits. Lot No. 126 at 244 Virginia Avenue exceeds the BUA limit
ASHEVILLE GREENVILLE NEW BERN RALEIGH WILMINGTON
www.wardandsmith.com

WARDANDSMITH,PAL
Wayne L. Wagner, President
July 7, 2017
Page 2
by 250 square feet. Norris and Tunstall confirmed that the drainage area in which Lot 126 is located has
the capacity to handle the additional 250 feet.
To accommodate the slight overage of Lot 126, the Restrictive Covenants must be amended to allow the
additional 250 square feet of BUA for Lot 126. Housing and Economic Opportunities, Inc., the
community development arm of WHA, turned over control of Sunset South to the Association and has
no ability to amend the Restrictive Covenants unilaterally. Instead, the Association and its members
have full authority to exercise amendment rights under the Restrictive Covenants. Once DEMLR
completes the modification, renewal, and transfer of the Permit to the Association, the Association can
and should amend the Restrictive Covenants to adjust the BUA limit for Lot 126 to 2,750 square feet.
Sincerely,
Amy P. Wang
ND: 4828-9890-6953, v. 3
cc: Ms. Linda Lewis, NCDEQ (via email)
Ms. Katrina Redmon (via email)

NNSWARDANDSTNUTKPA. AMY P. WANG, Attorney at Law
1001 College Court (28562)
Post Office Box 867
New Bern, NC 28563-0867
June 14, 2017
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Ms. Linda Lewis
N.C. Department Environmental Quality
Division of Energy, Minerals and Land Resources
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
RE: State Stormwater Permit Modification Submittal
Stormwater Permit No. SW8 030404
Sunset South, New Hanover County, North Carolina
Our File 021074-00030
Dear Linda:
P: '252'672.5516
F: 252.672.5477
[e-mail]
E�E11®E
JUN IN 2017
On May 16, 2017, Norris & Tunstall Consulting Engineers P.C. ("Norris & Tunstall") submitted a
modification package for State Stormwater Permit SW8 030404 ("Permit") on behalf of the Housing
Authority of the City of Wilmington, North Carolina ("WHA"). In the package, Norris & Tunstall
addresses the three deficiencies identified in your Inspection Report of February 22, 2017. A
companion renewal package was submitted June 8, 2017, per your instructions.
Regarding verification that no lot in the Sunset South community exceeds the maximum permitted built -
upon area ("BUA") limit of 2,500 square feet, WHA consulted internal development records and the
New Hanover County Tax Department to prepare calculations. Norris & Tunstall reviewed the
documentation and concluded that only one lot fails to comply with the BUA limits. A spreadsheet
prepared by WHA reflecting those calculations is enclosed. Lot No. 126 at 244 Virginia Avenue
exceeds the BLTA limit by 250 square feet. NOIIIS and Tunstali confirmed that the drainage area in
which Lot 126 is located has the capacity to handle the additional 250 feet.
Under normal circumstances, Housing and Economic Opportunities, Inc. ("HEO"), the community
development arm of WHA and Declarant of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, and
Easements of Sunset South, recorded in Book 4253, Page 668 New Hanover County Register of Deeds
(as re -recorded and amended, "Restrictive Covenants"), would amend the Restrictive Covenants to allow
an additional 250 square feet for Lot 126. However, HEO turned over control of Sunset South to the
Sunset South Owners Association and no longer can amend the Restrictive Covenants.
ASHEVILLE GREENVILLE NEW BERN RALEIGH WILMINGTON
www.wardandsmith.com

VARDAND SMITH,PA.
Ms. Linda Lewis
June 14, 2017
Page 2
Specifically, according to the Restrictive Covenants, HEO, as Declarant and the sole Class B Member,
could unilaterally amend the Restrictive Covenants for any purpose only until the termination of the
Class B membership. The Class B membership ceased and was converted to Class A membership no
later than December 31, 2010, so HEO no longer has the authority to unilaterally amend the Restrictive
Covenants. Under Article XVII, the Restrictive Covenants may now be amended only by an affirmative
vote of Owners of Lots to which at least 67% of the votes in the Association are allocated.
WHA and HEO will be sending notice to the Association explaining its authority and role to amend the
Restrictive Covenants and accommodate for the overage on Lot 126. We will send the letter to its
attorney, Jim Conner, by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and will provide DEMLR a copy.
In the meantime, we have confirmed that the President of the Association continues to be Wayne
Wagner as reported to the N.C. Secretary of State in 2016. The Association's Registered Agent is
Charles D. Meier at 14 S. 5th Avenue, Wilmington, North Carolina 28401-4539.
WHA respectfully requests DEMLR to complete the modification and renewal of the Permit and then
transfer the Permit to the Association with instruction that the Association use its authority to amend the
Restrictive Covenants to change the BUA limit for Lot 126 to 2750 square feet.
Yours very truly,
a'�'
Amy P. Wan
ND: 4837-1260-1161, v.
Enclosures
cc: Ms. Katrina Redmon (via email)
Ms. Karen Schraml (via email)
Mr. Phil Norris, P.E. (via email)

Lewis,Linda
From: Lewis,Linda
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 11:45 AM
To: 'Amy P. Wang - 5516'
Cc: Scott, Georgette
Subject: Sunset South - Change of position SW8 030404
Amy:
Per my conversation with Georgette after we hung up earlier this morning, and contrary to what I told
you in that conversation, we will be able to transfer the permit to the HOA before the amendment is
recorded.
We need the Wilmington Housing Authority to send a letter to the Division indicating that they already
conveyed their right to amend the covenants to the HOA along with a copy of all the supporting
documents. The letter should also indicate that the WHA has addressed both the sidewalk BUA and
the Lot 126 BUA overages by that modification recently submitted to the Division.
The WHA should also send a letter to the HOA via certified mail, with a copy to the Division,
indicating that the HOA has the amendment rights; and that the HOA will need to file the amendment
to change the BUA limit for Lot 126; and that the BUA overages have been addressed by the recently
submitted permit modification.
Once the permit modification is issued to WHA, the transfer request will be re-entered, processed and
the permit will then be transferred to the HOA. The modification and transfer will be accomplished in
one document addressed to the HOA and copied to WHA.
Linda Lewis, E.I.
Environmental Engineer III
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
Department of Environmental Quality
910-796-7215 Office
linda.lewis(cancdenr.gov
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
..., r .�.. ..(l� _ '7!ii� � : f� vCJrt � �,.. _.._ h71: f_';, .frt:,.- .>..• 5 t[� �.,.."t ;i_:Y.;C �.

Lewis,Linda
From: Lewis,Linda
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 10:17 AM
To: 'Amy P. Wang - 5516'
Subject: Sunset South SW8 030404
Amy
The Division received your proposed Plan of Action regarding the Sunset South project, and
approves your request for an extension to submit the required items by June 20, 2017.
left a voice message for Phil Norris, P.E., Norris & Tunstall, earlier this morning, regarding the
modification to deal with the 1878 sf of additional sidewalk. I left him with these 3 possible ways to
resolve:
1. If the basin that will receive this runoff has been permitted with a "Future" BUA allocation, then
all that is needed is a plan revision to show the location of the added sidewalk, and to reduce
that Future BUA amount down by 1878 sf.
2. If the basin that will receive this runoff does not have a future BUA allocation, but calculations
verify that the basin has sufficient capacity to handle the additional runoff volume, then that
can be permitted as a minor modification.
3. If the basin that will receive this runoff does not have a future BUA allocation and calculations
indicate that additional capacity must be provided in the basin, then that can be permitted as a
major modification.
Linda Lewis, E.I.
Environmental Engineer III
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
Department of Environmental Quality
910-796-7215 Office
iinda.lewis(ncdenr.gov
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
`!7i
P.lh! ..� ,... t i �.�i .. G . � � r.. ��C 1U,

WARDANDSMITH,PA. AMY P. WANG, Attorney at Law
1001 College Court (28562)
Post Office Box 867
New Bern, NC 28563-0867
March 20, 2017
VIA EMAIL ([e-mail])
ORIGINAL VIA U.S. MAIL
Ms. Linda Lewis
N.C. Department Environmental Quality
Division of Energy, Minerals and Land Resources
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
RE: Response to Notice of Inspection
Stormwater Permit No. SW8 030404
Sunset South, New Hanover County, North Carolina
Our File 021074-00030
Dear Linda:
P: 252.672.5516
F: 252.672.5477
[e-mail]
I
14AR 2 1 2017
BY.�/1�2
,%X03u 4v4-
As you know, we represent the Housing Authority of the City of Wilmington, North Carolina ("WHA").
WHA currently is the permittee under Stormwater Permit SW8 030404 ("Permit") for the stormwater
ponds located on common area property in the Sunset South community that previously was conveyed
to Sunset South Owners Association, Inc. ("Association"). We have received your Notice of Inspection
dated February 22, 2017. This letter will respond with a plan of action.
WHA is a corporate non-profit entity governed by the federal Department of Housing and Urban
Development. As such, it is required to follow a procurement process in order to hire an engineer to
assist with an application for renewal of the Permit as well as analysis of:
• Any unpermitted addition of sidewalk requiring modification of the Permit;
a Any additional maintenance or work required to address the status of Basin #4; and,
• Verification that no lot within the Sunset South community has exceeded the maximum built -
upon area ("BUA") per -lot limit within the Permit.
To that end, WHA already has submitted a Request for Budgetary Authority/Contract Approval to
initiate the procurement process. Bid solicitation will commence shortly. A copy of the procurement
document is enclosed.
ASHEVILLE GREENVILLE NEW BERN
www.wardandsmith.com
RALEIGH WILMINGTON

WARDAND SMITH, EA.
Ms. Linda Lewis
March 20, 2017
Page 2
Also, WHA has consulted internal development records and the New Hanover County Tax Department
to prepare initial calculations that indicate all lots comply with the BUA limit. Once an engineer is
retained, the calculations will be reviewed and confirmed for compliance with Permit's BUA limits.
WHA respectfully requests the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of
Energy, Minerals and Land Resources to allow 90 days — until June 20, 2017 - for it to retain an
engineer to assess the status of the Sunset South community with regard to the Permit and to prepare an
application for renewal and modification of the Permit.
Please call me with any questions you may have. Otherwise, please acknowledge in writing receipt of
this plan of action and approval of the timeline for WHA.
YouKs very truly,
Amy P. W
ND: 4823-8464-2117, v. 1
Enclosures
cc: Ms. Katrina Redmon (via email)
Ms. Karen Schraml (via email)

tOXT,I A,( '�'. PROV L
Yyae�
1s.
N ;
Determmation of Need/Justification (provide a narrarlive accoirri/ 'oj•71re (iraceys used to delgrtnine red an ri
Engineering to the Storn;water Permit
. Mx;
services modify and renew for Sunset South based on comments from NCDEMLR dated February 2 . 017
(plearcchcck)10 Scope of Work 1K Internal Cost/Est it:tafc ❑Other
tom'.
***CONTRACTPERIQD***: December,20Lr,
Annual Cost Et#timate.: n/a TOTAL BUDGET: $12,000 Ftinding Source: HEa
•
`^r ?
(1) Originator of BA: '. a �C����"� 3\�C�1 • a_,�.. t��1�1
Date: �roject Contact
,:
person:
(2) Area I'ro et Manager: i1 t Date:
P `h g
`:•Pas..
.. ,'
(3 COO
.) ; Date
FUNDING FROM BUDGET[LINE ITEM.: Z,�- l f o o ^ 14 43 00 — ooa —S
-'
R.
} C '=
'.
CEATIFIED BY: 4 Director ofFiaauee:
() Date:
•
(c-Wfres updh oral/pmgrams)
APPROVAL TO PROCEED 3LqT11 PROCUREMENT:
Date:
=� �`,' .:
C/rie ecuNve Officer
'
Pid ,Solicitation — Contract Preoaradon
„-
Adver0% -(pleasecheck).0 StatNews C1 Joutnal D Bulk Mailing Greater.Diversity Proposals/Quotes PHADA_ Other:
� _
ADVERTISED DA7F5: -
'�
PRE BID DATE:
&
Bid Opening Date BOARD APPROVAL:
..
9-4;;�•'`,
Bid Amount. cont No.: CONTRACT PERIOD: include optional years) Y_N
w.,..
�g..�.:
Cortfract.Award/Address:
tf
Deseriptimi of Work;
�•
Signature: APPROVED BY:
Originator Department Head
(d) COO: Date:
y
Crle Operations O deer
a
ontmcf Approval and Execution.
(7) Date:
Chief Tsxecutr:ve Ofj7cer
Contract Distribution
(8) Received by Contract Division: Me:
-r o
(9) Date entered into AccountMate: 141tial

INTERNAL COST ESTIMATE
SUNSET SOUTH STORMWATER MODIFICATION AND RENEWAL
The cost estimate for the modification and renewal of the Stormwater Permit for Sunset South is based
on past experience with this property. The internal cost estimate is between $6,000 and $12,000. This
estimate is based on previous work with an engineer for this property which ranged from $2,000 -
$11,000. As the modification of the permit may include more work, the internal cost estimate maximum
should be $12,000.
Estimate prepared by: Karen Schraml, HEO

SCOPE OF WORK
SUNSET SOUTH STORMWATER PERMIT MODIFICATION AND RENEWAL
Housing and Economic Opportunities, Inc. (HEO) is seeking quotes to modify a Stormwater Permit at
Sunset South, a 130 single family home neighborhood off Southern Boulevard in the City of Wilmington,
NC. HEO is the developer of the property and is the current holder of the permit.
Please prepare a quote for the following:
Prepare and complete modification and renewal of Stormwater Permit No. WQ0022639 in accordance
with comments included in the attached letter and Notice of Inspection dated February 22, 2017 from
the NC Department of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources (DEMLR). A copy of the Stormwater Permit
is attached hereto for reference.. Modification of the Permit is to include the unpermitted addition of
approximately 1878 SF of sidewalk in the common park area in the center of the site, along with any
modification necessary in the event that the BUA limit of 2500 SF per lot has been exceeded. HEO will
compile BUA information for each property based on development site plans and County tax records
and provide you with a copy of that information to use in your calculation of the total BUA including the
park sidewalks.
DUE TO THE DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO DEMLR, PLEASE PROVIDE THE REQUESTED QUOTE BY 4:30 PM
ON FRIDAY, MARCH 17, 2017.

Energy, Mineral &
Land Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
February 22, 2017
Wilmington Housing Authority
Katrina Redmon, CEO
1524 South 16h Street
Wilmington, NC 28401
Subject: Notice of Inspection — Not Compliant
Request for Permit Renewal Application
Sunset South
State Stormwater Management Permit No. SW8 030404
New Hanover County
Dear Ms. Redmon:
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
TRACY DAVIS
DPrecmr
Effective August 1, 2013, the State Stormwater program was transferred from the Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) to the Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources (DEMLR). All previous
references to DWQ will remain in older stormwater permits issued prior to August 1, 2013 until they are
modified. Please note that this letter references DEMLR as the Division responsible for issuance of the
permit.
On June 13, 2013, the Division notified you of the extension of the permit's expiration date per the permit
extension laws signed by the Governor on August 5, 2009, and on August 2, 2010. The permit issued on
July 10, 2003 is in effect until July 10, 2017. Per NCAC 02H.I 003(h) applications to renew a permit
must be submitted 180 days prior to the expiration date, or January 10, 2017. The permit cannot be
modified or transferred until it is renewed.
On December 19, 2016, the Division received a request from the Wilmington Housing Authority to
transfer the permit to the Sunset South Owners Association, Inc. On February 14, 2017, the Wilmington
Regional Office of the Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources (DEMLR) inspected Sunset
South, located off Southern Boulevard at Jefferson Street in Wilmington, New Hanover County to
determine the status of compliance with the State Stormwater Management Permit, Number SW8 030404
issued on July 10, 2003. DEMLR file review and site inspection revealed that the site _is not in
compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit. Please find a copy of the completed form
entitled "Compliance Inspection Report" attached to this letter, which summarizes the findings of the
recent inspection.
As indicated in the attached inspection report, the following deficiencies must be resolved:
1. The permit must be modified to address the unpermitted addition of sidewalk to DA 3 and DA 4
2. Basin #4 needs some additional maintenance and work to deal with the undercutting, slope
erosion and sediment accumulation.
3. Verification must be provided that no lot has exceeded the maximum permitted BUA limit of
2500 sf.
On June 7, 2016, a change of registered agent for Sunset South Owners Association was filed with the
NCSOS. The association president named on that document is Wayne Wagner, however, the transfer
form lists the president as Susan Shaloub. Please verify that Mr. Wagner's term as president is finished.
The registered agent named on that document is Charles Meier and the Association's mailing address is
listed as 709 Princess Street, Wilmington. However, the transfer form lists the Association's mailing
address as PO Box 4898, Wihnington. The new owner information provided on the transfer form needs to
be accurate. Our database can accommodate both the official corporate mailing address for the
Association and for the Association's registered agent, which is normally an association management
company.
State of North Carolina I 'Environmental Quality I Energy, Nneral and Land Resources
Wi!mtngton Regional Office 1 127 Cardinal Drive Extension I Wiimington. NC 28405
910 796 77.15

State Stormwater Permit No. SW8 030404
Page 2 of 2
The Division understands that the Association has requested that the permit not be transferred to them _
because of allegations that the WHA did not fulfill certain contractual obligations in a timely manner, and
inadequate design. Session Law 2011-256 only requires that the Division make a determination of
compliance with the permit in order to transfer a permit to a homeowners or unit owners' association.
The Association has no say in whether the project is in compliance. Once the permit has been transferred,
the Association is free to adjudicate the permit, following the procedures which will be contained within
the body of the permit cover letter. Please note that adjudication is limited to the terms of the permit, not
to any outside legal actions.
There have also been allegations of inadequate design for the infiltration basins. These basins were
designed and certified by Phil Norris, P.E., a very reputable professional engineer currently with Norris
and Tunstall. Please note that in a letter dated June 23, 2003, to the Division, Mr. Norris stated that the
basins were designed to function without a bypass and that each basin can contain more than 2 inches of
runoff and are designed to accommodate a 50-year storm without discharging. The reported infiltration
rates for the underlying soil ranges from 24 inches per hour to 35 inches per hour. The Division reviewed
the design for compliance with the stormwater regulations in effect at that time and found that the design
complied with the rules, and subsequently issued a permit.
The renewal of the permit and the unapproved addition of sidewalk to the project will require a permit
modification. The database will only allow one open permit action at a time on any project, so, the
transfer request will have to be placed on "hold" while the renewal is entered and processed. Once the
permit is renewed, the modification can be entered, reviewed and permitted. Once the modification is
permitted, the transfer request will be reentered and the site will be reinspected for compliance with that
modified permit. Another designer's certification may also be required, depending on what needs to be
done to the basins for the modification.
Please be advised that until the Division approves of the permit transfer, the WHA is required to comply
with the terms, conditions and limitations of the Stormwater Management Permit under Title 15A North
Carolina Administrative Code 2H .1003 and North Carolina General Statute 143-214.7, including the
submission of a renewal application, the submission of a modification to deal with the added sidewalk,
and the continued operation and maintenance of the permitted stormwater system.
Failure to provide the requested information, or to respond to this letter with a plan of action, including a
timeline to resolve the identified deficiencies, by March 22, 2017, are considered violations of the
permit. If the requested information is not submitted to this office by the due date, then DEMLR staff
will re -inspect the site and may issue a Notice of Violation. Please also note that any individual or entity
found to be in noncompliance with the provisions of a stormwater management permit or the stormwater
rules is subject to enforcement action as set forth in NCGS 143 Article 21.
If you have any questions, please contact me at the Wilmington Regional Office, telephone number (910)-
796-7215 or via email at linda.lewisgnederingov..
Sincerely, ,
c
Linda Lewis, E.I.
Environmental Engineer III
Eric: Compliance Inspection Report
$GDS\arl: G:\\\Stormwater\Permits & Projects\2003\030404 HD\2017 02 CEI_deficient 030404
cc: Phil Norris, P.E., Norris and Tunstall
Jim Conner, SSOA Attorney, Calhoun, Bhella & Sechrest via email jconner@,cbsaftorneys.com
Amy Wang, WHA Attorney, Ward & Smith via email a [e-mail]
Georgette Scott, Wilmington Regional Office Stormwater Supervisor
WiRO Stormwater Permit File
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Energy. Mineral and Land Resources
Wilmington Regional Office 1 127 Cardinal Drive Extension I Wllmington, NC 28405
910 796 7215

M
Compliance Inspection Report
Permit:
SW8030404 Effective:07/10/03
Project:
Sunset South
Owner:
Wilmington Housing Authority
County:
New Hanover
Region:
Wilmington
Expiration: 07/10/17
Adress: Southern Blvd
City/StatefZip: Wilmington NC 28402
Contact Person: Katrina Redmon Title: CEO Phone: [phone]
Directions to Project:
From intersection of US 421 and US 17, take US 17 towards Carolina Beach. Turn right onto Southern Blvd. to Jefferson Street.
Project is on the left.
Type of Project: State Stormwater - HD - Infiltration
Drain Areas: 1 - (CAPE FEAR RIVER) (03-06-17) (SC)
2 - (CAPE FEAR RIVER) (03-06-17) (SC)
3 - (CAPE FEAR RIVER) (03-06-17) (SC)
4 - (CAPE FEAR RIVER) (03-06-17) (SC)
On -Site Representative(s):
Related Permits:
Inspection Date: 02/14/2D17 Entry Time: 11:OOAM
Primary Inspector: Alida R Lewis
Secondary Inspector(s):
Reason for Inspection: Other
Permit Inspection Type: State Stormwater
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant L Not Compliant
Question Areas:
M State Stormwater
(See attachment summary)
Exit Time: 11:30AM
Phone: [phone]
Inspection Type: Transfer Renewal
page: 1

Permit: SW8030404 Owner - Project: Wilmington Housing Authority
Inspection Date: 02/14/2017 Inspection Type Transfer Renewal Reason for Visit: Other
Inspection Summary:
The following compliance issues were noted during this inspection for the transfer of permit #SW8 030404 from the
Wilmington Housing Authority to the Sunset South Owners Association under SL 2011-256:
1. Sidewalk has been added without benefit of an approved permit modification. The current permit makes no allocation
of BUA for future development, so the affected basins 3 and 4 will need to be evaluated to determine if the runoff from the
additional sidewalk can be accommodated in those existing basins.
2. Basin #4 needs some work to address the undercutting, erosion and sediment accumulation.
3. The permittee needs to verify that no lot has exceeded the maximum permitted BUA limit of 2500 sf.
Please note that the permit modification to address the additional sidewalk is a separate action from the transfer and
may require a separate fee. The transfer will need to be "returned" when the modification is submitted. Once the
modification is approved, the transfer will be re-entered into the database and another compliance inspection will be
conducted.
page: 2

Permit: SW8030404 Owner - Project: Wilmington Housing Authority
Inspection Date: 02114/2017 Inspection Type Transfer Renewal Reason for Visit: Other
File Review Yes No NA NE
Is the permit active? El El El1�'I
Signed copy of the Engineer's certification is in the file? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Signed copy of the Operation & Maintenance Agreement is in the file? E ❑ ❑ ❑
Copy of the recorded deed restrictions is in the file? U] ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Built Upon Area Yes No NA NE
Is the site BUA constructed as per the permit and approval plans? ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the drainage area as per the permit and approved plans? Q ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the BUA (as permitted) graded such that the runoff drains to the system? Q ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: 1. As Dart of a request to transfer a permit the permittee must provide verification that no lot has
exceeded it's maximum permitted built -upon area limit No verification documents have been provided
2. It appears that additional sidewalk has been added to the common area bordered by Virginia Avenue
Jefferson Street, and Adams Street. The approved plans only show an oval ring of sidewalk following the
street rights -of -way, but diagonal sidewalks connecting the opposite corners have been added
SW Measures Yes No NA NE
Are the SW measures constructed as per the approved plans? ❑ ❑ ❑
Are the inlets located per the approved plans? ❑ ❑ ❑
Are the outlet structures located per the approved plans? IN ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Operation and Maintenance Yes No NA NE
Are the SW measures being maintained and operated as per the permit requirements? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ i
Are the SW BMP inspection and maintenance records complete and available for review or provided to ❑ ❑ ❑ C
DWQ upon request?
Comment: 3. All of the infiltration basins are in much better shape than they were in 2015. Basins 1. 2 and 3 had
no erosion, had nicely vegetated slopes and they were dry. However Basin #4 still exhibits sediment
accumulation significant undercutting and erosion where the pipe enters There was also about 6
inches or so of standing water in parts of Basin #4 after 5 days without rain The flowrate from the pipe
and the entrance angle of the Dipe may be too high and the resulting undercutting and erosion is
contributing sediment, which is most likely settling into the pore spaces and blinding off the bottom
page: 3

Lewis,Linda
From:
Lewis,Linda
Sent:
Friday, February 10, 2017 6:24 PM
To:
'Amy P. Wang - 5516'
Cc:
Scott, Georgette
Subject:
Sunset South SW8 030404
Amy:
I started the review of the Sunset South permit transfer request and I can tell from the tone of some of
the correspondence in the file that the Division is going to be stuck between a rock (the
permittee) and a hard place (the HOA).
I read with interest, the May 20, 2015 email and the December 21, 2016 letter from Jim Conner
representing Sunset South Owners Association (SSOA) and his insistence that the Division not
transfer this permit due to an alleged breach of the Settlement Agreement because the Housing
Authority did not accomplish all the negotiated steps and did not get the streets dedicated within 3
years. Mr. Conner would also like to have a say in the determination of compliance and in the transfer
process, but that will probably not happen under SL 2011-256, which was created to prevent an HOA
from continually refusing to accept the permit for a system that was determined by the Division to be
in compliance with the permit.
I don't like being in the middle of a dispute between an HOA and the permittee, but under the terms of
SL 2011-256, if we find the project is in compliance with the permit, then we are going to transfer it.
That may not stop the HOA from suing for breach of agreement. I know that not "dedicating the
streets" is not a permit violation.
There is an allegation by Mr. Conner that at least one of the basins has been holding water for over a
year and has not drawn down. Google images suggest that basin #4 might be the culprit — it's the
only basin that shows up blue. All the others are green. If we can get through the weekend without
rain, I will try to stop by the site on Tuesday to at least check the drawdown status of the basins.
Tuesday would be 5 days without rain. If there is any truth to the allegation that drawdown is not
occurring within 5 days, it might be due to accumulated sediment blinding off the bottom. This is
especially problematic if the basins were used as the erosion control device and if they were never
mucked out after construction or never restored to design condition. In the course of the 10 years
since the project was certified, it is possible that a lack of maintenance may have led to the basins
being silted in and blinded off. Do you know if these basins were ever mucked out?
There is also an allegation of inadequate design. Please note that in a letter dated June 23, 2003, to
the Division, Phil Norris, P.E., stated that the basins were designed to function without a bypass, and
that each basin can contain more than 2 inches of runoff and are designed to accommodate a 50
year storm without discharging. The reported infiltration rate for the basins ranges from 24" per hour
to 35 inches per hour. These basins were designed and certified in 2007, by a reputable professional
engineer and our review indicated that the system met (and exceeded) the design requirements of
the stormwater rules at the time the permit was issued. After that, the permittee is required to perform
routine maintenance to keep the system working at design condition. We rely on the designers
certification to assure us that the system was installed in compliance with the permitted plans. The
HOA can make all the allegations about inadequate design that they want to, but allegations carry no

n•we1ght with the Division unless they are backed up with documented proof from a licensed
professional engineer.
It appears that access to Basin #4 has been cut off by fencing across the drainage easement
between Lots 120 and 121. I'll try to confirm on Tuesday. The covenants expressly prohibit anyone
from fencing across an easement.
Google maps also suggest that there is quite a bit more sidewalk within the common area bordered
by Virginia Avenue, Jefferson Street and Adams Street, than is shown on the approved plans.
Revised plans will be needed to document any additional BUA not shown on the approved plan.
As far as the documentation that was submitted with the permit transfer request — there was no
documentation provided verifying that no lot has exceeded the 2500 sf BUA limit. This could be in the
form of as -built surveys or a copy of the tax record showing the BUA on the lot. It is not enough to
simply state that no lot has exceeded the limit or to state that the BUA limit was recorded — you must
provide proof. As someone recently pointed out to me, the posted speed limit is 55 mph, but that
doesn't stop anyone from exceeding the limit. I realize that there are 130 lots- Google maps suggests
that all of the lots have homes. If you want to pick out 15 of the largest homes or lots with larger than
average driveways, to document, that would be fine.
I'll compile all this information in the inspection report after I have an opportunity to conduct the
inspection.
Thanks,
Linda Lewis, E.I.
Environmental Engineer III
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
Department of Environmental Quality
910-796-7215 Office
lindn,Asv,,is nc-denr.gov
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
'Nothing Compares
M

Lewis,Linda
From: Lewis,Linda
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 10:00 AM
To: 'Amy P. Wang - 5516'
Subject: RE: Response to Notice of Inspection - Stormwater Permit No. SW8 030404
Amy:
The Division received your letter and I have no problem with an extension of 90 days, to June 20,
2017. Hopefully, it will not take that long.
Linda
From: Teriann O. Eubanks - 5409 [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 4:29 PM
To: Lewis,Linda <[e-mail]>
Cc: Amy P. Wang - 5516 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Response to Notice of Inspection - Stormwater Permit No. SW8 030404
The attached letter and attachments are being sent to you on behalf of Amy Wang. Any questions concerning the
attached should be directed to her at [e-mail].
Thank you,
Teriann O. Eubanks
Administrative Assistant
Ward and Smith, P.A.
1001 College Court (28562) 1 Post Office Box 867
New Bem,N28563-0867
P: 252.672.54091 F: 252.6
72.5477
V-card I www.wardandsmith.com
If you hart received this confidential message in error, please destroy it and any attachments without reading, printing, copying or forwardin
Please let us I:now of the error immediaely so that we can prevent it from happening again. You may reply directly to the sender of this mes:
Neither the name of Ward and Smith, P.A. or its represe ntative, nor transmission of this email from We rd and. Smith, P.A., shall be considere
electroA.c signature unless specifically sided otherwise in this email by a licensed attorney employed by Ward and Smith, P.A. Thank you.

Lewis,Linda
From: Lewis,Linda
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 11:19 AM
To: '[e-mail]'
Cc: 'Amy P. Wang - 5516'
Subject: FW: Sunset South SW8 030404 Inspection report
Attachments: 2017 02 CEI_BIMS 030404.pdf, 2017 02 CEI_deficient 030404.docx
Sorry, I spelled Mr. Conner's name wrong in the email.
Linda
-----Original Message -----
From: Lewis,Linda
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 11:13 AM
To: 'Amy P. Wang - 5516' <[e-mail]>; '[e-mail]'
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Scott, Georgette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sunset South SW8 030404 Inspection report
Ms. Wang and Mr. Connor:
Please see the attached inspection report regarding the transfer of the permit to the Sunset South HOA.
Linda Lewis, E.I.
Environmental Engineer III
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources Department of Environmental Quality
910-796-7215 Office
[e-mail]
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may
be disclosed to third parties.
Your message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
2017 02 CEI_BIMS 030404
2017 02 CEI deficient 030404
Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of
file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled.

Scott, Georgette
From: Jim Conner <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 4:01 PM
To: Scott, Georgette
Subject: RE: Stormwater permit SW8030404
Georgette —
Thank you for your quick response. I apologize for using the word "illicitly" imprecisely. I had no
thought that you or DEQ would do anything illicit; the concern is with the present permit holder. If they
attempt to transfer the permit, that will be illicit, because they have promised and contractually agreed not to
do so.
Best,
Jim
From: Scott, Georgette [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 3:53 PM
To: Jim Conner <jconner cbsattorneys.com>
Subject: RE: Stormwater permit SW8030404
We do not illicitly transfer permits. There is a procedure and rules in place for permit transfers. If and when we receive
a transfer application we review our files and inspect the site to make sure it meets the permit requirements and
conditions before we transfer a permit. We do not transfer permits that are out of compliance with our approved
permit or plans for the site. All issues, that we have jurisdiction over, must be corrected before transfer of the
permit. Keep in mind that our rules are specific to water quality and we do not regulate or have jurisdiction over issues
like flooding or city ordinance requirements that are not addressed by our rules.
Georgette Scott
State Stormwater Program Supervisor
Department of Environmental Quality
Office [phone]
Fax [phone]
Georgette. ScottOncdenr. gov
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
"'Nothing Compares_. -tom...
Enmaii oorrespondence to and from this acidness is subject to lt7e
fllwM Camiina Pubk,' Racords Law and ma}= be disciosad to third parties,
From: Jim Conner [mailto:[e-mail]
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 3:14 PM
To: Scott, Georgette <[e-mail]>
Cc: Christine Paone <[e-mail]>
Subject: Stormwater permit SW8030404

Scott, Georgette
From: Scott, Georgette
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 3:53 PM
To: 'Jim Conner'
Subject: RE: Stormwater permit SW8030404
We do not illicitly transfer permits. There is a procedure and rules in place for permit transfers. If and when we receive
a transfer application we review our files and inspect the site to make sure it meets the permit requirements and
conditions before we transfer a permit. We do not transfer permits that are out of compliance with our approved
permit or plans for the site. All issues, that we have jurisdiction over, must be corrected before transfer of the
permit. Keep in mind that our rules are specific to water quality and we do not regulate or have jurisdiction over issues
like flooding or city ordinance requirements that are not addressed by our rules.
Georgette Scott
State Stormwater Program Supervisor
Department of Environmental Quality
Office [phone]
Fax [phone]
G e o rgette. S c ottCu7 n cd e n r. g ov
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
—"-Nothing Compares,,
Emad corresporidence to and flDm this address is sunject to the
NortR C,'araiina Public Records Law and may be disctowd to 1"hird parties.
From: Jim Conner[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 3:14 PM
To: Scott, Georgette <[e-mail]>
Cc: Christine Paone <[e-mail]>
Subject: Stormwater permit SW8030404
Georgette —
I hope you are well.
My client, the Sunset South HOA, is very concerned that the above referenced Stormwater Permit will
be illicitly transferred to them. The current permit holder, Wilmington Housing Authority, agreed by contract
NOT to transfer the permit to Sunset South unless certain conditions were fulfilled by a date in 2014. Those
conditions were not fulfilled.
Just wanted you to know, and to ask you not to allow transfer of this permit to my client.
Also, my client reports that one of the retention basins associated with this permit has held water since
September 15. We believe this indicates that (1) the soils are not of the appropriate permeability and (2) that
the basin lacks its design storage capacity.
Happy Holidays,
Jim

James L. Corner II
919-749-'9943 direct
Galhr)a.in, ghellaa & Sechrest. LLP
4819 Emperor Boulevard, Suite 400
Durham, North Carolina 27703
www.cbsattornevs.com
This electronic message contains information from the laws firm of Calhoun. Bhefla .°, Sechies , LL.P. The conients may be
p6viteged and confidential and are intended for the use of the intended addressee(s) only, If ��ou are not an intended
addressee, note that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is prohibited, If you
have recei.ed this e-mail in error, please contact me at icon ner(a).cbsattorneys.com.

James L. Conner it
919.887.2607
[e-mail]
December 21, 2016
111a federal express
Katrina Redmon
Chief Executive Officer
Wilmington Housing Authority
1524 S. 16th Street
Wilmington, NC 28401
Via federal gWress
Karen Schraml
HEO Coordinator
Housing and Economic Opportunities, Inc.
c/o Wilmington Housing Authority
1524 S. 16th Street
Wilmington, NC 28401
Re., Stormwater Permit SW8030404
Dear Ms. Redmon and Ms. Schraml:
As you know, this firm represents the Sunset South Owners Association (SSOA).
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of December 15, 2016 stating that the City of
Wilmington officially accepted the streets at Sunset South. This letter follows my letter of
December 5, 2016 to the same effect, as follows.
Given that you sent the letter by Certified Mail, we are concerned that You consider the
acceptance of the streets to fulfill the obligations of Housing and Economic Opportunities, Inc.
and the Wilmington � Housing Authority (hereinafter Collectively "Yuu'7 under our Settlement
Agreement of February 2012, allowing You to transfer the Stormwater Permit SW8030404 to
Sunset South Owners Association.
Please be advised that this is not the case. You MAY NOT and SHALL NOT transfer that
Permit, nor the stormwater facilities, to SSOA.
Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, paragraphs 3, 4, and 8, You had —at
most —three years to take the steps you have only now taken, nearly five (5) years after execution
of the Agreement. The Agreement specifically provides that if You do not accomplish all the steps
4819 Emperor Blvd, Suite 400, Durham, NC 27703 • ph 919.887.2607 • fx 919.827.8806 • www.cbsattorneys.com

Katrina Redmon
Karen Schraml
December 21, 2016
Page 2
and get the streets dedicated within three years, ''WHA and HEO agree that they will not
take any action to have the stormwater management facilities or the Permit
transferred to Sunset South ...."
Any attempt by You at this point to transfer the Permit or the stormwater facilities to SSOA
would be in breach of the Agreement. My clients have directed me to bring a breach of contract
lawsuit against You should this occur, and if You force us to bring such an action we will seek
money damages for the breach, including but not limited to the full anticipated maintenance costs
of the stormwater facilities for the life of those facilities, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.
On a related matter, please note that at least one of the stormwater basins has had water
in it since September 2015 despite State rules requiring that water infiltrate into the ground
between three and five days after a storm. This is not a mere technical violation, but seriously
compromises the ability of the basin to perform its function.
Please share this letter with Your attorney and have him or her call me with any questions.
cc: NC DEQ Wilmington Stormwater office ( eorgette.scoft(a-),ncdenr.cgoy)

Johnson, Kelly
From: Johnson, .Kelly
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 10:22 AM
To: '[e-mail]'
Cc: Rob Gordon ([e-mail])
Subject: Sunset South
Attachments: Sunset South —Plan Excerpt.pdf; Sunset South_Plan.pdf
Ms. Shalhoub,
You can plant trees 10ft from the property line in this area under the State Stormwater permit. The location of the
drainage easement is unclear on the plans, but FYI, if you plant anything in a drainage easement and the infiltration
basin has to be maintained then those trees may be at risk of being impacted/torn down. But, I think that maintenance
would likely be done from the other sides of the basin because there is more room so that is probably a low risk. The
reason that the basin is built all the way to the property line may be a city requirement for flood control under a city
permit. I have cc'd Rob Gordon, a Stormwater Engineer with the City of Wilmington, so that he can help you decide if
you can plant trees there under the city permit.
Rob,
Ms. Shalhoub lives in Sunset South (SW8 030404). 1 have attached two documents. One shows an excerpt of the plan,
and the other is the permit. The temporary pool of Basin #2 is 27.12ms1, and this line is —10ft from the property
line. The top of the basin is 31.Omsl at the property line. Ms. Shalhoub has been contacted by the adjacent Ready Mix
plant about planting trees in this area as a screen. (This is near Virginia Avenue and Jefferson St.) Can she plant trees in
the —10ft area and still meet any pertinent city requirements?
Thanks,
Kelly
V.eUj0hwsow
Kelly Johnson
Environmental Engineer
NC Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
Stormwater Permitting
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405-3845
Office: 910.796.7331
Fax: [phone]

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Pat McCrory
Governor
October 1, 2015
Vemice Hamilton, CEO
Wilmington Housing Authority
1524 S. 16th Street
Wilmington, NC 28401
Subject: NOTICE OF INSPECTION - Compliant
Sunset South
Permit No. SW8 030404
New Hanover County
Dear Mr. Hamilton:
Donald R. van der Vaart
Secretary
On September 30, 2015, staff from the Wilmington Regional Office of the Division of Energy,
Mineral and Land Resources (DEMLR) inspected Sunset South in New Hanover County to
determine compliance with Stormwater Management Permit Number SW8 03040.4 issued on July
10, 2003. DEMLR file review and site inspection revealed that the site is compliant with the terms
and conditions of this permit. Please find a copy of the completed form entitled "Compliance
Inspection Report" attached to this letter, which summarizes the findings of the recent inspection.
Please be advised that you are required to comply with the terms, conditions and limitations of the
Stormwater Management Permit under Title 15A North Carolina Administrative Code 2H .1003 and
North Carolina General Statute 143-214.7, including operation and maintenance of the permitted
stormwater system. Violations of your Stormwater Management Permit may be subject to the
assessment of civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day per violation.
If the property covered by this permit has been/will be sold or legally conveyed to another entity or
if the permit holder has changed its name and/or mailing address, or if the project name has been
changed, it is your responsibility as the permittee to submit a completed and signed
Name/Ownership change form to DEMLR at least 30 calendar days prior to making the changes.
These forms are available on our website at: http://Dortal.ncdenr.o[g/web/Ir/state-stormwater-
forms docs.
If you have any questions, please contact me at the Wilmington Regional Office, telephone number
(910)-796-7215 or via email at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Steven G. Pusey
Environmental Engineer
Enc: Compliance Inspection Report
GDS/ sgp: G:1WQ1Stormwaterl Permits & Projects\ 20141030404 HD12015 09 CEI_compliant 030404
cc: Philip Norris, P. E., Norris & Tunstall Consulting Engineers
Georgette Scott, Wilmington Regional Office Stormwater Supervisor
WiRO Stormwater File
Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources
Land Quality Section - Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
[phone] / Fax: [phone] • Internet: http:llportal.ncdenr.oMLweb/Ir/
A^ Soua' 4NRo, r r at;^n2thve Actor. Em:Ivje� _ qqa,—'- mr! by net r!qd cese,

Compliance Inspection Report
Permit:
SW8030404 Effective:07/10/03
Project:
Sunset South
Owner:
Wilmington Housing Authority
County:
lvew Hanover
Region:
Wilmington
Expiration: 07/10/17
Adress: Southern Blvd
City/State/Zip: Wilmington NC 28402
Contact Person: Katrina Redmon Title: CEO Phone: [phone]
Directions to Project:
From intersection of US 421 and US 17, take US 17 towards Carolina Beach. Turn right onto Southern Blvd. to Jefferson Street.
Project is on the left.
Type of Project: State Stormwater - HD - Infiltration
Drain Areas: 1 - (CAPE FEAR RIVER) (03-06-17) (SC)
2 - (CAPE FEAR RIVER) (03-06-17) (SC)
3 - (CAPE FEAR RIVER) (03-06-17) (SC)
4 - (CAPE FEAR RIVER) (03-06-17) (SC)
On -Site Representative(s):
Related Permits:
Inspection Date: 09/30/2015 Entry Time: 10:30AM
Primary Inspector: Steven G Pusey
Secondary Inspector(s):
Reason for Inspection: Follow-up
Permit Inspection Type: State Stormwater
Facility Status: Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Question Areas:
State Stormwater
(See attachment summary)
Exit Time: 11:00AM
Phone:
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
page: 1

Permit: SW8030404 Owner - Project: Wilmington Housing Authority
Inspection Date: 09/3012015 Inspection Type Compliance Evaluation Reason for Visit: Follow-up
Inspection Summary:
This project meets the minimum requirements for compliance with the permit.
Please keep in mind that regular maintenance will be necessary in order to stay in compliance in the future. Please
reference the Operation & Maintenance Agreement for recommended maintenance intervals and procedures.
File Review
Is the permit active?
Signed copy of the Engineer's certification is in the file?
Signed copy of the Operation & Maintenance Agreement is in the file?
Copy of the recorded deed restrictions is in the file?
Comment:
SW Measures
Are the SW measures constructed as per the approved plans?
Are the inlets located per the approved plans?
Are the outlet structures located per the approved plans?
Comment:
Operation and Maintenance
Are the SW measures being maintained and operated as per the permit requirements?
Yes No NA NE
it ❑ ❑ ❑
N1 ❑ ❑ ❑
N ❑ ❑ ❑
a❑❑❑
Yes No NA NE
M ❑❑❑
KI ❑ ❑ ❑
0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
L-0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Are the SW BMP inspection and maintenance records complete and available for review or provided to ❑ ❑ ❑
DWQ upon request?
Comment: Significant work has been done to establish vegetation on the infiltration basins and all look stable at
this point.
page: 2

Scott, Georgette
From: Pusey, Steven
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 11:15 AM
To: Scott, Georgette
Subject: FW: Sunset South - Permit SW8 030404
Attachments: IMG 2993.JPG: IMG 2995.JPG
Here's what the ponds looked like previously.
Steve
From: Glenn Floyd [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 9:01 AM
To: Pusey, Steven
Subject: RE: Sunset South - Permit SW8 030404
From: Pusey, Steven [mailto:steven.pusey ncdenr.gov]
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 9:25 AM
To: Glenn Floyd
Subject: RE: Sunset South - Permit SW8 030404
Glenn,
Are they working on this project yet? Please advise ASAP.
Thanks,
Steve Pusey
DEMLR-Stormwater
From: Glenn Floyd [ma ilto:gfloydCabwha.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 9:26 AM
To: Pusey, Steven
Subject: RE: Sunset South - Permit SW8 030404
Steve,
We got a low bidder for the project last week. I hope to have them under contract this week. I will keep you posted on a
start date. Thanks.
From: Pusey, Steven [mailto:steven.pusgyCabncdenr gov]
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 3:55 PM
To: Glenn Floyd
Cc: Baker, Chris
Subject: Sunset South - Permit SW8 030404
Glenn,
0

Chris has transferred this project to me for follow-up. I received a copy of your email today about the status of going
out for sealed bids to get the project started. Please let me know when a contractor has been selected and keep me
informed in the future.
Thanks,
Steve
Ste>vesz>P. mouser,
Environmental Engineer
NCDENR - Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Ph [phone] / Fax [phone]
http://Portal.ncdenr.org/web/Ir/stormwater
�- Before printing this email, please consider your budget and the environment.
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

IF -
-.:-
WWW
- -- - "•: �:'� ram._' _} �•. ,•, - •'-+�wy. _ 41%
r.

Scott, Georgette
From: Pusey, Steven
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 11:12 AM
To: Scott, Georgette
Subject: FW: Emailing: IMG_3082, IMG_3083, IMG_3081
Attachments: IMG_3082.ipg; IMG_3083.jpg; IMG_3081.jpg
Here's the latest pictures of some of the ponds. The grass is being planted now and needs a couple weeks to germinate.
Steve
-----Original Message -----
From: Glenn Floyd [mailto:gfloyd wha.net]
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 8:51 AM
To: Pusey, Steven
Subject: Emailing: IMG_3082, IMG_3083, IMG_3081
Your message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
I M G_3082
iMG_3083
IMG 3081
Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file
attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled.

May 15, 2015 Sunset South. WHA working on
pond.

Pusey, Steven
From: Scott, Georgette:
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 2:22 PM
To: Pusey, Steven
Subject: FW: Stormwater Permit Sunset South # SW8030404
Steve,
Please put a copy of this in the file.
Thank you
G
From: Scott, Georgette
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 2:21 PM
To: 'Jim Conner'; Sams, Dan; daniel.sams(&ncdenr.gov
Cc: susan s; John Mccourt
Subject: RE: Stormwater Permit # SW8030404
Mr. Conner,
Thank you for the information. Our office has not received a request from WHA to transfer this permit. Even if they did
send in a request, we do not transfer permits that are out of compliance with the permit. We issued notices to WHA in
the past about their non-compliance. We are aware that the WHA is working on getting the ponds back into shape,
however they are not complete at this point in time. It is our job to make sure they get into compliance and that they
have the ponds in working order.
We will continue to work with them to make sure everything is compliant and remains compliant.
Georgette Scott
From: Jim Conner[mailto:jconnerCa�cbsattorneys.coml
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 3:50 PM
To: Scott, Georgette; Sams, Dan; daniel.sams(&ncdenr.gov
Cc: susan s; John Mccourt
Subject: Stormwater Permit # SW8030404
Dear Georgette and Dan: As you may know, I represent Sunset South Owners Association. During 2009 to
2012, we were engaged in a lawsuit with Wilmington Housing Authority (WHA) and Housing and Economic
Opportunities (HEO) over several issues. Prominent among those issues was the disposition of the stormwater
permit held by WHA. The issue with relation to the permit was whether WHA could transfer the permit to the
Sunset South Owners Association (Sunset), a transfer that Sunset did not want.
Ultimately, we settled the case. Sunset agreed that WHA could transfer the permit to Sunset if and only
if WHA meftertain conditions within three years. That three year deadline expired February 3, 2015, and
WHA had not met the conditions. Per the terms of the Settlement Agreement, "WHA and HEO agree that they
will not take any action to have the stormwater management facilities or the Permit transferred to Sunset
South ...." In recognition of WHA's failure to meet the terms of the Settlement Agreement, on April 30, 2015
WHA's lawyer during the litigation, Amy Wang of Ward & Smith, returned the documents to me that would
have enabled WHA to make the permit transfer, acknowledging that the permit transfer cannot now occur.
I am writing all this to you so that you are on notice that Stormwater Permit SW8030404 should NOT
under any circumstances be transferred to Sunset South Owners Association. Not only has WHA agreed not to
make the transfer, but Sunset is not financially able to maintain and otherwise be responsible for the
0

stormwater facidrties. We are aware of a namber of problems with the facilities due to poor and deferred
maintenance, as w • it as design problems and Sunset is not a viable entity capable of doing that work.
If, for any re.asor?,, your office felt i transfer needed to take place, first, please contact me to
discuss. Second, please:d.o not take amf action toward transfer until we can meet and discuss the problems
with the existing facilities that must bo repaired prior to any transfer. That said, we do repeat that a transfer
should NOT take place under any circumstances, other than agreement by Sunset.
1 would be glad to discuss this in person or by telephone. Please feel free to contact me.
Best regards,
Jim
James L. Conner II
919-749-9943 direct
Calhoun. Bhella & Seehres#. LLP
4819 Emperor Boulevard, Suite 400
Durham, North Carolina 27703
www.cbsattorneys.com
. ;circrft rr!�sFaoe co:ltair.s i•'.?ferT" Mien frzmi -. ; 1,;v, firm cr Calnoun, '113hella. & Sochrest; LLP. Tr'4 contents ~1G '
: -d 2r--; .rc'eilrl d "for uKe use G`+h:: ad(; vssee(s) o.-)Iy .` arc, r:;:: L' 1�1'r'r;_•vt
:de;E�seoe, note alai any d`sc osur, c. p`ing_ distrihiitio;:, or u3c of the contents of tilts rr..e.st,g If -(:>j
:Fcei<<o6 t'-s e-mail in orror, p"oaso contact i:;e a• iconner(CD-cbsattornevs.com.
01

Pusey, Steven
From: Pusey, Steven
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 11:48 AM
To: Glenn Floyd
Subject: RE: Sunset South Stormwater Pond Matting
It looks like you have good coverage. Let's wait a few weeks for the seed to germinate; then I can call it
compliant, hopefully.
Steve
crfe_, K Q. V"
Environmental Engineer
Land Quality Section
Wilmington Regional Office
NC DENR, Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]o04
Website: www.ncdenr.gov
E-Mail: [e-mail]
Before printing this email, please consider your budget and the environment.
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation.
From: Glenn Floyd [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 9:37 AM
To: Pusey, Steven
Subject: RE: Sunset South Stormwater Pond Matting
Steve,
Pictures from August 10 for the ponds at Sunset. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks.
From: Pusey, Steven[mailto:steven.puseyCalncdenr.gov1
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 201512:01 PM
To: Glenn Floyd
Subject: RE: Sunset South Stormwater Pond Matting
Okay. Thanks for the info. I'll plan to inspect in about 2 weeks.
Steve
cstmm-.c a. -P"_a
Environmental Engineer
Land Quality Section
Wilmington Regional Office
NC DENR, Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
1.27 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405

Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Website: www.ncdenrgov
E-Mail: steven.pusey_Ancdenr.gov
Before printing this email, please consider your budget and the environment.
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation.
From: Glenn Floyd fmailto:gflgAOwha.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 201511:59 AM
To: Pusey, Steven
Subject: RE: Sunset South Stormwater Pond Matting
Steve,
Sent an email from my phone, but checking my computer the wording isn't there. Contractor has started laying the
matting in pond 2 and it looks good. He should be finished by the end of this week or early next week depending on the
weather. Thanks.
From: Pusey, Steven fmailto:steven.puM(@ncdenr.govl
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 201510:50 AM
To: Glenn Floyd
Subject: RE: Sunset South Stormwater Pond Matting
Glenn,
What's the latest at Sunset South?
Steve
cst,_,� G. Pm
Environmental Engineer
Land Quality Section
Wilmington Regional Office
NC DENR, Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28406
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Website: www.ncdenr.gov
E-Mail: steven.pusey_(a),ncdenngov
Before printing this email, please consider your budget and the environment
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation.
From: Glenn Floyd fmailtomfloyd6wha.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 3:12 PM
To: Pusey, Steven
Subject., FW: Sunset South Stormwater Pond Matting

Steve,
Attached is what we are doing for the ponds. I just received an email that the ponds have been mowed. I will check out
the work in the morning.
Thanks.
From: Walt Pollard [mailto:lwaltpollard gmail.coml
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 201512:43 PM
To: Glenn Floyd
Subject: Sunset South Stormwater Pond Matting
Glenn
I apologize for the delay in getting this information to you. I had trouble getting my vendor to respond.
Please find the attached proposal for seeding and matting the bare areas on the Sunset South stormwater
ponds. I decided to install the higher grade straw matting. It tends to hold in place better and has a longer life
span (12+ months) than the less expensive matting. This, along with the additional area to be covered in pond 1
and the addition of fertilizer increased the cost a bit over what I originally estimated.
Please review and give me a call if you have any questions.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this proposal.
Walt
910-617-3157

From: Jim Conner[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 3:50 PM
To: Scott, Georgette; Sams, Dan; [e-mail]
Cc: susan s; John Mccourt
Subject: Stormwater Permit # SW8030404
Dear Georgette and Dan: As you may know, I represent Sunset South Owners Association. During 2009 to
2012, we were engaged in a lawsuit with Wilmington Housing Authority (WHA) and Housing and Economic
Opportunities (HEO) over several issues. Prominent among those issues was the disposition of the stormwater
permit held by WHA. The issue with relation to the permit was whether WHA could transfer the permit to the
Sunset South Owners Association (Sunset), a transfer that Sunset did not want.
Ultimately, we settled the case. Sunset agreed that WHA could transfer the permit to Sunset if and only
if WHA met'certain conditions within three years. That three year deadline expired February 3, 2015, and
WHA had not met the conditions. Per the terms of the Settlement Agreement, "WHA and HEO agree that they
will not take any action to have the stormwater management facilities or the Permit transferred to Sunset
South ...." In recognition of WHA's failure to meet the terms of the.Settlement Agreement, on April 30, 2015
WHA's lawyer during the litigation, Amy Wang of Ward & Smith, returned the documents to me that would
have enabled WHA to make the permit transfer, acknowledging that the permit transfer cannot now occur.
am writing all this to you so that you are on notice that Stormwater Permit SW8030404 should NOT
under any circumstances be transferred to Sunset South Owners Association. Not only has WHA agreed not to
make the transfer, but Sunset is not financially able to maintain and otherwise be responsible for the
stormwater facilities. We are aware of a number of problems with the facilities due to poor and deferred
maintenance, as well as design problems, and Sunset is not a viable entity capable of doing that work.
If, for any reason, your office felt a transfer needed to take place, first, please contact me to
discuss. Second, please do not take any action toward transfer until we can meet and discuss the problems
with the existing facilities that must be repaired prior to any transfer. That said, we do repeat that a transfer
should NOT take place under any circumstances, other than agreement by Sunset.
I would be glad to discuss this in person or by telephone. Please feel free to contact me.
Best regards,
Jim
James L. Conner II
919-749-9943 direct
Ca�houn, Bhella & Seethp st, LLP
4819 Emperor Boulevard, Suite 400
Durham, North Carolina 27703
www.cbsattorneys.com
This electronic message contains information from the law firm of Calhoun, Bhella & Sechrest, LLP. The contents may be
privileged and confidential and are intended for the use of the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not an intended
addressee, note that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you
have received this e-mail in error, please contact me at iconner(dcbsattorneys.com.

Pusey, Steven
From: Glenn Floyd <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 9:26 AM
To: Pusey, Steven
Subject: RE: Sunset South - Permit SW8 030404
Steve,
We got a low bidder for the project last week. I hope to have them under contract this week. I will keep you posted on a
start date. Thanks.
From: Pusey, Steven[mailto:steven.pusgy(cbncdenr.gov]
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 3:55 PM
To: Glenn Floyd
Cc: Baker, Chris
Subject: Sunset South - Permit SW8 030404
Glenn,
Chris has transferred this project to me for follow-up. I received a copy of your email today about the status of going
out for sealed bids to get the project started. Please let me know when a contractor has been selected and keep me
informed in the future.
Thanks,
Steve
Steyes�1C. �use�
Environmental Engineer
NCDENR - Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Ph [phone] / Fax [phone]
http://Portal.ncdenr.ora/web/ir/stormwater
(*T Before printing this email, please consider your budget and the environment.
E-mail correspondence to and from this address maybe subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and maybe disclosed to third parties.

Pusey, Steven
From:
Baker, Chris
Sent:
Monday, January 05, 201511:08 AM
To:
Glenn Floyd
Cc:
Pusey, Steven
Subject:
RE: Sunset South
Good morning Glenn. As you may expect I was off the past couple of weeks and have only returned today. The only
comment I have is you should use a winter seed mix for our area. Rye grass is a temporary measure and is usually used
where vegetation is already established. From what I understand rye grass prevents other new seed from germinating
in the spring. Winter seed mix uses rye wheat. It grows and stabilizes bare areas over the winter and allows other seed
that germinates in the spring to establish themselves in the spring.
One other thing. This is my last week in Wilmington. I am transferring to another office and will not be in Wilmington
after Friday. I have given the file to Steve Pusey to handle from here on out, see his email address above. Future
questions should be addressed to Steve. Good guy, good to work with and I have went over with him where we stand
on this project.
Thanx,
Chris
From: Glenn Fkyyd fmaiito:gfloydC�wha.net]
Sent: Friday, December 19, 201412:01 PM
To: Baker, Chris
Subject: Sunset South
Chris,
We are going out for bids for the Sunset South retention ponds to comply with our procurement. I have attached the
scope of work we are using. Can you take a look at it and see if there are any items NCDENR may object to? I don't want
to have to do this twice. Thanks.

Pusey, Steven
From:
Pusey, Steven
Sent:
Friday, December 19, 2014 3:55 PM
To:
'[e-mail]'
Cc:
'Baker, Chris ([e-mail])'
Subject:
Sunset South - Permit SW8 030404
Glenn,
Chris has transferred this project to me for follow-up. I received a copy of your email today about the status of going
out for sealed bids to get the project started. Please let me know when a contractor has been selected and keep me
informed in the future.
Thanks,
Steve
_IA W,M-4. PN�Y
Environmental Engineer
NCDENR - Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Ph {910) 796-7334 / Fax [phone]
http://portal. ncdenr.ora/web/i r/stormwater
Before printing this email, please consider your budget and the environment
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

Baker, Chris
From: Glenn Floyd [[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 11:50 AM'
To: Baker, Chris
Subject: Sunset South
Chris,
Per our phone conversation today this is to let you know the status of the storm water ponds a Sunset South. We did not
receive any quotes on the project on November 12th. When we rebid the job for a third time we received a quote from
only one company and it was for $55,000. This is a lot more that we were expecting but with it that high it triggers our
procurement to go out for sealed bids. Also, any contract above $30,000 requires board approval. We are moving
expeditiously to go out for sealed bids to get this project started. I will keep you informed of our progress. Thanks.

C
WILMING 1 ON � C�
1♦ HOUSINW
1524 South 16th Street Wilmington, NC 28401 • V 910.341.7700 • F 910.341.7760 • TDD 910.341.7740 • httpJ/wha.net
November 12, 2014
Chris Baker
NCDENR
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Attachment (a): Informal Invitation for Quotation
Mr. Baker,
This is in response to a letter received from NCDENR on October 16, 2014 concerning the
inspection of Sunset South stormwater basins (Stormwater Management Permit Number
SW8 030404). We have reviewed the deficiencies described in the report and have taken
the. corrective action as shown in Attachment (a).
The Authority is currently receiving bids in accordance with the scope of work described
in..Attachment (a) and will begin work as soon as a contractor is selected. Unfortunately
we did not receive the necessary number bids for the work when bids were due on
November 6th and have re -bid the job with bids due on November 12th. It is our intention
to have the repairs complete within three weeks upon the start of the contract.
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Ka 'na HL Redmon
Chief Executive Officer
NOV 14 2014
:hard of Conr.missioneas Greg P! al, Chair • Betsy Kahn, Ytcr Chdr • Debra H. Hays •;ef.rey G. Hovis
Stuart Franck • Alfredi_ M :Donuld • He4yne Levy • Ka?.rina H. Redmon, CEO

W1LM1NG' T0N I. o
HOUSING
1524 South 16th Street Wilmington, NC 28404 • V 910.341.7700 • F 910.341.7760 • TDD 910.341.7740 • http://wha.net
INFORMAL
'INVITATION FOR QUOTATION
MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS FOR FOUR RETENTION PONDS
Date: October 24, 2014 To: Prospective Bidders
Re: MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS FOR FOUR RETENTION PONDS AT SUNSET SOUTH
PURCHASE ORDER:
Housing Authority of the City of Wilmington North Carolina hereby requests quotations to
provide/supply/perform MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS FOR FOUR RETENTION PONDS AT SUNSET SOUTH.
The firm or individual will provide such services according to the attached scope of work
(Attachment A).
Prospective bidders are strongly encouraged to attend the Pre-Bid/Tour scheduled for Thursday,
October 30, 2014 at 10:3o a.m., beginning at Sunset South, zoo Southern Blvd.
Questions regarding this Invitation for Quotation should be directed to.' Ms. Chauntrell Burns. at
c.burns@a wha.net no later than Wednesday, November 5, 2014.
In order to receive consideration, quotations, must be received by Thursday, November 6, 2014 at
93o a.m. Bids must be in a marked sealed envelope stating project name (NO EXCEPTIONS) along
with the required signature HUD forms. Forms not included could eliminate you from the bidding
process as non -responsive.
Quotations must be submitted on the attached price sheet to be considered (Attachment B).
Sincerely,
muue&& mauve
Chauntrell Burns, Purchasing/ Procurement Coordinator EC E N E
NOV 14 1OR .
c: Glen Floyd, Director of Modernization
Karen Schraml, HEO Coordinator BY:
Ella Frink, Assistant Director of Operations
Laurette Corbyons, Procurement Manager Contracts/Purchasing
Board of Commissioners Greg Neel, Chair • Betsy Kahn, Yif:e Chair • Debi a H. Hays • Jeffrey G. Hovis
Stuart Fmrjc;k • Alfredia -McDonald Helayne Lcvy • Katrina H. Redman, CEO
Page 1. of 1

W,LM,N,.,T .Nrei,-.,
z HOUSING
1524 South 16th Street Wilmington, NC 28401 - V 910.341.7700 - F 910.341.7760 - TOD 910.341.7740 - http:l/wha.net
ATTACHMENITA
Scope of Work:
Sunset South Storm fttaw NUfttenance and Repairs
3
J. All nwd to
Pst'abliRb
2, 13S.Al"n #2'W`fW?--nL pipcs are pax-,-aliy c,j
Clttr W-C,.vu weMLalj�ka. I.;aW 4411 -ilwalum
bUuprcpyc-d.,wid temond.. Anzatzoedic
ih'has scdimun-t, bwtvin.
,19-jtraLtiza has t
.1, IiHsffi 03 has ovcq,-- n t n-vedit to wit that
4.
ib-attum must be trumed a -rid the design botwin rievazlon
rex,stabliahcd.
Actn7tiing 1A I i fl'�w t;ivit tj2ginmr,amign .4.
W,
shoulpita the tactEe eu foheitivitai uNte- to pipes Wmim into the basitL
jai tiie north end. Tilt dinsign bottom u., kr ii-I is 24.0' wEich,shculd be the
sax.e.as Vic p�pz. inwrt of ILI-.c only 'pc crrr-.ing Into tlmt bas'ir.."ll-m
rC'9l*MWr#;7 Mr. Ul.%C di� y, -m-p.7 twivrfq an -Ain b m-rhampirk w
N!ge 2 of 2

�1 >
WILMI GT
HOUSING
1524 South 16th Street Wilmington, NC 28401 i, V 910.341.7700 • F 910.341.7760 • TDD 910.341.7740 • http-//wha.net
{{ 4L ..
- ry, �.r� .. S i P, l7• mil_ - �i Fes.
Pag#e 3 of 3

WILMINGTON
HOU IN
1524 South 16th Street Wilmington, NC 28401 • V 910.341.7700 • F 910.341.7760 • TDD 910.341.7740 • http://wha.net
ATTACHMENT B
For: MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS FOR FOUR RETENTION POND AT SUNSET SOUTH
Purchase Order No.:
The undersigned, company having familiarized with the local conditions affecting the cost of the
work, and with the specifications attached, as prepared by Wilmington Housing Authority, hereby
propose to furnish all labor, materials, equipment, services and any incidentals required for the
above project at the price (s) listed below.
All quotes must be submitted on this form by Thursday November 6, 2014 at 9.3o a.m.
Authorized Signature
BASE QUOTE:
(firmed -fixed price)
Date
Print Name:
Company Name
Address
Address
Telephone Number
E-mail address
Certificate of liability insurance will be required. Attached are the required insurance
amounts.
Board of Con imissioners Greg Neel, Chair • Betsy Kahn, Vice Chair ^ Debra H. Hays • j;;ffrey G. Hovis
Stuart Fr.nck v Alfred'a McDonald • He'ayne Levy • K<?trina H. Redmon, CEO
Page-4 of 4

e
ILMINGTOI I am
0.
F.OU NG
1524 South 16th Street Wilmington, NC 28401 • V 910341.7700 • F 910.341.7760 • TDD 910.341'.7740 • http://Wha.net
THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS ARE MADE PART OF PURCHASE ORDERS CONTRACTS
UNDEU,S._000.00 WHERE LABQR IS INVOLVED
STATEMENT OF WORK: The Contractor shall furnish all labor, equipment and services, and perform
and complete all work required in accordance with the attached Scope of Work,. Contractor's
proposal, and Purchase Order.
METHOD OF PAYMENT: Payment for work will be made upon the passing of inspections by WHA
Project Manager and final inspection from the New Hanover County Inspection Department if
required. WHA-payment terms are net thirty- (3o) days from date of invoice unless otherwise
specified on the terms and conditions.
TERM OF CONTRACT: The term of the contract shall be set in the CONTRACT/PURCHASE ORDER
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR: The Contractor represents to the Authority that it is fully experienced
and properly qualified as an expert to perform the work provided for herein and that it is properly
equipped organized and financed to perform such work. The Contractor shall finance its own
operations hereunder, shall operate 'as an independent contractor and not as an agent, or any
employee of the Authority and shall hold the Authority free and harmless from all liabilities, costs,
and charges by reason of any act, omission or representation of the Contractor -of any of its
subcontractors, agents, or employees.
It is mutually understood and agreed that Contractor is an independent contractor and not an agent
of Housing Authority, and as such, Contractor, his or her agents and employees shall not be entitled
to any Housing Authority employment benefits, such as, but not limited to, vacation, sick leave,
insurance, worker's compensation, or pension or retirement benefits. .
INDEMNITY: Contractor agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Owner, its independent contractors,
agents, employees. and indemnities from and against any and all claims, demands causes of action, or
other liability, including attorney fees, on account of personal injuries or death or on account of
property damages arising out of the work to be performed by the Contractor hereunder and
resulting from the negligence of the Contractor's agents, employees or subcontractors. It is the
intent of this Section to require the Contractor to indemnify the Owner to the fullest extent
permitted under North Carolina General Statute's 226-1.
INSURANCE -Worker's Compensation: Covering all of Contractors employees to be engaged in the
work under this contract, providing the required statutory benefits under North Carolina Worker's
Compensation Law, and the employer's liability insurance providing limits at least in the amount of
$100,0001500,000/loo,000 applicable to claims due to bodily injury by accident or disease. This
coverage is for three or more employees including owner.
Page 5 of 5

WILMINGTON
I- OU IN .
1524 Sn"th 16th Street Wilmington, NC 28401 • V 910.341.7700 • F 910.341.7760 - TDD 910.341.7740 • http://wha.net
Comprehensive General Liability: Including coverage for independent contractor operations,
contractual liability assumed under the provisions of this contract, products/completed operations
liability and broad form property damage liability insurance coverage. Exclusions applicable to
explosion, collapse and underground hazards are to be deleted when the work involves these'
exposures. The policy shall provide liability limits at least for $500,000 per occurrence, combined
single limits, applicable to claims due to bodily injury, personal injury, and/or property damage. The
Housing Authority shall be named as an additional insured under this policy.
Automobile Liability: Covering all owned, non -owned and hired vehicles, providing liability limits at
least in the amount of $5oo,000 per occurrence combined single limits applicable to claims due to
bodily injury and/or property damage.
If any such insurance is due to expire during the constructionperiod, the Contractor
(including subcontractors, as applicable) shall not permit the coverage to lapse and shall
furnish evidence of coverage to the Contracting Officer.
The Insurance Certificate shall indicate that the insurance company shall give the Wilmington
Housing Authority prior notice of any cancellation or non -renewal in the Contractor's policy.
LABOR REOUIREMENTS: It is hereby specifically and expressly agreed that with respect to labor
requirements and wage scales, the Contractor will comply with all statutory and - specification
requirements, will pay all taxes assessed against his labor, and will also comply with all statutory and
specification requirements as to labor reports, payroll taxes, and the like. Contractor agrees to
conform to all State and Federal Labor Laws and to the labor policy of the Owner. The contractor
agrees to pay any fines assessed against the Owner on account of labor law violations by the
Contractor or his Sub -Contractors. Contractor further covenants and expressly agrees that 1) he will
not pay less than the wages prevailing in the locality to laborers and mechanics employed on the
work, and 2) all laborers and mechanics employed on the work shall receive .wage payments of not
less than one and one-half (1 1/2) times the basic rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty
(4o) hours in any work week.
SALVAGE AND EXCESS MATERIAL: The Contractor shall leave the job site clean and orderly and shall
immediately transport off site any and all salvage material, excess material, and any material that has
been removed from WHA Property ("Materials"). In no event shall Contractor allow a WHA
Employee or resident to remove Materials from WHA property or premises at any time; nor to have
access to Materials; nor to have any rights to Materials unless and until the Materials are transported
off WHA property and/or premises and are in the exclusive control of the Contractor. For purposes of
this provision, Materials shall include, but shall not be limited to, new, used or obsolete equipment;
building supplies, debris, apparatus, building and construction materials, appliances, etc.
TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE: The Contracting Officer may terminate this contract in whole, or
in part, whenever the Contracting Officer determines that such termination is in the best interest of
the WHA. Any such termination shall be effected by delivery to the Contractor of a Notice of
Termination specifying -the extent to which the perfon-nance of the work under the contract is
terminated, and the date upon which such termination becomes effective.
Page 6 of 6

WILMIN(3T0NF!ia'
HOUSIN
1524 South 16th Street Wilmington, NC 28401 • V 910.341.7700 • F 910.341.7760 • TDD 910.341.7740 • http://wha.net
If the performance of the work is terr i^ated, either i^ `v 6^1— or in part, the �"v'� ire Shall be
liable to the Contractor for reasonable and proper costs resulting from such termination
upon the receipt by the WHA of a properly presented claim setting out in detail: (i) the total
cost of the work performed to date of termination less the total amount of contract
payments made to the Contractor, (2) the cost (including reasonable profit) of settling and
paying claims under subcontracts and material orders for work performed and materials and
supplies delivered to the site, payment for which has not been made by the WHA to the
Contractor or by the Contractor to the subcontractor or supplier; (3) the. cost of preserving
and protecting the work already performed under the WHA or assignee takes possession
thereof or assumes responsibility therefore; (4) the actual or estimated cost of legal and.
accounting services reasonably necessary to prepare and present the termination claim to
.the WHA; and (5) an amount constituting a reasonable profit on the value of the work
performed by the Contractor.
DISPUTES: "Claim" as used in this clause, means a written demand or written assertion by one of the
contracting parties seeking as a matter of right, the payment of money in a sum certain, the
adjustment or interpretation of contract terms or other relief arising under or relating to the
contract. A claim arising under the contract, unlike a claim relating to the contract does the claimant
seek a claim that can be resolved under a contract clause that provides for the relief. A voucher,
invoice or other routine request for payment that is not in dispute when submitted is not a claim. The
submission may be converted to a claim by complying with the requirements of this clause, if it is
disputed either as to liability or as to amount or is not, acted upon in a reasonable time.
Except fog disputes arising under the clause entitled Labor Requirement herein, all disputes arising
under or relating to this contract, including any claims for damages for the alleged breach thereof,
which are not disposed of by agreement, shall be resolved under this clause.
All claims by the contractor shall be made in writing and submitted to the Contracting Officer for a
written decision. A claim by the Owner against the Contractor shall be subject to a written decision
by the Contracting Officer.
SECTION 3: The work to be performed under this contract is subject to the requirements of Section 3
of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, as amended, 12 U.S.C. 1701u (Section 3). The
purpose of Section 3 is to ensure that employment and other economic opportunities generated .by
HUD assistance to HUD - assisted projects covered by Section 3, shall, to the greatest extent feasible,
be directed to low and very low-income persons, particularly persons who are recipients of HUD
assistance for housing.
Page 7 of 7

c
ILMINGTON
HOUSING
1524 South 16th Street WiImirigton, NC 28401 • V 910.341.7700 -i F 910.341.7760 • TDD 910.341.7740 • httpJ/wha.net
The contractor agrees to comply with HULA regulationS 24 CFR part �35, v.hich implements Section 3,
as evidenced by the execution of this contract. The contractor certifies that it is under no contractual
or other impediment that would prevent compliance with 24 CFR part 135 regulations.
NOTICES: All notices, which may be given to any of the parties hereunder, shall be delivered or
sent by Registered or Certified Mail to the address specified as follows:
Katrina H. Redmon, Chief Executive Officer
Wilmington Housing Authority
P. O. Box 899, Wilmington, NC 78401
Telephone: [phone]
Page 8 of 8

09 CV 0 054 74
FILED
2009OCT 30 PM 3. 31
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA I�N+ THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
DISTRICT COURT DIVISION
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVFq FILE NO.:
WILMINGTON HOUSING AUTHORITY,
)
and HOUSING AND ECONOMIC
)
OPPORTUNITIES, INC.,
)
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs
}
[Declaratory Judgment]
(COMP)
V.
)
SUNSET SOUTH OWNERS
}
)
A TRUE COPY
CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT
ASSOCIATION,
)
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
Defendant
)
BY- Nicole Pearson
Deputy Clerk of Supenor Court
Plaintiffs Wilmington Housing
Authority and Housing and Economic
Opportunities, Inc., complaining of Defendant Sunset South Owners Association ("Defendant"),
allege and say that:
PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
1. Plaintiff Wilmington Housing Authority ("WHA") is a public housing
authority organized in accordance with Chapter 157 of the North Carolina General Statutes with
its principal place of business located in Wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina.
2. Plaintiff Housing and Economic Opportunities, Inc., is a nonprofit
corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of North Carolina with its principal office
and place of business in Wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina.
3. Plaintiff Housing and Economic Opportunities, Inc., is a non-profit
instrumentality of WHA, which is responsible for certain contractual or legal obligations or
rights which are documented as belonging to WHA. WHA and Plaintiff Housing and Economic
Opportunities, Inc., hereinafter will be collectively referred to as "HEO."
4. Upon information and belief, Defendant is a nonprofit corporation
incorporated under the laws of the State of North Carolina as a planned community association
for the lot owners at the Sunset South subdivision with its principal office and place of business
in Wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina
5. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties.
ACEIVE-
UG 0 2 209
r1�1e

6. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action.
7. New Hanover County, North Carolina, is a proper venue for this action.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
THE STORMWA TER PERMIT AND STORMWA TER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
8. In order to ensure the protection of waters of the State, a stormwater
management permit is required for any development activities which disturb more than one acre
of land and are in a coastal county as defined in 15 NCAC 2H .1002(4). N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-
214.7; 15A NCAC 2H. 1003(b).
.1002(4).
9. New Hanover County is a coastal county as defined in 15 NCAC 2H
10. In 2003, HEO planned to develop a residential subdivision known as
Sunset South in New Hanover County, North Carolina ("Sunset South").
11. The development of Sunset South would disturb more than one acre of
land; therefore, WHA submitted an application for a Stormwater Management Permit to the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality
("DWQ").
12. On July 10, 2003, DWQ issued Stormwater Permit No. SW8 030404 to
WHA authorizing a stormwater management plan for the development of Sunset South (the
"Permit"). A true and accurate copy of the Permit is attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference as if fully set forth as Exhibit A.
13. The Permit required the installation, operation, and maintenance of four
infiltration basins to capture and treat stormwater runoff from Sunset South.
14. In 2003 and 2004, HEO developed and constructed Sunset South,
including the installation, operation, and maintenance of the four infiltration basins and related
facilities in compliance with the standards required by the Permit (the "Stormwater Management
Facilities").
15. Since the completion of Sunset South, HEO has operated and maintained
the Stormwater Management Facilities.
2

DEEENDANT►S DECLARATION, ARTICLESAND BYL 4WS
16. Defendant operates under certain governing documents, including (i)
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, and Easements; (ii) Articles of
Incorporation; and, (iii) Bylaws.
17. Defendant's Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, and
Easements of Sunset South were made and entered into on March 30, 2004 (the "Declaration").
18. In the Declaration, HEO is referred to as the "Declarant" and Defendant is
referred to as the "Association." A true and accurate copy of the Declaration is attached hereto
and incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth as Exhibit B.
19. Section II of the Declaration titled "Association • General Purposes,
Membership and Voting" states the general purposes of Defendant, and specifically provides, in
pertinent part, that its purposes are:
to own, manage, maintain, and operate the Common Elements and
facilities located upon the Common Elements, specifically
including, but not limited to, the Subdivision entrance signs, street
lights, Stormwater Management Facilities drainage pipes and
drainage outlets, streets (until accepted. for maintenance by a
governmental entity) and other improvements and amenities in the
Subdivision owned by the Association.
(Declaration, § II(1))(emphasis added). Thus, the Declaration provides that Defendant is
responsible for owning, maintaining, and operating the Stormwater Management Facilities.
20. The Declaration defines the word "Permit" to mean the "North Carolina
State Stonnwater Management Permit Number SW 8030404 and any amendments, additions or
replacements thereof, or any such permit obtained by Declarant," in other words, the Permit as
defined herein. (Declaration, § I (16)).
21. The Declaration requires Defendant to accept the transfer of the Permit
and its responsibilities, and specifically provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
The Declarant shall, at its sole cost and expense, initially construct
all Stormwater .Management Facilities required to be located upon
the Common Elements and the Lots to the standards required by
the Permit. Upon completion of the initial construction of said
Stormwater Management Facilities, Declarant shall transfer the
Permit and Declaranfs responsibilities under the Permit to the
3

Association and the Association shall accent such transfers.
(Declaration, § XIV)(emphasis added).
22. The Declaration states that such transfer of the Permit shall take place:
[U]pon the earlier to occur of (i) the date the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources allows the
transfer of the Permit to occur; or, (ii) the date after which at least
fifty percent (50%) of the Lots therein are conveyed to Owners
other than Declarant.
(Declaration, § XIV).
23. The Declaration requires that prior to the transfer of the Permit the
Stormwater Management Facilities shall be certified to Defendant and the State of North
Carolina, either by state inspection or by a licensed engineer, as being in compliance with the
Permit prior to such assignment or transfer. (Declaration, § XIV).
24. Upon information and belief, Defendant filed its Articles of Incorporation
with the North Carolina Secretary of State on April 1, 2004. A true and accurate copy of the
Articles of Incorporation of Defendant (the "Articles") are attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference as if fully set forth as Exhibit C.
25. The Articles list among the purposes for Defendant's organization and
operation to: (d) "accept the transfer of the Permit and Declarant's responsibilities thereunder;"
(e) "oversee, inspect, maintain, repair and replace the Stormwater Management Facilities
constructed pursuant to the Permit;" (f) "enforce the provisions of the Permit;" and, (g) "enforce
each Lot Owner's obligations with respect to the Stormwater Management Facilities." (Articles,
14 (d-g))-
26. Upon information and belief, Defendant adopted its Bylaws on April 1,
2004 by consent of its Directors. A true and accurate copy of the Bylaws for Defendant (the
"Bylaws") is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth as
Exhibit D.
27. The Bylaws state that Defendant's Executive Board shall perform certain
duties and actions, including accepting "transfer of the Permit and all responsibilities under the
Permit from Declarant, subject to the terms and conditions regarding such acceptance in the
4

Declaration; perform all responsibilities of the Association set forth in the Declaration with
regard to the Permit," and, if applicable, with regard to DWQ. (Bylaws, § 4.5(s)).
28. Upon information and belief, over fifty percent (50%) of the lots at Sunset
South belong to owners other than HEO.
29. On August 15, 2007, Norris, Kuske, & Tunstall - Consulting Engineers,
Inc. (the "Engineers"), notified HEO that the Stormwater Management Facilities were completed
in compliance with the Permit by executing the Designer's Certification required by DWQ. A
true and accurate copy of the Designer's Certification from the Engineers is attached hereto as
Exhibit E and incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth.
30. Upon information and belief, the Engineers filed a copy of the Designer's
Certification with DWQ.
31. On or about January 22, 2008, HEO provided to Defendant a copy of the
Designer's Certification.
32. Upon information and belief, all of the conditions for transfer of the
Permit set forth in the Declaration have been completed.
DwQ,S REQUIREMENTS TO TRANSFER THE PERMIT
33. Upon information and belief DWQ may authorize the transfer of a
stormwater management permit when there is a change in the ownership of property upon which
stormwater management facilities are located.
34. Upon information and belief, a permittee can request transfer of a
stormwater permit to a community association by executing the required Ownership Change
Form and submitting additiorml supporting documentation to DWQ.
35. Upon information and belief, DWQ requires that a permit transferee
accept the obligations and transfer of a stormwater permit by executing the Ownership Change
Form.
36. Upon information and belief, the Stormwater Management Facilities are
located in the common elements of Sunset South.
5

37. Since January 2008, HEO has been in negotiation with Defendant to
effectuate transfer of the Permit in accordance with DWQ's requirements for truisfer; however,
Defendant has refused to accept transfer of the permit.
38. On or about July 8, 2009, HEO transferred ownership of the common
elements of Sunset South upon which the Stormwater Management Facilities are located to
Defendant. A true and accurate copy of the Deed conveying the common elements to Defendant
is attached hereto as Exhibit F and incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
39. On July 17, 2009, HEO prepared an Ownership Change Form to effectuate
transfer of the Permit to Defendant, and submitted the Ownership Change Form and supporting
documentation to Defendant for execution. A true and accurate copy of the correspondence and
Ownership Change Form submitted to Defendant is attached hereto as Exhibit G and
incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
40. Upon information and belief, Defendant refuses to accept transfer of the
Permit as required by the Declaration, Articles and Bylaws.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
[Declaratory Judgment]
41. HEO re -alleges and incorporates by reference herein the allegations
contained in Paragraphs 1 through 40 of its Complaint as though fully set forth.
42. HEO claims that Defendant is obligated to accept transfer of the Permit
and assume all responsibilities which flow to its holder pursuant to its Declaration, Articles, and
Bylaws.
43. Defendant claims it is not obligated to accept transfer of the Permit and
refuses to sign the Ownership Change Form and assume responsibility for the Permit.
44. An actual and ongoing controversy exists between HEO and Defendant
regarding Defendant's obligation to accept transfer of the Permit.
45. HEO seeks to have the Court declare the rights and obligations of the
parties concerning the enforcement of the Declaration, Articles, and Bylaws regarding the
transfer of the Permit.
n

46. HEO is entitled to an Order, pursuant to N.C. Gen Stat. § 1-253, et seq.,
declaring that Defendant is required to accept transfer of the Permit and to assume all
responsibilities which flow to its holder.
47. HEO is entitled to an Order that Defendant sign the Ownership Change
Form to effectuate transfer of the Permit.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
[Specific Performance - Enforcement of Declaration]
48. HEO re -alleges and incorporates by reference herein the allegations
contained in Paragraphs 1 through 47 of its Complaint as though they were fully set forth.
and Bylaws.
49. Defendant is contractually bound by the terms of the Declaration, Articles,
50. Defendant has failed to accept transfer of the Permit and to assume all
responsibilities which flow to its holder. Therefore, Defendant has breached its contractual
obligations under the Declaration, Articles, and Bylaws, concerning transfer of the Permit and
the responsibilities which flow therefrom.
51. The Declaration governing Defendant states that HEO may bring an action
for specific performance of the obligations of Defendant regarding the transfer of the Permit.
(Declaration, § XIV).
52. Despite HEO's demands, Defendant has failed and refused, and continues
to fail and refuse, to sign the Ownership Change Form to effectuate the transfer of the Permit and
to assume all responsibilities which flow to its holder.
53. Stormwater management permits require maintenance which generally can
only be authorized by an owner of the property; therefore, DWQ requires that the Permit and its
responsibilities can only be transferred to owners of the property.
54. As a result, only Defendant can accept the transfer of the Permit, and
HEO's only relief from the Permit and its responsibilities is through transfer of the Permit to
Defendant.
55. HEO has no other adequate remedy at law and is entitled to specific
performance of the transfer of the Permit and its responsibilities to Defendant.
7

56. HEO is entitled to an Order requiring Defendant to specifically accept
transfer of the Permit immediately.
57. HEO is entitled to an Order that Defendant sign the Ownership Change
Form to effectuate transfer of the Permit.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
[In the Alternative - Breach of Contract Damages]
58. HEO re -alleges and incorporates by reference herein the allegations
contained in Paragraphs 1 through 57 of its Complaint as though they were fully set forth.
59. Defendant is bound by the terms of the Declaration.
60. Defendant has failed and refused, and continues to fail and refuse, to
perform its obligations under the terms of the Declaration by failing and refusing to accept
transfer of the Permit.
61. Defendant has materially breached the Declaration, as set forth above, and
as shall be shown at trial.
62. HEO has been damaged by virtue of Defendant's breach of the
Declaration, as set forth above, the exact amount of which will be proven at trial.
63. As a result, HEO is entitled to judgment in its favor at trial against
Defendant, the exact amount of which will be proven at trial.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, HEO respectfully prays unto the Court that:
1. The Court enter an Order declaring that Defendant is bound by the
Declaration, Articles, and Bylaws and, therefore, is obligated to accept transfer of the Permit and
to assume all responsibilities which flow to its holder;
2. The Court, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat § 1-259, grant such supplemental
and other relief as may be required to effectuate the Courts declaratory judgment ruling;
3. The Court enter an Order requiring Defendant to specifically perform the
provisions of the Declaration which require the Defendant to accept transfer of the Permit and
assume all responsibilities thereunder, including execution of the Ownership Change Form;
4. In the alternative, HEO have and recover judgment against Defendant for
damages in an amount which will be proven at trial;
8

5. HEO have and recover from Defendant the costs of this action, including
reasonable attorneys' fees; and,
6. HEO have and recover such other and further relief as the Court may
deem just and groper.
A
This the, day of October, 2009.
--Z&7 &
Amy P. Wang
N.C. State Hear I.D. No.: 023322
E-mail: [e-mail]
Alexander C. Dale
N.C. State Bar I.D. No.: 028191
For the firm of
Ward and Smith, P.A.
University Corporate Center
127 Racine Drive
Post Office Box 7068
Wilmington, NC 28406-7068
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: (910) 7944877
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Wilmington Housing Authority and
Housing and Economic Opportunities, Inc.
9

VERIFICATION
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
Michael Krause, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he has read the forgoing
COMPLAINT, and the same is true of his own knowledge, except as to those matters and things
stated on information and belief, and as to those, he believes em to be true.
is i Krause, Ex a irector, Wilmington Housing
Authority, President of Housing and Economic
Opportunities, Inc.
Date 0c;t30/, ROO q
.4 DTA*Q ,
N D: 4829-5300-6852, v. I
fjj7vc5o.�
Signature of Notary Public
My commission expires: �?O/O
10

IF
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory
Governor
October 16, 2014
Vernice Hamilton, CEO
Wilmington Housing Authority
1524 S. 16th Street
Wilmington, NC 28401
Subject: NOTICE OF INSPECTION - Non Compliant
Sunset South
Permit No. SW8 030404
New Hanover County
Dear Mr. Hamilton:
John E. Skvada, III
Secretary
On'October 16, 2014, Chris Baker of the Wilmington Regional Office of the Division of Energy, Mineral
and Land Resources (DEMLR) inspected Sunset South in New Hanover County to determine
compliance with Stormwater Management Permit Number SW8 030404 issued on July 10, 2003.
DEMLR file review and site inspection revealed that the site is not compliant with the terms and
conditions of this permit. Please find a copy of the completed form entitled "Compliance Inspection
Report" attached to this letter, which summarizes the findings of the recent inspection.
As indicated in the attached inspection report, the following deficiencies must be resolved:
1. All infiltration basins have bare earthen areas and need to establish vegetation.
2. Basin #2 influent pipes are partially clogged. Recent maintenance activities have removed
overgrown vegetation. Large and medium stumps left must be uprooted and removed. Areas
of the infiltration basin has accumulated sediment. Reestablish bottom design elevation.
3. Basin #3 overgrown vegetation recently removed needs to be uprooted.
4. Basin #4 Pipes clogged. Sediment accumulation in the basin bottom must be removed and the
design bottom elevation reestablished.
Please inform this Office in writing before November 17, 2014, of the specific actions that will be
undertaken and the time frame that will be required to correct the deficiencies. Failure to provide the
requested information, when required, may initiate enforcement action including the assessment of civil
penalties of up to $25,000 per day. If a written plan of action is not submitted to this office by
November 17, 2014 then DEMLR staff will re -inspect the site and issue a Notice of Violation if the listed
deficiencies have not been addressed.
Please be reminded that if any ownership or name change has occurred it is the permittee's
responsibility to notify this office in writing. If you have any questions please contact me at the
Wilmington Regional Office, telephone number [phone].
Sincerely,
C,V,-Uk
Chris Baker
Environmental Engineer II
Enclosure: Compliance Inspection Report
GDSI csb: 92:%WQSIStormwa1eAPermits & Projects1201 A030404 HD1201410 CEI-deficient 030404
Cc: Philip Norris, P. E., Norris &s Tunstall Consulting Engineers
Wilmington Regional Office
Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources
Land Quality section -Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington. North Carolina 28405 • (910) 796-72151 Fax: [phone]

Compliance Inspection Report
Permit SW8030404 Effective:07/10/03 Expiration: 07/10/17
Project.
Sunset South
Owner:
Wilmington Housing Authority
County:
Nero Hanover
Region:
Wilmington
Adress: Southern Blvd
City/State/Zip: Wilmington NC 28402
Contact Person: Katrina Redmon Title: CEO Phone: [phone]
Directions to Project:
From intersection of US 421 and US 17, take US 17 towards Carolina Beach. Turn right onto Southern Blvd. to Jefferson Street.
Project is on the left.
Type of Project: State Stormwater - HD - Infiltration
Drain Areas: 1 (CAPE FEAR RIVER) (03-06-17) (SC)
2 - (CAPE FEAR RIVER) (03-06-17) (SC)
3 - (CAPE FEAR RIVER) (03-06-17) (SC)
4 - (CAPE FEAR RIVER) (03-06-17) (SC)
On -Site Representative(s):
Related Permits:
Inspection Date. 10/13/2014 Entry Time: 01:OOPM
Primary Inspector: Christopher Baker
Secondary Inspector(s):
Reason for Inspection: Routine
Permit Inspection Type: State Stormwater
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ® Not Compliant
Question Areas:
State Stormwater
(See attachment summary)
Exit Time: 05:OOPM
Phone:
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
page: 1

Permit: SW8030404 Owner - Project: Wilmington Housing Authority
Inspection Date: 10113/2014 Inspection Type Compliance Evaluation Reason for Visit: Routine
SW Measures Yes No NA NE
Are the SW measures constructed as per the approved plans? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Are the inlets located per me approves plans? E ❑ ❑ ❑
Are the outlet structures located per the approved plans? N ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Note infiltration basin #4 has been excivated larger on one end than is reouired.
Operation and Maintenance Yes No NA NE
Are the SW measures being maintained and operated as per the permit requirements? ❑ N ❑ ❑
Are the SW BMP inspection and maintenance records complete and available for review or provided to ❑ ❑ ❑
DWQ upon request?
Comment: 1) No significant erosion within the basins exists but all basins have bare areas, some sizable.
2) Basin one see coment #1.
3) Basin #2 influent pipes partially filled with sediment Overgrown vegetation recently removed needs to
be uprooted Design bottom elevation needs to be reestablished. See comment #1
4) Basin #3 overgrown vegetation recently removed needs to be uprooted. See comment #1
55) Basin #4 pipes clogged Reestablish desion bottom elevation. See note #1.
Other WO Issues Yes No NA NE
Is the site compliant with other water quality issues as noted during the inspection? e ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
page: 2

Lewis,Linda
From:
Glen Floyd [[e-mail]]
Sent:
Monday, December 05, 2011 11:51 AM
To:
Lewis, Linda
Subject:
Re: Sunset South SW8 030404
We are going out to bid for engineering services and hope to have one on board by the end of the week.
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 5, 2011, at 11:10 AM, "Lewis,Linda" <linda.lewis(&ncdenr.eov> wrote:
Mr. Floyd:
I haven't heard anything from you since we last corresponded on October 31, regarding the
addition of 2 new lots to this project. What is the status of the expected permit modification? I've
got the file out, and if it will be submitted soon, I'll just keep it out vs. re -filing it.
Do you have any more questions about the modification process? Thanks,
Linda Lewis
NC Division of Water Quality
127 Cardinal brive Fxt_
Wilmington, NC 28405
910-796-7215
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public
Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

LeWis,Unda 36v X U -30
From:
Lewis,Linda
Sent:
Monday, October 31, 2011 6:18 PM
To:
'Glen Floyd'
Cc:
[e-mail]
Subject:
RE: Sunset South Subdivision proposal
Mr. Floyd:
I pulled the file and am not exactly sure what area you are talking about. It looks like there is a piece of
property with an "existing house" at the southwest corner of Adams Street and Southern Boulevard. This piece
of property also contains the permitted Infiltration Basin #1. There are no proposed lots or BUA assigned to
that piece — only the existing building at 983 sq ft was accounted for.
If you subdivide that area, please be sure to keep Basin #1 in a common area, and do not make it part of the
lot's area. You should also make sure that sufficient drainage easements are provided on those lots to
maintain access to Basin #1.
Infiltration basin #1 is designed to contain and infiltrate approximately 2.5 times the 1" design storm, with no
discharge. Because of this, the requirement for a vegetated filter was waived. If you were to remove the
existing building, and subdivide that piece into 2 lots, you would have to modify the current permit to add those
lots (presumably at the same 2500 sf max BUA as the other lots) and demonstrate that the existing infiltration
basin #1 can handle the net increase in volume from the net increase in BUA. If the basin must be enlarged to
handle the additional volume, then it must be redesigned under the 2008 rules, using one of the available
options to waive the vegetated filter requirement.
Linda Lewis
NC Division of Water Quality
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
910-796-7215
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may
be disclosed to third parties.
From: Glen Floyd jmaIIto:gfloyd(&wha.net]
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 2:43 P.M.
To: Lewis,Linda
Subject: FW: Sunset South Subdivision proposal
Linda,
We would like to subdivide a .5 acre lot on the northern end of Sunset South at the intersection of Southern Blvd and
Adams Street to construct 2 approximately 1200 square foot houses for our Youthbuild grant. In talking with the city, as
noted below, we will need to speak with you concerning this. We should have a draft subdivision in a few weeks. The
permit number for Sunset South is SW8030004. Please let me know what you may need so we can start the process. You
can contact me at 910.232,3354. Thanks. vt�, G ��
From: Derek Pielech[mailto:derek.pielech(dwilmingtonnc.gov]
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 11:20 AM
To: Glen Floyd
Cc: Dawn Snotherly; Amy P. Wang - 5516 ([e-mail]); susan s (susie5001(&hotmail.com);

pnorrisQ)ntengineers.com
Subject: Sunset South Subdivision proposal
Glenn,
According to your current State Stormwater Permit, specifically page 4- Item 4(e), you will need to submit a new plan
showing the proposed subdivision of the lots to the State DWQ office for review. The State will need to determine what
type of review is required, either a revision or a modification. The City cannot approve a subdivision of this lot until we
know the State will allow you to revise your State SW permit in some way. Once the State reviews and approves the
proposed subdivision the City can proceed with our end of the subdivision approval process.
Thanks -Derek
Derek Pielech, PE
Plan Review Engineer/
ROW Administrator
City of Wilmington
Engineering Division
414 Chestnut St, Suite 200
Wilmington, NC 28401
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
derek.pielechAv ilminatonnc.00v

Leow s,`sndla
From:
Lewis,Linda
Sent:
Monday, October 31, 2011 3:19 PM
To:
'Glen Floyd'
Cc:
[e-mail]
Subject:
RE: Sunset South Subdivision proposal SW8 030404
Glen:
The correct permit number for Sunset South Subdivision is SW8 030404. It is a high density (infiltration)
subdivision permit for 130 lots, with each lot limited to 2,500 sf of BUA. A copy of the recorded deed
restrictions has not been received. The designer's certification was received in 2007.
Is the 0.5 acre lot you want to subdivide already included and permitted as part of the Sunset South
subdivision and project area, or will it be added on? If it's already part of the project area, is it currently
proposed as a lot? If you are taking one permitted lot and making it into 2 lots, are you assigning the new lot
the previously permitted 2500 sf max BUA, or will you be splitting the BUA in two, with each lot limited to 1250
sf?
Your answers will guide me in providing the correct course of action for you to either submit as a plan revision
or a permit modification. Either way will include a requirement to submit a copy of the recorded deed
restrictions before approving a plan revision or a permit modification.
Linda Lewis
NC Division of Water Quality
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
910-796-7215
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may
be disclosed to third parties.
From: Glen Floyd [mailto:gfloyd(&wha.net]
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 2:43 PM
To: Lewis,Linda
Subject: FIN: Sunset South Subdivision proposal
Linda,
We would like to subdivide a .5 acre lot on the northern end of Sunset South at the intersection of Southern Blvd and
Adams Street to construct 2 approximately 1200 square foot houses for our Youthbuild grant. In talking with the city, as
noted below, we will need to speak with you concerning this. We should have a draft subdivision in a few weeks. The
permit number for Sunset South is SW8030004. Please let me know what you may need so we can start the process. You
can contact me at 910.232.3354. Thanks.
From: Derek Pieiech[mailto:derek.pielechOwilmingtonnc.gov]
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 11:20 AM
To: Glen Floyd
Cc: Dawn Snotherly; Amy P. Wang - 5516 (APW(dwardandsmith.cwm); susan s (susie5001(dhotmail.com);
pnorris(dntengineers.com
Subject: Sunset South Subdivision proposal
Glenn,

According to your current State Stormwater Permit, specifically page 4- Item 4(e), you will need to submit a new plan
showing the proposed subdivision of the lots to the State DWQ office for review. The State will need to determine what
type of review is required, either a revision or a modification. The City cannot approve a subdivision of this lot until we
know the State will allow you to revise your State SW permit in some way. Once the State reviews and approves the
proposed subdivision the City can proceed with our end of the subdivision approval process.
Thanks -Derek
Derek Pielech, PE
Plan Review Engineer/
ROW Administrator
City of Wilmington
Engineering Division
414 Chestnut St, Suite 200
Wilmington, NC 28401
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
derek. oielecho-wilmingtonnc.gov

Compliance Inspection Report
Permit: SW8030404 Effective: 07/10/03 Expiration:
Countv: New Hanover
Region: Wilmington
Contact Person: Benjamin Quattlebaum Title:
Owner: Wilmington Housing Authority
Project: Sunset South
Between Southern Blvd And
Maryland Ave
Wilmington NC 28402
Phone: [phone]
Directions to Project:
From intersection of US 421 and US 17, take US 17 towards Carolina Beach. Turn right onto Southern Blvd. to Jefferson Street. Project
is on the left.
Type of Project: State Stormwater - High Density State Stormwater - Infiltration System
Drain Areas:
On -Site Representative(s):
Related Permits:
Inspection Date: 08104/2009 Entry Time: 02:00 PM
Primary Inspector: David W Cox
Secondary inspector(s):
Reason for Inspection: Follow-up
Permit Inspection Type: State Stormwater
Facility Status: ■ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Question Areas:
0 State Stormwater
(See attachment summary)
Exit Time: 02:30 PM
Phone: [phone]
Inspection Type: Stormwater
Page: 1

Permit: SW8030404 Owner - Project: Wilmington Housing Authority
Inspection Date: 08/04/2009 Inspection Type: Stormwater
Reason for Visit: Follow-up
Inspection Summary:
The maintenance performed on the stormwater collection system for Sunset South meets the minimum requirments for
this office.
Operation and Maintenance Yes No NA NE
Are the SW measures being maintained and operated as per the permit requirements? 01100
Are the SW BMP inspection and maintenance records complete and available for review or provided to DWQ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
upon request?
Comment:
Page: 2

��
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins
Governor Director
April 1, 2009
Mr. Benjamin J. Quattlebaum, II
Wilmington Housing Authority
P.O. Box 899
Wilmington, NC 28402
Subject: NOTICE OF INSPECTION
Sunset South
Permit No. SW8 030404
New Hanover County
Dear Mr. Quattlebal-lam:
Resources
Dee Freeman
Secretary
On February 24, 20;"9 and March 18, 2009, David Cox of the Wilmington Regional Office of the
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) inspected Sunset South in New Hanover County to determine
compliance with Stormwater Management Permit Number SW8 030404 issued on July 10,
2003. DWQ file review and site inspection revealed that the site is compliant with the terms and
conditions of this permit. Please find a copy of the completed form entitled "Compliance
Inspection Report" attached to this letter.
Please be advised that you are required to comply with the terms, conditions and limitations of
your Stormwater Management Permit under Title 15A North Carolina Administrative Code 2H
.1003 and North Carolina General Statute 143-214.7, including operation and maintenance of
your permitted stormwater system.
If the project has changed name, ownership or mailing address, a formal change of
name/ownership form must be submitted to DWQ within 30 calendar days detailing the change.
Please provide the name, mailing address and phone number of the person or entity that is now
responsible for this permit.
Please be advised that violations of your Stormwater Management Permit may be subject to the
assessment of civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day per violation. If you have any questions
please contact the David Cox at the Wilmington Regional Office, telephone number (910)-796-
7215.
Sincerely
David Cox
Environmental Specialist
Enclosure: Compliance Inspection Report
GDS1dwc: S:IWQSISTORMWATERIINSPECT1030404.apr09
cc: John Hennessy-NPS-ACOU
David Cox
WiR( Files
DWQ Central Files
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, North Carolina 28405 One
Phone: [phone] l FAX: [phone] Customer Service: 1-877-623-6748 Nort11 Car olina
Internet www.ncriaterquality.org �aturall�
An Equal Opportunity l Affirmalive Action Employer

Compliance Inspection Report
Permit: SW8030404 Effective: 07/10/03 Expiration:
County: New Hanover
Region: Wilmington
Contact Person: Benjamin Quattlebaum Title:
Owner: Wilmington Housing Authority
Project: Sunset South
Between Southern Blvd And
Maryland Ave
Wilmington NC 28402
Phone: [phone]
Directions to Project:
From intersection of US 421 and US 17, take US 17 towards Carolina Beach. Turn right onto Southern Blvd. to Jefferson Street. Project
is on the left.
Type of Project: State Stormwater - High Density State Stormwater - Infiltration System
Drain Areas:
On -Site Representative(s):
Related Permits:
Inspection Date: 02/24/2009 Entry Time: 02:30 PM
Primary Inspector: David W Cox
Secondary Inspector(s):
Reason for Inspection: Other
Permit Inspection Type: State Stormwater
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ■ Not Compliant
Question Areas:
0 State Stormwater
(See attachment summary)
Exit Time: 03:00 PM
Phone: [phone]
Inspection Type: Stormwater
Page: 1

Permit: SW8030404 Owner - Project: Wilmington Housing Authority
Inspection Date: 02/24/2009 Inspection Type: Stormwater
Inspection Summary:
In order to correct the following deficiencies you must:
1. Mow the slopes and base of the infiltration basins to maximum height of six inches.
2. Remove all trash and debris from the basins.
File Review
Is the permit active?
Signed copy of the Engineer's certification is in the file?
Signed copy of the Operation & Maintenance Agreement is in the file?
Copy of the recorded deed restrictions is in the file?
Comment:
SW Measures
Are the SW measures constructed as per the approved plans?
Are the inlets located per the approved plans?
Are the outlet structures located per the approved plans? W
Comment:
Reason for Visit: Other
Operation and Maintenance Yes No NA NE
Are the SW measures being maintained and operated as per the permit requirements? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Are the SW BMP inspection and maintenance records complete and available for review or provided to DWQ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
upon request?
Comment: The inspection revealed that the 4 infiltration basins were not being
maintained per the Operations and Maintenance Agreement.
1. The basins were overgrown with woody vegetation.
2. Trash and yard debri is excessive.
Page: 2

Permit: SW8030404 Owner - Project: Wilmington Housing Authority
Inspection Date: 03/18/2009 Inspection Type: Stormwater Reason for Visit: Follow-up
Inspection Summary:
The maintenance performed on the stormwater system meets the minimum requirments fcr this office.
File Review Yes No NA NE
Is the permit active? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Signed copy of the Engineer's certification is in the file? ■ 1100
Signed copy of the Operation & Maintenance Agreement is in the file? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Copy of the recorded deed restrictions is in the file? ■ 000
Comment:
SW Measures Yes No NA NE
Are the SW measures constructed as per the approved plans? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are the inlets located per the approved plans? ®❑ ❑ ❑
Are the outlet structures located per the approved plans? IN ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Operation and Maintenance Yes No NA NE
Are the SW measures being maintained and operated as per the permit requirements? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Are the SW BMP inspection and maintenance records complete and available for review or provided to DWQ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
upon request?
Comment:
Page: 2

Permit: SW8030404
County: New Hanover
Region: Wilmington
Compliance Inspection Report
Owner: Wilmington Housing Authority
Project: Sunset South
Between Southern Blvd And
Maryland Ave
Wilmington NC 28402
Contact Person: Benjamin Quattlebaum Title: Phone: [phone]
Directions to Project:
From intersection of US 421 and US 17, take US 17 towards Carolina Beach. Turn right onto Southern Blvd. to Jefferson Street. Project
is on the left.
Type of Project: State Stormwater - High Density State Stormwater - Infiltration System
Drain Areas:
On -Site Representative(s):
Related Permits:
Effective:07110/03 Expiration
Inspection Date: 0311812009 Entry Time: 02:30 PM
Primary Inspector: David W Cox
Secondary Inspector(s):
Reason for Inspection: Follow-up
Permit Inspection Type: State Stormwater
Facility Status: 0 Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Question Areas:
State Stormwater
(See attachment summary)
Exit Time: 03:00 PM
Phone: [phone]
Inspection Type: Stormwater
Page: 1

Cox, David . SOU o ,k) lo4-
From: Amy P. Wang - 5516 [[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 4:01 PM
To: 'David W Cox'
Subject: RE: HEO/Sunset South
David,
I have a copy of the Designer's Certification. I thought the engineer filed the original
with DWQ. It was done by Phil Norris with Norris, Kuske & Turnstall. Are you sure you don't
have it?
Amy
Amy P. Wang
Attorney
Ward and Smith, P.A.
1001 College Court (28562) 1 Post Office Box 867 New Bern, NC 28563-0867
T: 252.672.5516 1 F: 252.672.5477
www.wardandsmith.com
if you have received this confidential message in error, please destroy it and any
attachments without reading, printing, copying or forwarding it. Please let us know of the
error immediately so that we can prevent it from happening again. You may reply directly to
the sender of this message. Neither the name of Ward and Smith, P.A. or its representative,
nor transmission of this email from Ward and Smith, P.A., shall be considered an electronic
signature unless specifically stated otherwise in this email by a licensed attorney employed
by Ward and Smith, P.A. Thank you.
-----Original Message -----
From: David W Cox [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 11:45 AM
To: Amy P. Wang - 5516
Subject: Re: HEO/Sunset South
Amy, a file review has revealed that this office still needs the system Certified by an
Engineer. Thanks, David
Amy P. Wang - 5516 wrote:
> Thanks, David. Will do.
> Amy
> --------------------
> Amy P. Wang
> Attorney
> Ward and Smith, P.A.
> 1001 College Court (28562)
> 28563-0867
Post Office Box 867 New Bern, NC
1

> T: 252.672.5516 1 F: 252.672.5477
> www.wardandsmith.com
> If you have received this confidential message in error, please
> destroy it and any attachments without reading, printing, copying or
> forwarding it. Please let us know of the error immediately so that we can prevent it from
happening again. You may reply directly to the sender of this message. Neither the name of
Ward and Smith, P.A. or its representative, nor transmission of this email from Ward and
Smith, P.A., shall be considered an electronic signature unless specifically stated otherwise
in this email by a licensed attorney employed by Ward and Smith, P.A. Thank you.
> -----Original Message -----
> From: David W Cox [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 2:21 PM
> To: Amy P. Wang - 5516
> Subject: Re: HEO/Sunset South
> Yeah that is fine. As long as they can get to it pretty quickly. Just
> let me know when they will be ready. Thanks David
> Amy P. Wang - 5516 wrote:
>> David,
>> A thought and request - if you have not actually committed the Notice of Inspection to
writing would you please hold off? Prior to your visit, our client had arranged for the
ponds to be cleaned and vegetation to be mowed this weekend. Could you plan a revisit for
your original date and assess the facilities at that time?
>> Thanks,
>> Amy
>> -------------
>> Amy P. Wang
>> Attorney
>> Ward and Smith, P.A.
>> 1001 College Court (28562) Post Office Box 867 New Bern, NC
>> 28563-0867
>> T: 252.672.5516 1 F: 252.672.5477
>> www.wardandsmith.com
>> If you have received this confidential message in error, please
>> destroy it and any attachments without reading, printing, copying or
>> forwarding it. Please let us know of the error immediately so that we can prevent it from
happening again. You may reply directly to the sender of this message. Neither the name of
Ward and Smith, P.A. or its representative, nor transmission of this email from Ward and
Smith, P.A., shall be considered an electronic signature unless specifically stated otherwise
in this email by a licensed attorney employed by Ward and Smith, P.A. Thank you.
>> -----Original Message-----
» From: David W Cox [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 3:58 PM
>> To: Amy P. Wang - 5516
2

»-SuiSject: Re: HEO/Sunset South
>> Hey Amy,
>> Inspected Sunset and it looks the primary issue is lack of maintenance.
>> I will get out an inspection notice asap. David
>> Amy P. Wang - 5516 wrote:
>>> Thanks for letting me know.
>>> Best,
>>> Amy
>>>--------------------
>>> Amy P. Wang
>>> Attorney
>>> Ward and Smith, P.A.
>>> 1001 College Court (28562) Post Office Box 867 New Bern, NC
>>> 28563-0867
>>> T: 252.672.5516 1 F: 252.672.5477
>>> www.wardandsmith.com
>>> If you have received this confidential message in error, please
>>> destroy it and any attachments without reading, printing, copying or
>>> forwarding it. Please let us know of the error immediately so that we can prevent it
from happening again. You may reply directly to the sender of this message. Neither the
name of Ward and Smith, P.A. or its representative, nor transmission of this email from Ward
and Smith, P.A., shall be considered an electronic signature unless specifically stated
otherwise in this email by a licensed attorney employed by Ward and Smith, P.A. Thank you.
>>> -----Original Message -----
>>> From: David W Cox [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 3:37 PM
>>> To: Amy P. Wang - 5516
>>> Subject: Re: HEO/Sunset South
>>> I plan on inspecting on 03/02/2009.
>>> Amy P. Wang - 5516 wrote:
>>>> David,
>>>> Thanks for your return call on Friday and assistance with the
>>>> Stormwater Permit transfer for the Sunset South subdivision. If at
>>>> all possible, please let me know when you expect to be able to
>>>> inspect the facilities so that I can plan a transfer enforcement
>>>> action accordingly.
>>>> Best,
3

>>>> Amy
>>>> *Amy P Wang* I Attorney
>>>> *Ward and Smith, P.A.*
>>>> 1001 College Court (28562) Post Office Box 867 New Bern, NC
>>>> 28563-0867
>>>> T: 252.672.5516 1 F: 252.672.5477
>>>> V-card <http://www.wardandsmith.com/vcard/apw.vcf> j
>>>> www.wardandsmith.com <http://www.wardandsmith.com/>
>>>> If you have received this confidential message in error, please
>>>> destroy it and any attachments without reading, printing, copying
>>>> or forwarding it. Please let us know of the error immediately so
>>>> that we can prevent it from happening again. You may reply directly
>>>> to the sender of this message. Neither the name of Ward and Smith, P.A.
>>>> or its representative, nor transmission of this email from Ward and
>>>> Smith, P.A., shall be considered an electronic signature unless
>>>> specifically stated otherwise in this email by a licensed attorney
>>>> employed by Ward and Smith, P.A. Thank you.
>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>>> David Cox
>>> Environmental Senior Specialist
>>> Surface Water Protection Unit
>>> Wilmington Region
>>> Phone [phone]
>>> Fax [phone]
>>> E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina
Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
>> David Cox
>> Environmental Senior Specialist
>> Surface Water Protection Unit
>> Wilmington Region
>> Phone [phone]
>> Fax [phone]
4

;> E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public
Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
>
> David Cox
> Environmental Senior Specialist
> Surface Water Protection Unit
> Wilmington Region
> Phone [phone]
> Fax [phone]
> E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public
Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
David Cox
Environmental Senior Specialist
Surface Water Protection Unit
Wilmington Region
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public
Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
5

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
WIRO Regional Office
FILE ACCESS RECORD
SECTION. SVIIP DATE; 1.IRVE 10 , aor '0�
NAME �i'm ��/� h REPRESENTING �� ' �� j,r Ta
34//- �G 1 -
Guidelines for Access: The staff of the Regional Office is dedicated to making public records in
our custody readily available to the public for review and copying. We also have the responsibility
to the public to safeguard these records and to carry out our day-to-day program obligations.
Please read carefully the following before signing the form.
1. Due to the large public demand for file access, we request that you call at least a day in
advance to schedule an appointment for file review so you can be accommodated.
Appointments are scheduled between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Viewing time ends at 4 45
P.m. Anyone arriving without an appointment may view the files to the extent that time and
staff supervision are available.
2. You must specify files you want to review by facility name or incident number, as
appropriate. The number of files that you may review at one appointment will be limited to
five. —
3. You may make copies of a file when the copier is not in use by the staff and if time permits.
There is no charge for 25 or less copies._-, cost per copy after the initial 25 is 2.5 per copy.
Payment is to be made by check, money order, or cash in the administrative offices.
4. Files must be kept in the order you received them. Files may not be taken from the office.
No briefcases, large totes etc are permitted in the file review area To remove, alter,
deface, mutilate, or destroy material in public files is a misdemeanor for which you can be
fined up to $500.00.
5. In accordance with GS 25-3-512, a $25.00 processing fee will be charged and collected for
checks on which payment has been refused.
6. The customer must present a photo ID, sign -in, and receive a visitor sticker prior to
reviewing files.
FACILITY NAME (0`0UNTY
�',/ �/l�i � �'v'd Ise-1 �7 /�% • ,
2. r/
3_
4.
5.
/covi
nature/N me of Firm or Business Date Time In. Time Out
lease atta h business card to form if available)
# Copes: — Amt. Pd:

4-4
1-4
au
CCd0-4
d
LL�
CI�lG
d
N 6
q C P
m
m
� m
�d
+0 e.wis. x ,� „ •
m = 6
�.
cn
SE'
Lj. e
4 m
C
cO
,c rn a c
a
c �
L
a,
a
O
.a m G9t
w
C9
u y y �
m a 0 W
m
O
7 O CL _J /� a
u• 4 `o •l.•
d m 0 4 a
o
ci to
a a °
3
col°\ riA 4
4 C Z
j LL
Sk
sh��pOr
� An
O
N
34 SW8 a 5t Adams St
uya.L
ay
avo
s rn
q2 _
�' 44 t, O3•J�a; "EitElrlin al
.letftrg" f
a�
c� as a a
m� ay
m �
®2
0 .o m
x
+-
ti+ y
Mr.rm �t Nin sr �c St Monroe St
iMlol
U)
�.Cie
C
4
0
�
cu
Ayt 4 1O a
19 a LOUt81E'.nJ bi LC!EISIPna St
��`�
Lralrf;
_i
gat"``�•s'
U
2 0
J cr n
ti
ClV�.��r
3 a
J
FL ' Rurnett Blvd
Blvd
Hume
�t aloe",
®.
op
O
N
!
m
d
7
m
rn
O
O
C7
n
0
N
a
co
v
a

w
■ Comulete items 1.2. and 3
® Print your name and address on tits reverse
so that we can return ftte card to you.
■ Attach thla card to the back of the maiipieoe,'
or on the front U spaca permits.
1. Article Addressed tD:
yJa ct So�7*i. duhwSolltiuh
`(6 Mr- JAYM 5. L (Wer, CsTS
C'.16vi ghcllq � Se.4 ptllt, IL P
4S(q Cr#erar jV4, Svik Ifoo
bur* C A77D
Ilia II1II11IIIIII11111111111111I11111111111
9590 9402 2090 6132 2088 76
7015 1520 0001 2899 2963
A. SWwAire
X 13 �t
� 0 Addressee
S. RecetM byp4tad Nam C. Date of DQvM
p. to delivery eddrese dlifererrt from Item 17 E3Yes
9 YES, onW delhrery eddrm below: p No
S. Bembs Type
l7 Adldt Slgne4se
17lidl�tal®astUeReetrbmdaeewry
O PAorlty Mall Opwise
O RoRbb&W MdITN
OBedMdlReeMated
Reetr WDellwY
�Reedptfor
I] Copeot an Delivery Cl 8l CortltrmAt-'
13 Cdieet on ISeINery Restricted DaNrory
❑ insraetl Mal
0 aim C.orrRrrr odd
O Ineund Maill Realdoted ostluery
RMORW l ORMY
PS Form 3811, July2015 PSN 753M-00"DW wT _ 27 q Domestic Ream Receipt
a
Fl

i Issues for State Storm Water Office
Addit-ional Issue as a result of clear-:
A. The weeds growing in the treatment area were not removed by
hand or killed with pesticide. Instead, -they were plower" into
the sides as well as the main treatment area.
B. The trees in the treatment areas were chopped up by heavy
construction equipment and plowed into the sides and
treatment area.
C. The contractor, with no prompting, volunteered that the basin
running from Virginia Ave. to Maryland Ave., parallel to
Jefferson St. had failed, the sides were so far gone that at least
one homeowner's fence was already affected and might topple
over. He said the water on the bottom of the treatment was
knee high.
There has been no significant rainfall for a couple of weeks. There
should not be standing water in any basin, let alone two feet of water.
enn t'.A� t � i'c area ne�,zds ,. a �, n.-n! t " .,
.+2 �:'ai:; +.. ...�5 ;:� .�:. w!e�.a...:..: �'l"� csi+:,� S�.�s"�,Gbi
see, rn nt.n 2n.6 Arflit a ' mn iz:es s sons. ;3n c R basins.
I. My understanding is state standards require that perimeters of
infiltration basins be at least 10 feet wide. In some parts of the
facility, perimeters are less than 10 feet wide.
2. Perimeters are supposed to be kept clear and not used for storage,
etc. Structures have been placed within the perimeter of at least one
basin.
3. An infiltration basin system is contraindicated when there is
excessively sandy soil, such as Kureb-Urban. Except for part of the

smallest basin, the remaining portions of the facility are built upon
Kureb-Urban soil.
4. Infiltration basins should not be used in areas of excessive
infiltration. Generally, rates should be between 0.5 and 3 inches per
hour. All four basins in the facility exceed 2C inches per hour.
5. Generally, demolition debris can not be used in a storm water
facility, but in no event can "dirty dill" be left behind. Readily
observable debris and "dirty fill" can be seen through out the system.
6. The sides of the basins are eroding, even in areas where the
perimeters are 0 feet wide or more.
7. A wall belonging to an adjoining property owner, Titan Cement, is
being undermined by erosion. Titan engineers conducted an
examination and noted that the wall appears to be buckling. They do
not want the HOA to accept the permit as they question whether the
HOA would have the resources to take care of various problems.
S. Federal requirements for a Phase I Environmental Assessment were
not met. HEO could only produce a site assessment done by HUD in
1998 when Dove Meadows was still on the site. That assessment
specifically did not address any future uses. Presumably, if there had
been proper compliance, a different type of storm water facility would
have been used, or the decision would have been made to use the
existing city system. Since permit holders have to be in compliance
with all applicable laws and regulations, this matter needs to be
resolved by the proper federal authorities before the pemit is
transferred, whether to us, HEO, or any other entity.
9. The subdivision may be located in an area of karst topography, a
contraindication for choosing an infiltration basin system. There have
been sinkholes in and about the area, including next to one of the
basins.

10. The use of demolition debris as fill will cause further
destabilization and erosion as the debris continues to come to the
surface. Even if fill was lawfully permitted, it may have been placed
too close to the surface or may be coming to the surface because of
the soil type or other unique environmental factors that should have
been considered by a proper environmental review.
11. HEO has not properly maintained the system. We received a
maintenance log which indicates HEO performed no maintenance in
2008.
12. At least one of the basins has failed on on. occasion. Prior HEO
management indicated that your office had approved a change to
allow construction of a swale co properly route overflow but this work
was never performed.
13. The system is designed so that overflow from one basin goes
through yards and into the street, causing local flooding where none
previously existed, before theoretically flowing into a storm drain and
on into another basin. More sand has been observed washing down
from yards, for a variety of reasons, leading to a possible increase in
clogging and more street flooding.
14. The system receives storm water from other locations besides the
subdivision, including run-off from Titan Cement's recycling
plant. Infiltration basins should not be used in areas of urban "hot
spots."
15. Titan engineers point out that normal recycling operations near
the property line may result in the leaching of materials, such as clay-
like particles, into the adjacent basin and adversely affect infiltration
over time.

Scope of Work
Sunset South Storm Water Basin Repair
Provide sufficient labor and material repair four retention ponds at
Sunset South:
1. Basin # 1: Over seed sides with required amount of winter seed mix
grass per 1000 square feet.
2. Basin #2: Remove debris from influent pipes (2) . Uproot and
remove large and medium stumps. Grade to re-establish bottom
design elevation of 23.7' using inverts of influent pipes. Prep sides
of basin and over seed bare areas with required amount of winter
seed mix grass per 1000 square feet.
3. Basin #3: Uproot and remove large and medium stumps. Over
seed bare areas with required amount of winter seed mix grass per
1000 square feet.
4. Basin #4: Remove debris from influent pipe. Uproot and remove
large and medium stumps. Grade to re-establish bottom design
elevation of 24.0' using invert of influent pipe. Prep sides of basin
and over seed bare areas with required amount of winter seed mix
grass per 1000 square feet.

WARDAND SMITH, PA.
AMY Y. WANG, Attorney at Law
LEED Green Associate 5
P: 252.672.5516 A 0 f)17�`
C:252.675.7269 !, ''� d
F:252.672.5477 1001 College Court(28562)
[e-mail] Post Office Box 867
www.wardandsmith.com New Bern, NC 28563-0867

Z — 5 dice,
5� orojo5l /f-,O2 = oarsly/ � c Grey
Mo ion eaf,7,,,
ZE5DAY MAY Z3 -ZOt?
;ull se �-
Uhq
o vi 0 soz
A110C2.1b'n mr-re- soA - /,"), I
4be C�Z���5 ll*.e5 W/'4-5S66is�'gn
-X4,75 f,',l C
VAJoV
t) aleeer4- permi-f- q afli'FITU 21
• s ¢fit , - b b i v, ZbAv,` Y*.,; - Cif-
(3U4- -;rg-aye
-r (1►n�, - nay �f z �

C. �' pecItS�jj >

1-'Ue-:5p4y oc7z.>/3c--.r2 -z4- zol?
SgWT @
�' 1-ill �G7iS � 1�2�Jec�2,%� �,��f� ���'

0

a
HD�.W/A-MIL- V zal:�
PkI kan*S
VA
I

fMc�tif.�4-YfkP�lL 2R 2�st�
I

17UC5P14-Y. 067Z>/3c2 Z4 2-0 l9
i�G,�-� Gv ' e7CC2V 2 �,� C�► SgwT ce d vfl�h,
cA eck-
- t
ZocF
-JqN
�s y 00�5C. 12 00/7
—1 Phil &crys > 1PO17ew4/.5-

d
Vf9