20010109 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_20010126

615 HIGHWAY 66 SOUTH - P.O. BOX 386
KERNERSVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 27285
[phone]
March 7, 2002
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Qualily
NCDENT
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
1t i 52V
WETLANDS GROU?,.-A ?UAT' SECT I"',
RE: Sunnybrook Village
Request for Vested Rights
Dear Mr. Dorney:
HUBER
am attaching a copy of a letter from Ms. Mary Penny Thompson of the State of North
Carolina Department of Justice sent to Mr. Steve Mitchell of the Division of Water
Quality. This letter confirms common law vested rights for this property concerning
Neuse River Buffers.
There has been no application to fill wetlands. My application for common law vested
rights has been granted by virtue of Ms. Thompson's advisory opinion letter. If you
have any further questions about this matter, please contact Mr. Steve Mitchell of DWQ
and/or Mr. Larry Ragland of McNeely Associates pa (919-782-9677).
Best Regards,
tuubert B. Par s
Cc: McNeely Associates pa
" M LITRE MOMPMDEALER'
> 6

State of North Carolina
ROY COOPER Department of JUstiCe
ATTORNEY GENERAL P. O. Box 629
RALEIGH
27602-0629
February 9, 2001
Via Fax and Mail
Steve Mitchell
Raleigh Regional Office
Division of Water Quality
1628 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1628
Fax: [phone]
Re: Applicability of Vested Rights in Sunnybrook Village
Dear Steve:
Reply to:
Mary Penny Thompson
Environmental Division
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
I have reviewed the supplemental materials provided to me by Hal McNeely after our
joint meeting with the developers on January 9, 2001 to determine the applicability of vested
rights to the development commonly known as Sunnybrook Village.' Although the vested rights
concept is generally limited to zoning ordinances, the General Assembly specifically exempted
property with existing vested rights from the application of the Neuse River Buffer Rules. See
1998 N.C. Sess. Laws 221 (hereinafter referred to as "HB 1402"). In my opinion, vested rights
do apply to Sunnybrook Village because the supplemental materials meet the common law
criteria for such a right.
The original request for a determination on vested rights applicability sought such a right
under the statutory method outlined in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-385.1 which requires a site
specific development plan reviewed after proper notice at a quasi-judicial public hearing and
approved by the local government. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-385.1(e). The review of vested
rights under this method was abandoned by the developers since the development activities
occurred prior to either State or City adoption of provisions to secure vested rights.
The developers currently seek a determination of vested rights under the common law
criteria which I have set out below for your convenience:
(1) Substantial expenditures or contractual obligations incidental to the project were
I This is an advisory letter. It has not been reviewed and approved in accordance with procedures for issuing an
Attorney General's opinion.

Steve Mitchell
February 9, 2001
Page 2
incurred prior to the change in the law;
(2) Such expenditures or obligations were incurred in good faith;
(3) Such expenditures or obligations were made in reasonable reliance upon
governmental permits or approvals; and,
(4) The amendment to the law acts as a detriment to the parry.
Browning-Ferris Industries v. Guilford County Board ofAdjustrnent, 126 N.C. App. 168, 484
S.E.2d 411 (1997). Further, HB 1402 addressed the common law vested right by stating that the
Neuse River Buffer Rules do not apply to "development with vested rights recognized or
established under the common law" prior to October 29, 1998 (the date HB 1402 became
effective) if the Commission issued a 401 Water Quality Certification prior to July 22, 1997.
1998 N.C. Sess. Laws 221, Section 1.7.
The earlier submittal materials include the following items:
• November 30, 1998 letter from Edward Zotian of Patton Boggs, LLP (attorneys at law) to
Jill Hickey requesting a vested rights determination under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-385.1
and including attachments:
• 11/13/85 letter from the City of Raleigh to Dayle Phillips indicating completion of the
final inspection;
• 11/26/85 letter from the City of Raleigh to Dayle Phillips indicating completion of the
final inspection;
• Site map dated 6/17/81 with property outlined in red;
• 12/7/98 letter from Jill Hickey to Edward Zotian requesting a copy of Raleigh's
ordinance, documentation showing Raleigh approval of a site specific development plan,
and documentation indicating all other requirements met.
• Blueprint of Water & Sewer Service dated August 1983 and revised through 1-5-84;
• Layout Plan dated Nov. 06, 1998
• 3/5/99 memo from John Dorney of DWQ to Jill Hickey requesting vested rights
determination, indicating that no record of a 401 Water Quality Certification for the
project existed, and attaching several documents:
• 1/18/99 letter from Hal McNeely of McNeely Associates, PA (landscape architects &
planning consultants) to Jill Hickey indicating the actions on site could constitute a
common law vested right since conducted prior to either the State or the City
establishing provisions for obtaining a vested right
• a location map
• Certified Action of the City of Raleigh Planning Commission dated 1/14/99
recommending approval of a 201 residential condominiums on land previously
Steve Mitchell
February 9, 2001
Page 3
approved in 1984 (i.e., Sunnybrook Village)
• outline of lot on general site map
• Planting Plan
• Layout Plan
• 11/22/83 letter from the City of Raleigh to Hal McNeely regarding the sewer
easement sale at Sunnybrook Village
• 11/26/85 letter from the City of Raleigh to Dayle Phillips regarding the final
inspection at Sunnybrook Village
• 11/13/85 letter from the City of Raleigh to Dayle Phillips regarding the final
inspection at Sunnybrook Village
• 11/12/86 letter from the City of Raleigh to Dayle Phillips regarding the one year
warranty inspection at Sunnybrook Village
• 3/16/99 fax from John Cooke of Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice (attorneys at law) to
Jill Hickey indicating that Edward Zotian represents the buyer who has a contract with
Hubert Parks, the current owner, to purchase Sunnybrook Village and asking that the
determination be suspended until further information submitted
• 7/8/99 letter from John Cooke to Jill Hickey requesting vested rights determination under
the common law and attaching two exhibits:
• plat of Sunnybrook Village
• factual outline of events including 24 attachments:
1. 6/21/78 Joint Venture Agreement
2. 3/10/78 Trustee's Deed
3. 6/12/80 NC Non-Warranty Deed
4. 8/24/83 NC General Warranty Deed
5. 12/20/82 Proposal by McNeely Associates
6. Ledger page for expenses totaling almost $2,300,000
7. 9/1/83 Application for Subdivision Approval
8. 3/24/84 Plats of Lots and Roadways
9. City of Raleigh Standard Procedure for Reimbursement Contracts for Utilities and Streets
10. 7/12/84 letter from NC Dept. of Natural Resources and Community Development
("NRCD") forwarding Permit No. 10420 to City of Raleigh for the construction and operation of
wastewater collection system extensions
11. 7/13/84 letter from Division of Health Services to City of Raleigh approving the.
construction of water mains, etc. along the roads of Sunnybrook. Village
12. 11/13/85 letter from the City of Raleigh to Dayle Phillips regarding the final inspection at
Sunnybrook Village
13. 11/12/86 letter from the City of Raleigh to Dayle Phillips regarding the one year warranty
inspection at Sunnybrook Village
14. 5/5/86 plat approved by the City of Raleigh
15. 5/10/84 Permit allowing Wake county with permission of Roger Page and Hubert Parks
to enter the property to survey and plan the Wake Resource Park Sewer Outfall

Steve Mitchell
February 9, 2001
Page 4
16.2/13/85 Easement between Wake County and the Sunnybrook Village property owners
17. 6/1/84 Application for Site Plan Approval for Lot 3 in Sunnybrook Village
18. Subdivision Review Committee's Recommendation to approve Lot 3 development as
long as it was recorded prior to issuance of building permits
19.6/14/85 Permit from the EMC/NRCD to extend sewer to Lot 3 in Sunnybrook Village
20. 3/3/86 Application for Site Plan Approval for St. Clair Condominiums
21. 5/7/86 memo from City of Raleigh to Mr. McNeely approving the St. Clair
Condominiums with conditions
22. 10/25/91 General Warranty Deed from the Pages to BB&T
23. 12/3/92 General Warranty Deed from BB&T to the Michaels
24. 1/14/99 Certified Action of the City of Raleigh Planning Commission recommending the
approval of a group housing development in Sunnybrook Village
• 7/20/99 Memo from Pete Colwell of DWQ to Jill Hickey requesting vested rights
determination for Sunnybrook Village and indicating DWQ did not find a record of a 401
Water Quality Certification for the subdivision
• 9/21/99 fax memo from John Cooke to Jill Hickey providing further legal analyses
5/30/00 letter from John Cooke to Jill Hickey requesting favorable determination
The supplemental materials include the following:
• outline by Hal McNeely of general development plans beginning in 1985
• 11/26/95 letter from the City of Raleigh to Dayle Phillips advising that a final
inspection had been conducted at Sunnybrook Village and that the sanitary sewer
main was found to be acceptable
• several large-scale plat maps including one with building footprints on Lot 3
• 1/25/01 Letter of Transmittal from Hal McNeely submitting City of Raleigh
minutes approving Sunnybrook Village dated 1/9/84 and 7/23/84 along with three
large-scale plat maps illustrating the approved development
• 2/6/01 letter from Hal McNeely providing official copies of the 1/9/84 and
7/23/84 City of Raleigh minutes showing site plan approvals as well as large-scale
plat maps illustrating the development which were specifically referenced by the
minutes approving the development.
It appears that Sunnybrook Village meets the requirements for common law vested rights.
First, according to the submitted materials, the developer made substantial expenditures, in the
amount of $1,700,000 to build the infrastructure of the master plan. Second, the developer acted
in good faith as he received approval of the subdivision from the City of Raleigh prior to the
Neuse River Buffer rules taking effect. Third, the developer relied on governmental permissions
as he received coverage under the State's stormwater general permit in conjunction with his
approved erosion and sedimentation control plan in 1985. The grading approved by the erosion
and sedimentation control plan occurred prior to the change in the rules. Although I do not have
a copy of the grading plan (which would be labeled "L-2" on plans submitted to the City), I have
y '4
f
Steve Mitchell
February 9, 2001
Page 5
no doubt that it exists given that the city approved the construction in its final inspection in 1985.
Given the length of time it has taken to gather and review the materials, I am not requiring a copy
to be submitted in order to determine the applicability of vested rights. Fourth and finally, the
developer will suffer a detriment as he will be unable to build Approximately twenty units on Lot
3 if the Neuse River Buffer Rules are imposed in their entirety. Since the developer appears to
meet all four criteria of common law vested rights, I would advise you to act accordingly and not
impose the requirements of the Neuse River Buffer Rules on Lot 3 of Sunnybrook Village.
If you have any questions or need anything further, please do not hesitate to contact me.
With best wishes, I am
Very truly yours,
l
;95W'?
M
ary Pe y Thom
7
A s t Attorney General
cc: Hal McNeely
EP/46389/wp6.1
102 11:36
` -OF wAT?'Q4
7
C r
FAX [phone] PARKS CHEVROLET
qmvuc.
Michas F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Acting Director
Div sion of Water Quality
February 21, 2002
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Hubert B. Parks and F. Roger Page, Jr.
P.O. Box 386
Kemersville, INC 27284
Re: Request for vested decision- Neuse buffer rules
Sunnybrook Village
Wake County
Dear Sirs:
On July 20, 1999, the Division of Water Quality wrote to you concerning your plans to fill an unreported amount of
acres of wetlands and/or linear feet of streams in in regards to the vested rights of Sunny Brook Village :subdivision in
Raleigh in Wake County. This letter informed you that the project was incomplete and was being placed on hold until the
additional information outlined in the letter was supplied. To date, we have not received this additional information.
Unless we hear from you in writing within 3 weeks of the receipt of this letter, we will consider that you no longer want to
pursue this project and we will retire the file and consider the application as withdrawn. Please be aware that
reapplication for this project will require a Certification fee and new applications.
Please call Mr. Mike Horan of my staff at 919-733-3574 if you would like to discuss this matter.
. 1 f '-?.
n Dorn
Wetlan s/ 1 Unit Supervisor
Cc: File copy
Central files
Raleigh DWQ Regional OffiGe -
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office US Army Corps of Engineers
N_ C. Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 [phone] Customer Service
Received Time Mar. 6, 10:40AM 1800623-7748
McNeely Associates pa landscape architects & planning consultants
January 22, 2001
Mr. Steve Mitchell
Environmental Scientist
Division of WO
1628 Mail Servi
Raleigh, NC 27, v?-
RE: Lot 3, Su
Dear Steve,
Attached are twc
2001 with Mr. Te
Department of JL

'?R? ? I mating of January 9,
irk and me at the
Also accompanyi2 ?J
(reduced), the 19
Subdivision apprc
warranty period.
If you have any problems with our delineatior
interpretation, I will be pleased to meet with y
Sincerely,
#? xt Z.
Hal McNeely, ASLA
President
enclosure
cc: Hubert Park
Don Vaughn
Gam-
(4
5501 McNeely Drive • PO Drawer 30126 • Raleigh, NC 27622 • Tel: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
Y _.
City of Raleigh, NC
Development Plans Review Center
P. 0. Box 590, Raleigh, N. C. 21602
Telephone: (919),890-3642 FAX: [phone]
PROJECT : Sunnybrook Village
FILE NUMBER : GH-11-98
CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Approved
DATE Of ACTION :1/12/99
COORDINATING PLANNER : Greg Hallam
FACTION Of THE CITY COUNCIL:
The City Council has found that this plan, with the following conditions being met, conforms to, Code
requirements of Chapter 2, Part 10, Sections 10-2132.2, 10-2035; Chapter 3, Part 10, Sections 10-3001-
3059.
This request.was approved, according to a map drawn by McNeely Associates, dated 12/21/98, owned by
Providence Development Group, in accordance with the following conditions:
Administrative Actions:
Conditions that-are to. be met prior to.approval of construction drawings:-
1. That a.revised utility plan be submitted which extends sanitary sewer service to any adjacent property
.
where sewer is not currently available, or, that evidence be provided showing that sanitary sewer is
currently available to all adjacent properties;
2. That a revised plan be submitted which shows any State-required Riparian Buffers, or, that a letter be
submitted from the State Division of Water Quality stating that the Neuse River Nutrient Sensitive
Regulations are not applicable to the project;
3. That the construction drawings for the private street intersecting with Sungate Boulevard on the western
edge of the site show the required "No Parking" signage and markings for both sides of the private street
where parking is not being provided;
4. That the City Council approve the proposed Sanitary Sewer Easement exchange;
Conditions that are to be met prior to issuance of grading permits, or any. other construction permit
in the Inspections Department:
5. That a tree; preservation plan for the existing trees proposed to be protected be approved, and that all
tree protective measures be installed and inspected by the Zoning Inspector;
IU : Providence Development Group \ McNeely Associates
( Conditions that are to be met prior to issuance of building permits in the Inspections Department:
6. That construction drawings for the internal drives, shown on the preliminary plan and required to be
constructed to private street standards are approved;
7. That a petition for annexation into the City Limits be submitted in accordance with City Council policy for
extension of utility service to properties currently outside of the City Limits. This voluntary annexation in
no way obligates the City to extend utility services to the property;
8. That street names for this development be approved by the Raleigh Planning Department and by Wake
County; and
9. That a plat be recorded which dedicates all required on-site sanitary sewer easements.
SUNSET DATES:
If significant construction has not taken place on a project after preliminary approval, that approval may
"sunset" and be declared void, requiring re-approval by City Council before permits may be issued. To
avoid allowing this preliminary approval to "sunset", the following must take place by the following dates:
2-Year Sunset Date: 1/1212002
Submit a final site plan and valid building permit application for the total area of the project, or a phase of the
project.
5-Year Sunset Date: 1/12/2004
Complete construction of entire development.
WHAT TO DO NEXT:
• MEET ALL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS FOR ANY PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS (Streets, Utility lines
to be owned and maintained by the City) and submit them to the Development Plans Review Center for
approval.
• COMPLETE THE TECHNICAL REVIEW IN THE INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT FOR SITE AND
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION PLANS.
• MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUNSET THRESHOLDS AS NOTED ABOVE.
FACILITY FEES REIMBURSEMENT:
If oversized street construction takes place, or greenway or oversized public street.right-of-way is.conveyed
to the public, the owner is responsible for application to the City for reimbursement allowed by Code.
Reimbursement takes place once a year in ,January; a written request must be filed with the Planning
Department for greenway and street right-of-way; and in the Engineering Department for street construction;
by the first working day in November each year.
SPECIAL NOTE:
If you will be storing hazardous materials on site, you may be required to comply with the Wake County Lock
Box Ordinance, which requires installation of a hazardous materials storage box. Contact Emergency
Management (856-6480).
i
OFFICIAL AINUIES:
Minutes of the City Council meeting approving this plan generally are available approximately two weeks
after the meeting date and can be obtained by contacting the City Clerk's Office at 890-3040, or by
searching the on-line Council minutes on the City's World Wide Web page at www.raleigh-nc.org.
This letter represents the official notification of the action of the Council.
Please do not-hesitate to call me or the planner coordinating the review of your project if you are unsure of
how to satisfy conditions, or if you have any other questions about this preliminary plan.
Sincerely,
Daniel A. Howe, ASLA, AICP
Development Plans Administrator
CA Number: 670
CERTIFIED ACTION OF THE CITY OF RALEIGH PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT: GH-11-98 Sunnybrook Village Apartments
CROSS-REFERENCE FILE NUMBER: The subject property was a portion of a
larger tract which received preliminary subdivision approval on
January 17, 1984 (S-134-83); the subject lot being legally created by
plat on June 9, 1986. A preliminary site plan for 201 residential
condominiums on the subject property was approved on August 7, 1984
(PA-215/S-100-84); the preliminary site plan becoming null and void
three years later (August 7, 1987) when final site plan drawings or
building permit applications were not submitted to the City.
LOCATION: This site is located east of Sunnybrook Road, on the west
side of Michael J. Smith Lane, between Carl Sandburg Court and Sungate
Boulevard, inside the City Limits.
REQUEST: This request is to approve a group housing development of
234 units in 14 buildings on a 9.84 acre site, zoned 0&1-2. The
overall residential density is 23.78 units per acre.
RECOMMENDATION: That this request be approved, according to a map
drawn by McNeely Associates, dated 12/21/98, owned by Providence
Development Group, in accordance with the administrative conditions
outlined in the Staff Report attached to the Certified Action.
FINDINGS AND REASONS UPON WHICH THIS RECOMMENDATION IS BASED: The
Planning Commission finds that this request, with the above conditions
being met, conforms to Code requirements of Chapter 2, Part 10,
§§10-2103, 10-2132.2, 10-2036; Chapter 3, Part 10, §§10-3001-3059.
Motion: Hunt
Second: Thomas
In Favor: Harvey, Brandle, Hunt, Jurgensen, Kekas, Taliaferro,
Thomas, Thompson, Trotter, Walker
Opposed:
Excused:
This document is a true and accurate statement of the findings and
recommendations of the Planning Commission. Approval of this document
incorporates all of the findings of the staff report attached.
Signed:
Signed:
To Planning Commission: 1/12/99
Certified Action Number: 670
Staff Coordinator: Greg Hallam
1
CA Number: 670
k
STAFF REPORT - NON-RESIDENTIAL SITE PLANS
DEVELOPMENT PLANS REVIEW GROUP RECOMMNDATION:
That this plan conforms to Code requirements of Chapter 2, Part 10,
§§10-2103, 10-2132.2, 10-2036; Chapter 3, Part 10, §§10-3001-3059, and
that this plan be approved in accordance with the following actions:
Administrative Actions:
Conditions that are to be met prior to approval of construction
drawings:
(1) That a revised utility plan be submitted which extends sanitary
sewer service to any adjacent property where sewer is not
currently available, or, that evidence be provided showing that
sanitary sewer is currently available to all adjacent properties;
(2) That a revised plan be submitted which shows any State-required
Riparian Buffers, or, that a letter be submitted from the State
Division of Water Quality stating that the Neuse River Nutrient
Sensitive Regulations are not applicable to the project;
(3) That the construction drawings for the private street
intersecting with Sungate Boulevard on the western edge of the
site show the required "No Parking" signage and markings for both
sides of the private street where parking is not being provided;
(4) That the City Council approve the proposed sanitary sewer
Easement exchange;
Conditions that are to be met prior to issuance of grading permits, or
any other construction permit in the inspections Department:
(5) That a tree preservation plan for the existing trees proposed to
be protected be approved, and that all tree protective measures
be installed and inspected by the Zoning Inspector;
Conditions that are to be met prior to issuance of building permits in
the Inspections Department:
(6) That construction drawings for the internal drives shown on the
preliminary plan and required to be constructed to private street
standards are approved;
(7) That a petition for annexation into the City Limits be submitted
in accordance with City Council policy for extension of utility
service to properties currently outside of the City Limits. This
voluntary annexation in no way obligates the City to extend
utility services to the property;
2
CA Number: 670
The project perimeter equals 2,940 linear feet, requiring 588 caliper
inches within the designated ungraded area. As stated earlier, 75% of
this total..(441 caliper inches) must be from trees greater than 5-inch
caliper. The balance of the requirement may be from existing trees
between 2-inch and 5-inch caliper or new tree plantings, a minimum of
3.5-inch caliper in size.
OPEN SPACE: Conforms to minimum Code requirement: 1.18 acres or 12%
required, 1.22 acres or 12.5% provided.
FIRE PROTECTION: The preliminary plan conforms to all requirements of
Code Section 10-2103(g)(1).
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
GREENWAY: There is no designated greenway on this site.
THOROUGHFARE / COLLECTOR STREET PLAN: Sufficient right-of-way exists
on adjacent streets.
URBAN FORM: This site is located in the Southeast Planning District,
and is located within the Wake Medical Center Employment Area.
STANDARDS
PUBLIC UTILITIES: City water is available to this site and all lines
necessary to serve this project shall be installed by the developer in
conformance with City standards and policies. City sewer is available
to this site and all lines necessary to serve this project shall be
installed by the developer in conformance with City standards and
policies.
A petition for annexation is required by City Council policy for this
development which is requesting service by the municipal utility
system. Because this development is currently outside the City
Limits, a condition of approval of any annexation will be that the
City is not responsible for extending utility service to this site.
Prior to construction drawing approval, a revised utility plan shall
be required to be submitted which extends sanitary sewer service to
all adjacent properties, or, that evidence be provided which shows
that sewer is currently available to all adjacent properties.
REFUSE DISPOSAL: Location and design of collection facilities, as
approved by the Sanitation Division of the Public Works Department,
shall meet City standards.
CIRCULATION: Existing streets conform to City standards. Private
streets shown for this development are to be constructed to City
standards.
4
A
y
gi
T
W
c?a s.w.ure ewn
Y
p
{
S
City of Raleigh.., North
GH- 11 -98 A
Sunnybrook Vi H age 1-z427.
MCFARLINGE
11/12/98
&dWftfAml apftW n.. is fvr P.71.14. MI OW .a p QOWAd IrM w ...e .r.A..l...vaw Tlr a Uft' rr.w io fv ..e. Ma tlr r.? W M..e

J , if
1 l uff P111111 lip;

i'

I

1
ji
Q I fi. ' - { 1

j
fir 1
/ ) j41
t;
L as I t as Hdq

lfj3ie'I
L- ,I
s
jys Y? e :
i1 j ?{ ?; Milt e
! t t>< s? =?ssi? fi
1
86
4
3 ?
K ? ? w
0
I • a 1 41#
? II
(??? /,• ?? t? II 1 I l i d
MI
F-
sf J
y

- -
6-" L4u
C
x
Mops and databases are public information suppled
by various government agencies. The author aid/or Ma E
seller of the software program, are in no way
rA F911 iple or liable for the information depicted
i hareirG inquiries concerning the data should be 0 164 329 493 658 1318
irected to the appropriate government agency. i ' Scale ' Nov OV 3. 1998
in Feet

City Of CRaleigh
November 13, 1985 9Yorth Carolina
Mr. Dayle Phillips '
Post Office Drawer 30126
Raleigh, North Carolina 27622
Dear Mr. Phillips:
This is to advise you that a final inspection has been made'in Sunnybrook Village.
This inspection was made of the streets, water mains, sanitary sewer .mains and
sidewalks at the following locations and were found to have been completed according
to the City of Raleigh standards and specifications and are now accepted by the City
of Raleigh for continuous maintenance.
STREETS
Brook Crossing
1615 + of-4-1T back to back on a 60' right of way with sidewalks from Sunnybrook
Road east to dead end.
Woodduck Lane
778 of 41 back to back on a 60' right of way with sidewalk from Brook Crossing
to Sunnycreek Crossing.
Sunnycreek Crossing
1628' of 41' back to back on a 60' right 6 way with sidewalk from Sunnycreek
Crossing ease to dead end.
Sunn brook Road
290 ± of 1/2 of 65' back to back at Brook Crossing.
360' ± of 1/2 of 65' back to back at Sunnycreek Crossing.
Stone moss Drive
70 ± of 41 back to back from Sunnycreek Crossing south to dead end.
WATER
Sunnycreek crossing
1630' + of 12" ductile iron pipe from Sunnybrook Road east to valve and blow off at
dead end.
OFFICES - 222 WEST b1ARGETT STRFFT . RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27602
k
Mr.., Dayle Phillips
Final Inspection - Sunnybrook Village
November 13, 1985
Page 2
Stone.ymoss Drive
90' ± of ductile iron pipe from Sunnycreek Crossing to valve and blow off
at dead end.
Brook .Crossing
1620' + of 12t' ductile iron pipe from Sunnybrook Road to valve and blow off at
dead end.
Woodduck Lane
780 + of 8' ductile iron pipe from Brook Crossing to Sunnycreek Crossing.
SEWER
Sunnycreek Crossing
1300' + of 8 PVC from manhole #1 at Sunnybrook Road to manhole #6
246' + of 8" PVC from manhole #12 in Sunnycreek Crossing south to dead end
manhole #13.
140' ± of 8" ductile iron pipe from manhole #6 to manhole #12.
WITHIN EASEMENT
873' + of 8" PVC from manhole #18 at Sunnybrook Road to manhole #7 at Woodduck
Lane and Sunnycreek Crossing.
85' ± of 8" ductile iron pipe from manhole #9 in Sunnybrook Crossing to manhole #19.
This acceptance is subject to a one year guarantee against failure because of faulty
workmanship or materials.
Sincerely yours,
ep W. Beane
Acting Chi Engine
-C-Z
Lynn Baird
Public Works Director
m rl S
as
Pub is lities Director
g ?
Jarvis Lawrence
Inspector
JWB/mng

Caity Of sleigh
5Vorth Carolina
November 12, 1986
Dayle Phillips
Post Office Box 30126
Raleigh, North Carolina 27622
Dear Sir:
This is to advise you that the one year warranty inspection has
been made at Sunnybrook Village for streets, water main and
sanitary sewer mains and no items were found to be deficient.
Sincerely, -
E. R. Batten
Construction Inspector
CE/17gh31
cc: Chief Engineer
Jarvis Laurence, Inspector
Room 509
.a
i
OFFICES • 222 WEST HARGETT STREET • RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27602

1
Ira
ITO
'? ra
.. y.
I IV:
Maps and databases are public information supplied
by various government agenelea. The author and/or MapVUE
seller of the software program are in no way
responsible or liable for the information depicted
herairr Inquiries concerning the data MUMM be 0 W 329 493 6.58 NOV 3. Ills
directed to the appropriate government agency. Scale in Feet
City Of (Raleigh
November 13, 1985 .Worth Carolina
Mr. Dayle Phillips
Post Office Drawer 30126
Raleigh, North Carolina 27622
Dear Mr. Phillips:
This is to advise you that a final inspection has been made in Sunnybrook Village.
This inspection was made of the streets, water mains, sanitary sewer mains and
sidewalks at the following locations and were found to have been completed according
to the City of Raleigh standards and specifications and are now accepted by the City
of Raleigh for continuous maintenance.
STREETS
Brook Crossing
1615 ± of 41' back to back on a 60' right of way with sidewalks from Sunnybrook
Road east to dead end.
Woodduck Lane
778of 41 back to back on a 60' right of way with sidewalk from Brook Crossing
to Sunnycreek Crossing.
Sunnycreek Crossing
1628' of 41' back to back on a 60' right b way with sidewalk from Sunnycreek
Crossing ease to dead end.
Sunnybrook Road
290' ± of 1/2 of 65' back to back at Brook Crossing.
360' + of 1/2 of 65' back to back at Sunnycreek Crossing.
Stoneymoss Drive
70' + of 41 back to back from Sunnycreek Crossing south to dead end.
WATER
Sunnycreek crossing
1630' + of 12" ductile iron pipe from Sunnybrook Road east to valve and blow off at
dead end.
OFFICES • 222 WEST HARGETT STREET . RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27602
Mr, Dayle Phillips
Final Inspection - Sunnybrook Village .
November 13, 1985
'Page 2

Stone.ymoss Drive
90' + of 8' ductile iron pipe from Sunnycreek Crossing to valve and blow off
at dead end.
Brook Crossing
1620' + of 12" ductile iron pipe from Sunnybrook Road to valve and blow off at
dead end.
Woodduck Lane
780' + of 8" ductile iron pipe from Brook Crossing to Sunnycreek Crossing.
SEWER
Sunnycreek Crossing
1300' + of 8" PVC from manhole #1 at Sunnybrook Road to manhole #6
246' + of 8" PVC from manhole #12 in Sunnycreek Crossing south to dead end
manhole #13.
140' + of 8" ductile iron pipe from manhole #6 to manhole #12.
WITHIN EASEMENT
873' + of 8" PVC from manhole #18 at Sunnybrook Road to manhole #7 at Woodduck
Lane and Sunnycreek Crossing.
85' + of 8" ductile-iron pipe from manhole #9 in Sunnybrook Crossing to manhole #19.
This acceptance is subject to a one year guarantee against failure because of faulty
workmanship or materials.
Sincerely yours,
ep W. Beane
Acting Chime En?ine
Lynn Baird
Public Works Director
Carl S' m s
Public ilities Director
K
mot-
Jarvis Lawrence \
Inspector
JWB/mng
City, Of 6i aleigh
Vorth Carolina
November 12, 1986
Dayle Phillips
Post Office Box 30126
Raleigh, North Carolina 27622
Dear Sir:
This is to advise you that the one year warranty inspection has
been made at Sunnybrook Village for streets, water main and
sanitary sewer mains and no items were found to be deficient.
Sincerely, _
E. R. Batten
Construction Inspector
CE/17gh31
cc: Chief Engineer
Jarvis Laurence, Inspector
Room 509
.4
i
OFFICES • 222 WEST HARGETT STREET • RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27602
-•-to•o M?lA??jIM?M
?TMJ?ISM JOINT
11MA
t GLiFRb t G?ITT?R 1S/L?? 11 p?
yGaf,T?oT
".' 1•" VIP. §04W Ga1?G• Rvolirllw
' a . a,i l,zv Mll/"T 8i Gd.s.. 1Paat¢V
I60 16J 61ALd. 64wwr .1 w4, T
'? W4•(Abb
44nJs dfWuJA+
° ? Waoy QAIDGfe ??6G•MN
?Ta ? 07
Mirk.. 25 pRl?/II`a?a '(Y?'IGa?- °-
0 Fat,?ira?4 g-r,???oav
Zy'R ? ?df?alGar'?''?? access
- S 02° 11 17 ° E ----
-,N UJI ZZ, Sa°I5F niGO
N I y95, it . 0 a I
G 1 G•2 \
I D fit,. . G 11 G t2 \ I
5? a,5° 3 bog `p G %
3 •21 G-22
\ , cA
7.. 1
oeT"U•olr i _ G . 3
1 '
° - ' G • 13
\?\GE Ica E
? 5poc? ?
N f ' m ?11L :'•..'r0 \ N G 23 I \ 6'' ?, 22
G 4
tY i ?l : h ro G, 14 , 2
U y/? G 24 At
?\? /
a \j ??
\ o
4 t ?.5 1 55 ° ?... ?' 2a .. 0
i j4 G 6 G. 5 ?o • 5? ?, . 1?
o- 0.16 G•15 V 25 ?h1\0h•
j ?6•26 G•25 ro
V 3?
3
• nn ! _
uQ
0
4
\ ? h?623Z7 ,
Gj ?' ti \ 4C ( ? ? i ti
Q • <v .?? ti'ti 1 IT
Q QQ• ? ..?) ? aQ.
ok?? ?,?? ??'?' \• ??
N
41
Its :1-;
?o? lke?
' ?L \
r ?ti ? 14`31 151 Q ?•
?? \ ?2 N / / 1i f 2
•??' `?' \a c \Z
7j •.NC? '?? I ? I
Oil Wd
z2 03 5i tqu --? 4 87°41431 W
?' \ \ \
zgg4
PHASE 3 ` I 2 89? - z Zo.SoPNASE 1 s B74
?' 1 ZO.Blp? N02°11' 17 W 674.53`
00.22 I
Phase Accm Eff 1BR 2BR Total units Regd. _paxkL Parking_ provided Req,d. -Open Space2 **Oc?en Space provided 25/x54,725 ** 9.61units/acreit
0 4 1/112 ?7 -2Z/22 2/22 5227,2/ 5,22 22,599/22,599
0 4 8 12/24 22/44 23/45 5,227.2/10,454.4 11,349/33,948 26,085/ 80,810 12.9 units/acre
1 8 8 17/41 29/73 34/79 7,405.2/17,859.6 12,078/46,026 35,016/115,826 15.4 units/acre
2 22 16 40/81 67/140 63/142 17,424.0/35,283.6 0/46,026 70,260/1@6,086 19.0 units/acre PROPER
0 6 12 18/99 33/173 113/176 7,840.8/43,124.4 0/46,026 26,739/212,825 20.3 units/acre Curve
P-1
Eff 1BR 2BR 'total units ReqId. parking Parking provided !RL d. Open S? 8 8 ** en S 5e provided Pha 41ar49,_?_*M Accmulativtesdensity P-3 40.
491 15.9
24/16,245 2 g g -18/18 3:a 30e%30 P-4
2 8 8 18/36 30/60 30/60 7,840.8/15,681.6 8,325/24,570 31,060/ 80,401 19.5 units/acre P-5
I 11 ieR 19/74 19/79 5,227.2/20,908.8 15,220/29,790 27,994/108,395 19.3 units/acre
ewe.., cne "Al _979/114Q.771 18.7 units/acre
amom ??
40M Oft
V
• Wf? .
• •
. 10
J
40
?3 I.- A71 [ p
32,
'. i
I r •?.? J
'I. a'. . ..'+
1•
r ?ti •
41
\ •ti•f O
•
I
k ?
1 t Aj 3 p ••??? Maio
! ay 7 ., • • • sa•
o FfoT
I/N ?uF KN pVVa N ? 01 tirAN of OUPPOR 'f•o
g5 \N p
a THp?T Mo?`? T C-15
?Al?/ ?r 5m?•? Srlee.
O• .
a:?
r °
? C
M
In T
specified- > +Q? ' q+ M 419.5"
N
z
0
W
90e- r?

i _14rS~ -I ` ? °0 3-4a Mrni._?I
q
I ? r m

o
CA
N
ate:
is symbol is to be pointed in each' space reserved z
3
8
r the handicapped. x x a ?1
d
b
l d
il - U
tappe
access sym
o
eta
: not to scale e«rar ,
,,
I I
?i6 05 I a
31.31
,s
3?\
I? 5-a? -- r'W l M ?? ? • PPCH/lF?f,?ii •=
U

V

7FTal L r10?? ?Ie:??IcaP?lc?_v??.?? Rw?1P
t
rA Cn N
handrail use I -- V2 "tubular steel , 10 go. , 2.5 Ib/ f t ,
6 R use (1) coot rust inhibitor
(2 ) finish coots with N
tI?
,
block exterior enamel. Handrail is installed on right
i
id
l
) Z
e (go
y.
s
ng up
on r
etN ?,

0
top elevation '?
no. 4 + bar each
see Plan r' ?,Z ° 5 1/2" 9 nosing , hold ends to
'
5 3 clear concrete cover
/2 E/J RR t
13 lyp. n
. M

co Oct
ea?t
r " •''
rp r .? .•°.
bottom elevation
ses
i
n '
°
6x6,WI.4 x W1.4 welded p
o
:Z
/
E
wire fabric 1. I
2
J
no.4 ? ,.i.
• N

\ concrete steps 676P not to scale e"
/ `I
<,9
ti
J
o?
?Vr? r Ems,

K .0
y
0,
9i S, /
i Z?4. ??

ti rr ? \
A?
'U y
gJS y. d AF
ytiy
s+
.? t:
cco N
06
U ?
05
D
N ip
M

O Q
Z
J

w Q I,
I
V

?I II
w

O T
??iRR
V
Uj
I? ? Q
. cc

erg

ti 1~rlve
~tia~/ J- Sm~'tti P~r~"
_ . \ n,_
i^ _ _ - :.e~-~_ \ ~
- I v:::
>
1J ; ~s '
\ \ \ \
1
o ~ S \ , .
~ 'X ' ~
~ ,o
d~
~ ~ ~
~ ~
~~~ZO R~,A~ ~
~J 3a. tap ~r~
I~ ~ \ 4.~.
~ ~
>
~ ~ ~
. O.. ~
`9,
1 _ ~
O l
S
iJ , r •.~ha
I
~ C~
. Q.~. ~ :.~s~ .2
N ~ ~ ~ R 1 V ~ R o Zo 40 9o FtE1
FZ~PAf~t~.t~l BuF~ER Pl.•a'~ . ~~N~ ~,An~ENT PUFFER
P~~ED ON G~IFERENGE WrTN PNC~ .1LtN~'1~O1 QP~^ O ~I P
r:.f,.,.-~,-.. Zoi MvrzGIN of N ~NJECoETA'I'~~ P~PT.MA~NENT~~~
TrfEN ~JEG Z,,QE4 THAT MA ORI CAIN AL (I qB McNeely Associates pa
'HST Mvy NOT dE GK'TU D ,
(IqB~ 51-fE P~~ P~UFFE2
landscape architects & planning consultants
PO Drawer 30126 • Raleigh, NC 27622 • [phone]
~~~o%LOOI