20051551 Ver 1_Complete File_20050922

?0F VA TFRO Michael F. Easley, Governor
?? (r William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
r North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
-1
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
September 22, 2005
DWQ Project # 20051551
Wake County
Page 1 of 2
Mr. William R. Hamlin, Jr. & Mrs. Christine H. Hamlin
1411 West Garner Road
Garner, NC 27529
Subject Property: 520 Lakestone Drive, Raleigh, NC 27609
Crabtree Creek [03-04-02, 27-33-(10), C NSW (nutrient sensitive)]
*303(d)* listed waters
Approval of Neuse River Riparian Buffer Protection Rules Minor Variance [15A NCAC 2B
.0233(9)(b)]
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Hamlin:
You have our approval, in accordance with the conditions listed below, to impact approximately
130 square feet (ft) of Zone 2 of the protected buffers to construct a new residential structure at
the subject property as described within your variance request dated August 11, 2005 and
received by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) on August 15, 2005. This letter shall act as
your Minor Variance approval as described within 15A NCAC 213 .0233(9)(b). In addition to
this approval, you should obtain or otherwise comply with any other required federal, state or
local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Erosion and
Sediment Control regulations.
This approval is for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change
your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application. If the
property is sold, the new owner(s) must be given a copy of this variance approval and is
thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. This approval requires you to follow
any conditions listed below.
The Additional Conditions of the Certification are:
1. No Zone 1 Impacts
No impacts (except for "exempt" uses as identified within 15A NCAC 213 .0233) shall
occur to Zone 1 of the protected riparian buffers unless otherwise approved by the DWQ.
No impervious surfaces shall be added to Zone 1, unless otherwise approved by the
DWQ.
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699.1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] /FAX [phone] /Internet: htto://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
None Carolina
tnrallif
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/l0% Post Consumer Paper
Mr. & Mrs. Hamlin
Page 2 of 2
9/22/05
3. Diffuse Flow
An additional condition is that all stormwater shall be directed as diffuse flow at non-
erosive velocities through the protected stream buffers and will not re-concentrate before
discharging into the stream as identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233(5). This shall be
accomplished by constructing the proposed bio-retention area/rain garden designed to
DENR specifications. The roof surface runoff from the proposed house shall be directed
to and treated by this bio-retention area. In addition, enhancement with additional
plantings shall take place within the buffer following the removal of the existing
structures within Zone 1.
4. Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or
applicable Buffer Rules, and any subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to
return the attached certificate of completion to the 4010versight/Express Permitting Unit,
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC,
27699-1650.
Requests for appeals of this decision shall be made to the Office of Administrative Hearings. If
you do not accept any of the conditions of this approval, you may ask for and adjudicatory
hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a
hearing, send a written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General
Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC
27699-6714. This approval and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This Minor Variance Approval shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under the Neuse River
Riparian Buffer Protection Rules [15A NCAC 2B.0233(9)(b)]. Please call Ms. Debbie Edwards
at [phone] if you have any questions or require copies of our rules or procedural
materials.
Sincerely,
AWK/dae
W. Klimek, P.E.
cc: Mike Horan, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
Bob Zarzecki-S&EC, 11010 Raven Ridge Road, Raleigh, NC 27614
Filename: 20051551 HamlinResidence(Wake)MiV
Variance Triage Sheet
DATE: 8/17105 PROJECT NAME: Hamlin Residence
DWQ #: 20051551
COUNTY: Wake
TO: Mike Horan, Raleigh Regional Office
FROM: Debbie Edwards TELEPHONE: [phone]
The file attached is being forwarded to you for your evaluation.
Please call if you need assistance.
"General" Major Variance
Minor Variance
COMMENTS: Minor Variance submittal from Bob Z. Pretty complete
package and Bob and I have already talked, he explained the whole
project to me. I feel that this is an improvement for the lot, impacts
moved out of Zone 1 and bioretention for stormwater. Please review
and if you have any comments put on BIMS.
http://imaps.co.wake.nc.us/imaps/printmap.asp?pin=1705397030&pin...
®w• ntY'?.rd16 C,t TRaiNpM
WAKE t
e
COUNTY t_ YjY c rwma nSev_? *
'l1
Parcel Number: 1705397030-000
Map created on 8/17/2005 2:31:36 Phi.
Copyright 2003. City of Raleigh, Wake County.
REID: 0100460
?? -

OWNER1:
HAMLIN, WILLIAM F

8 CHRISTINE H
?-
•' ADDR1: JR
PO BOX 592
_
! ~i GARNER NC
ADDR2: 27529-0592
ADDR3:
DEED BOOK: 08073
DEED PAGE: 1273
DEED DATE: 6/1/1998
DEED ACRES: 2.89
BLDG VAL: 243188
LAND VAL: 446500
c- BILLING CLASS: INDIVIDUAL
= DESCRIPTION: L08 LAKESTONE
SUB BL3
i MAP NAME: 170506
} PIN NUM: 1705397030
PIN EXT: 000
CITY:
PLAN JURIS: RAL
RA
TOWNSHIP: RALEIGH
rF'. YEAR BUILT: 1979
SALEPRICE: 628000
SALEDATE: 6/1/1998
TYPE USE: Single Family
DESIGN STYLE: Conventional
UNITS: 0
LAND CLASS: RESIDENCE-< 10
ACRES-HOME SITE
OLD PARCEL 435-00000-0735
NUMBER:
RALEIGH SITE ADDRESSES 1
STREET NUM: 520
STREET SUITE:
STREET DIR PRE:
STREET NAME: LAKESTONE
STREET TYPE: DR
STREET DIR SUF:
0 0 109 ft ADDRESS TYPE: Parcel
ADDRESS STATUS ACTIVE
CODE DESCR:
1 of 1 8/17/2005 2:31 PM
.Q
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road • Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
www.SandEC.coni August 12, 2005
S&EC Project # 8154.w1
To: N.C. Division of Water Quality
401 Oversight and Express Permits Unit
Attn: Cyndi Karoly
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
From: Bob Zarzecki
Soil & Environmental Consultants, P.A.
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27614
Re: MINOR VARIANCE REQUEST - Neuse Buffer Rule
Hamlin Residence, 520 Lakestone Drive, Raleigh, Wake County, NC
On behalf of the owners, Mr. & Mrs. Hamlin, please find attached a complete Minor Variance
Request, Stormwater Management Plan and supplemental information for the subject property as
described within 15A NCAC 02B .0233(9)(b). Please contact me at [phone] if you have
any questions or require additional information.
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Name Hamlin Residence
Project Type Residential
Owner / Applicant William F. Hamlin, Jr.
Count Wake
Nearest Town Raleigh
Waterbod Name UT to Crabtree Creek
Basin / Sub-basin 03-04-02
Index Number 27-33-(10)
Class C-NSW
IMPACT SUMMARY
Buffer Impact -Zone 1 0
Buffer Impact - Zone 2 130 sf
Buffer Impact - Total 130 sf
Attachments:
Minor Variance Request Form
Stormwater Management Plan
odq
Qmc?@
AUG 1 5 2005
CEl4R - WATER QUALITY
yrt7W,03 ACID STOr'U WATER BRAIICH
Charlotte Office: Greensboro Office:
236 LePhillip Court, Suite C 3817-E Lawndale Drive
Concord, NC 28025 Greensboro, NC 27455
Phone: [phone] Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone]
OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Received Request #
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Variance Request Form - for Minor Variances
Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rules
NOTE. This form maybe photocopied for use as an original.
Please identify which Riparian Area (Buffer) Protection Rule applies.
® Neuse River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management
Strategy Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rule (15A
NCAC 02B.0233)
? Tar-Pamlico River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management
Strategy Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rule (15A
NCAC 0213.0259)
? Catawba River Basin: Protection and Maintenance of Existing
Riparian Buffers (15A NCAC 02B.0243)
Part 1: General Information
(Please include attachments if the room provided is insufficient.)
1. Applicant's name (the corporation, individual, etc. who owns the property):
Mr. William F. Hamlin, Jr. & Mrs. Christine H. Hamlin (Owners)
2. Print Owner/Signing Official (person legally responsible for the property and its compliance)
Name: Mr. William F. Hamlin, Jr.
Title: Owners & President, The Hamlin Companies
Street address: 1411 West Garner Road
City, State, Zip: Garner, NC 27529
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
3. Contact person who can answer questions about the proposed project:
Name: Bob Zarzecki, S&EC, PA
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: bzarzecki(a)sandec.com
4. Project Name (Subdivision, facility, or establishment name - consistent with project name on
plans, specifications, letters, operation and maintenance agreements, etc.):
Hamlin Residence - 520 Lakestone Drive, Raleigh, NC
Version 2: November 2002
5. Project Location:
Street address: 520 Lakestone Drive
City, State, Zip: Raleigh, NC 27609
County: Wake
Latitude/longitude: 35.8352° N / 78.6497° W (WGS84/NAD83)
6. Directions to site from nearest major intersection (Also, attach an 8'/z x 11 copy of the USGS
topographic map indicating the location of the site):
The property is located at 520 Lakestone Drive; From Crabtree Boulevard; Take Capital
North to the Beltline; Take the Outer Loop West; Take the Six Forks Road Exit North; Turn
Left onto Lassiter Mill Road; Turn Right onto Lakestone Drive (just after crossing back over
the Beltline); The driveway to the property will be on your right just past 510 Lakestone Drive._
7. Stream to be impacted by the proposed activity:
Stream name (for unnamed streams label as "UT to the nearest named stream):
Crabtree Creek 03-04-02: 27-33-(10)
Stream classification [as identified within the Schedule of Classifications 15A NCAC 2B
.0315 (Neuse) or.0316 (Tar-Pamlico)]:
C NSW
8. Which of the following permits/approvals will be required or have been received already for
this project?
Required: Received: Date received: Permit Type:
NO CAMA Major
NO CAMA Minor
NO 401 Certification/404 Permit
NO On-site Wastewater Permit
NO NPDES Permit (including stormwater)
NO Non-discharge Permit
NO Water Supply Watershed Variance
YES NO Others (specify) Construction Permit
Part 2: Proposed Activity
(Please include attachments if the room provided is insufficient.)
1. Description of proposed activity [Also, please attach a map of sufficient detail (such as a plat
map or site plan) to accurately delineate the boundaries of the land to be utilized in carrying
out the activity, the location and dimension of any disturbance in the riparian buffers
associated with the activity, and the extent of riparian buffers on the land. Include the area
of buffer impact in W.]:
The proposed activity includes the demolition of an existing house and the construction of a
new one within basically the same footprint of the existing one (see overall site plan in the
attached "Stormwater Bio-Retention Area, Concept Plans").
The new house will be larger than the existing house but the overall footprint within the
protected buffer will be less, existing structures will be removed from Zone 1 and no new
structures will be located within Zone 1.
Variance Request Form, page 2
Version 2: November 2000
No existing trees will be removed from Zone 1. A total of 1,903 square feet of existinq
structures located within the buffer will be converted to grass, landscaped or other pervious
surfaces (mulch, etc.).
The project will result in the removal of 1,903 square feet of structures from the buffer, and
only 130 square feet of new impervious surfaces will be located within the buffer (Zone 2
only) where it did not previously exist. Resulting in a net gain of 1,773 sf of the protected
riparian buffer.
As such, we are requesting a minor variance for 130 square feet.
We are not proposing to pay into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund to mitigate for this
activity given that the proiect will result in the net removal of 1,773 sf of structures from the
protected buffer, the removal of all structures from Zone 1 of the protected buffer, and the
installation of a bio-retention area to treat the stormwater runoff from the new house. If this
payment is determined to be required, then we request a conditional approval that this
payment be made.
2. State reasons why this plan for the proposed activity cannot be practically accomplished,
reduced or reconfigured to better minimize or eliminate disturbance to the riparian buffers:
The proposed home design cannot be reduced or reconfigured and still be on the same
building site. The owner wishes to continue to live where they now live, just in a new house.
The design of the new house has been configured to the site, to the existing house footprint
and has been shifted within the footprint to allow better buffering of the pond. The project will
improve the functions of the existing buffer by removing existing structures from Zone 1 and
reducing the amount of impervious surface within the buffer.
3. Description of any best management practices to be used to control impacts associated with
the proposed activity (i.e., control of runoff from impervious surfaces to provide diffuse flow,
re-planting vegetation or enhancement of existing vegetation, etc.):
The proposed BMPs to be used include primarily a bio-retention area / rain garden designed
to DENR specifications (see attached "Stormwater Bio-retention Area Conceptual Plan").
Roof surface runoff from the proposed house will be directed to and treated by this bio-
retention area. Runoff from the existing house is currently not treated by an engineered
designed stormwater BMP device. Existing structures within Zone 1 will be removed and the
buffer will be enhanced with additional plantings.
4. Please provide an explanation of the following:
(1) The practical difficulties or hardships that would result from the strict application of this
Rule.
See attached Requirements Listed within 15A NCAC 02B .0233(9)(a)
(2) How these difficulties or hardships result from conditions that are unique to the property
involved.
See attached Requirements Listed within 15A NCAC 02B .0233(9)(a)
(3) If economic hardship is the major consideration, then include a specific explanation of the
economic hardships and the proportion of the hardship to the entire value of the project.
Economic hardship is not the major consideration to this variance request.
Variance Request Form, page 3
Version 2: November 2000
See attached Requirements Listed within 15A NCAC 02B .0233(9)(a)
Part 3: Deed Restrictions
By your signature in Part 5 of this application, you certify that all structural stormwater best
management practices required by this variance shall be located in recorded stormwater
easements, that the easements will run with the land, that the easements cannot be changed or
deleted without concurrence from the State, and that the easements will be recorded prior to the
sale of any lot.
Part 4: Agent Authorization
If you wish to designate submittal authority to another individual or firm so that they may provide
information on your behalf, please complete this section:
Designated agent (individual or firm): Bob Zarzecki Soil & Environmental Consultants PA
Mailing address: 11010 Raven Ridge Road
City, State, Zip: Raleigh, NC 27614
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: bzarzeckiCa-)sandec.com
Part 5: Applicant's Certification
I, Mr. William F. Hamlin, Jr. (print or type name of person listed in Part I, Item 2), certify that the
information included on this permit application form is correct, that the project will be constructed
in conformance with the approved plans and that the deed restrictions in accordance with Part 5
of this form will be recorded with all required permit conditions.
Signature: on behalf of Mr. Hamlin
Date: Auq ??
Title: Environmental Specialist, S&EC, PA
Variance Request Form, page 4
Version 2: November 2000
RESPONSES TO REQUIREMENTS
LISTED WITHIN 15A NCAC 02B .0233(9)(x)
(i) 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. Nferely proving that the variance
would permit a greater profnt 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.
Response: The practical difficulty in this case is that the Owner wishes to continue
living in the same location that they do now, but in a new, modern home that meets
their current needs. They wish to remove the existing home and build a new one in
its place.
(B) The hardship results from application of this Rule to the property rather than from other
factors such as deed restrictions or other hardship.
Response: The rule causes hardship due to not being able to rebuild outside of the
existing footprint of where they now live.
(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.
Response: The hardship due to the physical nature of the site is that they now live in
close proximity to the pond in a home specifically designed to capture this home/pond
relationship. Placing the new home in this footprint requires a variance because the
footprint of the new home within the buffer extends slightly outside of the footprint
of the existing home even though there will be a decrease in the overall structures
within the buffer and the removal of all structures from Zone 1.
(D) The applicant did not cause the hardship by knowingly or unknowingly violating this
Rule.
Response: No violation of the Rule has occurred and the applicant did not cause the
hardship.
(E) The applicant did not purchase the property after the effective date of this Rule, and then
requesting an appeal.
Response: The Owner owned this property prior to the effective date of the Rule.
The house was originally constructed in 1979.
(F) The 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;
Variance Request Form, page 5
Version 2: November 2000
Response: These conditions are unique to this property. The existing home was
constructed within 30 feet of the pond prior to the effective date of the Neuse Buffer
Rule. Granting this variance would not be a special privilege denied to others.
(ii) The variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the State's riparian buffer
protection requirements and preserves its spirit; and
Response: The variance, with the provisions proposed, will be in harmony with the
buffer protection requirements and will, in fact, provide better protection than that
which currently exists. Erosion, nitrogen, and storm velocity will be better managed
than it is currently. All existing structures located within Zone 1 will be removed and
the area of structures within the entire buffer will be reduced. The proposed bio-
retention area will treat stormwater runoff from the new structure.
(iii) In granting the variance, the public safety and welfare have been assured hater quality has been
protected, and substantial justice has been done.
Response: Since the variance will allow increased buffer protection over what
currently exists, approving this variance request will not only assure water quality
protection on this site but be believe will improve it.
Variance Request Form, page 6
Version 2: November 2000
Variance Request Form, page 7
Version 2: November 2000
WAKE COUNTY SOIL
- SHEET NO. 39
i
*Streams draining from 440 do not exist. Strear
AERIAL PHOTO 2002 - WAKE CC

Variance Request Form, page 8
Version 2: November 2000
g into pond from east is perennial
GIS - 2.89-ACRE LOT
P
I
AERIAL PHOTO 2002 - WAKE COUNTY GIS - EXISTING HOUSE
Variance
Version
Variance l
Version 2:

PHOTO OF EXISTING HOI
LOOKING WEST FROM BACK
NOTE DECK, TREES W/I
>E 2005 - POND SIDE
AST CORNER OF HOUSE
BUFFER AND POND
PRELIMINARY DESIGN CALCULATIONS
& CONCEPT PLAN
WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared for:
Mr. William F. Hamlin
520 Lakestone Drive
Raleigh, NC 27609
August 9, 2005
S&EC Project No. 8154.W1
STORM WATER
BIORETENTION AREA
Patrick K. Smith, II
NC License No. 255
?\eooseoee? omo???
m?
SEAL _
0
v?-oY-o
H?N\\
?lists
boil & .tnvironmental t onsuitants, ra
11010 Raven Ridge Road • Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
www.SandEC.com
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA S& EC Project No. 8154.w1
520 Lakestone Drive-Residential Relocation and Expansion August 9, 2005
Project Location
The project is located within the City of Raleigh, in Wake County, NC. The property is
privately owned and consists of approximately 2 acres immediately adjacent (and inside
of) the I-440 Beltline west of the intersection of Lassiter Mill Road and Lakestone Drive.
See Figure 1, 2, and 3.
Storm Water Treatment
The treatment of storm water runoff is required as part of the permitting requirements for
impacts to the existing buffers associate with the proposed residential relocation and
expansion project. Current plans call for the demolition of the existing structure and the
construction of a significantly larger structure in a similar location. A significant portion
(over 50%) of the existing structure and an attached deck are located within the buffer
(Zones 1 and 2). See Figure 4. The overall footprint of the proposed structure as shown
in Figure 5 provides for a significant reduction of overall buffer impacts in both Zone 1
and Zone 2.
The concept plan calls for the construction of a single Bioretention Area to be located on
' the property adjacent to the proposed residential expansion. This bioretention area will
serve to treat storm water runoff associated with the proposed impervious area including
roof, road, and parking areas. We understand that a stormwater collection and drainage
' system will be installed during site grading operations to convey a significant portion of
site drainage to the proposed treatment device. Depending on site conditions and future
drainage design (by others) more than one bioretention area may be necessary.
Our preliminary evaluation of this feature has included device sizing for the removal of
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and an evaluation of Total Nitrogen (TN) reduction in
accordance with generally accepted practice as outlined in the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Division of Water
Quality (DWQ), Best Management Practices (BMP) Manual and other applicable
references.
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Removal
The BMP manual outlines design requirements necessary to meet the pollutant removal
design standard of 85 percent removal of Total Suspended Solids (TSS). Based on the
BMP manual, a bioretention area is assumed to have a TSS removal efficiency of 85
percent. Sized appropriately one or more bioretention areas will meet the removal
requirements for the proposed residence and assorted other site impervious areas.
Total Nitrogen (TN) Removal
Based on the project location within the Neuse River Basin, the parcel must also be
evaluated for its contribution of Total Nitrogen (TN) being delivered to the receiving
watercourse (an unnamed tributary of Crabtree Creek). Constructed properly,
I of 4
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
520 Lakcstone Drive-Residential Relocation and Expansion
S& EC Projcct No. 8154.wl
August 9, 2005
bioretention areas contribute significantly to the removal of TN. According to the Draft
BMP Stormwater Manual from the N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ), dated July
2005, and "Updates to Stormwater BMP Efficiencies" Memo from DWQ, dated
September 8, 2004, bioretention areas are currently considered to remove 35 percent of
the TN from storm water intlow.
As described in the cited program literature, for commercial and residential development,
the rules require that nitrogen export of 3.6 pounds per acre per year (lbs/ac/yr) or less be
achieved. In the case where proposed residential development results in TN export rates
less than 6.0 lbs/ac/yr, then the owner may either;
1) Install BMPs to remove enough nitrogen to bring the development down to 3.6
lbs/ac/yr, or
2) Pay a one-time offset payment to the N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) of $330/lb to bring the nitrogen down to 3.6 lbs/ac/yr (pending amendment
from the Environmental Management Commission, dated May 10, 2005, would
raise current rate to $1,710/lb), or
3) Do a combination of BMPs and offset payment to achieve the 3.6 lbs/ac/yr
exports.
If a particular residential development has a computed export rate greater than 6.0
lbs/ac/yr, then the owner must use on-site BMPs to bring the development's export down
to 6.0 lbs/ac/yr. Then, the owner may use one of the three options described above to
achieve the nitrogen reduction between 6.0 lbs/ac/yr and 3.6 lbs/ac/yr.
Based on our discussion with the Division of Water Quality, we understand that once
treated for TSS and TN removal, storm water from a bioretention area can be discharged
directly into the receiving watercourse (in this case the immediately adjacent stream or
pond). This discharge must be made in a non-erosive fashion.
Bioretention Area Planning & Design
' Preliminary calculations for the sizing of the total footprint of a bioretention area have
been performed. All necessary preliminary storm water design calculations and
supporting documentation are attached.
' From available topographic data (site field survey data and USGS 7.5 minute Quadrangle
Sheet, Raleigh West) and site observations, the total drainage area is estimated at 30,352
square feet or approximately 0.70 acres. Considering a distribution of the site land usage
between impervious area, maintained lawn, and forested areas, we estimated a weighted
Rational Coefficient of 0.63. Using the methods described in the BMP Manual we
' deternined required bioretention surface area of approximately 1,630 square feet was
needed to treat site runoff (assuming 7% - no sand bed). This area can be separated into
one or more specific treatment areas if appropriate. Minimum length, width, and length
' 2 oea
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
520 Lakcstone Drivc-Residential Relocation and Expansion
S&EC Project No. 5154.W 1
August 9, 2005
to width ratios (and other sizing criteria) as described in the BMP manual will be met or
exceeded during final design.
Detailed design of the bioretention area(s) to include but not limited to inflow
distribution, treatment soil characteristics, plant species, ponding depth, outlet structure
sizing, and feature elevations will be determined during Final Design. The exact location
and dimension for the bioretention area will be described in detail in the final
construction documents.
For planning purposes we have recommended that the owner consider a total
construction area of 1.5 times the design surface area footprint required for the proposed
bioretention area (or roughly 2,010 square feet). This area will be integrated into the site
landscaping plan to provide the desired appearance. We have attached the required DWQ
Worksheet for the proposed bioretention area and TN Export calculations (spreadsheet)
for the proposed site development.
' Once approval of this Concept Plan is received and the buffer variance is granted detailed
Construction Drawings and Technical Specifications will be prepared. The detailed plans
will ensure that the bioretention area will not impact the potential riparian buffers
associated with the tributary entering the pond. An Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
Agreement will also be prepared at that time.
3 of 4
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA S&EC Project No. 8154.W I
520 Lakestone Drive-Residential Relocation and Expansion August 9, 2005
List of Attachments and Figures
Attachments:
Preliminary Stormwater Calculations ................................................4 pages
Division of Water Quality Bioretention Area Worksheet ..........................1 page
Breakdown of Square Footage of Existing and Proposed Houses ................I page
NC Division of Water Quality Memorandum, "Updates to Stormwater BMP
page
Efficiencies" ..............................................................................
Potential Update on Offset Payments .................................................1 page
Figures:
Figure 1-Overall Site Development Plan
Figure 2-Soil Survey Map
Figure 3-Topographic Map
Figure 4-Footprint of Current House and Impervious Surfaces
Figure 5-Proposed Buffer Impact Map
4 of4
JOB NO. B/SU . W II
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA SHEET OF
11010 Raven Ridge Road • Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone] DATE Is.
www.SandEC.com
JOB NAME ?YY?'\ 1I` fir? >r?,? BY P, L.f{ tk. P f IL 3
SUBJECT p?re? 1Y1C1..Tti-A
- -- ....................... - -- -
-------------- ---- ----- -
•
con:
---------- -----------------
.
-------------------------- -----------
e? cry rr°a r'?', -t
--------------- ---- ----
S
C ro ,?a, ,far ?y ? zZJ 95 3 $? 95
.
.
.
--
:
1 1
the
---------- ----- ------ ---- ----- --------- ----------------- ----------------- ---- - ---- ----------- ----------- ------
,
,
,
.
.
- ---- ------- ------- ---------- --------------------- ------ ------
-- --- - ---- ----------
---- -- - --- - -- -----
.
.
-- .
L) J,
12 ez 2 -z -S- V,12:
----------- ---- ----- -----
J•
.
:
?-
J 1
i--
,
1frt
----- ---- -----
---------------- --------------
.J
,z-
r
.
G
----------- ----------
t?-
----------- -------------- ------ ---------- ----------------- ------------
---------- --------
.
.
--- -- -- .- ---
1
.. ---
JOB NO. j"S"j. V1)i
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA SHEET OF
11010 Raven Ridge Road • Raleigh, North Carolina 27613 • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone] DATE1
www.SandEC.com
JOB NAME /-.-rIrlb) DY
/nom- ^
SUBJECT rl PI I0;l n-? l.-tj
1
------------- ------
°- - -
?/Y'S`i??r T: ,-`?-- ?/?.lu.fi<?C r%.i%.? ?.^t ??J %: ???_L.['?.:J' - - --
Jn -??t??> ". i ?4 / - `L'?IIJ-.'L -'?;"! '???lt'?'''j 1.fj?1J.
1
----- -- -----
rya -
;
.
- -
G-
---------- ---------- -- ----------------------------------------- ---------------- ----------- -------
.
.
---- ---- --- ---------- ----- ------ -
.
G1/c? 32-1 X •e c°
----------- ---------- -----------
Eli) 2Xt,C?.fr2 cJ?i x/? ?''?? sB. ); ?Gt?'ttJ4tI
------------------------- -
?n
r'2--
:
--- --- ----------- ------ ---- --------------------
----- ---- --- --- ------
J ^?!Qc?-fQ.Ca f??1 `? _ ".
-------
?i
- ---------- -----------
.
:
/o
3
-`----- ---------------- -------
---------------- r,.
.
,
51,16.4
r&6' A
:
i
----------- ----------- ---------- --------------- ----------
---------- ----------- ----------------
------------
------------------ ------- --------- ------------ -----------
. .
.
.
.
--- ---- -------- -----
.
------------ ---------- ---- --------------- -
:
.
:
-------------- -------- - --- --------------
JOB NO, eta I
SHEET OF y
DATE n I °`--
Nitrogen Export Rate Calculations: BY [ i v (?
Method 2
Quantifying TN Export from Residential 1 Industrial / Commercial Developments -
when Footprint of all Impervious Surfaces are Shown
Calculation Steps:
Step 1 Determine area for each type of land use and enter in in Column (2).
Step 2 Total the areas for each type of land use and enter at the bottom of Column (2).
Step 3 Multiply the areas in Column (2) by the TN export coefficients in Column (3) and enter in Column (4).
Step 4 Total the TN exports for each type of land use and enter at the bottom of Column (4).
Step 5 Determine the export coefficient by dividing the total TN export from uses at the
bottom of Column (4) by the total area at the bottom of Column (2).
Column #
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Typo of Area TN Export TN Export
Land Cover (acres) Cooff. from Use
lbs./ac./ Ibs./
Permanently Protected Undisturbed 0.258 0.60 0.15
Open Space (forest, unmown meadow)
Permanently Protected Managed 0.044 1.20 0.05
Open Space (grass, landscaping, etc.)
Impervious Surfaces (roads, parking, 0.395 21.20 8.37
lots, driveways, roofs, paved storage
areas, etc.)
TOTAL 0.697 8.58
Total Nitrogen Export Cooff iciont = . 12.32
NOTE: Residential: If TN export rate is greater than 6.0 Ibs./ac./yr. then a BMP must be installed
to remove enough Nitrogen to bring the TN export rate below 6.0 Ibs./ac./yr.
Commercial: If TN export rate is greater than 10.0 Ibs./ac./yr. then a BMP must be installed
to remove enough Nitrogen to bring the TN export rate below 10.0 Ibs./ac./yr.
t,ul3io?et,"ti1?Z c?.reGLls) i N IY?c;?al E i(kOyAcil
TN cGc? W1ciCV-1-A- = 12.32 tbsj lv.j `!r x (IGo-3-;)
=S-00 lbsj c'C j y r
1F-t511n-NcX-VeCA TN
tc(l,? Cg. Op 1br??ctc.j.?r - ?•?o ?>? r) X????11b X3?.?rs X oo etc.
PRELIMINARY
JOB NO. 22
SHEET OF
Exhibit 1
Table of Rational runoff coefficients
DATE ? ' nr,
BY <vJ,
Cl?a?e a ?1? ?
Description
C
Source
Roof, inclined
Street. drivewav. sidewalk
1.00
Malcom
Chow, 1964
Malcom
Malcom
Malcom
WSSC, c.1968
Malcom
Malcom
Malcom
Malcom
Malcom
Chow, 1964
Chow, 1964
Chow, 1964
Chow, 1964
Malcom
Chow, 1964
Chow, 1964
Chow, 1964
Malcom
' Roof, flat
Commercial, generalized
Apartments, schools, churches
Residences, 10 dwellings/acre
Residences, 6 dwellings/acre
Residences, 4 dwellings/acre
Residences, 2 dwellings/acre
Unimproved cleared area
Lawn, dense soil, steep >7%
Playground
0.90
0.85
0.60
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.40
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.25
Lawn, sense soil, avg 2-7% -- 0.22-
Wooded, sparse and litter_ 0.20
Lawn, dense soil, flat 2% 0.17
Lawn, sandy, avg 2-7% 0.15
Lawn, sandy, flat <2% 0.10
Wooded, deep ground litter 0.10
1
r
q)UA 1,JC. ?L.
AL?\)
1 VI-2
(i 11WR/ NE RS
May Action of the Environmental Management Commission
I *
At its rCgular 111ccti1117 on \Ia% 10. 2005. the ENIC took the 1611( mine
action:
\pprovcd to proceed to public notice and hearing kith piopo)scd
amendments to I5A NC'AC 2B .0210, the Nutrient Ollset Pav
merits Rule. I Ile Water Quality Committee had recommended
that the notice spccificulh solicit additional input regarding
the costs associated tkith cstablishimg nutrient mitigation hest
management practices. *1 hcse proposed amendments will update
the existing nitrogen offset tce Isar the Neuse Riycr Basin and w ill
extend the ousel program to the Tar-Pamlico FZiycr Basin for berth
nitrogen and phosphorus oll•sets. The amcndnnents contain a nc?4
mcthod for calculatin_ the ollsct pa\ments tier both nitrogen and
phosphorus that incorporates the land acquisition costs associated
with the implementation of the nutrient mitigation hest nnanage-
ment practices. The updated nitrogen lice-$57 per pound of
nitrogen up loom $11 per pound-«as based ulxui the costs that
are being encountered irin the field in establishing the mitigation
sites. Using a similar methodolog; the phosphorus lice fir the
lar-Pamlico Riycr Basin was calculated to be $45 Ixr tenth of a
pound of phosphorus.
I] Appro),cd to confirm the rcappointment of NIr. Robert Dodson to
the Water Pollution Control System Operators C'crtifiwlion Com-
mission. Mr. Dod.son's terni \\ ill expire June 30, 2(j08.
U AppmV cd to proceed to public hearing for the adoption of
Subchapter 21- for the non discharge waste systcns rules and the
repeal ot'Section 211 .0200 and Rules 211 .0122 and 211 .0123.
These systems include wastc% ester collection systems. aninnal
waste management svstenns. waste\%atcr residuals. and other
non-discharge s,. stems including wastc%\ater irrigation. reclaimed
water utilisation. grottndn\ater reniediation and soil remCdiation
projects. ENIC members commented that they M)LIld like to sec a
ditlcrcnt mechanism 16r packaging the rules.
lJ Approved to uphold the:Wministrative 1_3w Judge's (AIJ) deci-
sion in the case of Brtnd\ ovine Real Estate Nlanagcnicnt ScrN ices
Corporation and Nordirid`_e Partners versus DIINR. Division of
Waste Nlanagcmcnt. Oa GI lit 1139. \\ake County. The AIJ en-
tered a decision to grant sumniuv judgment to the petitioner and
interpreted the eligibility statute to allow the requested rcimbtuse-
mcnt.
Appro%ed 10 Uphold the ALJ's decision in the case of Fad Dexter
versus DF'Nit. . DWI), OW 04-0011-T, 04 FI [R 0303. Pamlico
County.'fhc AU entered a decision granting DWO's motion for
sumnnar) judgment and rcconnnnending the assessment of the
ciyit penalty and costs he upheld.
L.] Apprn ed to uphold the Al J's decision in the case ol'Norman
Pippin \crsus DENR. U3 F-11 lit 00703. Ncw I lanovcr County. The
AL.i entered a decision recommending, the FAIC uphold issu-
ance of the two non-discharge permits including the loading rate
conditions.
tlnr-Jrnre 2005
Chairman Moreau mentioned that FINK mccting time, ma\
churge ter evcr\ t\\o monthr nncetine six times a N car rather lh:un
cicht limes a ycu'. It \%as also mentioned that the su ucturc of the
FNIC committees would he maintained.
Morc information is available at the FAFC wcb site:
http:':ln2tr.cnr.StJtC.nc.usiadnnin;cnnd
May Action of the EMC
Water Quality Committee
At its regular mctitins im s1ay r), 2005, tlw \1'a ?7 Chu dot} Conunittri oCthe
Finyimnmcrnt il `tan tgcmc?it Cununitla i x k the 16]Ios? ing action:
J Approved to send the Division of Watcr Quality implcmcnta-
tion Plan for the Coastal habitat Protection Plan to the FINIC
in July fir appro\ nl.'l he FAIC, Marine I• ishcrics Cornntis-
sion and the Coastal Resources Commission approved the
Coastal Ilabitat Protection Plan in December 2001. I his \\ as
the fu-St step in a coordinated cllirrt to improve and protect
coastal fisheries habitat. 1 he apprm al included an agrCCmcnt
that all three commissions and DENR \\ould develop iniplc-
nrcntation plans.
• Approved to proceed «ith the development and rulemakinL
for the Universal Slornix%atcr N9anagenncnt Program (USNIP).
he USNIP is a new approach to stnrm\\atcr management
in North Carolina with the potential to significantly alter
the manner in which stoinmater is controlled and rceulated
within the state. A pro\ ision in the USNII, would allow local
goya'nmcnts to satist} most ol'their existing storlimatcr
post-construction control rcquircnncnts with a single, or a
uni?ersal set ofrequiremncnts. More inl6rmation is it\ailahle
at http:,•'ih2o.cnr.state.nc.us:'su;usmp.htm.
Appriwcd to proceed to the FA,IC with proposed reclassifica-
tion oflhe Neuse Riper in Wake County to ('lass WS-V. floc
NCUSC River meets the qualifications liar the proposed reclas-
sification.
J Approved to proceed to the ENIC with the proposed reclassi-
fication ofthc Yadkin Riycr in Suers' and Yadkin Counties to
Class W'S-IV. I'he Yadkin Riycr meets the qualifications lour
the proposal reclassification.
j Rescinded the" l;xceplions Rulcs" drafts from Deccmher
2003 as the need for establishing these rules \kas diminished
\khen the Ieglislature included Nested rights covcraLe in the
Storru ater Phase 11 Session Law. The intent of the rules
i\aS to establish a set of pnOCCdurCS \? hcreas rcIicf could he
provided from D\VQ storniwater control requirements includ-
ing butlers, setbacks. and densit\ provisions. for affected.
qualil' ing parties.
DWQ Project
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY - BIORETENTION AREA WORKSHEET
1. PROJECT INFORMATION (please complete the following information):
Project Name : ? 4 r-
Contact Person: t' N- t C K 1' t , `;-'o : t=E_ Phone Number: (MI) P? La
For projects with multiple basins, specify which basin this worksheet applies to:
Permanent Pool Elevation -FE D ft. (elevation of the orifice invert out)
Temporary Pool Elevation 7-a D ft. (elevation of the outlet structure invert in)
Bioretention Surface Area anon sq. ft.
Drainage Area n . " ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
Impervious Area 0. 3q-c3 ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
Rational C Coefficient r?), !93
Size % --I, - % (either 5% in w/sand under drain or 7% in w/o)
Inlet Velocity -'>b fps
Inlet flow depth TP in
Depth to Ground Water D ft.
Planting Soil Infiltration Rate in./hr. (the soil layer down to 4 feet)
In-Situ Soil Infiltration Rate 717 - in./hr. (the soil layer below 4 feet or below the sand bed)
If. REQUIRED ITEMS CHECKLIST
Initial in the space provided to indicate the following design requirements have been met and supporting documentation is attached. If a
requirement has not been met, attach an explanation of why. At a minimum, a complete stormwater management plan submittal includes
a worksheet for each BMP, design calculations, plans and specifications showing all BMPs and outlet structure details, a detailed
drainage plan and a fully executed operation and maintenance agreement. An incomplete submittal package will result in a request for
additional information and will substantially delay final review and approval of the project.
Applicants Initials
No vertical sand bed is proposed
V The bioretention area is at least 40 feet by 15 feet.
Sheet flow is provided at inlet.
Water table depth is greater than 6 feet.
Minimum of 6" ponding is provided.
The ponded area will draw down in less than 4 days.
Planting soil infiltration rate is greater than 0.52 in/hr.
The in-situ soil infiltration rate is greater than 0.2 in/hr.
A planting plan with species and densities is provided.
Mulch layer is specified in plans.
Planting soil meets minimum soil specifications (NCDENR Stormwater Best Management
Practices Manual, April 1999)
Plan details for the bioretention area provided.
Plan details for the inlet and outlet are provided.
An operation and maintenance agreement signed and notarized by the responsible party is provided.
Please note that underdrains beneath the planting soil are acceptable in the Piedmont and Mountains

V
'??FLIMINARY

I

a

t
n

J
I.BOUNDARY, TOPOCRAPW_ 1 N0'1. AND ES$R DATE PLOTTED.

C 6/3/2003

V
STRUCTURE WORMATgTN WAS TA. TEX FROM pI A SURVEY
fT
PROVK" 0T:
SOUTH -0 SIRhEnNC AND CXOI(EmNC, MC. 6
201 OLEN ROAD
CARNER• MC 27329
919
213
0163
91F + t
t
/
(
)
-
DATED 9116/03 AND TITLED 'AS-DIAT,.v`OR APHC 9 t
SURVEY
=?7o-? ^er Oje
L1-3 LEGEND e

EXISTING CONDITIONS
b n?
PROPER 61'UC
OVERKAD POWER URIC i t
PNE • TREE TO REMARK
i
x TREE TO BIE REMOVED
PLANTMATERK Ll-2 VICINITY MAP -
?RmsroRwft
w CCONDENSEn CUFF BENSON \`.__. _ BELTLINE
PPa POWER POLE
LAMP
T?
•
?
a
® OAS METER a m
L'_---------
`? , , , ,
?i--?
,
-
•:•-a _
'=??•
•-R
.
.:

® LADLE TV __ ?.__ _
-
? _
-----
\`, ` IL1_.1.?L _?,-'-•---L?-----?-t: `• - - -
i
-----
: _
?
-------
_-
MINOR CONTOUR
YAAYR OONIOJR -
------
. '
I 2 " I I ' '/ /, 1' 1 __--------

?.1.L SPOT ELEVADOX

1
----------------
_ _
Nz! - - - - - - - - - -
„
--, -=-------------_:___ _:::::

- - -

:
-------------

PR
OPOSED LOOP

Lou D .S1 \?
'o OF
ORVE

Al' I ; I 1 . R/OPOSED FESTO ERsuXc ORVE Mp PARRrc-WK'
WATERSHE6 Bou4DARY
I I .,!R„p„„ , \
1tN6 DRIVE' '6
I
,
._.;
,
I
__.
" ' ,?__ "i
•-•:'
•_
; /' a ?' i - i i -1
\ '
•' ',
I
i''-/• '/ i
I I
I
I
' , ,
, '
'
-
_
I
I
.b
I
______
i
r
a"
-
II'1;f I' I ; 1 1 I' ,
a 'h- /' / ??/
' ,
/, ``` /Y
\,
v
' ?\ / \1/ 1 I I ` \
\
I
1
Z Q
?f? ' ?X,``?4 I i.'; `.? ice., /'? ___-'•?
,\ ' r
;IiI"I' /' '
\ ''`),1'
?
I 1 J
1 1
?
E61R0`p?E ; I ?
' l 1
, _Z z
It, f 3T A _3 ? W L33

- - -
/
I
'
-- _
`
` °
- - - - - - -
•`
;' ,
,j
?j' ?7"?'.:=' h ,-
;'- •.
_-,'_ .Odr .,,
-----IA `>--A- ",,?-__••__-- A ' ; ' N

M$}Ja46.A ,A° •;; ;%:i ?? PROPOSED BIORETEN1161

,
F?1R
','
m
-----------
-
--

W
I POND
•?'
"
' ?
/
?
1
,' , f
/' '1/.'
_?--?
i ?
'•??
/ 7" c,^4 ? 1 ?' ; Ito.
A
I
W'IW 6 MI' r. ROL

J ?WCLD -t It. LEE
I ? 11NDYNM /? i
/
J
/
r,
/
l
1•.L
?
, LL 49ai A L M Of.11 K DIM /
- M• L 49WrL IORC A-.
M RMM K tM1
ZJ/4 9-4
-1

/ /\
1
0

--rut
ALL CONTRACTORS SHALL E ,

Nl
.
re(cR.«r61k dninpr r.d rp.a(Knu.r.+,'Wh FIGURE
- of lN, conuxr
n., j.,,,h.rr d.-
. 1
p
n
,
p
spcci wrp
(aaaxWf ankdm wb<rnnxx.
GO

L'ND
OtLWU
U1711T l'
¢'
cl
D4 Cr.
•
g,.g
I.,-, Ti ro b-
.a
?r... tt r dw? a> W, PRELIMINARY PRELIMINARY OVERALL SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN V
Q
?L

-h -L,,-g,. d. 9-d
d

: 1'.30'_0'
SCALE ?

,c
?
yb
4- ?
sH.UL CONTACT NORTI I CAROTIN.{
ONE CALL L.600-6324940
,.luvr,km f ld ?
?
N
? [\0 r
(
,
mvk rO wdRgr..nd ?e6q knxrr. ,
?
4 \
F W
C
SrL
01-

��',�,Q-T�•3�n-.f. "tF•E "i."� �;g ut k q �j` a " i
lzr
�, E .•�,,. __.-t :d� gam,?x -1� •'.'ity°�„`��� _lt j �Y��4s«,.
" �� t.. /.. ... '�,• • JI,. � r x _ Ca �*' ;j+'r"` ..'�.' bi'p^`N�." ,rc '�yJ *��4
�� k = �,F , I • '�`•. t_.,���1 � L-#••,-�`g`-y^�� ���,r „ ?�t1��' q,� p" Igt ,x�o.
� '' "��1 k §:� 4"r �_ "'a' o�Ss.*'a�+' �.ty � .��pir 1 ar. ��.���e" aPx.�.�'� ��'.�rh.E� -•� xq" •d�i. 3 .'� . ��� : �
'�'•`,� 4''.. b `.•F^
� a. • ^ of `+.% q" ` j" �' R"`3 X,`.� yR``f���t''''y's�- pis/y, "�',.7/ t � 4 i h a'ly. � '�js�. • �9w.y� � �latr.�= �F� .k -� r,� ''A*.19�E�'c �.:6�� 'b.r'�'�j° -'�i
1u
_ r
• a s �r � - E A - 's c • . � '� _ � r p�E y F'" r 1 '%W"Y s
�t • - q t`a� ��i'y :"�� ... /•,_� 'k^ - �: �•?���' � t 3i �.' #9 Y.j s� s�. y. scYp4i%.i'
r
�tflo, SI
�:�r `a� ��, •.w"i. \ 1���tsa qJ 1•. �' •.:YS' sut a l r !
�" ���s" ►�" {
�7t E4zP z t
�U,`s`i,�`��.P• Z�%'� w 42d i` tt '�✓� ..
-vi
7 r\�"R� '•7fy Y r 'i" • �� rr::• t \ s� � F. }'� s f p y � 'V ��b. • '', p p
R /�� lil.'R1 �.��'' `n ytte +6 . w•' �}�• � t,.� '41"�tE`' r.�±� � -' Yy
"s�.�;' �as'2 zt-'.'4i"��...1 ., >.'a t'�•n.�i-; �'' S.' �j L$jJ .. ,p���'ii�.,<'I�j' �+n.M1., '� J'�'. 1.�'a..
6�A'"is ,�� �.y �,m„ar a . _ ::...^,a. >� _ :. �D � z ��a. `�' �. - '. a-pp;q+�'�y- � y. •�! Al '��' ���f4 t,�rl �A •'� l � a _ . �5 �i � Z,.�' ,�y,�'� u
� ry'y�ru �� � E � `� n{ ♦ ;,g,W � �ti t �;Y� ° �' > 1 ' x� q :s t.ti?�� �: r� •,
+y,u ~I• '"vr I. 4. 1�y 'c.,t/'�eE'1 y .. e P ¢ ..'•'�,a .. rT s ,}s,
_ t4 �. f,!'E./ N /E '+�•. P`f� � ���I�•'r.n.. � � &+I;..
f `t ;,p.Ai,i.i f - ✓1+t`s `� a v �` �.y e 1 fff. �S �. L••a� i.. �, TM, .n "ywwYi+' > .,,�,,;
Af
P ,wt. r ws 11�. ' • t,"�,
ii . 1t ay -r�r
.-
3vi/`Owl l 9 y `` a , ? .•�i J��' W R ri ®d x,{J� i . 7 i y'. `¢ n
a'�•' i � �".�a,9,
t d tyq W" •ttiy i',�,}e l , . •tt , ak t' a
ILL
`u�w ti. ��Ata'��Y'p1�
� it �•,k� �•_�� y � T f�i{
UVI
Al
-7 •''D'.'�' f raOR i Y ..sw s . Qs 1\\ J'• •. �,A .'�%°
-i�•� � �.• _ N�'ly tE t \ �1 -=h# •t .- \ �a:'M.i S-,. t
�'"�> - Ips �a. ��b x if `.�. � •1!- �W kt ..
Itf rrt �1 t :s'
If
fit
TV-
" �� �r;'11/./•ir ,, EMr r �•: 3+r ;,s tF �,� T�''`�
rj
'•�s!. _-.�+- � �.. ➢ �'S� � _•jt `r tai .w•a'i ytr -,Ji� �':' � `: 4� �3�d�
� ��s Y 45
j�a .1 tE,��r��.r �A �.�`, �i-Itii •s? ���fe:... y�7k �•.fl �+, '�•��a\'A ",�; � �s. C� a -k•
Ili,"'" � �.,yro. (({{ �,':�.� s 3JY�� s' �• Mlial
11 y
�?y.`y �h•,h� %� } �,a. A� °$�s, '.`i` ,',4 :, ;'3'
'TIM �T •V"
�4
ah' ce r -Ak
,. �'k a �r < Q �y t a 4,tw► e a dTr «, �z� A
S&
EC

I auoZ
8 auoZ
,4-,4,bs SL'ZOSI=Z auoZ
,4.,4,bs 96'08=1 auoZ
abDI-ood axonbS snoin.jadwl
0 19'9191 .Aa jing jo apis4-no
29,662 91-'209I Z auoZ
98'L89 96'08 I auoZ

m
r (':?j -bs) snoinJad (':?j -bs) snoin.4adwl

z ouijd:),ood Z '8 I auoZ-ani.AQ auo4-sa>jn-j 029

sao-o,4.AnS snoin.Aadwl pun asnoH 4.ua.A.An8 jo :?uyd :.ood
dvw 18ddWI
auij.Aa:?nM
ja,4,4 na OZ
.4aj,4ng OS
-9
CD
-P
; j•bs LOCI=saoo fJns snoInJadwi MaN-s}oodwl Ja j jna Z auoZ I auoZ ujy}IM aq Illm sawn:pnJ}s ON (Z)
0 saJofJns snolnJad
,} f•bs 2E'408=(}ujJd}oo j loul6lJo uly}1M) s:podw Ja n auo Jay}o Jo padonsuol 'ssoJ6 o; pa?Januom aq Illm
I d? S-Z Z
LLJ aJn:onJ}s 6uj:?sjxa ay4. jo •}3 •bs C061I (1)
lsa:?oN
^ (uoslJodwo7 Joj)
I auoZ ^ / \ :?upd}ooj 6ul4.six3
Z aw
aujjJa}oM
Ja.4fng OZ
asnoL4 3p snoInuadwl-y oaJd
I
Jaidnfi OS -
(D
1
sdoo:?s 'asnoH-g oaJy V
M
m
r_
Z

}ujJd:?oo j 2'8I auoZ-anlJQ auolsa>lo-l OZS
uoj:pnJ}sua3 :sod
dVW 13ddWI a311na
O?O? W AT QG
o ff.
September 8, 2004
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
MEMORANDUM
t TO: Local Programs, Neuse and Tar-Pamlico Stormwater Rules
FROM: Bradley Bennett, Supervisor, Stormwater Unit
' Rich Gannon, Planner, Nonpoint Source Unit '1v-S
SUBJECT: Updates to Stormwater BMP Efficiencies
1 With your involvement, DWQ has produced model local stormwater programs under the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico
stormwater rules, 15A NCAC 2B .0235 and .0258 respectively. In the Neuse model, we established nitrogen removal
ffwA=cw4-for number-o f-stormwater-BMP-s --8 ubsequendy-in-the-T-ar-Pamlwo-model; womiodified#hose-cffciencies
based on current research, and added phosphorus removal efficiencies.
' It is our intent to provide you refinements to the menu of BUTS and their efficiencies periodically as the state of technical
knowledge advances in this area. We would like to minimize disruptions to your programs, yet make the latest
technological advances and understanding available to you. With this memorandum, we take the important step of
' reconciling the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico nitrogen efficiencies into a single value for each of the currently credited practices.
We also add a practice (dry detention) and update the phosphorus reduction efficiency values for the Tar-Pamlico Basin.
The following table identifies the efficiencies currently in place in each basin and the efficiencies that will apply from this
point forward (the table is not meant to imply a phosphorus requirement in the Neuse Basin). An existing value in bold
typeface signals that the new value will differ. Design standards for these practices remain those provided in the most
recent version of Stormwater Best Management Practices, NC DENR, Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section.
The manual can be found at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/su/Manuals Factsheets.htm#StormwaterManuals. Please also
consult the footnotes to the table below, which are found on page 2 of this memorandum.
' Tar-Pamlico local programs will use these efficiencies now as they begin implementation in September 2004. Neuse local
programs should begin requiring the use of these efficiencies on all projects received from this point forward, allowing a
brief but reasonable time period to inform the development community.
Table. Existing and New Nutrient Removal Efficiencies for BMPs Used under Neuse and Tar-Pamlico Stormwater
Rules
Practice Existing Tar
Efficiencies Existing Neuse
Efficiencies New Neuse/Tar
Efficiencies'
TN TP TN TP TN TP
Wet Pond 25 40 25 25- 40
Stormwater Wetland 40 35 40 40- 35
Sand Filter 35 45 35 35• 45
Bioretention 40 35 25 35b- 45e
Grass Swale 20 20 30 20 20
Vegetated Filter Striw/Level S reader 30 30 20 20 35
50' Restored Riparian Buffer w/Level Spreader' 30 30 30
D Detention 101 1 10
' North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Intemot h2o.enr.statenc us 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604
NorthCarolina
Aatum!!U
Phone [phone] Customer Service
FAX [phone].623-6748
An Equal Opportunity/AifnuUve Action Employer- 50% Recyded/101% Post Consumer Paper
Footnotes to Table, Existing and New Nutrient Removal Efficiencies for BMPs Used under Neuse and Tar-
Pamlico Stormwater Rules:
a: Neuse stormwater programs are not required to meet a phosphorus export target.
b: An additional design requirement beyond the specifications given in Stormwater Best Management Practices,
NC DENR, Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, April 1999, to achieve the nutrient efficiency listed
here is the use of fill soils with an infiltration rate of between one and three inches per hour, and the use of mulch
on the surface.
c: An additional design requirement beyond the specifications given in Stormwater Best Management Practices,
NC DENR, Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, April 1999, to achieve the nutrient efficiency listed
here is the testing of soils to meet a phosphorus index value of less than 50. Visit
http://www.ag[.state.nc.uslagTonomi/sthome.htm for soil testing information.
d: The.NC BMP Manual establishes vegetated filter strips as a managed riparian practice, located adjacent to
streams or other waterbodies. Since Neuse and Tar-Pamlico buffer rules require 50-foot buffers adjacent to
surface waters in new developments, vegetated filter strips under Neuse and Tar-Pamlico stormwater rules would
be located adjacent to and landward of these protected buffers. Nitrogen and phosphorus removal efficiencies are
assigned based on that assumption.
e: As established in an August 28, 2001 memorandum from DWQ Stormwater Unit to Neuse local governments,
existing riparian buffers are not eligible for nutrient credit, while restored riparian buffers meeting buffer rule
specifications and with level spreaders may receive credit. Use of and credit for a restored riparian buffer would
depend on a degraded prior land use condition and would require site-specific approval by DWQ staff..
f: Dry detention is considered primarily an adjunct practice that can provide volume attenuation to help meet site
attenuation requirements. The practice could be employed for this purpose preceding a grassed Swale or
bioretention area, or preceding a level spreader above a vegetated filter strip or riparian buffer. Available data
indicate that it can provide only limited nutrient removal, as reflected in the efficiencies listed. Additional
research data may result in adjustment of these values in the future.
a
0
Page 1 of 2
Catherine Barker
From: Sears Design Group, P. A. [[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 3:03 PM
To: Catherine Barker
Subject: The Hamlin Residence
1
Catherine,
The square footage breakdowns for the existing and proposed houses are as follows:
EXISTING HOUSE
Porches/Stoops (uncovered): 220 sq.ft.
Decks (uncovered wood): 921 sq.ft.
House: 2880 sq ft
TOTAL: 4021 sq.ft.
PROPOSED HOUSE
Porches/Stoops (covered): 292 sq.ft.
Deck (either stone or pavers): 1495 sq.ft.
Deck (either stone or pavers, covered): 292 sq.ft.
House: 6228 sq ft
' TOTAL: 8307 sq.ft.
' Let me know if you need anything else.
' Thanks,
Mark
Mark Ha11, A51A
Sears Design Group, PA
625 W. Jones Street
' Raleigh, NC 27603
919-832-7000 (phone)
919-832-8140 (fax) `
tmhallsdgCaa bellsouth.net
searsdesign?bbellsouth.net
Q
7/25/2005
'o
® Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
www.SandEC.com
August 12, 2005
S&EC Project # 8154.w1
To: N.C. Division of Water Quality
401 Oversight and Express Permits Unit
Attn: Cyndi Karoly
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
From: Bob Zarzecki
Soil & Environmental Consultants, P.A.
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27614
Re: MINOR VARIANCE REQUEST- Neuse Buffer Rule
Hamlin Residence, 520 Lakestone Drive, Raleigh, Wake County, NC
On behalf of the owners, Mr. & Mrs. Hamlin, please find attached a complete Minor Variance
Request, Stormwater Management Plan and supplemental information for the subject property as
described within 15A NCAC 02B .0233(9)(b). Please contact me at [phone] if you have
any questions or require additional information.
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Name Hamlin Residence
Project Type Residential
Owner / Applicant William F. Hamlin, Jr.
Count Wake
Nearest Town Raleigh
Waterbod Name UT to Crabtree Creek
Basin / Sub-basin 03-04-02
Index Number 27-33-(10)
Class C-NSW
IMPACT SUMMARY
Buffer Impact -Zone 1 0
Buffer Impact - Zone 2 130 sf
Buffer Impact -Total 130 sf
Attachments:
Minor Variance Request Form
Stormwater Management Plan
?O
o ? 5 X005
1
DES p3t0 S
Charlotte Office: Greensboro Office:
236 LePhillip Court, Suite C 3817-E Lawndale Drive
Concord, NC 28025 Greensboro, NC 27455
Phone: [phone] Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone]
OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Received Request #
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Variance Request Form - for Minor Variances
Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rules
NOTE. This form may be photocopied for use as an original.
Please identify which Riparian Area (Buffer) Protection Rule applies.
® Neuse River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management
Strategy Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rule (15A
NCAC 02B.0233)
? Tar-Pamlico River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management
Strategy Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rule (15A
NCAC 0213.0259)
? Catawba River Basin: Protection and Maintenance of Existing
Riparian Buffers (15A NCAC 02B .0243)
Part 1: General Information
(Please include attachments if the room provided is insufficient.)
1. Applicant's name (the corporation, individual, etc. who owns the property):
Mr. William F. Hamlin, Jr. & Mrs. Christine H. Hamlin (Owners)
2. Print Owner/Signing Official (person legally responsible for the property and its compliance)
Name: Mr. William F. Hamlin, Jr.
Title: Owners & President, The Hamlin Companies
Street address: 1411 West Garner Road
City, State, Zip: Garner, NC 27529
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
3. Contact person who can answer questions about the proposed project:
Name: Bob Zarzecki, S&EC, PA
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: bzarzecki d)sandec.com
4. Project Name (Subdivision, facility, or establishment name - consistent with project name on
plans, specifications, letters, operation and maintenance agreements, etc.):
Hamlin Residence - 520 Lakestone Drive, Raleigh, NC
Version 2: November 2002
5. Project Location:
Street address: 520 Lakestone Drive
City, State, Zip: Raleigh, NC 27609
County: Wake
Latitude/longitude: 35.8352° N / 78.6497° W (WGS84/NAD83)
6. Directions to site from nearest major intersection (Also, attach an 8 Yx 11 copy of the USGS
topographic map indicating the location of the site):
The property is located at 520 Lakestone Drive; From Crabtree Boulevard; Take Capital
North to the Beltline; Take the Outer Loop West; Take the Six Forks Road Exit North; Turn
Left onto Lassiter Mill Road; Turn Right onto Lakestone Drive (must after crossing back over
the Beltline); The driveway to the property will be on your right just past 510 Lakestone Drive.
7. Stream to be impacted by the proposed activity:
Stream name (for unnamed streams label as "UT to the nearest named stream):
Crabtree Creek 03-04-02; 27-33-(10)
Stream classification [as identified within the Schedule of Classifications 15A NCAC 2B
.0315 (Neuse) or.0316 (Tar-Pamlico)]:
C NSW
8. Which of the following permits/approvals will be required or have been received already for
this project?
Required: Received: Date received: Permit Type:
NO CAMA Major
NO CAMA Minor
NO 401 Certification/404 Permit
NO On-site Wastewater Permit
NO NPDES Permit (including stormwater)
NO Non-discharge Permit
NO Water Supply Watershed Variance
YES NO Others (specify) Construction Permit
Part 2: Proposed Activity
(Please include attachments if the room provided is insufficient.)
1. Description of proposed activity [Also, please attach a map of sufficient detail (such as a plat
map or site plan) to accurately delineate the boundaries of the land to be utilized in carrying
out the activity, the location and dimension of any disturbance in the riparian buffers
associated with the activity, and the extent of riparian buffers on the land. Include the area
of buffer impact in ftz.]:
The proposed activity includes the demolition of an existing house and the construction of a
new one within basically the same footprint of the existing one (see overall site plan in the
attached "Stormwater Bio-Retention Area, Concept Plans").
The new house will be larder than the existing house but the overall footprint within the
protected buffer will be less, existing structures will be removed from Zone 1 and no new
structures will be located within Zone 1.
Variance Request Form, page 2
Version 2: November 2000
No existing trees will be removed from Zone 1. A total of 1,903 square feet of existinq
structures located within the buffer will be converted to grass, landscaped or other pervious
surfaces (mulch, etc.).
The proiect will result in the removal of 1,903 square feet of structures from the buffer, and
only 130 square feet of new impervious surfaces will be located within the buffer (Zone 2
only) where it did not previously exist. Resulting in a net gain of 1,773 sf of the protected
riparian buffer.
As such, we are requesting a minor variance for 130 square feet.
We are not proposing to pay into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund to mitigate for this
activity given that the project will result in the net removal of 1,773 sf of structures from the
protected buffer, the removal of all structures from Zone 1 of the protected buffer, and the
installation of a bio-retention area to treat the stormwater runoff from the new house. If this
payment is determined to be required, then we request a conditional approval that this
payment be made.
2. State reasons why this plan for the proposed activity cannot be practically accomplished,
reduced or reconfigured to better minimize or eliminate disturbance to the riparian buffers:
The proposed home design cannot be reduced or reconfigured and still be on the same
building site. The owner wishes to continue to live where they now live, just in a new house.
The design of the new house has been configured to the site, to the existing house footprint
and has been shifted within the footprint to allow better buffering of the pond. The project will
improve the functions of the existing buffer by removing existing structures from Zone 1 and
reducing the amount of impervious surface within the buffer.
3. Description of any best management practices to be used to control impacts associated with
the proposed activity (i.e., control of runoff from impervious surfaces to provide diffuse flow,
re-planting vegetation or enhancement of existing vegetation, etc.):
The proposed BMPs to be used include primarily a bio-retention area / rain garden designed
to DENR specifications (see attached "Stormwater Bio-retention Area Conceptual Plan").
Roof surface runoff from the proposed house will be directed to and treated by this bio-
retention area. Runoff from the existing house is currently not treated by an engineered
designed stormwater BMP device. Existing structures within Zone 1 will be removed and the
buffer will be enhanced with additional plantings.
4. Please provide an explanation of the following:
(1) The practical difficulties or hardships that would result from the strict application of this
Rule.
See attached Requirements Listed within 15A NCAC 02B .0233(9)(a)
(2) How these difficulties or hardships result from conditions that are unique to the property
involved.
See attached Requirements Listed within 15A NCAC 02B .0233(9)(a)
(3) If economic hardship is the major consideration, then include a specific explanation of the
economic hardships and the proportion of the hardship to the entire value of the project.
Economic hardship is not the major consideration to this variance request.
Variance Request Form, page 3
Version 2: November 2000
See attached Requirements Listed within 15A NCAC 02B .0233(9)(x)
Part 3: Deed Restrictions
By your signature in Part 5 of this application, you certify that all structural stormwater best
management practices required by this variance shall be located in recorded stormwater
easements, that the easements will run with the land, that the easements cannot be changed or
deleted without concurrence from the State, and that the easements will be recorded prior to the
sale of any lot.
Part 4: Agent Authorization
If you wish to designate submittal authority to another individual or firm so that they may provide
information on your behalf, please complete this section:
Designated agent (individual or firm): Bob Zarzecki, Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Mailing address: 11010 Raven Ridge Road
City, State, Zip: Raleigh, NC 27614
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: bzarzecki(a-)sandec.com
Part 5: Applicant's Certification
I, Mr. William F. Hamlin, Jr. (print or type name of person listed in Part I, Item 2), certify that the
information included on this permit application form is correct, that the project will be constructed
in conformance with the approved plans and that the deed restrictions in accordance with Part 5
of this form will be recorded with all required permit conditions.
Signature: ?- ' on behalf of Mr. Hamlin
Date: gus 11, 2005
Title: Environmental Specialist, S&EC, PA
Variance Request Form, page 4
Version 2: November 2000
RESPONSES TO REQUIREMENTS
LISTED WITHIN 15A NCAC 02B.0233(9)(a)
(i) 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 front the terms of this Rule that shall make
reasonable use of the property possible.
Response: The practical difficulty in this case is that the Owner wishes to continue
living in the same location that they do now, but in a new, modern home that meets
their current needs. They wish to remove the existing home and build a new one in
its place.
(B) The hardship results from application of this Rude to the property rather than from other
factors such as deed restrictions or other hardship.
Response: The rule causes hardship due to not being able to rebuild outside of the
existing footprint of where they now live.
(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.
Response: The hardship due to the physical nature of the site is that they now live in
close proximity to the pond in a home specifically designed to capture this home/pond
relationship. Placing the new home in this footprint requires a variance because the
footprint of the new home within the buffer extends slightly outside of the footprint
of the existing home even though there will be a decrease in the overall structures
within the buffer and the removal of all structures from Zone 1.
(D) The applicant did not cause the hardship by knowingly or unknowingly violating this
Rule.
Response: No violation of the Rule has occurred and the applicant did not cause the
hardship.
(E) The applicant did not purchase the property after the effective date of this Rule, and then
requesting an appeal.
Response: The Owner owned this property prior to the effective date of the Rule.
The house was originally constructed in 1979.
(F) The hardship is unique to the applicant's property, rather than the result of conditions
that are tividespread. 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;
Variance Request Form, page 5
Version 2: November 2000
Response: These conditions are unique to this property. The existing home was
constructed within 30 feet of the pond prior to the effective date of the Neuse Buffer
Rule. Granting this variance would not be a special privilege denied to others.
(ii) The variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the State's riparian buffer
protection requirements and preserves its spirit; and
Response: The variance, with the provisions proposed, will be in harmony with the
buffer protection requirements and will, in fact, provide better protection than that
which currently exists. Erosion, nitrogen, and storm velocity will be better managed
than it is currently. All existing structures located within Zone 1 will be removed and
the area of structures within the entire buffer will be reduced. The proposed bio-
retention area will treat stormwater runoff from the new structure.
(iii) In granting the variance, the public safety and lvelfare have been assured water quality has been
protected, and substantial justice has been done.
Response: Since the variance will allow increased buffer protection over what
currently exists, approving this variance request will not only assure water quality
protection on this site but be believe will improve it.
Variance Request Form, page 6
Version 2: November 2000
Variance Request Form, page 7
Version 2: November 2000
SITE VICINITY - WAKE COUNTY GIS
II
WAKE COUNTY SOIL
- SHEET NO. 39
*Streams draining from 440 do not exist. Stream flowing into pond from east is perennial
AERIAL PHOTO 2002 - WAKE COUNTY GIS - 2.89-ACRE LOT
Variance Request Form, page 8
Version 2: November 2000
f
Variance Request Form, page 9
Version 2: November 2000

Variance l
Version 2;

PHOTO OF EXISTING HOUSE 2005 - POND SIDE
LOOKING WEST FROM BACK EAST CORNER OF HOUSE
NOTE DECK, TREES W/N BUFFER AND POND
PRELIMINARY DESIGN CALCULATIONS
& CONCEPT PLAN
WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared for:
Mr. William F. Hamlin
520 Lakestone Drive
Raleigh, NC 27609
August 9, 2005
S&EC Project No. 8154.W l
STORM WATER
BIORETENTION AREA
Patrick K. Smith, P
NC Liccnse No. 25
?4o0eseopeoaeroeooao? ??
es
SEAL
0
Ross 6811 `??
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road • Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
www.SandEC.com
1
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA S&EC Project No. 8154.WI
' 520 Lakestone Drive-Residential Relocation and Expansion August 9, 2005
Project Location
The project is located within the City of Raleigh, in Wake County, NC. The property is
privately owned and consists of approximately 2 acres immediately adjacent (and inside
e of) the I-440 Beltline west of the intersection of Lassiter Mill Road and Lakestone Drive.
See Figure 1, 2, and 3.
Storm Water Treatment
The treatment of storm water runoff is required as part of the pennitting requirements for
impacts to the existing buffers associate with the proposed residential relocation and
expansion project. Current plans call for the demolition of the existing structure and the
construction of a significantly larger structure in a similar location. A significant portion
(over 50%) of the existing structure and an attached deck are located within the buffer
(Zones 1 and 2). See Figure 4. The overall footprint of the proposed structure as shown
in Figure 5 provides for a significant reduction of overall buffer impacts in both Zone 1
' and Zone 2.
The concept plan calls for the construction of a single Bioretention Area to be located on
' the property adjacent to the proposed residential expansion. This bioretention area will
serve to treat storni water runoff associated with the proposed impervious area including
roof, road, and parking areas. We understand that a stormwater collection and drainage
' system will be installed during site grading operations to convey a significant portion of
site drainage to the proposed treatment device. Depending on site conditions and future
drainage design (by others) more than one bioretention area may be necessary.
Our preliminary evaluation of this feature has included device sizing for the removal of
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and an evaluation of Total Nitrogen (TN) reduction in
' accordance with generally accepted practice as outlined in the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Division of Water
Quality (DWQ), Best Management Practices (BMP) Manual and other applicable
references.
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Removal
The BMP manual outlines design requirements necessary to meet the pollutant removal
design standard of 85 percent removal of Total Suspended Solids (TSS). Based on the
' BMP manual, a bioretention area is assumed to have a TSS removal efficiency of 85
percent. Sized appropriately one or more bioretention areas will meet the removal
requirements for the proposed residence and assorted other site impervious areas.
' Total Nitrogen (TN) Removal
' Based on the project location within the Neuse River Basin, the parcel must also be
evaluated for its contribution of Total Nitrogen (TN) being delivered to the receiving
watercourse (an unnamed tributary of Crabtree Creek). Constructed properly,
' 1 ot'4
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
520 Lakestone Drivc-Residential Relocation and Expansion
S&EC Project No. 8154.\V l
August 9, 2005
bioretention areas contribute significantly to the removal of TN. According to the Draft
BMP Stormwater Manual from the N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ), dated July
2005, and "Updates to Stormwater BMP Efficiencies" Memo from DWQ, dated
September 8, 2004, bioretention areas are currently considered to remove 35 percent of
the TN from storm water inflow.
As described in the cited program literature, for commercial and residential development,
the rules require that nitrogen export of 3.6 pounds per acre per year (lbs/ac/yr) or less be
achieved. In the case where proposed residential development results in TN export rates
less than 6.0 lbs/ac/yr, then the owner may either;
1) Install BMPs to remove enough nitrogen to bring the development down to 3.6
lbs/ac/yr, or
2) Pay a one-time offset payment to the N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) of $330/lb to bring the nitrogen down to 3.6 lbs/ac/yr (pending amendment
from the Environmental Management Commission, dated May 10, 2005, would
raise current rate to $1,710/lb), or
3) Do a combination of BMPs and offset payment to achieve the 3.6 lbs/ac/yr
exports.
If a particular residential development has a computed export rate greater than 6.0
lbs/ac/yr, then the owner must use on-site BMPs to bring the development's export down
to 6.0 lbs/ac/yr. Then, the owner may use one of the three options described above to
achieve the nitrogen reduction between 6.0 lbs/ac/yr and 3.6 lbs/ac/yr.
Based on our discussion with the Division of Water Quality, we understand that once
treated for TSS and TN removal, storm water from a bioretention area can be discharged
directly into the receiving watercourse (in this case the immediately adjacent stream or
pond). This discharge must be made in a non-erosive fashion.
Bioretention Area Planning & Design
Preliminary calculations for the sizing of the total footprint of a bioretention area have
been performed. All necessary preliminary storm water design calculations and
supporting documentation are attached.
From available topographic data (site field survey data and USGS 7.5 minute Quadrangle
Sheet, Raleigh West) and site observations, the total drainage area is estimated at 30,352
square feet or approximately 0.70 acres. Considering a distribution of the site land usage
between impervious area, maintained lawn, and forested areas, we estimated a weighted
Rational Coefficient of 0.63. Using the methods described in the BMP Manual we
determined required bioretention surface area of approximately 1,630 square feet was
needed to treat site runoff (assuming 7% - no sand bed). This area can be separated into
one or more specific treatment areas if appropriate. Minimum length, width, and length
2 of 4
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
520 Lakestone Drive-Residential Relocation and Expansion
SSEC Project No. 3154. W I
August 9, 2005
to width ratios (and other sizing criteria) as described in the BMP manual will be met or
exceeded during final design.
Detailed design of the bioretention area(s) to include but not limited to inflow
distribution, treatment soil characteristics, plant species, ponding depth, outlet structure
sizing, and feature elevations will be determined during Final Design. The exact location
and dimension for the bioretention area will be described in detail in the final
construction documents.
For planning purposes we have recommended that the Owner consider a total
construction area of 1.5 times the design surface area footprint required for the proposed
bioretention area (or roughly 2,010 square feet). This area will be integrated into the site
landscaping plan to provide the desired appearance. We have attached the required DWQ
Worksheet for the proposed bioretention area and TN Export calculations (spreadsheet)
for the proposed site development.
Once approval of this Concept Plan is received and the buffer variance is granted detailed
Construction Drawings and Technical Specifications will be prepared. The detailed plans
will ensure that the bioretention area will not impact the potential riparian buffers
' associated with the tributary entering the pond. An Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
Agreement will also be prepared at that time.
3 of4
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA S& EC Project No. 8154.W 1
520 Lakestone Drive-Residential Relocation and Expansion August 9, 2005
List of Attachments and Figures
Attachments:
Preliminary Stormwater Calculations ................................................4 pages
Division of Water Quality Bioretention Area Worksheet ..........................1 page
Breakdown of Square Footage of Existing and Proposed Houses ................I page
NC Division of Water Quality Memorandum, "Updates to Storrnwater BMP
page
Efficiencies" ..............................................................................
Potential Update on Offset Payments .................................................1 page
Figures:
Figure 1-Overall Site Development Plan
Figure 2-Soil Survey Map
Figure 3-Topographic Map
Figure 4-Footprint of Current House and Impervious Surfaces
Figure 5-Proposed Buffer Impact Map
4 of4
JOB NO. gISU . W )
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA SHEET I OF _L4
11010 Ravcn Ridge Road • Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone] DATE g
www.SandEC.com
JOB NAME BY t Lk)f-, f?t.M.F? ?" IL?
SUBJECT 2'11 v'?r?'?. C, ITe 1r L)taims
•"-"-•--------------- ?----------- +....................... - --- -- -- ----- -- -- - ------ ------------ I - --- - - "-- - - _ - - . - - - - - - --- - --' --- - '-
,
d ,
.
31 ca?Yt o ES 4 r, . ?~ fPQ- 1>
t? Ionv4..1_
---------- ------------------- - ------ ---- -----
r?
,
e- n
-------------
.
y?? e rL1` ;
s
------------
--
--------------------------- --- ------
----------- ---- - ----
}
,
:
z?-
--------- --- ----
- --------- -------------------- --------- ----- - -- -------
.fir..,
,
:
,
-1-3Cb ..f.J
---- ----- -- -
,
p
f
----------- ------
- - - --- -- -
--- - - - ------------ -- -----
,
f-
---------- ----------- ------
?:?Jna
----------------
„
•
,
„
,
. y2
- ----- ---- ---- ---
f :
;
----------- ---------
------------------ ----------------
,
,
,
----------- --------- ------ ------ -------------
,
.J
------------
' JOB NO. Z19j, (A)l
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA SHEET OF
' 11010 Raven Ridge Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone] DATE g
?J? 1 ?-1 www.SandEC.com
JOB NAME /?(/J r"Ufn [ ?1/ ! 1 ! '"'?7 BY -'e"o 1.), ( 0/, / ? 1 6
SUBJECT rl r/l ll?;lr-4 - ?/ r1.17!',, - 6--) icL) r04
.
.
C-!-??
-----------------
r
o.
---------- ----
----------------- - ---- - ------ ----------
X
. ! h Cad,'-? QCs
? - 2xz r.U ?-fr2--
1
------------
({7 Pr
414
---------------- ---- - ----
.
A.
'
----------- ---- - -- -------- ------ ---
R
----- rsY11
....--- -•- --..- _. . -- -3.? F??a?: J.1--. roc :u--
------------ ----- ----- -----------
.
__.
r-
,
.
.
,
1
1 7
.
.
4 ?
.
----------- ----- ------- 4----- -- -------- 1- ------
/?o• 3 ?-.ra3
- - - - - -
52
---
------------------------------------- ;---- --.--- - - -
(//J o f] /?{/?}Y/J p
y
._. r _? 'x..1.t ?-°..? ??'--
--- '----- ----------- .........
.
.
4
7
1 1
Z a.
r . r
,' T
.yam /1
.
.
---------- ----------- ---------------
------------
- !- t
---- ---- -- -- ---
.
- ' -- - -- -- -'- t- --- -- -- ........... -'- - -- - -- --- -- - -- --- - - --- - - --- - - --- - - -- -- ---- --- --- - - - -- - .....
'-
---------- ----------- ------------
.
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - -- - - -
I
.
---------- -----------
.
.
.
.
.... ....''- ' --------------- '. ----' --- '''.' ' '
JOB NO. ?? 2 . 1.-t)
SHEET OF--?____.__
DATE n 1? G`-
Nitrogen Export Rate Calculations: BY [;?+ V
Method 2 C? iCt ? ?(j Ej
Quantifying TN Export from Residential / Industrial / Commercial Developments
when Footprint of all Impervious Surfaces are Shown
Calculation Steps:
Step 1 Determine area for each type of land use and enter in in Column (2).
Step 2 Total the areas for each type of land use and enter at the bottom of Column (2).
Step 3 Multiply the areas in Column (2) by the TN export coefficients in Column (3) and enter in Column (4).
Step 4 Total the TN exports for each type of land use and enter at the bottom of Column (4).
Step 5 Determine the export coefficient by dividing the total TN export from uses at the
bottom of Column (4) by the total area at the bottom of Column (2).
Column #
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Type of Area TN Export TN Export
Land Cover (acres) Coeff. from Use
lbs./ac./ (lbs./
Permanently Protected Undisturbed 0.258 0.60 0.15
Open Space (forest, unmown meadow)
Permanently Protected Managed 0.044 1.20 0.05
Open Space (grass, landscaping, etc.)
Impervious Surfaces (roads, parking, 0.395 21.20 8.37
lots, driveways, roofs, paved storage
areas, etc.)
TOTAL 0.697 8.58
Total Nitrogen Export Cooff iciont= 12.32.
NOTE: Residential: If TN export rate is greater than 6.0 lbs./ac./yr. then a BMP must be installed
to remove enough Nitrogen to bring the TN export rate below 6.0 lbs./ac./yr.
Commercial: If TN export rate is greater than 10.0 lbs./ac./yr. then a BMP must be installed
to remove enough Nitrogen to bring the TN export rate below 10.0 lbs./ac./yr.
TN C(,et rl cien-?- = 1-2.32- t10s1 a-C (Yr x (I60
= 13.00 lb f'1 C'O, r
'ic({ 62. u) ac,j?C - ?•(n t??) ac-1Vr) XCX3D.1r: X U•-10 ac
cc???rnec3 .
?RELIMINARY
' Soa NO. 1 sit t?1
SHEET OF
' DATE --
Exhibit 1 BY
Table of Rational runoff coefficients
Description C Source
Roof, inclined 1.00 Malcom
Street, driveway, sidewalk 0.95 Chow, 1964
Parking lot 0.90 Malcom
Roof, flat 0.90 Malcom
'
Commercial, generalized 0.85 Malcom
Apartments, schools, churches 0.60 WSSC, c.1968
Residences, 10 dwellings/acre 0.60. Malcom
Residences, 6 dwellings/acre 0.55 Malcom
Residences, 4 dwellings/acre 0.50 Malcom
Residences, 2 dwellings/ac re 0.40 Malcom
Unimproved cleared area 0.35 Malcom
Lawn, dense soil, steep >7% 0.35 Chow, 1964
Playground
Park, cemeter?? H ,? ti ?aG 1
d
Vk
4,
A
V
- 0.35
0.25 Chow, 1964
Chow, 1964
' awn,
ense so
-,
-
o
7 Chow, 1964
Wooded, sparse ground litter
-
- 0.20 Malcom
Lawn,
dense soil, flat % 0.17 Chow, 1964
Lawn, sandy, avg 2-7% 0.15 Chow, 1964
'
Lawn, sandy, flat Q% 0.10 Chow, 1964
Wooded, deep ground litter 0.10 Malcom
' ?PSt?aa? ut4-
r
1 VI-2
6 11'RRI NEU S
May Action of the Environmental Management Commission

At its regular meeting on Nkl% 10, 2005, the IiMC took the 1611(minu
action:
? Approved to procccd to public notice and hearing \k ith proposed
amendments to I SA NC',\C 2B .0210, the Nutrient Ollset Pa%-
mcnts Rule. I he %1ater Quality Committee had recommended
that the notice specifically solicit additional input regarding,
the costs associated \\ ith establishing nutrient miti_ation best
management practiccs.'I hose proposed amendments w ill update
the existing nitrozcn ollset fee for the Ncuse Rircr Basin and w ill
extend the offset program to the Tar-Pamlico River Basin fur both
nitrogen and phosphorus ollscts. "I'he.uiicndmcnts contain a new
method for calculating the offset payments for both nitrogen and
phosphorus that incorporates the land acquisition costs associated
ith the implementation of the nutrient mitigation bcsl manage-
ment practices. The updated nitrogen fce-$57 per pound of
nitrogen top from $11 per pOUnd-\\as based upon the costs that
we being encountered in the field in establishing the mitigation
sites. Using a similar methodology the phosphorus fee fir the
oar-Pamlico Rivcr l3a,in was calculated to be $45 per tenth ofa
pound ol'phosphoms.
i] Approved to confirm the reappointment of Mr. Robed Dodson to
the Water Pollution Control System Operators Certification Com-
mission. Mr. DOdson's tern, %\ ill expire June 30, 2008,
? Approved to proceed to public hccu ing lix the adoption 01'
Subchapter 21- for the non discharge ?\'aste systems rules and the
repeal oCticction 211 .0200 and Rulcs 211 .012'_ and 211 .0123.
These systems include wastewater collection systems. animal
\\aste management systems, wastewater residuals. and other
non-discharge s%stems includin?(I wastmater irriLation. reclaimed
water utilisation. groundwater rcmediation and soil remediation
projects. EN1C members commented that thcv wrnrld like to sec a
ditlcrcnt mechanism for packaging the rules.
? Appro%cd to uphold thc;Ydministratise Law Judge's (ALJ) deci-
sion in the case of Brand\ wine Real Estate Management Serv ices
Corporation and Northridge Partners Versus DENR. Di\'ision of
Waste Nlana,,cmcnt. 04 GI IR 1439. \Vake Cowuv. lie AI .f en-
tered a decision to grant summary judgment to the petitioner and
interpreted the cligibilily statute to allow the requested reimburse-
ment.
Cj Appro\ ed 10 uphold the AI.J's decision in the case of lad Dexter
?rrsus Di'NR. DWQ, Ci\\ 04-0041.71',1141:1IR 0363. Pamlico
County. The AI.J entered a decision granting D\\'Q's motion fix
summar-' judgment and recommending the assessment of the
civil penalty and costs be upheld.
Approved to uphold the Al J's decision in the case OI'Norman
Pippin versus DEM. 03 H IR 00703, Ncw I lanOVcr County. The
A1,1 entered a decision rcconuncnding tic FMC uphold issu-
ance of the two nun-discharge permits including the loading rate
conditions.
:11tiv-Jrrrre 2005
_] Chairman Moreau mentioned that Lh1C meting time, nr0
chance to cvcr\ Mo month, mcetin six times a } car rather th:ui
cieht limes a vcar. It was also mentioned that [lie ,uuclurc Ol'thc
FMC conurtittees would be maintained.
More infiirmation is available at the FAIC \?ch site:
http:?: h2u.enr.statc.nc.usiadmin!cmc'
May Action of the EMC
Water Quality Committee
At its regular mc'ding on May (), 2005, the \V 11 r Qu lity COnunitlocof the
1 itvimnmuiLil `1art?gan?ri Conunitta hook tic ibllowing action:
J Approved to send the Division of Watcr Quality Implemcnta-
tion plan our the Coastal i Iabitat Protection Plan to the ENIC
in Jule fix approval.'I he ?MC, Marine I•isheric•s Commis-
sion and the Coastal Resources Commission JpprOkrol the
Coastal I Iabitat Protection Plan in December 2004.1 his \\ as
the first step in a coordinated effort to impro\ e and protect
coastal fisheries habitat. I he approval included an agreement
that all three conunissions and DI',NR N\ould develop implc-
mcntation plans,
j Approved to proceed \?ith the development and rulcmaking
for the Universal SlunmNatcr Management Program (USNIP).
he USN111 is a new approach to slorrn?\'ater management
in North Carolina Nrith the potential to significantly alter
the manner in which storntwater is controlled and rceulatcd
within the state. A provision in the US\ll' would allow local
gm crnmcnts to salisfb most of their existing storntwatcr
post-construction control requirements w ith a single, Or a
universal set of'requircolents. More information is a\ ailablc
at htlp:iih2o.cnr.statc.ncur'suhrsmp.htm.
Approved to proceed to the VNIC with proposed rcclassihca-
tion ofthe Ncusc River in \Vake Count\ to Class \1''S-V. the
Ncuse River meets the qualifications for the proposed rcclas-
sification.
Ll Approved to proceed to the I:MC with the proposed reclassi-
fication ofthe Yadkin River in Surrv and Yadkin Counties to
Class WS-W. The Yadkin River meets the qualifications for
file proposed reclassification.
Rescinded the' F;xccptions Rtrles" drafts from December
2003 as the need tier cstablishina these rules was diminished
whin the Icgislalw'e included vested rights co\crtge in the
Storntwater Phase 11 Session Law. The intent ol'the rules
was to establish a sct ofprocedures whereas rcliefcould be
provided from D\VQ storniwatcr control requirements includ-
ing bul'fcrs, setbacks. and densit\. pro\ isions. for allcctcd.
qualilj ing parties.
DWQ Project No
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY - BIORETENTION AREA WORKSHEET
1. PROJECT INFORMATION (please complete the following information):
Project Name:
Contact Person: (?0? 1=E Phone Number: (17(1) $La(n
For projects with multiple basins, speci fy which basin this worksheet applies to:
Permanent Pool Elevation 1 sc) ft. (elevation of the orifice invert out)
Temporary Pool Elevation ft. (elevation of the outlet structure invert in)
Bioretention Surface Area anon sq. ft.
Drainage Area ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
Impervious Area ©. 6q ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
Rational C Coefficient n . /93
Size % ? % (either 5% in w/sand under drain or 7% in w/o)
Inlet Velocity -TT' 'o fps
Inlet flow depth TP TD in
Depth to Ground Water 'VG D ft.
Planting Soil Infiltration Rate i L' in./hr. (the soil layer down to 4 feet)
In-Situ Soil Infiltration Rate ; ' in./hr. (the soil layer below 4 feet or below the sand bed)
II. REQUIRED ITEMS CHECKLIST
Initial in the space provided to indicate the following design requirements have been met and supporting documentation is attached. If a
requirement has not been met, attach an explanation of why. At a minimum, a complete stormwater management plan submittal includes
a worksheet for each BMP, design calculations, plans and specifications showing all BMPs and outlet structure details, a detailed
drainage plan and a fully executed operation and maintenance agreement. An incomplete submittal package will result in a request for
additional information and will substantially delay final review and approval of the project.
Applicants Initials
No vertical sand bed is proposed
The bioretention area is at least 40 feet by 15 feet.
rtB p Sheet flow is provided at inlet.
Water table depth is greater than 6 feet.
Minimum of 6" ponding is provided.
The ponded area will draw down in less than 4 days.
Planting soil infiltration rate is greater than 0.52 in/hr.
The in-situ soil infiltration rate is greater than 0.2 in/hr.
A planting plan with species and densities is provided.
Mulch layer is specified in plans.
Planting soil meets minimum soil specifications (NCDENR Stormwater Best Management
Practices Manual, April 1999)
Plan details for the bioretention area provided.
Plan details for the inlet and outlet are provided.
An operation and maintenance agreement signed and notarized by the responsible party is provided.
Please note that underdrains beneath the planting soil are acceptable in the Piedmont and Mountains
? Q? - `?V l:?< ? Ct? ?? `.t e? •t ,? .;",. 4 y"`?,.`?';? ?_1'1CV C?E'S???', ?1?:: ': .: t i'1 1-f(?...ti. t
V
')QFL1M1NAIX1Y
901R0AY. TOP001ARW- KO:iAnON. ANO ERSRND
STRUCTLRE WfO1AAO01 LAS TAKEN FROM A SURVEY
PROVCCO or.
SOUTH-- FdMTNC AND EROCERIN4 W-
201 DLN RDAs
CA KR. NC 27529
(919( 775-0195
DATED 9119/05 ANO %I='AS-gMT/TOP=APNC
sxA5-
L1-3 LEGEND
EXISTING CONDITIONS
---? PROPERTY UIE
03fRNEA0 POWER LIE
ME • TREE TO RENAN
x TREE TO BE REMOVED
E:( PLANT AATERAL
F{
M TRANSFORMER
© HVAC CdAENSER
PP + POWER POLE
LAMP
®L' OAS METER
m CABLE TV
379 --------- MNOR CONTOUR
-----595- MAJOR CONTOUR
? RrAS SPOT ELEVATION
- i t 11 \%\ 5 CLIFF
? ' srerxsrT
i ' TI
!11
I
1
II
1.- '1 I 1
I II
I l l l j
I`?rahl
'?
N?„A1
I IN
I
I Ili 111/
I 1111
I 11 I 1
11 1i1?
I 1 I1nll
?J?JI; it
\? „It WIRKs xui-.
?FWF Il¢1M11N
Lrain 11M
'?\ 2Lw1G T-.
c-
I
ALL CO',RAC70RS 5HAILr i-M
r f- D de d-g, .nd A?cific.aml-hilh
AR A pAn of Ril ca-.- pu d-dm ings
ud r?if AaWll fa I pnrd,l whcmmn,
UNDERGROUND UTTISTTES: P u,
m
Erwin gI.-"dp6m mb?owu,g
.h..R-inR-h- dy -g m d,• Rr-M
SH.AMLCONTAC7 NORTH CAROIINA
ONE CALL 1 "-632 4919, w ha x th- f ld
nark d-dnq d.,!"--
? L I I I I
7^
•_• :,_ I Ip. ` PROP=D LOOP
DR VE
_.-':-nr?nnnrrn nmrlrllnr`::' _
`??` A`` ,l(tl --
POND
0I/
'sLLL
A NWdL R NAR L LEE
Iwo 1gSNN19
E9?"s-& A. t M RSIN K WIT
/ ? ? L 49aS ?\ 10-4 A-A ? •• ?
W-I IA t -
D)WWi R-N
PRELIMINARY
t
WE
a ?
D
9
N
. ?a
! 6
5
Ll-2 VICINITY MAP
\? - - BELTLINE- _ - ?'- -
// r'_-- - _ _- -- / ?
;RM
--------------------------
-7 ---
-----------
-` b? ?1?? \\?-? i
BOUNDARY
/ Y
? ?-- / cK*IY1
FIGURE 1
PRELIMINARY OVERALL SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SCALE: 1'-30'-0-
f 4
i
t-l
Z_
J
Q =
i
a v
WwWz
Z z
v7 1- o =
J C? N-
J W W
C Q -J
w= _j (r
o U o
N
u Lr)
J
W
?S
01
Q'?O
a?
V
c\
R
?L' V 5 X91 ? O' ,\
arc QE
�+ ^ ,n'Agrygj�q y:.CJ v t 'rt'' '$N._ }� •! " .. y Jii.`WN�� � A'
✓ , ,;e,
w a. • !� of: t ",." Y --pfYY
dr.y, 4 A t•�ji+t jr .�, �Ainy F,•.i+_` �rt•de s,
i� ted;" ti. h -L•' •{a „' .. ad"n ; , a
2Hyyy�It
...' I AA`+yry7'Et T•.;id=..- � '4 #��yf7
'2t°: ..A� ��N�••'"' ,~
-a, , �'+.+ • � ;'� -wi � t•Ri ,r t "��A. r ` � ,A`,�
Lkti�� i �ljY M2w�lt ri'{� rt t > �i�. tf- a F •m x +v• — '`\t
^.
"'i. k. ; 'i °e •SA °*;
'.'�"G `�wY1�.•!.'� sc �7yjj +i+ j kyr n,��r'�� �` a
f Try 'Or pfd f /rr tel.\. ,.• .Y. �M.' 0 - Y ,, :3 _ �S
••'r 4 - `3'{ •e .t' N►, r A' V r� •1' -A:
•.�..,"�g�r�",g'' � `.'*��
I �xk�j? f : T .t.�at{.1R! FQ y : + Y3.y jJ�� e F F +
�1 pft.I 5�pIA 1 i < ` r iipw • e � . 71`
�-wa►w w 1 % ♦ _ � i ,�. w -w - � e�. tip�7.ilq�p� �i"5��+��a �° ts`�.� � ' `' r � - >
i''�l a • �
jet!
r"'' ``� ° t"� i _ A w YS �•: r I► , a
Isk lux
s K ~�'
`i'•vSa2�..!�i
y l�fr'R191'�`M c1��FS. +tir' ' �' • �• '` �, ».'??yq �•.. ;`y•
L r"
,w ..N "'9.4i"F'''�'A�� �+• � r .i'l'" iFv.
hj9 e,�x� ..i, fy � �i - � k -a•.vi �w �rr
'.
AA`guys Sr 3e t {
v'
�•f`t' � , I' �1„`,•. IF'�'° .'�i'�'�'d-�.r"t'- s ..,1� ^�� }�.�r�ac6_ ` . .µ ti tri ,.or�
^��'. 1Cv"M:� *' J`+c�i i►�i,1 e:'�a �1' �, �h'` ` �.�q� A ,i RR a
.(p
8 I y `s' �-s.O�`•r� Y� l :b� a. La � � iK .. '� f� ! S • . aa.�, l 9 �i �y°G��+.+i%-Y�,.�' !.fX 3e �. � I.
'�hy � ������ �' f � y�ry ♦+. -n. . ` I�'- �s$r' �' '4 '¢�� �,� �JG ��y_' «,r N ,-r. 'i s.�i:
'{. �' '. � •� X7'9 �y,� '• �'+ � h �,� '° t!t y. r V �-'
Y.. ~ ti A,�'�'� Mme' _., t'�.�a` •r ,1,. + � I T > 1��j� S � _ ..
' F-3uv��i�-xrs � ^t ��/qq � � rw�p���•,', i \ �+t''�+� i`wWw �• •„1 ' �" '�a
t
•I� xj: :W �'� p`�j ''��1i i���; � �'�� �� w I/� e : : "�41re� ti �Y• `'� , ..
FF r wi a y0A.
r,��4<y
o°
•,� / y4r y` + r..r t�` �y yV� y}ir, ,q '�I► r'`� r�" .�,i-. 'd '
i ' �•' I'M
RNit
trr r' w F' � r ' `
T1
�;��� , 5r(�F t'•nt� �� `• � ,,! -� �,� 4r�t :,�3 ',,,�Of%i ` '.,0k r� `` �� k
-:�^v'`8�;�'�'.'�'^�fi�'; �y �°1! '�'�yt �l%G„t����` ���.i�a�Ivi ''�;t'��. ,��a _'�'t �?►�:��1�.�C . _ ..�w ':._.'\�.',-.� ;�1:��
Project No.
8154.W1 Figure 2 - Soil Survey Map
Project Mgr.: ,
BZ •
Lakestone Drive
Scale: Wake County, NC
1”=780'

aull,aa:?nM
j auoZ
z auoZ
,4-j,bs SL'ZOSI=Z auoZ
-4-,4,bs 96'08=1 auoZ
a6-o:?ood aj'onbS snoinjadwl
0 I9'9I91 -4ai jng jo 3p!s4-np
29'EE2 SL'ZOSi Z auoZ
98'L89 96'08 j auoZ

hn
r ('oj 'bs) snoinJa(j < -bs) snoinJadwl

z
> qui.A4-ood auoZ-ani.AQ auo).sa?jn-j OZS
-C -
d
saD
0,4- nS snoin.4a
wl pun asnoH oua.A.An8 jo dui ad food
dvw 18ddWI
-4ajjng OZ
,4ajjng OS
4s.
¦ I auoZ my}1M aq pIM sa in}on.4}s ON (2)
}.f'bs i'OEI=saoo3ins snoInNaduI MaN-s}oodul ua,4jng 2 auoZ
saoojjns snoln,jad
•},}•bs 2E'408=(}uljd}oo j Ioul8luo my}1M) s}7Odwl ja j jng-2 auoZ -+ay}a.an} oon A}ds'6ui}olsIxa oa y8} 0} jo pa} a-bs C0aq pIM
•} f bs E06'i <U
Asa}oN
(uosl.ADdWOJ Joj)
I auoZ ^ \ }upd}oo j 6ul}slx3
F- - -1- i
2 au(
m
r_

}ujjd}ooj 2'e1 auoZ-anlJQ auo}sa)lop 02S
uol}oni:}suo3 }sod
dVW 13VdWI 8311na
auilua}oM
.gat.4nE ,02
ip snolnuadul-y oajy -TI
.ja.ffnfi OS r-?--?-
ll__J
'V
sdoo}s 'asnoN-g oa ay V
O?O? WAT?9QG
o -mac
1
September 8, 2004
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
MEMORANDUM
TO: Local Programs, Neuse and Tar-Pamlico Stormwater Rules
FROM: Bradley Bennett, Supervisor, Stormwater Unit
Rich Gannon, Planner, Nonpoint Source Unit alt,
SUBJECT: Updates to Stormwater BMP Efficiencies
' With your involvement, DWQ has produced model local stormwater programs under the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico
stormwater rules, 15A NCAC 2B .0235 and .0258 respectively. In the Neuse model, we established nitrogen removal
'-efficiencies-for4L-number-of-stormwater-BMP-s-Subsequently-in-the T--ar-P$mlioomnodel,-wemiodified#hos"ffieiencies =
based on current research, and added phosphorus removal efficiencies.
' It is our intent to provide you refinements to the menu of BMPs and their efficiencies periodically as the state of technical
knowledge advances in this area. We would like to minimize disruptions to your programs, yet make the latest
technological advances and understanding available to you. With this memorandum, we take the important step of
reconciling the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico nitrogen efficiencies into a single value for each of the currently credited practices.
We also add a practice (dry detention) and update the phosphorus reduction efficiency values for the Tar-Pamlico Basin.
' The following table identifies the efficiencies currently in place in each basin and the efficiencies that will apply from this
point forward (the table is not meant to imply a phosphorus requirement in the Neuse Basin). An existing value in bold
typeface signals that the new value will differ. Design standards for these practices remain those provided in the most
recent version of Stormwater Best Management Practices, NC DENR, Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section.
' The manual can be found at bM://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/su/Manuals Factsheets.htm#StormwaterManuals. Please also
consult the footnotes to the table below, which are found on page 2 of this memorandum
' Tar-Pamlico local programs will use these efficiencies now as they begin implementation in September 2004. Neuse local
programs should begin requiring the use of these efficiencies on all projects received from this point forward, allowing a
brief but reasonable time period to inform the development community.
Table. Existing and New Nutrient Removal Efficiencies for BMPs Used under Neuse and Tar-Pamlico Stormwater
Rules :
Practice Existing Tar
Efficiencies Existing Neuse
Efficiencies New Neuse/Tar
Efficiencies'
TN TP TN TP TN TP
Wet Pond 25 40 25 25, 40
Stormwater Wetland 40 35 40 40- 35
Sand Filter 35 45 35 35• 45
Bioretention 40 35 25 35 _ 45e
Grass Swale 20 20 30 20 20
Vegetated Filter Strip w/Level S reader 30 30 20 20 35
50' Restored Riparian Buffer w/Level Spreader` 30 30 30
Dry Detention 10 10
No thCarolina
Naltzra!!Y
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet: h2o.enr.statenc.us 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 501. Recycled/10°k Post Consumer Paper
Footnotes to Table, Existing and New Nutrient Removal Efficiencies for BMPs Used under Neuse and Tar-
Pamlico Stormwater Rules:
a: Neuse stormwater programs are not required to meet a phosphorus export target.
b: An additional design requirement beyond the specifications given in Stormwater Best Management Practices,
NC DENF, Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, April 1999, to achieve the nutrient efficiency listed
here is the use of fill soils with an infiltration rate of between one and three inches per hour, and the use of mulch
on the surface.
c: An additional design requirement beyond the specifications given in Stormwater Best Management Practices,
NC DENR, Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, April 1999, to achieve the nutrient efficiency listed
here is the testing of soils to meet a phosphorus index value of less than 50. Visit
h!lp://www.ap-r.state.nc.us/agronomi/sthome.htm for soil testing information.
d: The NC BMP Manual establishes vegetated filter strips as a managed riparian practice, located adjacent to
streams or other waterbodies. Since Neuse and Tar-Pamlico buffer rules require 50-foot buffers adjacent to
surface waters in new developments, vegetated filter strips under Neuse and Tar-Pamlico Stormwater rules would
be located adjacent to and landward of these protected buffers. Nitrogen and phosphorus removal efficiencies are
assigned based on that assumption.
e: As established in an August 28, 2001 memorandum from DWQ Stormwater Unit to Neuse local governments,
existing riparian buffers are not eligible for nutrient credit, while restored riparian buffers meeting buffer rule
specifications and with level spreaders may receive credit. Use of and credit for a restored riparian buffer would
depend on a degraded prior land use condition and would require site-specific approval by DWQ staff.,
f: Dry detention is considered primarily an adjunct practice that can provide volume attenuation to help meet site
attenuation requirements. The practice could be employed for this purpose preceding a grassed swale or
bioretention area, or preceding a level spreader above a vegetated filter strip or riparian buffer. Available data
indicate that it can provide only limited nutrient removal, as reflected in the efficiencies listed.. Additional
research data may result in adjustment of these values in the future.
Page 1 of 2
Catherine Barker
From: Sears Design Group, P. A. [[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 3:03 PM
To: Catherine Barker
Subject: The Hamlin Residence
Catherine,
The square footage breakdowns for the existing and proposed houses are as follows:
EXISTING HOUSE
Porches/Stoops (uncovered): 220 sq.ft.
Decks (uncovered wood): 921 sq.ft.
House: 2880 sq ft
TOTAL: 4021 sq.ft.
PROPOSED HOUSE
Porches/Stoops (covered): 292 sq.ft.'
Deck (either stone or pavers): 1495 sq.ft.
Deck (either stone or pavers, covered): 292 sq.ft.
House: 6228 sq ft
II' TOTAL:
8307 sq.ft.
Let me know if you need anything else.
Thanks,
Mark
Marc Hall, ASIA
Sears Design Group, PA
625 W. Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
919-832-7000 (phone)
919-832-8140 (fax)
tmhallsdg(a bellsouth.net
searsdesignRbellsouth.net

'1 7/25/2005