20130570 Ver 1_WQC Desc & FOF_20131123

Request for a Major Variance from the Neuse Riparian Area Protection Rules by Byron and Jessica
Trimmer for a deck expansion to an existing single family residence at 8909 Oxbridge Court in Raleigh,
NC — (Action Item) (Jennifer Burdette)
A request has been received for the Water Quality Committee (WQC) to grant a Major Variance from
the Neuse River Riparian Area Protection Rules (15A NCAC 2B 0.233) to Byron and Jessica Trimmer for
deck expansion to an existing single family residence at 8909 Oxbridge Court in Raleigh, NC. Due to the
presence of an unnamed tributary to Hare Snipe Creek running along the back of the residence, the
proposed deck expansion will need to encroach into Zone One of the riparian buffer. The applicant is
proposing mitigation and installation of a rain garden to offset more than the proposed buffer impacts.
Although DWR recognizes that the applicant does not comply with the evaluation criteria 15A NCAC 02B
.0233(9)(a)(i)(A) &(E), DWR supports this major variance request. (Attachments enclosed: Variance
Application, DWR Findings of Fact and Power Point Presentation)

1 ®1
RCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Programs
Pat McCrory Thomas A. Reeder
Governor Director
Request for a Major Variance from the
Neuse River Riparian Area Protection Rules
Byron and Jessica Trimmer
8909 Oxbridge Court
Raleigh, NC
November 13, 2013
John E. Skvarla, III
Secretary
Byron and Jessica Trimmer have requested the Water Quality Committee (WQC) to grant a
Major Variance from the Neuse Riparian Area Protection Rules (15A NCAC 02B .0233) for
construction of a screened porch and deck expansion to an existing single family residence and
rain garden at 8909 Oxbridge Court in Raleigh, NC. The proposed screened porch /deck
expansion and rain garden would impact 349 square feet of Zone 1 and 60 square feet of Zone
2, respectively.
Accordingly, pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0233 (9)(c), the Division of Water Resources makes the
preliminary finding that the major variance request demonstrates the following:
• Practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships are present;
• The harmony and spirit of buffer protection requirements are met; and
• The protection of water quality and substantial justice has been achieved as required in
15A NCAC 02B.0233 (9)(a).
15A NCAC 02B.0233 (9)(a)(i) states the following:
"There are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships that prevent compliance with the strict
letter of the riparian buffer protection requirements. Practical difficulties or unnecessary
hardships shall be evaluated in accordance with the following:
A. If the applicant complies with the provisions of this Rule, he /she can secure no
reasonable return from, nor make reasonable use of, his /her property. Merely proving
that the variance would permit a greater profit from the property shall not be considered
adequate justification for a variance. Moreover, the Division or delegated local authority
shall consider whether the variance is the minimum possible deviation from the terms of
this Rule that shall make reasonable use of the property possible.
401 & Buffer Permitting, Unit One
1650 Mail Service Center, Ralaigh, North Carolina 2x699 1617 Noi'thCarolina
Location. 512 r!. Salisbcry St. Raleigh, No-11h Caroh, ra 27604
Phone 919-80-,-6300 1 FhK q19 -807 6492
Inle net ,roww ncwaterqua6;.0rg

Byron & Jessica Trimmer
8909 Oxbridge Court
Major Variance Request — DWQ Findings of Fact
Page 2 of 4
B. The hardship results from application of this Rule to the property rather than from other
factors such as deed restrictions or other hardship.
C. The hardship is due to the physical nature of the applicant's property, such as its size,
shape, or topography, which is different from that of neighboring property.
D. The applicant did not cause the hardship by knowingly or unknowingly violating this
Rule.
E. The applicant did not purchase the property after the effective date of this Rule, and
then request an appeal.
F. Fhe hardship is unique to the applicant's property, rather than the result of conditions
that are widespread. If other properties are equally subject to the hardship-:created in
the restriction, then granting a variance would be a special privilege denied to others,
and would not promote equal justice;"
The Division finds the following:
There are practical difficulties that prevent compliance with the strict letter of the riparian
buffer protection requirements:
A. The applicants would not be able to build the screened porch and deck expansion if
they cannot impact the buffer. The Division believes that the applicant can make
reasonable use of their property without additional impacts to the protected
riparian buffer. However, the applicant has limited space for outdoor recreation
with the tributary located approximately 5 to 20 feet from the existing deck. The
existing deck is approximately 40 percent smaller than other decks in the
subdivision. According to the applicant, one section that is 7 feet in depth is too
narrow for effective use. The applicant minimized the proposed impacts to the
buffer from the original application by 96 square feet.
B. The hardship results from the application of this rule.
C. The hardship is due to the physical nature of the applicant's property. An unnamed
tributary to Hare Snipe Creek runs along the back of the existing residence. The back
of the house is located within Zone 1, and most of the backyard is Zone 1 of the
buffer.
D. The applicant did not cause the hardship by knowingly or unknowingly violating this
Rule.
E. The applicant purchased the property on June 15, 2006, which is after the effective
date of this Rule. The lot was platted and the house was constructed in 1994.
F. The hardship is unique to the applicant's property in that the existing residence was
constructed 5 to 20 feet from the tributary prior to the implementation of the buffer
rules with an inadequately sized deck. Any expansion to the deck would require
impacts to Zone 1 of the buffer. This constraint is different from that of most of the
other properties in the subdivision.

Byron & Jessica Trimmer
8909 Oxbridge Court
Major Variance Request — DWQ Findings of Fact
Page 3 of 4
15A NCAC 0213.0233 (9)(a)(11)
"The variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the State's riparian buffer
protection requirements and preserves its spirit;"
The Divisions finds the following:
The purpose of the riparian buffer rules is to protect existing riparian buffer areas. It could be
argued that the applicant could utilize the existing deck without impacting the riparian buffer.
However, the applicant is proposing to: 1) purchase 1,100 square feet of buffer mitigation
credits; 2) restore 37 square feet of Zone 1 buffer, 3) construct a bio - retention area designed to
treat more than twice the amount of impervious surface added in the buffer by the proposed
screened porch and deck expansion, and 4) place a protective covenant on the lot. This
protective covenant will prohibit filling, draining, creation of new concentrated stormwater
flow, and impacts to existing riparian buffer vegetation and ensure alterations of the rain
gutters and bio- retention area do not occur.
15A NCAC 0213.0233 (9)(a)(iii)
"In granting the variance, the public safety and welfare have been assured, water quality has
been protected, and substantial justice has been done."
The Divisions finds the following:
In granting the variance, water quality has been protected and substantial justice has been
done.
There will be an improvement of the nutrient load to the unnamed tributary to Hare Snipe
Creek from this property if the variance is approved through installation of a rain garden to
treat approximately 900 square feet of existing roof drainage and restoration of 37 square feet
of Zone 1 buffer. The applicant is also proposing to purchase 1,100 buffer mitigation credits
and place a protective covenant on the lot.
This Major Variance as proposed is consistent with past Major Variance approvals from the
Water Quality Committee.
Division of Water Resources' Recommendation:
Based on the information submitted, the Division of Water Resources supports this request for
a Major Variance from the Neuse Riparian Area Protection Rules because practical difficulties or
unnecessary hardships are present; the harmony and spirit of buffer protection requirements
are met; and the protection of water quality and substantial justice has been achieved as
required in 15A NCAC 02B .0233 (9)(a) provided the below mentioned conditions or stipulations
are required. If the Water Quality Committee approves this request for a Major Variance from
the Neuse Riparian Area Protection Rules, the Division recommends approval with the following
conditions or stipulations [pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0233 (9)(c)(ii)]:

Byron & Jessica Trimmer
8909 Oxbridge Court
Major Variance Request — DWQ Findings of Fact
Page 4 of 4
• Mitigation
■ provide mitigation for the proposed impacts by restoring 37 square feet of Zone 1
riparian buffer and purchasing 1,100 square feet of buffer credits from Restoration
Systems, LLC as indicated in their application
• Stormwater Management Plan
■ construct a bio- retention area (The bioretention area will provide treatment for 900
square feet of existing impervious surface.)
Protective Covenants
■ place a protective covenant on the lot to prohibit filling, draining, creation of new
concentrated stormwater flow, and impacts to existing riparian buffer vegetation
and ensure alterations of the rain gutters and bio- retention area do not occur
• state that the stream and protected Neuse River Riparian Buffer exists on the
property
• specify that new direct discharges of stormwater runoff through the buffer to
the stream are prohibited
• require that rain gutters and bio- retention area remain in place and be utilized
and maintained on a regular basis (The Division shall be notified in writing of any
proposal to remove or modify the above stormwater control measures.)