20000969 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_20000721

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
LFW'A
/ • •
NCDIENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
August 1, 2000
Wake County
DWQ Project # 000969
APPROVAL of Neuse Buffer Rules
Sundance Development Co, Inc.
c/o Rod D. Mangrum
974 Trinity Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Dear Sirs:
You have our approval to construct a private roadway on your property in Wake County which will impact 3,656 square
feet of riparian buffer, as you described in your application received by the Division of Water Quality on July 21, 2000. After
reviewing your application, we have decided that this project is covered by the Neuse River Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B
.0233). In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including
(but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed
regulations.
This approval is only valid 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 must
be given a copy of this approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this approval, you may ask for an 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, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-
7447. This approval and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under the Neuse River Buffer Rules. If you have any
questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-9646.
Sincerely,
Kerr T. Stevens
/O
IF I
Attachment
cc: Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files 000969
Division of Water Quality - Non-Discharge Branch
1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer - 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wetiandc.htmi
F ( ( jt

O?m
i ?O
N O
143.99, I i ( j 1
E' 1
,. t

-20
r
1
?) i + I
O E 4N j 1 S
?
o? t t t
t
O I {
i t
j' t4 t
I 1

1
S05'18554 W f ! i t \. W j ,I ` ,.?U
\ SA ?o 00
00 c
I ?c
tN t it `\

05' 8'43" W 82.0 '

.f
1
7777

` `-21
1 t r
J
1
.
/ r I
t
r t

J\ \
01
\
\
\

Z
D
L4
C) r
N Z
J
!r (J1 ?
\ \ tt
f3?i'00'00 E \ 81\11' \
II '\ I lY.vvt j \ LN U ! J : 'x+•:4:`2 \\ \ ?, \
i I 1 It 4 t `t tt t ?t1 \\I \ '? V? ?, . •v. , \ \ \\ \\ \ i \ \ \
?ti t 1ii • \ \ \ \
l k
I; f
\? \ \ \ \ \
3.001
7n ?7\
00
\ \
1 j I i :r \ \Oo \ \ I\\ U
I j ' I Ili •`'`? I •' ?j ? I \ ` ?
I I i I j III I \, \\ \l ? `\ N\ \ C
! ? f I jI { I \\ pRIVATE•.: D\ j \ \ \ \
I j ? ? Lt ? ?. ?RfSfiflWAY : .{ \ I ` \ \ \ \ I ? t
E' \ _\ \ \ 1
I l ` EAS ANT
00.
3.00' \ V \ ? ? \ \
?T. F2
43.95' 1 ( I \ \ \ \ \
?rli.`r.?;' 0J t7b 1?. J? 'y??ta ?t C,J?Ftr: _? ?`-• - -?.•
•
",' 1010 Haven Ridge Road ? high, hTmM Camlim 27614 RIM: (919) 8466,5900 f Pax: 019) 846=946' .
Wob PW: www.Sat%W..wm
4
WIM
MEM09A
TO: Rod Mangram {Sundanq?) Job?#5137
FROM: K,evfti Martin
DATE T my 20, :2000 0 Q 096 9
RE: Pace Street Project
NWT 3q
qN
L.I-
3
The purpose of this 'merr o is to verify that we Wet on-site on'1./9/00 to
discuss your project, I.sseOn the weeting and Danny Smith's letter of
8117/"98 it Is 'my belief that a determinatlon that no forest of gekdt3on. was ,
present in the lsacsstic?z?' f the. road or riy othtr Site improvement sea
those areas are .not, oubjcet to the butler rules C Since the deter?lraation
wa*s' itsade, before 6'/:22j9g the finding of nd. buffers in those was.
should sti"Il be able to be r 'led 'On. ''T't3'is3 'is tact. a v.esttxrg' Issue ice you.
'we ;relying pn a finding>of an abssipnce, 'of buffers in Specific areas ;based
on Mr. Smith's lsette"r and hat relying on the afsfrroval of any specific playa.
I believe that no other approval from DWQ is necessary.
:I 4so advised you that the ,perpendic ulcer driveway crossing that d s
contam forest vegetation would. be' exempt from the buffer rule's ffyoar
corridor was less thisn.24,'.
I further advised you- that. no notificat on. to DWQ or The Corps .W
necessat y far the. irrypact s nce jroject 'ii ipaets were, less than 150' of
channel and less than 1/3. acre of wedar>ld:.- You are, autliori d ?a ?t11
non reporting Nationwide, Permit 26 f6r the Vrork. In a blIow'up_
conversation 'in'Mwvh:2000 w6di'ac txssed that if'.:yau:were under
contract tu;.dv the work before 6/7/00 you would have until 6/7/01 to
emliplete %t'.
Pk-aae call if you have 'qu'est'ions .,ar need further agsia Lance.. We nave
attempted the past t avoid bathririi DVQ. d The.orp tivzr,'
un-nCc:esssary paper work w-nCe they co' t are'ly kee up with ttl:eix
required duties. If projects.6uCh.asyyour's cont .u;e to'be unnecess i3y,
held up I may need to reconsider. that, courtesy. '
4 4• Delim4on llean*tting,mitipoon Soilisite Byalw'tsona' t3it-Sitt Septic Syah ms Envir=wntel AssoomcnWAgdits
ycum Resin aid Waushad'BuRcr'Evaluwjvm s : '.Qwunftated'F3Eydrology% E:lcteui?CnSdrSpeciih?
Charlotte Office: (04) 5,16-3922 • ' Hickixy Office; [phone]
State of,North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
1 ? •
ONO%
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
January 5, 2001
Mr. Rod Mangrum
Sundance Dev.
974 Trinity Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Dear Mr. Mangrum:
Re: Pace Street development site
DWQ# 000969
Wake County
As we discussed at my visit to your site on 4 January 2001, the following items will need
to be address to ensure that this project will remain in compliance with the Neuse River Buffer
rules (15A NCAC 2B .0233).
1. A plot plan depicting the building location for the home on lot 5. This building
must be located outside the protected 50-foot wide stream buffer.
2. Clarify line 13 in the Pre-Construction Notification form which only explicitly
refers to the four lots to be constructed on the north side of Pace Street
extension, and
3. Describe plans to retain the remaining woody vegetation adjacent to the channel
within the protected buffer zone.
Thank you for your prompt attention to these details. I can be reached at [phone]
if you have any questions.
er?
Dorney
Cc: Steve Mitchell; DWQ Raleigh RegMal Office
Central Files
File Copy
Wetlands/401 Unit • 4401 Reedy Creek Road • Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
50% recycled/ 10% post consumer paper

pp0969
DWQ ID:
CORPS ACTION ID:
NATIONWIDE PER-MIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT T)
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFCATION
3) COORDINATION ViTI-I THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGL`lAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATF,
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). SEVEN,
(7) COPIES INIUST BE SENT TO THE NC DIVISION OF WATER
QUALITY. ATTy': JOII i DORNEY. 4401 REEDY CREEK ROAD.
RALEIGH. NC 27607. PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE.
1. OWNER'S NAME:
cj? cl I ?` n ??
2. MAILING ADDRESS:
SUBDIVISION NAiIE ?Ac*_ _S4.'- ?AA4,L
CITY: STATE: N • C ZIP CODE: 0l7'?'C 0 Y
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING S DIVISIO NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE): SIC A c 5 Sc :4 ?., N, C
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER: (HOME) RN L - R S OO (WORK) P I L ' ?? 13
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENTS NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL, ADDRESS,
PHONE NUMBER:
Rol -D A0, e\ V"\
?y
A
x t - * - -gl (- Ci 993
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS TOPOGRAPHIC
. MAP OR AERL-kL. PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: !lam AF - NEAREST TOWN: to
:0-
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, L.ANDN ARKS, ECT.) p
G rc? a ?- ?r4C.c.. 5-4-. ? .? ©?l??a ? ? ?r?l, `?t s )c9-n
IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAK- DRIVER: C_rh .,k
RIVER BASIN:
7a. IS PROTECT LOCATED iNEA.R WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER, (SA),
HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW?, OUI'STANDINi 1G RESOURSE WATERS (ORW), WATER _
SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)? YES ( ) NO ( ?) IF YES, EXPLAIN:
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITI LN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF E`7VIl20bEN7AL CONCERN (AEC)? YES ( ) NO ( ?j
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR LIST OF
COASTAL COUN'T'IES), WHAT IS T'HF LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 TR_NIITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON THIS
PROJECT? YES ( ) NO ( ) IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF PREVIOUS
PERMIT :AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION):
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS =ECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES ( ) NO (/) IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBERS OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: . 3L A-G S
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT SITE:
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
w•-
FILLING. EXCAVATION:
FLOODING: OTHER :
DRAINAGE : TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED:
0
10b. (1) STREAM CHA N-N-EL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AIND AFTER RELOCATION:
LENGTH BEFORE: ZS FT AFT'r,R: C? FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: FT A17MR: FT
(2) STREAltit CHANNE- IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
i?
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEYIENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: COONSTRUCTION OF A DA: IFLOOD( TG.
OTHER:
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE WATERSHED
DRAM IiNG TO THE POND? WHAT IS THE EXPECTED
POND SURFACE AREA?
12. DISCTIP'IZON OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF MECHANIC.kL.
EQt,,jIP.IAE.NT TO BE USED, (ATT:?.C'rI PLANS;,? 1/2 BY ? I DR-A W, iINGS ONLY) s ,

flele
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: c.C,c.S S 10-f- ck-we w# - e
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED OUT IN
V L- DS (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WE1-LA.ND 2-APACTS) -
s

A?
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND/OR
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERIVE REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALY
LISTED OR PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR THREATTEINED SPECIES OR
CRITICAL. HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED
PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED:
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHPO) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA
WITCH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED
17. DOES THE PROJECT LNOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OT THE USE OF
PUBLIC (STATE) LAND? YES ( ) NO ( ve) (IF NO, GO TO 16) _
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPERATION OF AN E`NIRONI fENTAL
DOCUMENT PURUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF TIC NORTH CAROLINA
??)
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT? YES( ) NO(
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REFIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE YES ( ) NO ( +1<
IF ANSWER 17b IS YES, THEM SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCLTNMNTATIONFROM THE STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENV RONMBNTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMIlVISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
I8. THE FOLLOWING =MS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF PROPOSED
ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OF FILL. MATERIAL INTO
WETLANDS:
a. WETL-kND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES, AND
PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21, 26, 29,
AND 38). ALL STREAM (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE PROPERTY
MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS 50 FEET
OF 1 INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OF THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE IMPACTED

BYPRODUCT.
c. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA `
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LR E.
ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN RE
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPOERTY? S4 Cc-s', YG..?
gfV

f. IF APPLICABLE. WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?

cr. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WTLAINDS OR WATERS OF THE US MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE NORTH
CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL
MANAGEMEIN T PROGRAM,
OWNE. 'S/AG"! 'S SIGNATURE DATE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED).
DWQ Project #000969; Pace Street Village H Project
c _
Subject: DWQ Project #000969; Pace Street Village II Project
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 11:24:53 -0500
From: Robin Baneth <rbaneth @moh. dcr. state. nc.us>
To: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
CC: [e-mail] Dona Bailleux (E-mail)" <[e-mail];>
"JimManey (E-mail)" <[e-mail];>
"Patrica Hall (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>
John:
As the deforestation and riparian infringement onto the Cemetary Creek up on
Pace Street (near the intersection of Elm St.) appears to be imminent and
nearing the point of no return, we were curious as to the status of the
mysterious fifth lot, the exceptions to the Riparian Buffer rules, and
cutting of the protected trees. Has the developer submitted a revised
Pre-Construction Notification Application to include the fifth lot, new
bridge, and extended culvert?
Pace Street Concerned Citizens,
Robin Baneth, Lisa Ferrando, Bob & Kathy Phillips, Marvin and Mattie Davis,
Barry & Nancy Kitchner, Dona Bailleux; Gordon Harrison; Janet McCormick; Jim
Maney; Joel Byrd & Robin Lucarelli; Patrica Hall; Sarah Roholt, Lynn Lyle.
cc: Heather Beard, Neuse River Foundation
-----Original Message-----
From: John Dorney (mailto:[e-mail]
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 7:56 AM
To: Robin Baneth
Cc: bob.zarzecki; Steven R. Mitchell
Subject: Re: DWQ Project #000969; Pace Street Village II Project
Steve mitchell coordinates the buffer rules in the Raleigh Regional Office -
i
am responsible for the buffer rules on a state-wide basis. given his work
schedule, i am certain that he will not mind if i handle this one! thankx
Robin Baneth wrote:
> John:
> Thank you for your follow-up. You may wish to contact Steve Mitchell (a
> colleague of yours?), also with DWQ, as he is less biased than our group
> (since we live here) and is familiar with this project (due to his early
> involvement) and the precise area. We believe Mr. Mitchell concurs that
> developing this fifth lot may violate the "spirit of the riparian buffer
> rules" and that this stray lot is just not large enough to build adequate
> housing on -- but we think you should hear it from Mr. Mitchell.
> It should be noted that when this project was first proposed to the
> neighbors in the Mordecai CAC, John Sibert -- the owner --repeatedly
stated
> in his cold call visits that this "oddball" lot was to become a public
park
> or neighborhood pool since it was too small for anything else. While we
felt
> he may have been attempting to reduce resistance to the project as a
> strategic maneuver we concur with his original reasoning: The lot (under
.1
1 of 3 1/3/011:29 PM
DWQ Project #000969; Pace Street Village II Project
> acre?) is too small to build adequate housing on.
> In sum, the impact to the environment (increase of impervious buffer,
> disruption of forest vegetation, significant tree removal, and natural
creek
> flow interference) in our opinion seems to outweigh the need for one very
> small single family home. Again thank you for your attention to this
matter
> and look forward to learning how NCDENR and DWQ interpret this situation.
> Regards,
> Robin Baneth
> Pace Street Concerned Citizens
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Dorney (mailto:john.dorriey(ancmail.net ]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 1:57 PM
> To: Robin Baneth
> Subject: Re: DWQ Project #000969; Pace Street Village II Project
> thankx for your comments. i will find this project file and evaluate in
> light
> of your email. will let you know what decision is made. thankx
> Robin Baneth wrote:
Per my phone message of 12/20/2000
Greetings John Dorney:
The Pace Street Concerned citizens have examined Sundance Developers July
21, 2000 Pre-Construction Notification Application and supporting
materials furnished to your office and noticed a potential inaccuracy that
could
have led to the rejection or amendment of this proposal (#000969).
Line 13 (Purpose of Proposed Work) reads: "Access for four private
residence to Pace Street." The actual number of residences is five not four
with
this fifth being the center of our dispute. The final City Hall (two members
ruled against this project) approval and Comprehensive Planning
committee's recommendation for the Pace Street Village II project
(5-15-2000) was that
construction could begin when a new letter (not the 8/3/1998 one) that
fully disclosed the scope of the project was furnished by the'Department of
Water Quality.
The new application materials -- as did the old -- fail to explicitly
mention this non-adjoining fifth property that requires a bridge over the
creek directly and removal of significant forest vegetation. We believe
Kevin Martin from Soil and Environmental Consultants refers to this as the
"perpendicular driveway crossing" in his July 20, 2000 support letter. But
even he refers to Dany Smith's (NCDENR) 1998 letter and fails to mention
the fifth property.
Yesterday on 12/19/2000, a marked tree (over 12 inches in diameter) was
cut down directly in the creek bed that was originally slated for survival.
We
have a videotape of the action, along with still photos of the
contractor's vehicles as documentation to perhaps assist us in preventing
further
marked trees and forest vegetation from being cut and limit the disturbance
of
2 of 3 1/3/01 1:29 PM
DWQ Project #000969; Pace Street Village II Project
this area. One of our major concerns is the growth of the impervious buffer
leading to even more raw sewage overflow down on Brookside Avenue
residences.
Our group would like to see an explicit letter from DWQ that approves the
fifth house (on this extremely small lot) and explains why non-conformity
to the Neuse River Rules (15A NCAC 2B.0233) are being allowed as ruled
otherwise by City Council. We believe the negative aspects outweigh the
positive when all aspects are considered for this fifth property. Our
group has no concerns with the other four lots.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please feel free to forward
this email to other interested authorities.
Regards,
Robin C. Baneth, Chief IT Officer
North Carolina Museum of History Division
5 East Edenton Street
4650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4650
httn: /incznuseumofhistory. org
[phone] ext. 339 Fax [phone] or 419-781-5524
3 of 3 1/3/01 1:29 PM
RE: DWQ Project #000969; Pace Street Village II Project
Subject: RE: DWQ Project #000969; Pace Street Village II Project
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 14:28:48 -0500
From: Robin Baneth <[e-mail]>
To: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
John:
Thank you for your follow-up. You may wish to contact Steve Mitchell (a
colleague of yours?), also with DWQ, as he is less biased than our group
(since we live here) and is familiar with this project (due to his early
involvement) and the precise area. We believe Mr. Mitchell concurs that
developing this fifth lot may violate the "spirit of the riparian buffer
rules" and that this stray lot is just not large enough to build adequate
housing on -- but we think you should hear it from Mr. Mitchell.
It should be noted that when this project was first proposed to the
neighbors in the Mordecai CAC, John Sibert -- the owner --repeatedly stated
in his cold call visits that this "oddball" lot was to become a public park
or neighborhood pool since it was too small for anything else. While we felt
he may have been attempting to reduce resistance to the project as a
strategic maneuver we concur with his original reasoning: The lot (under .1
acre?) is too small to build adequate housing on.
In sum, the impact to the environment (increase of impervious buffer,
disruption of forest vegetation, significant tree removal, and natural creek
flow interference) in our opinion seems to outweigh the need for one very
small single family home. Again thank you for your attention to this matter
and look forward to learning how NCDENR and DWQ interpret this situation.
Regards,
Robin Baneth
Pace Street Concerned Citizens
-----Original Message-----
From: John Dorney [mailto_john_dorney@r_cmail_net
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 1:57 PM
To: Robin Baneth
Subject: Re: DWQ Project #000969; Pace Street Village II Project
thankx for your comments. i will find this project file and evaluate in
light
of your email. will let you know what decision is made. thankx
Robin Baneth wrote:
> Per my phone message of 1212012000
> Greetings John Dorney:
> The Pace Street Concerned Citizens have examined Sundance Developers July
> 21, 2000 Pre-Construction Notification Application and supporting
materials
> furnished to your office and noticed a potential inaccuracy that could
have
> led to the rejection or amendment of this proposal (#000969).
> Line 13 (Purpose of Proposed Work) reads: "Access for four private
residence
1 of 2 12/21/00 7:55 AM
RE: DWQ Project #000969; Pace Street Village H Project
> to Pace Street." The actual number of residences is five not four with
this
> fifth being the center of our dispute. The final City Hall (two members
> ruled against this project) approval and Comprehensive Planning
committee's
> recommendation for the Pace Street Village II project (5-15-2000) was that
> construction could begin when a new letter (not the 81311998 one) that
fully
> disclosed the scope of the project was furnished by the Department of
Water
> Quality.
> The new application materials -- as did the old -- fail to explicitly
> mention this non-adjoining fifth property that requires a bridge over the
> creek directly and removal of significant forest vegetation. We believe
> Kevin Martin from Soil and Environmental Consultants refers to this as the
> "perpendicular driveway crossing" in his July 20, 2000 support letter. But
> even he refers to Dany Smith's (NCDENR) 1998 letter and fails to mention
the
> fifth property.
> Yesterday on 1211912000, a marked tree (over 12 inches in diameter) was
cut
> down directly in the creek bed that was originally slated for survival. We
> have a videotape of the action, along with still photos of the
contractor's
> vehicles as documentation to perhaps assist us in preventing further
marked
> trees and forest vegetation from being cut and limit the disturbance of
this
> area. One of our major concerns is the growth of the impervious buffer
> leading to even more raw sewage overflow down on Brookside Avenue
> residences.
> Our group would like to see an explicit letter from DWQ that approves the
> fifth house (on this extremely small lot) and explains why non-conformity
to
> the Neuse River Rules (15A NCAC 2B.0233) are being allowed as ruled
> otherwise by City Council. We believe the negative aspects outweigh the
> positive when all aspects are considered for this fifth property. Our
group
> has no concerns with the other four lots.
> Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please feel free to forward
> this email to other interested authorities.
> Regards,
> Robin C. Baneth, Chief IT Officer
> North Carolina Museum of History Division
> 5 East Edenton Street
> 4650 Mail Service Center
> Raleigh, NC 27699-4650
> http:%/nchistory.dcr.state.nc.us/museums/
- ----------------------- - --- - -- ---- ---- - ---- -
> [phone] ext. 339 Fax [phone] or 419-781-5524
> Opinions expressed in this message may not represent the policy of
> my agency.
2 of 2 12/21/00 7:55 AM

file:///Untitlec
thankx for your comments. i will find this project file and evaluate in light of your email. will let you know
what decision is made. thankx
Robin Baneth wrote:
Per my phone message of 12/20/2000
Greetings John Donley:
The Pace Street Concerned Citizens have examined Sundance Developers July
21, 2000 Pre-Construction Notification Application and supporting materials
furnished to your office and noticed a potential inaccuracy that could have
led to the rejection or amendment of this proposal (#000969).
Line 13 (Purpose of Proposed Work) reads: "Access for four private residence
to Pace Street." The actual number of residences is five not four with this
fifth being the center of our dispute. The final City Hall (two members
ruled against this project) approval and Comprehensive Planning committee's
recommendation for the Pace Street Village II project (5-15-2000) was that
construction could begin when a new letter (not the 8/3/1998 one) that fully
disclosed the scope of the project was furnished by the Department of Water
Quality.
The new application materials -- as did the old -- fail to explicitly
mention this non-adjoining fifth property that requires a bridge over the
creek directly and removal of significant forest vegetation. We believe
Kevin Martin from Soil and Environmental Consultants refers to this as the
"perpendicular driveway crossing" in his July 20, 2000 support letter. But
even he refers to Dany Smith's (NCDENR) 1998 letter and fails to mention the
fifth property.
Yesterday on 12/19/2000, a marked tree (over 12 inches in diameter) was cut
down directly in the creek bed that was originally slated for survival. We
have a videotape of the action, along with still photos of the contractor's
vehicles as documentation to perhaps assist us in preventing further harked
trees and forest vegetation from being cut and limit the disturbance of this
area. One of our major concerns is the growth of the impervious buffer
leading to even more raw sewage overflow down on Brookside Avenue
residences.
Our group would like to see an explicit letter from DWQ that approves the
fifth house (on this extremely small lot) and explains why non-confonnity to
the Neuse River Rules (15A NCAC 2B.0233) are being allowed as ruled
otherwise by City Council. We believe the negative aspects outweigh the
positive when all aspects are considered for this fifth property. Our group
has no concerns with the other four lots.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please feel free to forward
this email to other interested authorities.
xAe_ y
ca:s?n1?,
s
\"'
J
1 of 2 12/20/00 1:56 PM
file:///Untiflec

Regards,
Robin C. Baneth, Chief IT Officer
North Carolina Museum of History Division
5 East Edenton Street
4650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4650
littp://ncliistc)ry.der.st.ate.nc.us/i-riuseums/
[phone] ext. 339 Fax [phone] or 419-781-5524
Opinions expressed in this message may not represent the policy of
my agency.
2 of 2 12/20/001:56 PM
I
F` - xG
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
x ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
q RALEIGH REGIONAL OFFICE
A g
August 17, 1998
NCD?ENR Mr.John Sibert 512 Saint Marry's St.
JAMES B. HUNT JR. 7 Suite 110
GOVERNOR '`. Kalei h, NC 27605
Subject: Neuse River Basin Riparian Rules
WAYN6 MCDEVtTT AUG
? 9M98
6' Pace Street - Raleigh
SECRETARY
NBR-RRO- 53
WETLA s GF Wake County
?. rvVlf;TER UAUTYSECTION
Dear Mr. Sibert:
On August 3, 1998, I met with you at a proposed development on Pace Street in Wake
County. At your request, an evaluation was performed to determine whether one (1)
feature as indicated by a blue high lighter on the attached map would require compliance
with the Neuse River Buffer requirements. (Please note: this is the only features that I
reviewed). Feature # 1, as indicated on the attached map, is a stream and is subject to
i the Neuse Buffer Rule. However, the presence of forest vegetation was minimal.
Accordingly, the road foot print as proposed, would not impact/remove riparian forest
vegetation.
In addition, in accordance with the rule, concentrated runoff from new ditches or
manmade conveyances must be dispersed into sheet flow before the runoff enters Zone 2
of the riparian area.
If you have any questions please call this office at [phone].
Sincerely, i
army Sn?
Environmental Specialist
cc: RRO - file copy
John Dorney- Wetlands/401 Group
1
-? 3800 BARRETT DRIVE, SUITE 101, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27609
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
„' AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER -50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
c ,
t
I
( _ .•q.^nW . `Sir ' '? ?°"i .en`x' ? _ ? ? ,,' ?
' I 1 t
I .. - •, ,' Imo. r
!Ll
1
. ? `_ ?ro?.?N? C t-7 ! A n iI P
Fg-
Map Title 1
Map Title 2
CapWiot a 1988.1996. Munsof! Caparadcn aMlor Ms applies. M fits reserved. Page 1
flU -6kO -5?
Streets Plus