SW8090903_Historical File_20220811

Zorda, Garrett D
From: Zorda, Garrett D
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2022 11:04 AM
To: Tim Clark Edmonds, Jessica
Cc: Hastings Sartin; Hall, Christine; Richard Collier
Subject: RE: [External] Hawthorn at Southbridge - Stormwater Permitting
Good Morning Tim,
I received your voicemail and was also able to speak with Jessica regarding your inquiry. I think this email should help
answer your questions and also be a useful reference for moving forward with the proposed project(s), as there
certainly are a lot of moving parts.
To start with your more straight forward questions, permit transfers are required for any permit where the project area,
in whole or in part, has been sold or conveyed to another entity other than the permittee, as Post -Construction
Stormwater permits do not automatically transfer with the sale or conveyance of the project area. Failure to submit a
Permit Transfer application upon the sale of conveyance of the property area is considered a compliance issue (for
example, see Permit Condition 111.4. of SW8 150413), which is why they must be addressed. Permit Transfer applications
follow the Standard Program timelines, which statutorily is 90 days from receipt of a complete application. Of course, we
try to review projects as soon as possible, however, due to the increase in the volume of submitted projects and staffing
limitations, the current timelines are running closer to the statutory limit.
Regarding the development of Parcel 1 (Tract B), as you know, there are several different permitting actions that are
contingent on each other. Your email contains several hypothetical situations for this development, however, without
knowing the full extent of the proposed project(s), such as the fate of Parcel 6 (Tract C) and the adjacent development
or the BUA currently allocated to Parcel 6 (Tract C) by SW8 150413, it is difficult to provide more focused guidance on
the best path forward at this time. As I have noted previously, it is highly recommended to coordinate with the
developer/consultant of the adjacent property, as it will likely result in a more clear path for moving forward. With that
said, it would be recommended to submit the permit actions related to the development of Parcel 1(Tract B) through
the Standard Program, which you alluded to in your email, as it offers more flexibility to work through complicated
permitting scenarios.
Regarding the development of Parcel 3, there are a few less moving parts that allow for a couple of different options,
including a possible option for submitting through the Express program. Please note, in any case, the modification to
SW8 090903 to remove the Parcel 3 area and the new permit application for the proposed Parcel 3 development must
be submitted for concurrent review, as they are contingent on each other. Also, as noted above, a Permit Transfer is still
required for any permit where the project area, in whole or in part, has been sold or conveyed to another entity other
than the current permittee. With that said, the options for proceeding with the development of Parcel 3 include:
1. If it is desired to submit through the Express program: In this case two Express requests would need to be
submitted; one for the modification to SW8 090903 (which will remove the Parcel 3 area) and one for the
proposed Parcel 3 development (which will received a new permit covering the area removed from SW8
090903). The Express requests will be reviewed and, if eligible (see sub -item 2 of the Post -Construction Express
Fee Schedule for more information on eligibility), a single submittal meeting will be scheduled for both projects
(as they are contingent on each other). At the time of the submittal meeting three separate application
packages (including applicable fees) will need to be submitted:
a. Package #1: A complete Permit Modification application package for SW8 090903 (including applicable
Express fee; see Post Construction Express Fee Schedule linked above) to remove the Parcel 3 area from
the permit. This modification will need to be submitted by the current permittee, BC & RT, LLC.

Package #2: A complete Permit Transfer application package for SW8 090903 (Standard Program Permit
Transfer fee of $505.00) to be logged into the Standard Program immediately following the approval of
the modification.
c. Package #3: A complete, new Permit application package for the proposed Parcel 3 area (including
applicable Express fee; see Post Construction Express Fee Schedule linked above). This permit will cover
the area removed from SW8 090903.
2. If it is desired to submit to the Standard Program and address the modification first: This option would require
the submittal of the same three application packages outlined in Option 1 above, but would be reviewed
through the Standard program and only the applicable Standard Program application fee(s) would apply.
3. If it is desired to submit to the Standard Program and address the transfer of SW8 090903 first: A complete
Permit Transfer application for SW8 090903 must first be submitted, reviewed and approved. Once the transfer
has been completed, the new permittee(s) can submit the modification to SW8 090903 to remove the Parcel 3
area. The new, complete Permit application for the proposed Parcel 3 development must also be submitted at
the same time as the modification for concurrent review.
As you noted in your previous email, the Express schedule is currently scheduling pretty far out. With that said, it is
difficult to determine which of the above three options would be the "quickest", as it largely depends on the
completeness of the application package(s), when they are submitted, etc.
Hopefully the above proves helpful in proceeding with the proposed development. In the meantime, if you would like to
schedule a file review to come in and review any or all of the current permits, please let me know and I will happy to
help facilitate that. Otherwise, please let me know if you have any questions on the above.
Thanks,
Garrett Zorda
Environmental Engineer
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources — State Stormwater Program
Department of Environmental Quality
910 796 7215 office
910 796 7343 direct **Please note the change to my direct phone number**
garrett.zordaCa-ncdenr.aov
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
D�,.� E�
r.�w'v+.ni.r vwwMr�w� O�i.nt
LilT�li correspondence io and ftorp thr:-3 address is sui:;,ect to the
North Carddina Puh'ic �.2cords Law and .may ,'-ka disc osad to third parties,
From: Tim Clark <[e-mail]> —
Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2022 6:27 PM
To: Zorda, Garrett D <[e-mail]>; Edmonds, Jessica <[e-mail]>
Cc: Hastings Sartin <[e-mail]>; Hall, Christine <[e-mail]>; Richard Collier
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] Hawthorn at Southbridge - Stormwater Permitting
CAUTION: E;Aernai email. D,-) not dick links cr open azpchments unless you venfy. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
B�=Crt 12-:

Garret/Jessica,
Thank you for your response! I have followed up with both of you via phone calls in interest of talking this through
further. I apologize for all the questions. We have a complex situation here that I am trying to sift through the process
options, so we have a clear path forward and it is acceptable to your group. I have outlined some of the additional
questions I have below, both standard and express oriented, though welcome the opportunity to discuss this with the
both of you.
Regarding the permitting of parcel 1 (tract B) and other permit actions necessary to do so, it would appear the 3 hurdles
we have regarding express permitting are tied to: 1) the need for Permit Transfers, 2) the need for continuous coverage
of the tract c area, and 3) the maximum number SCM's that can be submitted via express. Regarding item 1, is it an
absolute requirement that the permit transfers occur, putting all property owners of the subject parcel as permittee(s)
on the permit? What is the timeline of a Permit Transfer as far as NCDEQ review time? Regarding item 3) 1 am unsure of
the adjacent property's site plan however past iterations had several SCM's. I also see now how the adjacent parcel
permit being submitted standard track would complicate, if not make it impossible, to submit the other permit actions
via express track.
Keeping my clients interests at the forefront, I would be remiss if I did not explore a scenario where we could submit
express still. If for one reason or another Parcel 6 (tract c) remained with SW8 150413, and Parcel 1(tract b) did not
need the BUA allocation from Parcel 6 (tract c) or did not need all of the allocation, and the permit transfers occurred
and was approved prior to the express submittal (assuming this is a must), would this open an opportunity to submit the
modifications to SW8 150413 and SW8 150414, plus the new off -site permit on Parcel 1 (tract B) via the express
process? This path would seem to resolve the owner transfer dilemma and maintain the continuous coverage of tract C,
and remain compliant with the 3 SCM rule.
Regarding permitting Parcel 3, 1 anm unsure if it is subject to the same limitations as Parcel 1 (tract b). Maybe we handle
all the permit actions necessary to develop parcel 1(tract b) via the standard permit track and focus the permitting of
parcel 3 via express. After all, there is a lot of effort necessary for the permitting just 2 buildings on parcel 1, perhaps
there can be less of a rush on that site. The Permit Transfer appears to still be a hurdle if it is required for the
permittee(s) to align with the parcel owner(s). Must the permit transfer occur on permit SW8 090903? Could BC & RT,
LLC submit the necessary modification removing parcel 3 limits and drainage areas 13A/13B? Or if it is a must, would it
be possible to submit the owner transfer form and modification for SW8 090903, fixing any ownership issues and
removing the 13A/13B drainage area as well as adjusting the limits of the permit, and at the same time be entered into
the queue for the express submittal for parcel 3? 1 am not sure of the exact timelines for the owner transfer or
modification with your group, assuming this is a minor modification, however I understand these to be more
straightforward with much shorter timelines. It would seem possible the modification and owner transfer could be
completed prior to the submittal meeting, therefore remain compliant with the "no more than one action on a permit at
a time" rule?
Our interest obviously is to submit via express if a path exists, considering the quicker timeline in comparison to the
standard track. Now, I am trying to understand if there is an avenue that can still work, provided we gain the proper
authorizations from the parties involved and have NCDEQ support. Please let me know if there is a time we can schedule
and discuss. I am happy to schedule a teams meeting among the 3 of us to hash this out.
Thanks,
Tim
From: Zorda, Garrett D <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, August 8, 2022 3:58 PM
To: Tim Clark <[e-mail]>

Cc: Hastings Sartin <[e-mail]>; Hall, Christine <Christine.Hal [e-mail]>; Richard Collier
<[e-mail]>; Edmonds, Jessica <iessica.edmonds([e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] Hawthorn at Southbridge - Stormwater Permitting
Good Afternoon Tim,
The exhibit appears to illustrate and outline the permitting actions that we have previously discussed regarding the
subject project(s).
Regarding your questions, for correcting the ownership issues, complete Permit Transfer application packages must be
submitted. The appropriate form to be included in the application package would be the Permit Transfer Form, which is
available on the Division website here: Permit Transfers & Renewals I NC DEQ. A compliance inspection is included as
part of the transfer process. As noted in the permit text(s), the permittee is the entity responsible for compliance with
the permit conditions until the permit transfer is submitted, reviewed and approved. In this case, any compliance issues
would need to be resolved prior to the transfer being approved. If the proposed permittee(s) would like to accept
responsibility for addressing any compliance issues, however, they can do so by checking the box in Section F of the
Permit Transfer Form.
Regarding your Express questions, unfortunately, I do not typically review Express projects, so I am not able to provide
the most accurate answers. I have copied my coworker Jessica Edmonds, who may be able to better answer your
questions regarding the Express program. With that said, due to the various moving parts, I am sure more information
would be needed before it can be determined if the proposed project(s) would be eligible for submittal through the
Express program. As you noted, and as discussed previously, the modification to SW8 150413 to remove the 6 lots, as
well as the new application that will cover that removed area, must be submitted, reviewed and approved at the same
time. Since this area is being proposed by another developer/consultant, the timelines for those two project may not
align, making it difficult to meet the Express deadlines. Furthermore, since the Express programs has an expedited
review timeframe and is intended for more straight forward projects, there are limits on the number of stormwater
control measures (SCMs). If the adjacent project has a large number of SCMs, it would not be eligible for the Express
program and since both that project and the modification to SW8 150413 must be submitted at the same time, they
would therefore both be unable to be submitted through the Express program. I believe there are also other
interactions as well, such as the modification to SW8 150414 and the new Offsite permit for Parcel 1, that are reliant on
the modification to SW8 150413 and would be similarly affected. Lastly, transfers are not allowed to be submitted
through the Express program.
Regarding your question about the application(s), each permitting action requires a separate, complete application
package (i.e. each new permit, permit modification, permit transfer, etc. must have a separate, complete application
package).
Hopefully the above information proves helpful. As I mentioned above, please direct any questions specific to the
Express program to Jessica Edmonds, as she will be the best person to help answer those questions. If you have any
other questions, however, please let me know and I will answer them as best as I am able.
Thanks,
Garrett Zorda
Environmental Engineer
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources - State Stormwater Program
Department of Environmental Quality
910 796 7215 office
910 796 7343 direct " Please note the change to my direct phone number"*
gar'ett.zorda ncdenr. ov
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405

44; Dr +
n.M.�r oar
Email corresoonderce to and from this address is sub%ec to the
f 'Drth Carolina Publ.r; Records Le :1 and m.-y be .!`sclosed to thin d parties.
From: Tim Clark <TClark@mckimcreed. com>
Sent: Friday, August 5, 2022 11:10 AM
To: Zorda, Garrett D <[e-mail]>
Cc: Hastings Sartin <[e-mail]>; Hall, Christine <[e-mail]>; Richard Collier
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] Hawthorn at Southbridge - Stormwater Permitting
CAUTION: Extemal email. Do not click links or open atta6ments unless you versify, Send all suspicious email as an attachment ta'
Garrett,
Thank you again for all your time to discuss this project! Please see attached an exhibit I prepared to illustrate our
permitting process. It features a graphic representation of the current permit arrangement and the final permit
arrangement, as well as the permit actions to get there. I have tailored the permit actions list to be a reasonably specific
list, considering current permittees and property owners, to function as a checklist as we move forward. May I request
review and confirmation the attached exhibit illustrates and outlines a logical permittable checklist?
Also, now having gotten my arms around this a little better, I have a few more questions.
• Regarding correcting property ownership issues, are we submitting a Permit Transfer Form or a Permit
Information Update form?
Seems the transfer form subjects the permittee to bringing the stormwater facility into compliance. At this time,
I am unsure if there are any existing non -compliances, so this could be a moot point but would be good to know
due to potential impacts to timelines.
• 1 understand the actions we will be taking on permitting the West and East Hawthorne sites will be submitted
simultaneously, respectively. I also understand only one permit action can be acted upon at one time. I am
trying to understand how this may affect our timeline. Currently, I loosely project we will submit an Application
for Express Submittal meeting next week. I know NCDEQ is pretty backed up so we are not likely to get a
response for our scheduled date for 1— 2 months and said date may be 1— 2 months after that. Then of course,
the express process would be another month. Do you foresee any timeline hurdles I may not be considering? I
suppose if the adjacent site submitted for a modification and had the proper authorizations, we would be stuck
waiting for that to resolve prior to permit actions being carried out?
• Are there any issues submitting Express here?
• Will this all be submitting under one application, or will it be an application for each modification and new
permit?
• Will we submit 1 request for submittal meeting application or multiple?
• Would this all be handled under one submittal meeting?

I am hopeful after acquiring these answers and confirmation of the exhibit, potentially with edits based on the answers
to my questions, we can get this ball rolling full speed, and get a file review scheduled. Again, I appreciate your
continued assistance on this. Please feel free to call if you have any questions (910-409-8976)
Best,
Tim
From: Tim Clark
Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 11:40 AM
To: Zorda, Garrett D <[e-mail]>
Cc: Hastings Sartin <[e-mail]>; Hall, Christine <Christine.Hall@ncdenr..gov>; Richard Collier
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] Hawthorn at Southbridge - Stormwater Permitting
Garrett,
Just to follow up on the voicemail I left a few minutes ago. I have another question. You mention below the order of the
transfer and modification depends on who is submitting the modification. I gather what you are referring to is the
current permittee can continue to submit for modifications to stormwater permits in their name, even though the
property is not in their name? Otherwise, I am not sure what you meant.
My instinct is telling me the owner transfers should occur first. Then once the owner transfers occur, the
proper/ultimate permittees are assigned to the permits. Then the modifications can occur to address current permit
problems and to issue the new permits. But I am trying to understand the path where we modify the permits first.
Ultimately, I am trying to prepare an exhibit for our client, illustrating the current permits, issues, and a proposed path
forward that NCDEQ supports. Intend to share said exhibit with you as well for concurrence. Once we have a clear path
forward, I will look to schedule a file review.
Please give me a call to discuss as I think it may expedite the process.
Thanks
Tim
From: Zorda, Garrett D <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, August 1, 2022 9:34 AM
To: Tim Clark <[e-mail]>
Cc: Hastings Sartin <[e-mail]>; Hall, Christine <[e-mail]>; Richard Collier
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] Hawthorn at Southbridge - Stormwater Permitting
Good Morning Tim,
I am glad that email proved helpful in moving forward with the proposed project(s).
Regarding your question, a portion of a project area previously permitted (i.e. triggered the need for a Post -Construction
Stormwater permit) cannot be removed from a permit without being covered by another permit. In the case of the
subject area, based on aerial imagery the Tract C area has been previously disturbed under an erosion and
sedimentation control plan, which is a trigger for needing a Post -Construction Stormwater permit. As such, a new permit
covering that area will be needed in order to modify SW8 150413 to remove it. As I mentioned in my previous email, it is
my understanding that an application for this area is forthcoming by a separate developer/consulting firm, so

coordination regarding the submittal of the modification of SW8 150413 and the new permit application covering the
Parcel 6 area would likely be the most efficient path forward.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions.
Thanks,
Garrett Zorda
Environmental Engineer
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources — State Stormwater Program
Department of Environmental Quality
910 796 7215 office
910 796 7343 direct **Please note the change to my direct phone number"*
garrett.zorda(M-ncden r.00v
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
.emsQ� 1 5
or�wrn.rl w mww�:w ouNNr
Emaii correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public records Law and may :be disclosed to th-; d parries.
From: Tim Clark <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2022 5:11 PM
To: Zorda, Garrett D <[e-mail]>
Cc: Hastings Sartin <[e-mail]>; Hall, Christine <[e-mail]>; Richard Collier
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] Hawthorn at Southbridge - Stormwater Permitting
CAUTION: External email, Do not chck links or open attachments unless you verify. Sena all suspicious email as an attachment to
ReportRenort So�_m.
Garrett,
Thank you for your detailed response, much appreciated! Yes, we certainly have our work cut out for us on this one.
Sounds like there are, within reason, multiple paths forward. We will in short order be determining that path. Once we
have discussed with our client in detail, we will likely prepare a proposed schedule of submittals, and the parties
involved for your concurrence to be sure we are approaching in an acceptable fashion. Stay tuned.
I do have an initial question if you can help me understand. You mention that if tract C is to be removed from permit
SW8 150413 we would need to submit a new permit covering that area. If this area is off -site to SW8 150413 and no
improvements have been installed nor off -site permit submitted or in -place, why must a Stormwater permit be in place
of that area at all? My apologies if I am overlooking something obvious.
Thanks,
Tim

Zorda, Garrett D
From: Zorda, Garrett D
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2022 2:24 PM
To: Tim Clark
Cc: Hastings Sartin; Hall, Christine; Richard Collier
Subject: RE: [External] Hawthorn at Southbridge - Stormwater Permitting
Attachments: 2015 09 plan 150413.pdf, 2022 03 permit 090903.pdf
Good Afternoon Tim,
Thank you for your email follow-up to your voicemail, as it was helpful to get a better idea of what is being proposed.
This area has several permits associated with it and based on previous correspondence with multiple consulting firms,
there are a lot of moving parts.
To start, I have attached a photo of the cover page of the approved plan set for SW8 150413, which is a good illustration.
of the different permits associated with this area and will help provide additional clarification on the below.
For SW8 150413, you are correct that Parcels 1, 2, 4, 5 and the 6-lot portion of Parcel 6 are covered by this permit with
Parcels 1, 5 and 6-lot portion of Parcel 6 considered offsite lots. Please note the Tract C referenced in SW8 150413 only
refers to the small 6-lot area (red dashed box on your provided figure), not the larger parcel that currently shows on the
Onslow County GIS map. Of these offsite lots, only one (Parcel 5) has submitted for and received and Offsite Permit
(SW8 150414). Based on the Onslow county GIS database, it appears that the lot lines between Parcel 5 (Tract A) and
Parcel 1(Tract B) may have been changed without modifying either SW8 150413 or 150414. This change would need to
be addressed with a modification. It should be noted that the permittee for SW8 150414 is SBMF Phase 3, LLC. Based on
the Onslow County GIS database, it appears that the owner(s) of Parcel 4 is also the new owner of Parcel 5, however, no
transfer has been submitted for SW8 150414. Parcel 2 and 4, as you noted are considered onsite. The current permittee
for SW8 150413 is Southbridge Multifamily, LLC. If they are no longer associated with this project, then Southbridge
Multifamily, LLC and the new owner(s) must submit for a Permit Transfer. Only the permittee is able to submit for a
permit modification, as you noted. The order of the transfer and modification of SW8 150413 would depend on who is
submitting the modification, however, both actions will be needed based on the information you provided in your email.
As discussed previously with Hastings, Parcel 1 would require a new, complete Offsite Permit application to be
submitted. If there is an increase in the 61,522 SF of built -upon area (BUA) that is to be allocated to Parcel 1, then that
would need to be included in the modification to SW8 150413. If removed from the permit, the BUA currently allocated
to Tract C (6-lot Parcel 6 area) could be reallocated with that modification. It should be noted, however, that in order to
remove the 6-lot area of Parcel 6, a new permit application must be submitted concurrently to cover that area. During
our previous discussion, I did indicate to Hastings that another consulting firm is working on developing the adjacent
parcel and is planning on submitting a modification to SW8 150413 to remove the 6-lot portion of Parcel 6 to be
included in the proposed permit for the development of the entire Parcel 6 area. That modification has not yet been
resubmitted, however, it is my understanding that it is forthcoming. Please note that only one permit action can be done
at a time, so it would be highly recommended to ensure that all owners/applicants/consulting firms discuss their
proposed modifications and timelines, especially with all the moving parts, including the changes in ownership and the
proposed modifications from different consulting firms, to ensure that everyone is on the same page.
As shown on the attached plan sheet, the Parcel 3 area is already permitted under SW8 090903. 1 have attached an
unsigned pdf copy of the most recent issuance of SW8 090903 for reference. It appears that the Parcel 3 area is included
in Drainage Area 13A/B. As noted in the attached permit, the current permittee for SW8 090903 is BC & RT, LLC. A
transfer application was previously submitted, but was withdrawn in order to address ownership issues. A new

application has not yet been submitted. There are a couple of ways to move forward with the development of the Parcel
3 areas. These include:
If it is intended for the proposed development of the Parcel 3 area to remain permitted under SW8
090903, then the current permittee can submit a permit modification to include the proposed
development. Similar to the situation with SW8 150413, there is also ownership issues that will need
to be addressed with a permit transfer and the order of the transfer and modification of SW8
090903 would depend on who is submitting the modification; or
If it is not intended for the proposed development of the Parcel 3 area to remain permitted under
SW8 090903 and instead receive its own, separate Post -Construction Stormwater permit, then both
of the following will need to be submitted at the same time:
i. A complete modification application package for SW8 090903 that removes the
Parcel 3 area. The outstanding ownership issues will also need to be addressed in a
subsequent transfer application; and
ii. A new, complete application covering the area removed from SW8 090903.
To summarize the above, the following actions will be needed in order to proceed with the proposed projects described
in your email:
1. SW8 150413:
a. Permit Modification —Will remove the 6-lot area of Parcel 6 (referred to as Tract C in the permit),
reallocated BUA to Parcel 1 (Tract B), and address any lot line changes.
b. Permit Transfer Will transfer the permit from current permittee, Southbridge Multifamily, LLC, to the
new owner(s).
2. "Parcel 6":
a. If Tract C is removed from SW8 150413, a new, complete permit application will need to be submitted
concurrently with the modification to SW8 150413 to cover this removed area. As noted above, this
could likely be covered by the forthcoming application to the larger Parcel 6 area, however, that will
require coordination with the applicant and/or their consultant(s).
3. "Parcel 1":
a. A new, complete Offsite Permit application must be submitted.
4. SW8 090903:
a. Permit Modification —See options listed above for appropriate modification to this permit, as it depends
on the desired path forward.
b. Permit Transfer —Will transfer the permit from current permittee, BC & RT, LLC, to the new owner(s).
5. "Parcel 3":
a. If the second option listed above is pursued, anew, complete permit application covering the area
removed from SW8 090903 must be submitted concurrently with the modification to SW8 090903.
6. SW8 150414:
a. Permit Transfer — Will transfer the permit from current permittee, SBMF Phase 3, LL,Cto new owner(s).
Please note, due to an apparent lot line change, a portion of the permitted area is shown on the Onslow
GIS Database to be owned by Hawthorne Sneads Ferry Addition, LLC.
As noted above, there are a lot of moving parts with this area with several different owners/applicants/consulting firms
involved. As such, it is highly recommended that these proposed changes are discussed with all parties involved to
ensure that everything proceeds as efficiently as possible. With that said, I hope the above information proves helpful. If
needed, I am happy to facilitate scheduling a file review of any or all of the above mentioned files. Please let me know if
you would like to schedule a rile review and a few date and times that would work and I will check the availability. In the
meantime, if you have any additional questions, please let me know.
Thanks,
Garrett Zorda
Environmental Engineer
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources State Stormwater Program

Department of Environmental Quality
910 796 7215 office
910 796 7343 direct ""Please note the change to my direct phone number"*
Q a rrett. zo rd a 0m cd e n r. a ov
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Email ccrrespvndt ',ce to and from Uds address is subject to the
North Ca; olina Public R43ccrds Law and may be disclosed io +ltird pa, ties.
From: Tim Clark <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2022 1:40 PM
To: Zorda, Garrett D <[e-mail]>
Cc: Hastings Sartin <[e-mail]>; Hall, Christine <[e-mail]>; Richard Collier
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Hawthorn at Southbridge - Stormwater Permitting
CAUTION: ExternIal email. Do not click ➢inks or open attathments unless yf.-u verify. Send all suspcwjs email as an attachment to
Garrett,
Just to follow up on the voicemail I left a little earlier, I have some questions relative to the active stormwater permit
#SW8 150413.
To give you a little bit of background on the project, we are the engineering group coordinating the civil permitting for
the Hawthorne at Southbridge project, which is comprised of 2 properties. Please see the image at the bottom for an
aerial plan. The numbers on the plan are for reference only. Parcels 1 and 3 are the new development parcels.
My understanding is, currently there is an active stormwater permit (#SW8 150413) that governs parcels 1, 2, 4, 5 and a
portion of parcel 6. The permittee listed on the permit is Southbridge Multifamily, LLC. Parcels 2 and 4 are consider
onsite, while parcels 1, 5 and 6 are consider offsite. Parcels 2, 4 and 5 are developed/built out, while parcels 1 and 6 are
not. Currently none of the parcels are owned by Southbridge Multifamily, LLC.
My understanding of how this needs to be permitted is parcel 1 would be a modification to the existing stormwater
permit, while parcel 3 would be a separate new permit. To modify the existing stormwater permit I understand the
permittee will need authorize such, however Southbridge Multifamily, LLC is out of the picture. I gather what should
have occurred here when the property was sold or shortly thereafter, the permittee on permit #SW8 150413 should
have been update to the new property owner or owners. Do we need to update the permit to the new parcel owners? I
assume that process would require the current permittee and current parcel owners to authorize? Then once the permit
is reconciled and owners properly listed, a modification to the permit could be made? I understand a modification would
need to be approved by all the listed permittees on the permit?
in your discussion with Hasting from our office a couple week back, you mentioned the engineer working with the
adjacent property owner (parcel 6) anticipated submitting a modification to this same permit, essentially disassociating

the 6-lot area of the adjacent property with stormwater permit #SW8 150413. Has this occurred? I assume they would
run into the same issue with a modification as noted above?
Getting into the details of our intended modification for the development of parcel 1, we currently are proposing +/-
72,000 SF of BUA. The permit has 61,522 SF allocated for this site. However, the 6 single family lot area on parcel 6 has
an allocation of 26,360 SF. It would appear the 6 single family lot area could be removed from the permit, and the
allocation redistributed to parcel 1 and future BUA.
In summary, the overall goal is to understand how we need to proceed with the permitting of parcels 1 and 3, most
importantly the modification as there appears to be multiple moving parts to the process. I am happy to schedule a
meeting to discuss things in detail. Please reach out when you are next available. My cell phone would be best
(910.409.8976).
Thanks,
1iir. Clark, PLC#, I Project Landscape Architect
910.343.1048 ( M 910.409.8976
243 North Front Street, Wilmington, NC 28401
tclark0mckimcreed.com I www.mckimcreed.com

Voted "Best Firm To Work For" - Zweig Group
.0 *�MCMM&CREED
I ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
ir5solaarner
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended sorely fo- the use cf the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. Ni you have received this e-mail in error please notify the system manager. P:�aase note that any viev.s or opinions
presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Cie company. Finally, the recip ant
should check this e-mail and any attads ments for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no liability for any dam4e caused
by any virus transmitted by th;s e-mail.