20010677 Ver 1_Complete File_20010501

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Mr. Kevin Martin
Soil and Environmental Consultants
244 West Millbrook Road
Raleigh, NC 27609
Dear Mr. Martin:
1?•
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Re: Trinity Associates projects
401 Water Quality Certifications and Neuse Buffer Rules
DWQ staff have carefully reviewed your letter of January 27, 1998 as well as
other information in order to determine whether the ongoing development near Trinity
Road and Edwards Mill Road extension are in compliance with the requirements of the
401 Water Quality Certification Program (15A NCAC 2H .0500) and the Neuse River
Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0233).
Based on our earlier decision regarding the 401 Certification for the Village at
Beacon Hill and the dates of construction at this site, we agree that the existing stream
impact is both certified under previous Certifications and occurred before the Neuse
River buffer rules were effective.
However, Any additional stream (or wetland) fill or impact would require a new
401 Certification. Similarly, the areas above area "A" and below area "F°', and the
Central tributary between the commercial and townhome site. As well as sites along
Richland Creek itself, the central tributary still contain forest vegetation. Therefore these
areas under the Neuse River buffer rules and should not be disturbed.
The proposed commercial area adjacent to Trinity Road is of concern to DWQ
due to the apparent plan to culvert the remaining channels on this site which are subject
to the Neuse River buffer rules. These rules require that these channels and a 50 foot
buffer remain undisturbed adjacent to these channels. These provisions would not apply
to area "F" on your map since this area did not have existing forest vegetation on July 22,
1997. These rules require that all stormwater from this site sheetflow at non-erosive
velocities through these buffers. This may be extremely difficult to design given the
local relief and intensive development plan. Similarly perpetual maintenance of these
discharge permits would likely be expensive and difficult. However for this project, an
"instream" constructed wetland could be built on site "F" to filter the runoff from the site
and thereby have fewer discharge stormwater permits for this site. We believe that some
Environmental Sciences Branch 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper

discharge will still be needed to the upper end of the channel above site "A" to maintain
the aquatic function of this channel.
Please call Mr. John Dorney of may staff at 919-733-1786 to set up a meeting
with yourself and client in order to discuss development plans in the remaining area as
well as stormwater management plans for this site.
Sin ly,
ston Howard, Jr. .E
cc: Danny Smith, DWQ Raleigh Regional Offi
Tom Rahill
Harriett Lasher, Raleigh School
Trinity Square Development - Westminster
Bob Griffith, Thomas Commercial
Eric Alsmeyer, Raleigh Field Office US Army Corps of Engineers
Greg Thorpe
John Dorney
Central Files
Jean Spooner, the Umstead Coalition

w *4-F

Soil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.
244 West Millbrook Road ¦ Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 ¦ [phone] ¦ Fax [phone]
TO: John Dorney (DWQ)
Eric Alsmeyer (USACOE)
DATE: January 27, 1998
Re: Trinity Assoc. Project (Intersection of Edwards Mill and Trinity
Road)
After visiting the site, discussing the project with each of you, the clients and their
engineers, I believe parts of the project are "grandfathered" under the old NW26
permit and "old" 401 certification", since impacts are below 1/3 acre and occurred
prior to 1/1 /97.
As long ago as 2/28/96, S&EC had contacted the Corps regarding approval of our
delineation (see attached).
A map showing all impacts to date is enclosed (excluding the road crossing for the
school site). The map also shows date of completion of each impact. Some
additional erosion control notes from the City of Raleigh with dates are enclosed
also (sorry for the poor quality). If you need more details or information on all
Impacts except F call Gilleece & Associates at 469-1101, for Impact F call Rice &
Associates at 462-8474. Clearly, all impacts except F predate the "new" wetland
rules and the Neuse Basin Buffer Rules. Impact F was cleared and graded in
June and July 1997 so it would not be subject to the Neuse Basin Rules. As
agreed on-site, all areas adjacent to channels that were not graded prior to
7/22/97 are subject to the Neuse Basin Buffers.
Now that I have reviewed the history of the case, it seems reasonable to assume
that all but impact F of the project is "grandfathered " under the "old" Corps and
DWQ regulations, no notification was required for any of the work performed,
except possibly F, the new notification guidelines and stream channel impact
limitations/mitigation requirements do not apply for Impacts prior to 1/1/97, and
Impact F is to a non-significant channel so mitigation would not be required.
Soil/Site Evaluation ¦ Mapping and Physical Analysis ¦ Wetlands Mapping and Mitigation ¦trE4viw[nmontal Audits
On-Site Waste Treatment Systems, Evaluation and Design
t
MEMORANDUM VII, !'FATAL ?r ?.
If you have questions, please call me to discuss this further, otherwise please
provide written concurrence with my determinations. If you do not concur, please
provide verbal details of why you do not with a follow-up written explanation for
my clients.
? C
Kevin C. Martin
President
cc: Kent Cummings
Tom Rahill
KCM/mag
d
trinity.mem
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Wilmington District
Action ID: County: lk? -
Notification of Jurisdictional Determination
Property owner/Authorized Agent ?vrn R°? l
Address -3 7c;?? ?o'?°l l y? 1 GAIT Q I c?C?
,?? Le ?g? ?'JC c- 76 I
Telephone Number ??Ia? S?0 9 3
Size and Location of Property(waterbody, Highway name/number, town, etc.)
-?h is•,E:????s?;?? a? S, ?SFfT???itt?iCd.1 ?ft.te,? 6 ;( /?(??f' J
Indicate Which of the following app1Y:
and
WA4•ers or?? S property which strongly gg should s est ?D
be verified by our staff before the Corps will delineated ke
O on the There are he surveyed wetland . described
surveyed. Th final
jurisdictional determination on your property.
• Because of the size of your property and our present workload, our identification and delineation of your
wetlands cannot be accomplished in a timely manner. You may wish to employ a consultant to obtain a
more timely delineation of the wetlands. Once your consultant has flagged a wetland line on the property,
Corps staff will review it, and, if it is accurate, we strongly recommend that you have the line surveyed for
final approval by the Corps. The Corps will not make a final jurisdictional determination on your property
without an apprvd su ey.
L?1fTrr .. ff .
The.?slau?is on your lot have been delineated, and the limits of Corps jurisdiction have been explained
to you. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied
upon for a period not to exceed thwe years from the date of this notification.
*Z V
• There are no wetlands presenron%e above described property which are subject to the permit
requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law
or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed three years
from the date of this notification.
• The project is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties. You should contact the nearest State Office of
Coastal Management to determine their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material in wetlands on this W ter without Act 33 p USC artment, 1311). of hermit is
permit is in most cases a violation of Section 3010f the Clean p
required for work on the property restricted entirely to existing high ground. If you have any
not
questions regarding the Corps of Engineers regulatory program, please contact
I YO
a(??c,
?Qos at
Property owner/Authorized Agent Signature
Project Manager Signature
D to
Expiration Date

SURVEY PLAT OR FIELD SKETCH OF DESCRIBED PROPERTY AND THE WETLAND
DELINEATION FORM MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE YELLOW (FILE) COPY OF THIS FORM.
CESAW Poem S"
1 Oar 92
TO
HUGH J. GILLEECE
& ASSOCIATES P.A.
875 WALNUT STREET
SUITE 350
CARY, NORTH CAROLINA 27511
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
FC
WE ARE SENDING YOU ? Attached ? Under separate cover
? Shop drawings
? Copy of letter
? Prints
? Change order
? Plans
CO
IES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION
P
o?

17
? l

THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
? For approval ? Approved as submitted
or your use ? Approved as noted
? As requested ? Returned for corrections
? For review and comment ?

? FOR BIDS DUE 19
REMARKS
166W w
D i
i
?7a r -g 7&/2-
COPY TO
? Resubmit copies for approval
? Submit copies for distribution
? Return corrected prints
? PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
e_014e_/_ 10
0, JO-C (/V (11t "w -S.

SIGNED:
It enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at
ILLEcIr"TI °3 OCR "IMUSGMME.
? Samples ? Specifications
CONSERVATION PERMIT REPORT
PERM IT NUMBER 12962 77 I CJ
-M (Al S U •

PROJECT TITLE: /)CI/
CONTACT: ADDRESS: PHONE:
OWNER: vr` l????d+ /h%?n? kY>1 Z?'L? /t,il << /,r I1 ?7
CONTRACTOR: ,,'.,.,,
IV j.
6 17 J

DATE REPORT

'Y- 7
A
4-4 C-4

a , n
/ p

Ile-

?.
We.
q -17

•?'v??l l?e? '' ?i?e Jar C'??d??
114 S w '
CONSERVATION PERMIT REPORT PERMIT NUMBER

ULL4-
PROJECT TITLE:

CONTACT:
/^?
Li/H/){r/t4S ADDRESS:

PHONE:
OWNER:
CONTRACTOR;

16A &,4per
j ? yL f y ?-a

SATE REPORT

.?,
U
14
-
r ?

r
1
"f let
?J ? If - f

C '
-7 L 41
I

CJ ? y/.• `)? l'' ? ?l/ i7 ,. ';,.? '?;• mac? . '? ?''f.,i ???'

2-- 7 dr?

• ? l? Ccirl, ? ?
' f

CCNSERVATION PERMIT REPORT
DATE REPORT
Q

3-f 7 IA

7 I

y
r.G. lam- . - ? 1 •.., --,Z
?-• r J•
,l ,?• ???--
?-' ; ? ?. %? /-? . - • r •-r .,
/?

164 4k

, r '
eAA %e: ^ f
^
A /

le-
44

k/11
q- IL 41

1 ??? ?`? r ?' C/ Gds __,_1llA/ !t/.r .?(r. tvK.it'1?.aS
'r-1s - Sl S--t, xi;k- -- I
9qb C?`rSc lA i { Gi\l PI i

Q 4 T r 7/?H •C REP
R{ ?s s 6^N,n A J
?? J1 (roc-a /• ' D rl. J>rI' ? r ..4ia..j .?,?,

l
1

Jan-11!-98*02:15P Blue Ridge Land Company 919 510 4944 P.Ol
FACSIMILIE COVER SHEET
BLUE RIDGE LAND CO.
3724 National Drtve
Sude 122
RalsVh, NC 27612
919-610-4933
919-610-4944

Fax Number,
U Urgentl ? Reply ASAP/
Total pages, including cover sheet:

Number
F-1 Please CommenV ? Please Revlawl ? For your inrormation/

Jan-1?2-98s'02:15P Blue Ridge Land Company 919 510 4944
vl i uoi l »o LJ: 7L %1710I"WI Lut KiLlat 51 11 UtV
Blue Ridge Site Development Corporation
Commercial Grading
P.O. Box 5815
Cary, MOM CaWas 27512
(919) M45M VAX (919) JW4501
FACSIMILE TR,A.NSMIITAL
P.02
?-IA UL U1
FQ9VMM9 Wam 2 PaCes(s) tnsty* ng the amessage cover ft et. If soy part of this =Wage a [eoeVMd us poa
waditioa or rni13i11g Pages, Please all us at the tntmber above.
TO: NAME Tom RAM I
COWAuNY Trinity Associates. LLC
VAX Na 919-510-494
FROM. NAME Ronald C. Bigger
DATE Jouatary S. 1998
bUSSAGE: Fallowing is a oM of our progmu report !br My, 1997, The silteboa contwIs wxe[+e done oil the
Previous month. I withheld sobrnwAn a requlsillon beause of the s=U ano wt involved.
Regards.
P"?-,
TRt?QXaFicbD AJ'? ?OPFIDF2YTAA1_ Glbtw?l.. t?av? Mb for tis Bess K tAs daea,.eo('),...?.+.rww [tees swl.r ers?.
ast0« M wot Mat leetrlal eeetli? ?JK a ?l rte?aartie AR allarerana eRe s? r lie fef?d eedli?L ?Aefae ?t?e in
M7 ?MMM11? ?wrrlrs, ar ty?{ ttTAf? OMAN&MM IM S%k* proM lrL Aegewe woes realm Ob I nVa iMMbn N error
Ob"M bolt ei ieMsflc40 ti W$bgrs ad revers tie etlpid h"•a $r 00" aid"" vb 60 U.& M4
Jan-12-981?02:16P Blue Ridge Land Company 919 510 4944 P.03
U1/Ut$/11JJv [i:5t yiliji0jabb1 BLUE RIDGE SITE DEV P4GE 02
'*UQKU RUN! FRWECT; ;rack : Edser35 Mill Road Owner: Trinity ASSQLiateS LLC Dats: :125197
___________________ _________-_z ?--......_______________________. aa...•waiawaaiRaaeiaaa?
1200 :LEAF x 'r.it R?opesed Frcmed Frevios;a Pre'riGus Cerrap. t Currant 110tii Totei
DEJ1('LI11Ok price 9uintitY amount Quantity Amit Quantity karju?lt ?ear.tlte ARCUnt
_.-•+ _.=..zzx:"==-=-czz:eua•.w•.¦i_s:_a=----__=_?>=ssv..n.......araz:ac=xa==-=?--------=----??-=az? :c=====__=____-'-----___
1005 Clean 4 Logging 6,50.90 AC 1,15 11,375.01) 1).00 ('.00 1.75 !I. M-00 1.75 12 „35,On
D!brisfpda ! Off
sr[tioR 1000 11:.515.00 i0, 90 !"_,.75.09 si1,311M.C,
Total
Specisl Conditions Section 1900:
:,F:..cc==_xaann. ...............•a.vzzaza n:cc¢srs=_=c==e =r_=====aiai :zaz_====a= =cuc==_.
2600 51;TAT10N L'n i+-pposed ?repose: Fre _os: PrTviw s Currant Currant Total To!al
CAMTNt~Lr Price tluantit`! "wit, Ouantity Aeaunt Y04ntIf 407nt Duantity Aracunt
------- ..................... ......??r
ZlW Construct:cn 650.00 EA Me LJd.')6 0.00 0100 ^.09 J. r' '1.90 1.00
E?Nanc?
t 71le Silt Fer'ce !.56 9 25!'.0':' 05C'.m 0.9n- 011110 250.00 r3?1'."V M,00 840.07
1 Z3•:$ Diversion Ditch 1.50 LF 494.90 74M 0100 0.70 440.90 735.00 190.0 ':S.0
2351 $4411 Ttfj5Qrarr 550.00 E9 4.60 ?.ov^.G0 0,00 ('.('0 1.00 71W-_?0
sediorr:t Raw!
1 26S0 Seed end %!Lh Q '6 ,y 12500.7^ 4.5?!.!G 0.0", 440 ?.06
rieeaora-;'
5e:tion X000 i9 r3%•60 $0.00 64,_27 5.00 94,2-25.90
Tatai
So:Lizl Conditions BeGtiC6 20OO
! Field eeasure for p melt.
---------- ------
3000 EARTHOORK Unit Yropc,se0 PTOU StO ?re:icus 9reY:MS Cu-ran: CVrrani ?otil Tu:il
price quantit; 450urit quantity fisount Wantity 5R0Unt 8oarltitY 46D:s'
.[aasa--^-._-.,....?._______cc.. ....?s.-. r====='==21 2= x°==__=__== ===a=:....[ a.[snan ...... --?----?..--..-....,..
--- ...
3001 Stri; and :tore 2,14 ;,Y 2545,00 c %:1.40 6.00 0,114 0,^,0 r} 9n ij,n0 u n-
Topsoil Qnsitt
f 310(1 Cut to Fill _.50 C'r s;''6100 5,5°).O6 0.00 ?.JO 0,Q9 1).00 0.9? or,
i14i Cff3ite Barrow 5.73 CY 17936.('5 67.237.50 0.00 J.90 1'154 1',90 0,00 0.90
0 Fill
11 3245 5_te Dradm IROUQW 0.17 5r 1250,00 0.00 L.00 0.00 01OJi 7.00 :'.rr
Section 3Q00 181',69;.St 10.14 if, (I(' 9a,je
'otal
soeclcl _m4jtions section 3009:
C?!de to Whin 4 c+ - ..
t 6radc tc n ihir, F ar - .33'
!! Brace to %;tt;i-:
Nillirq TQt:i s!^1??56.10 f0.'?J l1?,604.00 111,693.a
0
0
N
0
fyt 0
,f)
0
W
J
Q
U
N

3
N
C
d
6
O
r J I

?'
ZIOW -
CC)Z

w '
o ?

xti? .
II
LLJ

O z

o z

Paz

?-,Or-i
s¢F W
W
a- L) ?I
oa¢ v

¢ F-
?
-

°
az(n
"
1 z
Ali ?
I
O J O
WaU '
?.
'
?;• J
_ ?

¢
I 1, . l

--- - - - -'fir ?, - I
I b? f I
m li I, I I ,ti j j i I,
;r II ? ;' I a
t !' I N
a ,? nr I r i I rr I WW
J \ W
10.> O J _1 r: i W
-M cc
I. IM a L Ii i i U
.I cr J 1-! , j I I H
era -? ? I ¢
+` - .I? h I I W
F-q
g?
Q

z
O
H
t17
z
W
X
W
J
J
H
cn U1
O F-
CC C.)
Q Q
3a
o?
W H
O
m
D
LU
Q
D
0
U)
rul
H U
zQ
Ha
Qx
F- H

w
O
n

U
C
?j O)O)O)` ??
2 vco?m Orn
ti :^? On
O O?
U Z (0

O O O O to CO
v rco 4LAN?
LO N r r V)
E
ca
Q QmUOWLL.
c
O
CL
0
U
c
` 60r
L2' r`R
N N
U as
Er 04
r
E
?a
Q Q m
0
O
02
0) Px
M
W 0
O
Q
OF
C?
V z
0L
U
V N
7
C
r?
CD
I
U
Q
a
H
O
Z
Q
J
w
3
U
O
En
Q
H
Z
H
Cl

. - + V
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
CERTIFIED MAEL-
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Ms. Harriett Lasher
The Raleigh School For Children
1000 Edwards Mill Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Dear Ms. Lasher:
Q
A09% 10MUL
D E N R
January 14, 1998
w?..

On November 18, 1997, Eric Fleek and I of the NC Division of Water Quality,
Wetlands/401 unit visited your site off of Edward's Mill Road off of Trinity Road near
Richland Creek in Raleigh. Several days earlier, Mr. Danny Smith of our Raleigh Regional
Office and myself had also visited the site.
During our site visits we found that at about 100 feet of streams had been culverted for
your en? ance road. We have no record of any approved stream impacts for this project. Eric
Alsmeyer of the US Army Corps of Engineers is not aware of any permits issued for these
fills.
Please be aware that 401 Certifications are often required for all fill of streams.
Without this approval, you are in violation of the Clean Water Act and subject to
enforcement action including civil penalties. We hereby recommend that the US Army of
Engineers place a CEASE and DESIST order on this property until these permitting matters
are resolved.
Also please be aware that the following issues will need to be resolved for this site
before DWQ can approve M past or additional stream or wetland impact.
1) minimization of stream fill,
2) mitigation for any stream fill in excess of 150 linear feet for perennial streams. We
have determined that the stream on the property that you have crossed is perennial.
3) stormwater management including wet detention ponds for all commercial and
and institutional development and
4) adhere to the Neuse buffer rules which require a 50 foot undisturbed vegetated
buffer adjacent to perennial streams. The latter is especially important along
Richland Creek with your athletic fields as well as the smaller stream near
your parking lot.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
. ! I
Please respond with in 10 days upon receipt of this letter. Your response should
include when the culverting activities (including the road crossings began and when land
clearing on this site first started.
As you are aware, we believe that the impacts that have occurred on this site have
water quality implications. I urge you to call me immediately to set up a meeting with the
Corps of Engineers and DWQ to resolve the serious permitting issues on this site. Please
call me at 919-733-1786 to arrange this meeting.
S'ncerely,
Ilan R. Dom y
cc: Danny Smith, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
Eric Alsmeyer, US Army Corps of Engineers
Kevin Martin, Soil and Environment Consultants
Kathy Matthews, US Environmental Protection Agency
Gre- Thorpe, DWQ
John R. Dorney
T y ,
Ty-
3 VIA L
<<(z6?9?

III?RB / Uu._
?.izn ? Ks

ao lot d-
fill, CO

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources • •
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt Secretary p E H N F1
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
December 4, 1997
CERTIFIED MAIL-
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Trinity Square Development
Westminster Homes
3500 Regency Parkway
Cary, NC 27511
Dear Sirs:
On November 18, 1997, Eric Fleek and I of the NC Division of Water Quality,
Wetlands/401 unit visited your site at the end of Edward's Mill Road off of Trinity Road near
Richland Creek in Raleigh. Several days earlier, Mr. Danny Smith of our Raleigh Regional
Office and myself had also visited the site.
During our site visits we found that at least 900 feet of three separate streams had been
culverted. About 530 feet of this activity appeared to have been done for lot fill with the
remainder for road crossings. In addition, we have concerns about the poor condition of
much of the sediment and erosion control measures for this site. Mr.Smith has discussed
th -se matters with the City of Raleigh as a separate matter.
We have no record of any approved stream impacts for this project. We have discussed
the matter with Kevin Martin of Soil and Environmental Consultants whose delineation flags
are present on the channels. He is also unaware of any approvals. Finally, Eric Alsmeyer of
the US Army Corps of Engineers is also not aware of any permits issued for these fills.
Please be aware that 401 Certifications are required for all fill of streams in excess of
150 linear feet. Without this approval, you are in violation of the Clean Water Act and
subject to enforcement action including civil penalties. We hereby recommend that the US
Army of engineers place a CEASE and DESIST order on this property until these permitting
matters are resolved.
Also please be aware that the following issues will need to be resolved for this site
before DWQ can approve my past or additional stream or wetland impact.
1) minimization of stream fill,
2) mitigation for any stream fill in excess of 150 linear feet for perennial streams. We
have determined that two of the three culverted streams on your site are perennial.
3) stormwater management including wet detention ponds for all commercial
development and
4) adhere to the Neuse buffer rules which require a 50 foot undisturbed vegetated buffer
adjacent to perennial streams.
Division of Water Quality • Non-Discharge Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
Please respond with in 10 days upon receipt of this letter. Your response should include
when the culverting activities (including the road crossings began and when land clearing on
this site first started.
As you are aware, we believe that the impacts that have occurred on this site have water
quality implications. I urge you to call me immediately to set up a meeting with the Corps of
Engineers and DWQ to resolve the serious permitting issues on this site. Please call me at
919-733-1786 to arrange this meeting.
Sincerely,
4n'R4.oIe'yF(
cc: Danny Smith, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
Eric Alsmeyer, US Army Corps of Engineers
Kevin Martin, Soil and Environment Consultants
Kathy Matthews, US Environmental Protection Agency
Greg Thorpe, DWQ
John R. Dorney
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, ATK;qAl
Health and Natural Resources • •
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt Secretary
p H N F?
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
December 4, 1997
CERTIFIED MAIL-
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Bob Griffith
Thomas Commercial
4601 Six Forks Rd
Suite 330
Raleigh, NC 27609
Dear Mr Griffith:
On November 18, 1997, Eric Fleek and I of the NC Division of Water Quality,
Wetlands/401 unit visited your site at the end of Edward's Mill Road off of Trinity Road near
Richland Creek in Raleigh. Several days earlier, Mr. Danny Smith of our Raleigh Regional
Office and myself had also visited the site.
During our site visits we found that at least 900 feet of three separate streams had been
culverted. About 530 feet of this activity appeared to have been done for lot fill with the
remainder for road crossings. In addition, we have concerns about the poor condition of
much of the sediment and erosion control measures for this site. Mr.Smith has discussed
these matters with the City of Raleigh as a separate matter.
We have no record of any approved stream impacts for this project. We have discussed
the matter with Kevin Martin of Soil and Environmental Consultants whose delineation flags
are present on the channels. He is also unaware of any approvals. Finally, Eric Alsmeyer of
the US Army Corps of Engineers is also not aware of any permits issued for these fills.
Please be aware that 401 Certifications are required for all fill of streams in excess of
150 linear feet. Without this approval, you are in violation of the Clean Water Act and
subject to enforcement action including civil penalties. We hereby recommend that the US
Army of engineers place a CEASE and DESIST order on this property until these permitting
matters are resolved.
Also please be aware that the following issues will need to be resolved for this site
before DWQ can approve any past or additional stream or wetland impact.
1) minimization of stream fill,
2) mitigation for any stream fill in excess of 150 linear feet for perennial streams. We
have determined that two of the three culverted streams on your site are perennial.
3) stormwater management including wet detention ponds for all commercial
development and
4) adhere to the Neuse buffer rules which require a 50 foot undisturbed vegetated buffer
adjacent to perennial streams.
Division of Water Quality • Non-Discharge Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Aff irmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
Please respond with in 10 days upon receipt of this letter. Your response should include
when the culverting activities (including the road crossings began and when land clearing on
this site first started.
As you are aware, we believe that the impacts that have occurred on this site have water
quality implications. I urge you to call me immediately to set up a meeting with the Corps of
Engineers and DWQ to resolve the serious permitting issues on this site. Please call me at
919-733-1786 to arrange this meeting.
Sincerely,
aRD ey
cc: Danny Smith, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
Eric Alsmeyer, US Army Corps of Engineers
Kevin Martin, Soil and Environment Consultants
Kathy Matthews, US Environmental Protection Agency
Greg Thorpe, DWQ
John R. Dorney
e ? v
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
A' I -
LT.R?FA
AM we
J 00mila
C) F=1
December 4, 1997
CERTff= MAIL-
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
I ,ff sr
Mr.Tom Rahill
3724 National Drive
Suite 122
Raleigh, NC 27612
Dear Mr Rahill:
On November 18, 1997, Eric Fleek and I of the NC Division of Water Quality,
Wetlands/401 unit visited your site at the end of Edward's Mill Road off of Trinity Road near
Richland Creek in Raleigh. Several days earlier, Mr. Danny Smith of our Raleigh Regional
Office and myself had also visited the site.
During our site visits we found that at least 900 feet of three separate streams had been
culverted. About 530 feet of this activity appeared to have been done for lot fill with the
remainder for road crossings. In addition, we have concerns about the poor condition of
much of the sediment and erosion control measures for this site. Mr.Smith has discussed
these matters with the City of Raleigh as a separate matter.
We have no record of on y approved stream impacts for this project. We have discussed
the matter with Kevin Martin of Soil and Environmental Consultants whose delineation flags
are present on the channels. He is also unaware of any approvals. Finally, Eric Alsmeyer of
the US Army Corps of Engineers is also not aware of any permits issued for these fills.
Please be aware that 401 Certifications are required for all fill of streams in excess of
150 linear feet. Without this approval, you are in violation of the Clean Water Act and
subject to enforcement action including civil penalties. We hereby recommend that the US
Army of engineers place a CEASE and DESIST order on this property until these permitting
matters are resolved.
Also please be aware that the following issues will need to be resolved for this site
before DWQ can approve gM past or additional stream or wetland impact.
1) minimization of stream fill,
2) mitigation for any stream fill in excess of 150 linear feet for perennial streams. We
have determined that two of the three culverted streams on your site are perennial.
3) stormwater management including wet detention ponds for all commercial
development and
4) adhere to the Neuse buffer rules which require a 50 foot undisturbed vegetated buffer
adjacent to perennial streams.
Division of Water Quality • Non-Discharge Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Aff irmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
Please respond with in 10 days upon receipt of this letter. Your response should include
when the culverting activities (including the road crossings began and when land clearing on
this site first started.
As you are aware, we believe that the impacts that have occurred on this site have water
quality implications. I urge you to call me immediately to set up a meeting with the Corps of
Engineers and DWQ to resolve the serious permitting issues on this site. Please call me at
919-733-1786 to arrange this meeting.
Sincerely,
o 3RDome?yf
cc: Danny Smith, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
Eric Alsmeyer, US Army Corps of Engineers
Kevin Martin, Soil and Environment Consultants
Kathy Matthews, US Environmental Protection Agency
Greg Thorpe, DWQ
John R. Dorney
NCSU Water Quality Grp Fax:[phone] Jan 3 '98
The Umstead Coalition
1P.0. Box 10654
Raleigh, NC 27605-0654
http://www.RTPnet.orgy--tsierralindex.html
D. W. Wells .Association
Capital Group Sierra Club
Conservation Council of .Notch Carolina
Eno River Association
Friends of State Parks
Headwaters Group Sierra M6
New Hope Audubon Society
Meuse River Foundation, Inc.
MEMORANDUM
3:40 P. 01/02
North Carolina Herpetological Society
North Carolina Wildlife Federation
Notch Carolina Wild Flower Preservation Society
Orange-Chatha n Group Sierra Club
Raleigh Ski and Outing Club, Inc.
Rockingham Naturalist's Club
Society for the Preservation of Jockey's Ridge
Wake Audubon Society
December 23, 1997
To: Danny Smith, DEHR. (fax [phone])
Johri Dorney, DEHR (fax [phone])
Eric Alzmeyer, Corps of Engi.n.eers (876-5823)
From: Dr. Jean Spooner, Chair, The Urnstead Coalition is
Re: Richland Creek / Sports and Entertainment Construction
This memo serves as a follow-up to our recent conversations regarding the impacts of recent
construction activities on Richland Creek, The Urostead Coal.iti.on. formally requests to be kept informed
of any issu.cs and status of any studies by your agencics regarding land use and restoration activities that
impact or potentially impact Richland Creek (e.g., 401 Certifications, 404 Pcrr its, Scdiaxr.cnt and Erosio.rr
Control, house Riyer. Buffer Rules, mitigation/ restoration cfforts, etc.)
We are concerned about the integrity of Ri.ohlan.d Creek and dowaastream.. water quality / flood
control. Evidence supporting our concern is the accelerated rate of sediment delivery to Richland Lake in.
the last few years concurrent with construction along Richland Creels including, the Sports and
Entertaintri.ent Center (parking lot, arena complex, and. associated. road network), Edwards MAI Road
Extension, and private development along Trinity Road which drains into Rioblaa.d Creel.
The Umstead Coalition remains optimistic that improved stewardship of the Richland Creek and
its associated floodplain / wetlands can minimize future negative impacts to this system.
We, have met several times with representatives of the Centennial Authority regarding our
concerns. 1 have attached a follow-up response from Bill Mullins after a recent :meeting in which he
responded to one of our numerous concerns.
The Umstead Coalition remains firmly committed to the concept that. Richland Creek's natural
integrity should be protected by: avoidance; minimization, and as a last resort, mitievation. We request
that any mitigation funds be utilized for restoration efforts along Richland Creek, We are willing to offer
specific suggestions regarding strearnbank restoration and Richland Lake dredging efforts that are need
for this system.
v The Uinstead Coalition v
Dedicated to preserving the natural integrity of W.B. Unutead State Park and the Richland Creek Corridor
NCSU Water Quality Grp Fax:[phone] Jan 3 '98 3:40 P.02/02
,, n U. res.
sol.
?66acl?tes -
4900 FALLS OF THE NEUSE ROAD, SUITE 200 RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27649
Maaing Address. Post O(tica Box 99490 Raleigh, North Cam ina 27624-9490
Telephone; 910-978-2802 Fax: 910-076-MS
December 16,1997
Mr. Dan Matteson
McDevitt, Street & Bovis
4962 Trinity Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Dear Dan:
Last week I met with Dr. Jean Spooner and Dr. Ted Shear to discuss the status of the
Edwards Mill driveway across Richland Creek During the discussion Dr. Spooner
expressed concern about the amount of silt which had accumulated in the Richland Creek
bed behind what Dr. Spooner described as a "temporary silt dam". Dr. Spooner was
concerned that, when this temporary dam is removed the silt may run down through Richland
Creek thus having negative impact on the water quality, Dr, Spooner suggested that the
silt be removed before the temporary dam is out.
I suggest that you check the site and discuss this with Mangum., so. that they may take
appropriate measures. Thank: you for your attention to this matter.
Vcry truly yours,
/3 J#
R._W. Mullins,,.Jr.,
RWMjrdht
cc: Dr. Jean Spooner
Mr_ Ray Rouse
Mr. Perry Safran

CY
1
Pl?l

?ilYle?
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
ID F= F=1
December 4, 1997
CERTIFIED MAIL-
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr.Tom Rahill
3724 National Drive
Suite 122
Raleigh, NC 27612
FILE COPY
Dear Mr Rahill:
On November 18, 1997, Eric Fleek and I of the NC Division of Water Quality,
Wetlands/401 unit visited your site at the end of Edward's Mill Road off of Trinity Road near
Richland Creek in Raleigh. Several days earlier, Mr. Danny Smith of our Raleigh Regional
Office and myself had also visited the site.
During our site visits we found that at least 900 feet of three separate streams had been
culverted. About 530 feet of this activity appeared to have been done for lot fill with the
remainder for road crossings. In addition, we have concerns about the poor condition of
much of the sediment and erosion control measures for this site. Mr.Smith has discussed
these matters with the City of Raleigh as a separate matter.
We have no record of any approved stream impacts for this project. We have discussed
the matter with Kevin Martin of Soil and Environmental Consultants whose delineation flags
are present on the channels. He is also unaware of any approvals. Finally, Eric Alsmeyer of
the US Army Corps of Engineers is also not aware of any permits issued for these fills.
Please be aware that 401 Certifications are required for all fill of streams in excess of
150 linear feet. Without this approval, you are in violation of the Clean Water Act and
subject to enforcement action including civil penalties. We hereby recommend that the US
Army of engineers place a CEASE and DESIST order on this property until these permitting
matters are resolved.
Also please be aware that the following issues will need to be resolved for this site
before DWQ can approve my past or additional stream or wetland impact.
1) minimization of stream fill,
2) mitigation for any stream fill in excess of 150 linear feet for perennial streams. We
have determined that two of the three culverted streams on your site are perennial.
3) stormwater management including wet detention ponds for all commercial
development and
4) adhere to the Neuse buffer rules which require a 50 foot undisturbed vegetated buffer
adjacent to perennial streams.
Division of Water Quality • Non-Discharge Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Aff irmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
Please respond with in 10 days upon receipt of this letter. Your response should include
when the culverting activities (including the road crossings began and when land clearing on
this site first started.
As you are aware, we believe that the impacts that have occurred on this site have water
quality implications. I urge you to call me immediately to set up a meeting with the Corps of
Engineers and DWQ to resolve the serious permitting issues on this site. Please call me at
919-733-1786 to arrange this meeting.
Sincerely,
ohn R. Domey
cc: Danny Smith, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
Eric Alsmeyer, US Army Corps of Engineers
Kevin Martin, Soil and Environment Consultants
Kathy Matthews, US Environmental Protection Agency
Greg Thorpe, DWQ
John R. Dorney
DEC-04-1997 08:53 H J GILLEECE 9 A550C.
F. 01
Hugh J. Gilleece, M& Associates, P.A.
875 wablut SlM4 suits 350
consulting Engineers Cary, NO"h Carolina 27511
(919) 469-II01
Fax [phone]
December 4, 1997
Mr. Kevin Martin
Soil and Environmental Consultants
846-9467
Subject: Approval dates for construction drawings, Edward's Mill Road
Extension.
Dear Mr. Martin,
Listed below are the dates for plan approval for the above mentioned projects:
Trinity Road Subdivision: (50 acres) February 20, 1996
Edward's Mill Road extension: June 27, 1996
Trinity Road Cluster Home Site: December 16, 1996
Please feel free to call me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Jeff un
Hugh J Gilleece, Ill & Associates, P.A.
by:
TOTAL P.01
0 0
Hugh J. Gilleece, III & Associates, P.A.
- 1173 Na1na! Srrtty Suite 3$0
CnnsuWaS EaSincert Cary, North Carolina 27511
December 2. 1997 [phone]
Far [phone]
Mr. Jerry Blackmon,
Please provide one with installation dates for the following at Edward's NO Road
Extension and Trinity Cluster Home Site:
OUTFAL.L B
OUTFALL D
Sto= Systctxt -7-10 ?'- 8 g(A - -/U 9to 3• Z5••9?- 3- Z7 • $7
Outlet Protection at FES 10: _ i v . 9 y. z . p
Stone system 12-13
Outlet Protection at FES 13:
Storm system 19-? 1: 8. 96
Outlet Protectiou at FES 21' ' •/2- • ?? ?-?Z S C.
FES 17 and Outlet Protection at FES 17: ?• Z t4, Q- Z ? • gg
Storm system 29-31.
Outlet Protection at FES 31:
FES 2A and Outlet Protection at FES 2A:
Erosion control along Richlaud Creek:
Thanks,
Jeff
Hugh J Gil eccc, 171 & Associates, P.A.
TOTS P-01
08/0f= 1997 13:''23 9193034501 EL_? h:lUu- _,i I E L,t'J r. tam r??
Blue Ridge Site Development
Excavating & Gra ling
P.O. Bux ti985
Lary, North Carolina 2751''
Telephone: [phone]
cuNTRACT
REQUISITION
1418
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
PPOJIrCT : Edwards Mill Road Extension Date; July 31 , 1997
TO: Trinity Associates LLC
3724 National Drive:
Raleigh, North Carolina :7612
Following is our requi5iti(Dn for work completed and materials stored
'hr,.D,-z .Jul 30, 1997
2000 Siltation Control$
3000 Earthwork
CMR 1043
CMR. 1417
See Frogress Report For Itemization
'Ft-lt•al C'arrjplet.ed
61-1lf`-d C-o Uat.f:
•let:!1.11ag,e 4e'Ld
Due This Requisition
R . -• rcl ,•
c
Fre aicl_. *..
$19,104.50
Si.100.4y
2,019.50
5,220.OC
------------
$107,444.49
99 74.49
C)
$7,670.00

CONTRACT
MODIEIC :TION
1tEQ0EST
91930345=11
?;.LI-iE F:IL!r E '--IITE DE':?
Blue Ridge Site Development
Et'c ai-ating & Grciding
F.U. Bok
Cary. NoCtli Carolina 2 ;
Telephone: k9 i' ) .303-4500
PAGE 03
1417

PROJECT; Edwards Mill Road
TO: Trinity Associates, LLC
3724 National Drive
Raleigh, North Carolin.s
INITIATION DATE: July 1, 1.997
PROJECT NUMBER: 9501
'27(71 12
We request that the following changes be incorporated in a change
rder to our contraQt:
Backfill Storm Sewer Extension adjacent to
School, entrance and filling behind curb at,
Second etrance to the Raleigh School.
Move Charge - 955L
Move Charge - 15C
955L rental - 24 hrs
Truck Dental - '4 hr3
D5C rental - 24 hrG.
gc.
.2 ().00
Authorization to proceed, is required by this date: 7!31/y7
This change. will.. extend our compietionf gte by 0 day(s).
Approved bar : ,3ubmi t. ted by :
r
Title: Litl?:

the Raleigh
the abandoned
1030. 00
150.00
2,040.00
1,080.00
1,800.011
Return Coo),,- isitir Pumice:;
01
-4 01
01
co
m
M
u N
7
2 m
L
rn

w a
z 0 w
O 2

CL
D w W
D J F-
D W I. W
D ?- orn J
a

o O
?. U
7 1n
O O
? F-
7
? p cn
W z
7 F- a C7
J Z
a CL
??

7 to IL a
D Q a
D w 0
F- oC
a w
p W p O
D ?- z L
z
w a z
w z O
U w ?,
?• O oc F-
D D= U U
D Z D
D W Q
> F-
W p 0 W
F- OC Z •' z
3 (n ? cn O
W F- cn u
rr ?-i W
> a U U-
w H :9 O O
DC U w
a IL, F-
O
w z O 0
F- O -) z u
U U J !n "
W ?-+ z F-' O
J $ a Q W
W J O w
W cn CL aY z
0

w w
39

W Q J W J W
?-? O > O >
H V) O co O
U W Ix W w
a w a. w a.
z a z a
D a D a
n. r. 1. r.
0 o 0)
rn
o?
O W
N F- rn co ?-+ co
.-1 a r1 N N N
O O ?. ?.
(J to .. M .. L .. U) ..
z O F- o F- O F- O F-
r+ U U U U
M a a a a
a F- F- F- F-
OG !n z z z z
C9 to w O O O O
W 3 U U U U
W w W r) Y a Y
f p rti J W M W IL W m W
a p > cn
- F- W
- U cn
- F- cn
-'
z a w a F a F a F a F
DC W z X W} X W X W} X
F. F- J Q W J W W J W J W W
U rn a. W a. J a. z (L J
w z f w
r) F- w = 1. w rr .-1 n J O w 1-. .-1
O z fn OW cnY0 cnJr. WY0
cc w Z r1 1. z K Z a N z 1.
(L O M O> M O m O
1 F- rr W I ?-? p l ra W 1 1-+ p l l
O a F-Y0 aF-O0 cnF->-0 cnF- Oof
N a > tn?(A >cnxm 0cnaa) 0(f) W IM,
N CL w w co W W ?- co w W 1L O w w F- m

1 CD p V) a In O' a a
1 O
Q 1L Q L w IL w W
# C4 U ?r U ? p p '-'
z
cn ?•
z O
a J
w ?-r
F- D
m
I I
I I
i I
it
I
I

J
z
o
0

I

Q

0
1

jL p
a. w

a
p wi
z a
O
QI

I r*l
M o?

of
O e-1

V) •• MI ••
O F- O F-
U U
a a
F- F-
z z
O O
U U
U L
j3w pw
p U') W W
L W
LJ"X Y X
J J W J U W
a.1XI a"
W
F- O e W M
z<IV zW
O U M O E M
1./ 1 H IL 1
J F- Z O F- O
?•cn0rn ItnGo?
F-wpico 0www
=a ?
a
,
m zl
O U. O ?+-

CK
LLJ

F-
i
O

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, AT6;%
Health and Natural Resources • a
0
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt Secretary p E H N F=1 A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
December 4, 1997 ?®
CERTIFIED MAIL-
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED A4\:**;
Mr. Bob Griffith
Thomas Commercial
4601 Six Forks Rd
Suite 330
Raleigh, NC 27609
Dear Mr Griffith:
On November 18, 1997, Eric Fleek and I of the NC Division of Water Quality,
Wetlands/401 unit visited your site at the end of Edward's Mill Road off of Trinity Road near
Richland Creek in Raleigh. Several days earlier, Mr. Danny Smith of our Raleigh Regional
Office and myself had also visited the site.
During our site visits we found that at least 900 feet of three separate streams had been
culverted. About 530 feet of this activity appeared to have been done for lot fill with the
remainder for road crossings. In addition, we have concerns about the poor condition of
much of the sediment and erosion control measures for this site. Mr.Smith has discussed
these matters with the City of Raleigh as a separate matter.
We have no record of any approved stream impacts for this project. We have discussed
the matter with Kevin Martin of Soil and Environmental Consultants whose delineation flags
are present on the channels. He is also unaware of any approvals. Finally, Eric Alsmeyer of
the US Army Corps of Engineers is also not aware of any permits issued for these fills.
Please be aware that 401 Certifications are required for all fill of streams in excess of
150 linear feet. Without this approval, you are in violation of the Clean Water Act and
subject to enforcement action including civil penalties. We hereby recommend that the US
Army of engineers place a CEASE and DESIST order on this property until these permitting
matters are resolved.
Also please be aware that the following issues will need to be resolved for this site
before DWQ can approve a-X past or additional stream or wetland impact.
1) minimization of stream fill,
2) mitigation for any stream fill in excess of 150 linear feet for perennial streams. We
have determined that two of the three culverted streams on your site are perennial.
3) stormwater management including wet detention ponds for all commercial
development and
4) adhere to the Neuse buffer rules which require a 50 foot undisturbed vegetated buffer
adjacent to perennial streams.
Division of Water Quality • Non-Discharge Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Aff irmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
Please respond with in 10 days upon receipt of this letter. Your response should include
when the culverting activities (including the road crossings began and when land clearing on
this site first started.
As you are aware, we believe that the impacts that have occurred on this site have water
quality implications. I urge you to call me immediately to set up a meeting with the Corps of
Engineers and DWQ to resolve the serious permitting issues on this site. Please call me at
919-733-1786 to arrange this meeting.
Sincerely,
4n R. Do Dyt'rf
cc: Danny Smith, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
Eric Alsmeyer, US Army Corps of Engineers
Kevin Martin, Soil and Environment Consultants
Kathy Matthews, US Environmental Protection Agency
Greg Thorpe, DWQ
John R. Dorney

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources • •
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt Secretary p E H N H
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
December 4, 1997
CERTIFIED MAIL-
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Trinity Square Development
Westminster Homes
3500 Regency Parkway
Cary, NC 27511
Dear Sirs:
On November 18, 1997, Eric Fleek and I of the NC Division of Water Quality,
Wetlands/401 unit visited your site at the end of Edward's Mill Road off of Trinity Road near
Richland Creek in Raleigh. Several days earlier, Mr. Danny Smith of our Raleigh Regional
Office and myself had also visited the site.
During our site visits we found that at least 900 feet of three separate streams had been
culverted. About 530 feet of this activity appeared to have been done for lot fill with the
remainder for road crossings. In addition, we have concerns about the poor condition of
much of the sediment and erosion control measures for this site. Mr.Smith has discussed
these matters with the City of Raleigh as a : eparate matter.
We have no record of any approved stream impacts for this project. We have discussed
the matter with Kevin Martin of Soil and Environmental Consultants whose delineation flags
are present on the channels. He is also unaware of any approvals. Finally, Eric Alsmeyer of
the US Army Corps of Engineers is also not aware of any permits issued for these fills.
Please be aware that 401 Certifications are required for all fill of streams in excess of
150 linear feet. Without this approval, you are in violation of the Clean Water Act and
subject to enforcement action including civil penalties. We hereby recommend that the US
Army of engineers place a CEASE and DESIST order on this property until these permitting
matters are resolved.
Also please be aware that the following issues will need to be resolved for this site
before DWQ can approve M past or additional stream or wetland impact.
1) minimization of stream fill,
2) mitigation for any stream fill in excess of 150 linear feet for perennial streams. We
have determined that two of the three culverted streams on your site are perennial.
3) stormwater management including wet detention ponds for all commercial
development and
4) adhere to the Neuse buffer rules which require a 50 foot undisturbed vegetated buffer
adjacent to perennial streams.
Division of Water Quality • Non-Discharge Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Aff irmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper

Please respond with in 10 days upon receipt of this letter. Your response should include
when the culverting activities (including the road crossings began and when land clearing on
this site first started.
As you are aware, we believe that the impacts that have occurred on this site have water
quality implications. I urge you to call me immediately to set up a meeting with the Corps of
Engineers and DWQ to resolve the serious permitting issues on this site. Please call me at
919-733-1786 to arrange this meeting.
Sincerely,
n R. o ey
cc: Danny Smith, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
Eric Alsmeyer, US Army Corps of Engineers
Kevin Martin, Soil and Environment Consultants
Kathy Matthews, US Environmental Protection Agency
Greg Thorpe, DWQ
John R. Dorney
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Date
Au N ?
ffl:.x;VA
,&I?j
[D EH F1
Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
FAX:[phone]
NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS SHEET: 14)

Environmental Sciences Branch 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
%P- IJWu WwrLVIV-1" Ph1 ray=919-77-995q Nov 26 '97 16:42 P.02/LPj 1
State of North Carolina
Departmont of ?nvifonment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James R. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt Seeretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr:; P.E., Director

FR

November, 25 1997 1?` 11 Tom Ram t
3724 National 7f Ave ik
J h
Suiw 122
Raleigh, NC 2'167.2 t a J
14/0 A 'I,
Dear Mr. Raldll. ?
.On Noventaber .18,1997,1 ank?Eric Reek of the NC Division of, Water. Qua lty
WGdi M, s/401.;tinit visited-youT site at * and of Edward's Mill Road off of TYittiiy Road near
Riebl?aad Creek:in Meigh. ,S.everal days earlier, Mr. Danny Smith'af ourIaleigh kegional
Offico and myself had also visited the site.
. Dunnt bur site visiis .we found that at least 900 feer.4tbree separate streams :had I*=
col ned. About, 530 feet-of this; IctMly appeared to ha-e been; done for I& fill with the
remainder for load cros!ili:gs. Tat addition, we have conc:ems, about Xhe. poor condition of
Tnuch of the sediment arid?ero&'n-control mrasures for ihis site. 1vir.Sinfth has discussed
these matters with the city of Raleigh a's a sepamre matter.
We have no record of atty. approved stream impacts-for this project. We have discussed
the. tatter with Kevin MiT6 of Soil,and Bnviroiunental Obttsultants wlloae idelireatilon flags
arc present on the channels. Ift is also ;unaware of any apgrgvaLs. Piudly. Eric Al:smeycr of
the US Army Corps of Engineers is Also not aware of aiiy permits issued for these fulls.
Please be aware that 401 +Cerrihcadons are required for all fill of strems in excess of
150. linear feet. Withoultthi?, approval., -you are in-vkolataon,,of the Clean Water A ct and ?c
subject to entorceinent acaon including:civil popaltles. We hereby =-oulfnend that the US r///,
ttiuag
Amny of ct:gineers plam:'a CEASE attd DESIST order on this property uut:il these pmrmi
matters fare resahr A.
Also please be aware ;that the following issues will need to be resolved for this site
before-DWQ can approve, 1U past or additional scream or wetland impact.
1) aiia>`iraization of s0eam fill,
2) rn.i.tigatihn for any.smam fill in excess of 150.1inear feet for perennial streams. We
have determined 'ttiat two of the tbree culverte . stmams on your site are percnnial.
3) sto=wa?ter wanagenient including wet detentlon,ponds for an,-corn mercial
development turd -•
4) adhere. to thP, Neiirr huffer roles which reg6re a 50 foo undisturbed, bu ?adja ut
Y l.?'?
w pereunilal streaint,
Phase res4pond,,witli.;W ;1.0 days ulxtu receipt cat' chis,lotter. Youpr res , .. so should include
when tha culverting activi6a (including die road, ciossi'' began and v?he and cleating on .
this site first started//
Division of Water duality (LnsCh,I(ge,&altch
4401 Reedy Creek Ad., I441'eigh. NO2760-7Talaphona 919-993-1786 FAX # [phone]
An 1=yua1 Opponvn4 Affirmative Action r;mpkoyer • so% rooyolo&10% post conmumwr paper p
1 \
1
- .. V ?? ) 1 °?? SSSv Cerrl
?/?? ? 1 ?? // r 4 \'1??? I '? TG? III :V? i41ii` ?' • // ?• -} _ ?)?? ))/?
f(
1 165 ?• ,.! ??,??? ? i ?I?/ r .,r I, ?• II ?
J l
3964
I I//
/_ \ ro 41 I 1654
.?i.-
l\ . { l 1 at •?F
457 aU(Pd
1
I r f J! 1 0 1 ?,? \ 43 1
U .
•" .? ? ? adio Tow?s? ?• ?? -1. 1{; ? ? `- 450 'i \ J? \? ??? , ? F? ?? ?• a4io'To
3963 ?! (??wKlxl\? c i ?? _ t ver>>.y
i ??,_Do ?1 1_ .. ?! / •I??'/ / M r Tod ? / ;s?o? ?????????? 5??? ? ?? ,
psb?r?
i? •? 1'i,? ?Sp(J ,???• 496
k ?
Al
10111 i • ?? A71, II <ie?O'lll*1;?v( •l ???
3962 -_ _
"l'? Ir,l.,'•?t. /: '??.:?? 'tea °' ?., r
.400 ?1 ? : ? ?? •' ? ttiV ? ? ? ? P t,,e ??
' J •, II _
3961 •.. \ ""y7?? i_":?-???\•'j? !, \' •? II \? ?lt,l /I ??)./ •y/•f •\?!••e ?[ \` /,
.•) ? ? 11? ? ? 4' ? "? Ili ? 1, i r ,'? ? I ? ? ?. 1 ? _•_ -
• ? 1' 111 \'/ ? ?- 1 i / ??, f? /_; ?? i (I, ?; ?\ -`? 1 _ - •
3960 op'I
5? 'V1
a€ CART 4 50_a, _ ?? ?q?;,? • J?
4 345
f: C.1 ? _? 4 ?r 7- ??? ?1 r
o f``? t 313, ? ? - ? ? \ \ ? . ? • / . ?S: I /' . , f -? ? s ?? _ 1 I
`?
? ?IP)?
730000
FEET
1.50 46 3;
r08
?.1- -? .- - 707 42'30"
35°45-'i - 704 /052080000 FEET• 106•
78'°45'
-p?, Mapped, edited, and published by the Geological Survey I
* ?-
Control by USGS, NOS/NOAA, and North Carolina Geodetic Survey MN .1000
I
Topography by photogrammetric methods from aerial photographs GIN
hry
taken 1965 and 1968. Field checked 1968
Polyconic projection. 10,000-foot grid ticks based on North Carolina tza nniLS tI __
24 MILS
coordinate system. 1000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator grid
ticks, zone 17, shown in 4ilue. 1927 North American Datum
To place on the predicted North American Datum 1983 move
the projection lines 12 meters south and 23 meters west UTM GRID AND 1987 MAGNETIC NORTH
as shown by dashed corner ticks DECLINATION AT CENTER ET SHEET
Red tint indicates areas in which only landmark buildings are shown
A FOLDER
There may be private inholdings within the boundaries of
the National or State reservations shown on this map
t71HCAVcl---- -. ..r.,.,4a•? H,--
• mmnm?
Soil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.
244 West Milibrook Road ¦ Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 ¦ [phone] ¦ Fax [phone]
FACSIMILE SHEET
FAX NO. (919 846-9467
DATE: 3-0- 16
TO: NAME: T• --, 1Z-A;11 ? Ass "L
COMPANY:
FAX NUMBER: 5/0"Y'/_19544oS37
TIME SENT:
CC:
FROM: L-1. OV6--At13X SUBJECT: 77z-/A.//7y RD W,074-A- D.J
The following items are being faxed. Number of pages including transmittal sheet:
For Your Comments/Approval
Per Our Conversation
Please Advise
Would Like To Discuss
For Your Information
? Per Your Request
Please Call
Please Handle
HARD COPY SENT:
US Regular Mail
UPS Overnight
Federal Express
Other
Hand Delivery
US Certified
No Hard Copy Sent
REMARKS: T g E C v 2 P OF NL //VE?/?S .Da N07- F4224(19,C
17,667' ZHi?7 DCL_/n/6A710N &F s-ci.eV?,Y?? is
ONLY 7KEi2 5g4GiE-ST1otJ
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR PROBLEMS WITH THIS
TRANSMISSION. PLEASE CONTACT AT (919) 8116-5900.
*CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE*
'17his transmission is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any disclosure, distribution or copying of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and return the fazed documents to us
at the above address via the United States Postal Service.
Soil/Site Evaluation ¦ Mapping and Physical Analysis ¦ Wetlands Mapping and Mitigation ¦ Environmental Auk
On-Site Waste Treatment Systems, Evaluation and Design

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Wilmington District
Action ID: 19g 60 / 9 9 a County: Wk?
Notification of Jurisdictional Determination
Property owner/Authorized Agent -om Rq h ?1
Address -37c?V Ncr /jwjol
Telephone Number I ?la? S/n _ c f q
761
Size and Location of Property(waterbody, Highway name/number, town, ctc.) \
?u ?.?-?? ??? ?> s??? c? S iP. !?S F Cl?irn<-c, Rd .l ?aefi..ce h 5R< 6E;<r /3l ? ??e ?d
Indicate Which of the following apu?ly
?Q OThere arekretlas on the above described property which we strongly suggest should be delineated and
surveyed. The surveyed wetland lines must be verified by our staff before the Corps will make a final
jurisdictional determination on your property.
• Because of the size of your property and our present workload, our identification and delineation of your
wetlands cannot be accomplished in a timely manner. You may wish to employ a consultant to obtain a
more timely delineation of the wetlands. Once your consultant has flagged a wetland line on the property,
Corps staff will review it, and, if it is accurate, we strongly recommend that you have the line surveyed for
final approval by the Corps. The Corps will no make a final jurisdictional determination on your property
without an approved survey.
i,?.ht?rs r i r(-c. L/
The. on your lot have been delineated, and the limits of Corps jurisdiction have been explained
to you. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied
upon for a period not to exceed tl"e years from the date of this notification.
• There are no wetlands prc:sentFon ?he above described property which are subject to the permit
requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law
or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed three years
from the date of this notification.
• The project is located in gnu o the 20 Coastal Counties. You should contact the nearest State Office of
Coastal Management to (Ie-l(-r?nine their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill ttts111"ial in wetlands on this property without ;i Dc artment of the Army
permit is in most cases a viol-'I if)" of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1311). A permit is
not required for work on tilt. 1?tt?I?erty restricted entirely to existing high ground. If you have any
questions regarding the Corps i 11 1 Algineers regulatory program, please contact
,/?.;-, G iQ•s at Czic?/-?t? TV%F> B'I?fJ P??
Property owner/Authorized Agc,111 signature
Project Manager Signature
Date < - -
SURVEY PLAT OR F11;1.1) SKETCH OF DESCRIBED PROPERTI' :?NI) THE WETLAND
DELINEATION FORM M U.S,1'111'1 ATTACHED TO THE YELLOW (FILE)
t,III,Y OF THIS FORM.
Expiration Date 2` `;F10
CESAW Form 566
Re: Triniti Associates, LLC
V ?
Subject: Re: Trinity Associates, LLC
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 10:17:30 -0500
From: Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>
Organization: Division of Water Quality; 401 Certification Unit
To: "Levitas, Steve" <[e-mail]>,
Tom Reeder <[e-mail]>
CC: Steve Mitchell <[e-mail]>, John Dorney <[e-mail]>
Steve,
That's fine. I'll have them taken off the December agenda and tentatively placed on the February 14, 2002
agenda Please keep in mind that we'll need all the mail out information approximately one month to three
weeks prior to the meeting. I'll wait to hear from you regarding scheduling a preliminarymeeting.
- Bob
(Tom, Please make appropriate changes. Thanks.)
"Levitas, Steve" wrote:
KILPATRICK Fiaditrd 8amin r Featured Article
STOCKTON LLP
"wnw"e a" Environmental and Natural Reaou"m
Bob, I have not had success thus far in getting all of the Trinity principals together to make a decision
as to how they want to proceed and to obtain the necessary information from them in order to pursue
this matter. Given the tight time frame, I suggest that we put this off until the February meeting. That
will give us plenty of time to get things together on our end and then schedule a meeting with you at
your convenience. Does that work for you?Steve
KILPATRICK
STOCKTON LLP
Attorneys at Law
Sb nvn I LGVRM 8737 QWwmed Awwm
F'artrrer We 400
919.420.1707 RaWgh. NC 27612
SLwkar9101Ps0k kStxftri=rn
IA(INFO
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Zarzecki [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 12:04 PM
1 of 3 11/6/01 10:17 AD
Re: Trinity Associates, LLC
To: Levitas, Steve
Cc: Steve Mitchell; John Dorney
Subject: Re: Trinity Associates, LLC

Steve,
I need to submit an agenda item summary by 11/15/01 and any mail out information is due on 11/29/01.
Have you determined when you would like to meet? November is filling up quick.
- Bob
Bob Zarzecki wrote:
Steve L.,
I don't believe that anyone representing Trinity Associates, LLC spoke during the meeting. A request
was made to the WQC however they did not feel the need for further discussion. The Master Plan was
provided to the WQC in the variance request packet. It would be best to discuss the issues you
brought up during our meeting. I have attached the agenda summary that includes staff's
determination. Please let me know when you here back from Mr. Rahill.
- Bob
"Levitas, Steve" wrote:
Thanks for your prompt response and for your fax. Do you have a written document that reflects the staff's
determination that the variance criteria have not been met. If so, could you please send that to me as well? I
note that the order says that Trinity made a presentation to the WQC, but I have been under the impression
that they were not allowed to do so. Can you shed any light on that? I agree that we should meet ASAP on
this. The major issue I'd like to explore is whether Trinity's plan for development of the entire parcel, which
predated the buffer rules, and based on which they made their investment, depended financially on the
development of the portion of the property that is the subject of the variance request. If so, then I think there
is a good case to be made that Trinity did not create the hardship even though the actual subdivision occurred
after the rules were adopted. Also, it does seem to me that there is a lot of potential here to provide greater
benefit to the Richland Creek system than what is currently provided by the remaining isolated buffer on this
parcel. So I hope we can talk about that as well when we get together. All the dates you propose work for
me, with the exception of 11/13. I'll check with Mr. Rahill, who I think will want to attend. Thanks again for
your help.Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Zarzecki fmailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 200110:42 AM
To: Steve Levitas (Attorney)
Cc: John Dorney; Steve Mitchell
Subject: Trinity Associates, LLC
Steve L.,
I just faxed you a copy of the WQC Final Decision for the Trinity
Associates, LLC variance request. I have also requested that they be
placed on the December 13th full EMC meeting per your letter dated
10/30/01. I would recommend that you, John Dorney, Steve Mitchell and
myself meet to discuss this request. I'm assuming that you will be
providing additional information to their original request. This
information will most likely be due for mail out on or around November
20th. Please bring drafts of any additional information to our meeting.
2 of 3 11/6/01 10:18 AN
Re: Trin'ty Associates, LLC
To all,
In an effort to find a time for us to meet, how does Nov. 5, 6, 9, 13 or
14 look? Earlier the better if we are going to try to get this on the
December meeting. Please note that the next EMC meeting will not be
until February. I would recommend meeting at our office (Parkview
Bldg.) to accommodate John's schedule.
- Bob
Bob Zarzecki
NC DENR/DWQ 401 Wetlands Certification Unit
919-733-9726
3 of 3 11/6/01 10:18 Al
Trinity Associates, LLC
Subject: Trinity Associates, LLC
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:42:13 -0500
From: Bob Zarzecki <bob.zarzecki @ncmail.net>
Organization: Division of Water Quality; 401 Certification Unit
To: "Steve Levitas (Attorney)" <[e-mail]>
CC: John Domey <[e-mail]>, Steve Mitchell <[e-mail]>
Steve L.
I just faxed you a copy of the WQC Final Decision for the Trinity
Associates, LLC variance request. I have also requested that they be
placed on the December 13th full EMC meeting per your letter dated
10/30/01. I would recommend that you, John Dorney, Steve Mitchell and
myself meet to discuss this request. I'm assuming that you will be
providing additional information to their original request.. This
information will most likely be due for mail out on or around November
20th. Please bring drafts of any additional information to our meeting.
To all,
In an effort to find a time for us to meet, how does Nov. 5, 6, 9, 13 or
14 look? Earlier the better if we are going to try to get this on the
December meeting. Please note that the next EMC meeting will not be
until February. I would recommend meeting at our office (Parkview
Bldg.) to accommodate John's schedule.
- Bob
Bob Zarzecki
NC DENR/DWQ 401 Wetlands Certification Unit
919-733-9726
1 of 1 10/31/0110:43 AD
10/30/2001 18:36 FAX [phone] KILPATRICK STOCKTON LLP Z001/002
KILPATRICK
STOCKTON LLP
Attorneys at Law
October 30, 2001
FAX
Suite 400 3737 Glenwood Avenue
Raleigh NC 27612
t 919 420 1700 f 919 420 1500
www.Kilpa[TicL-Slockton.com
direct dial 919 420 1707
SLeviLa, uKilpatrickSlucklon.com
RECIPIENT/
PHONE NO.
FAX NO. COMPANY/
CITY, STATE, COUNTRY _
Frank Crawley 716-6767
John Dorney 733-6893
Jenny Odette 733-2496
Tora Rahill [phone]
Steven J. Levitas
3_
PAGES (WITH CpVER)
8598 39509/198074
REFERENCE NO CLIENT/MATTER NO.
PLEASE CALL 919 420 1700 IF YOU HAVE DIFFICULTY WITH THIS TRANSMISSION.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
The information contained in this fax message is being transmitted to and is intended for the use of the
individual named above- If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby advised
that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this tax is strictly prohibited. If you have received this fax in
error, please immediately notify us by telephone and destroy this fax message.
COMMENTS
TO BE COMPLETED BY KS OPERATIONS CENTER
TRANSMISSION RECEIPT DATEMME:
COMPLETED BY: JOB CODE
ATLAwA A03U3TA mm= GHAALOTTE LONPON MIAMI RALSOH RESTON STOCKHOLM WASHINGTON Wf MN.SALEM
10/30/2001 18:36 FAX [phone] KILPATRICK STOCKTON LLP Z002/002
S KILPATRICK
ki, STOCKTON LLP
Attorneys at Law
October 30, 2001
VIA, FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL
Dr. David Moreau
Environmental Management Commission
Archdale Building, 9t1i Floor
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27611
Suite 400 3737 Gicnwood Avenue
Raleigh NC 27612
1919 420 1700 f 919 420 1800
www,KilpaidckSiocktonxum
Staven 1. Lcvitas
direct di81919 420 1707
51_cvitasae KilpatrickStocktonscorn
RE: Application by Trinity Associates, LLC For a Major Variance
Under 15A NCAC 213.0233
Dear Dr. Moreau:
We are writing on behalf of Trinity Associates, LLC, to request that the 6111
Environmental Management Commission reconsider the decision of the Water Quality
Committee denying the above-referenced major variance request.
With best wishes,
SJI_ J s
cc: Frank Crawley, Esq.
Mr. John Dorney
Ms. Jenny Odette
Mr_ Tom Rahill
Sincerely yours,
KILPATIlICK STOCKTON LLP
Steven J. Levitas
ATLANTA AUGUSTA BRUSSELS CHARLOTTE LONOQN Nuui AµELGN setYON STOGNNOLN V?SHsNOTON WINSTON-SALEM
? wArF -
\O?? ROG Michael F. Easley --
Governor
] ?- William G. Ross, Jr. Secretary
~ Department of Environment and Natural Resources
O -?
Kerr T. Stevens
Division of Water Quality
Division of Water Quality
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
. Wetlands/401 Unit
Location: 2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250 Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Mailing Address: 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Contact Information: General 919-733-1786 Fax: [phone]
'
Fax To: Fax Number: qi9 - i12A • 18cQ
Company: K'i Date: Ib. 31 0 1
From: !3ob Phone: c' 1c1 - -4 33. 9}Z(v
No. Of Pages including cover sheet: 5
Notes or special instructions:
.1LC- ??nc.? ?Gcclia?\
?00A
NCOENIR
Division of Water Quality 2321 Crabtree Blvd, Ste 250 Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Wet!ands/401 Unit: [phone]
WA
T FRQ?
r
>_ y
O ?
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
August 34, 2001
DWQ Project No. 01-0677
Wake County
CERTIFIED MAIL -RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Trinity Associates, LLC
c/o Mr. Tom Rahill, Manager
PO Box 1354
Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480
RE: Neuse Basin Rules (15A NCAC.0233) Major Variance Request
Trinity Road and Edwards Mill Property
Spangler Environmental Project Name/Number: Trinity Road/200102040
Raleigh, Wake County, NC
Dear Mr. Rahill:
On July 11, 2001, upon duly made motion and unanimous vote, the Water Quality Committee (WQC) of the
North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC) denied your request for a Major Variance from the
Neuse River Basin Management Strategy for Protection and Maintenance of Existing Riparian Buffers, 15A NCAC 2B
.0233, for your property located on the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Trinity Road and Edwards Mill Road,
Raleigh, Wake County, NC (see attached "Final Decision"). As described within the "Delegation of Approval Authority"
from the EMC to the WQC dated February 11, 1999, you have the right to request in writing to have the WQC decision
forwarded to the full Commission (EMC) for reconsideration. You have 60 days from the date of the attached "Final
Decision" to make this request. If you decide to make this request and the EMC upholds the decision of the WQC, then
you have the right to send a request for an appeal of the EMC decision to the North Carolina Office of Administrative
Hearings. This request must be in written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statures
and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-6714. Unless such
demands are made, this denial shall be final and binding.
Please call Mr. John Dorney at 919-733-9646 to confirm your attendance and if you have any questions or if you
would like to discuss this matter.
A)cq I f
y J. Thorpe, Ph.D
Director,
Cc: Mr. Steve Mitchell, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
Mr. Jim Spangler, Spangler Environmental, Inc., PO Box 387, Raleigh, NC 27602-0387
File Copy
Central Files
DWQ No. 010677
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/

State of North Carolina
County of Wake
Application By
Trinity Associates, LLC
For A Major Variance Under
15A NCAC 2B.0233

Before the Water Quality Committee
of the Environmental Management
Commission on July 11, 2001.
Final Decision
Trinity Associates, LLC's application for a major variance from the Neuse River
Basin Management Strategy for Protection and Maintenance of existing Riparian
Buffers, 15A NCAC 2B .0233, was presented to the Water Quality Committee at its
regularly scheduled meeting on July 11, 2001. The Committee was provided with
copies of the application for variance, stipulated facts, the recommendation of the
Division of Water Quality, and heard presentations from the Division of Water Quality
and Trinity Associates, LLC. According to 15A NCAC 2B .0233(9)(c) the purpose of the
Committee's review is to determine if it agrees with the Division of Water Quality's
recommendation on whether the requirements of Sub-item (9)(a) of the rule have been
met.
Upon duly made motion and unanimous vote, the Water Quality Committee of
the Environmental Management Commission denied the request for a major variance.
The Water Quality Committee accepted and affirmed the preliminary determination by
the Division of Water Quality that Trinity Associates, LLC's request for a major variance
did not meet all of the requirements required by 15A NCAC 2B .0233(9)(a) where the
subject tract of land was subdivided on January 1, 1999 from a larger original tract that
was subject to the buffer requirements and the division made the land not buildable as
proposed without approval of a variance, such hardship being created by Trinity

Associates, LLC's own actions.
Based upon the application for variance, stipulated facts, recommendation of the
Division of Water Quality, and presentations by the parties, the Director makes the
following:
Findings of Fact
1. Trinity Associates, LLC owns the 2.23-acre subject parcel located on the southwest
corner of Trinity Road and Edwards Mill Road, Raleigh, Wake County, NC.
2. The parcel size, excluding the NC DOT right-of-way, equals 1.87 acres.
3. The subject 2.23-acre parcel was subdivided from its original ± 100-acre parcel on
January 1, 1999 [after the effective date (July 22, 1997) of the buffer rules and
notification from the DWQ that the stream identified in fact no. 5 below is subject to the
protected buffers].
4. A conceptual master plan and financial records, including proof of payments and site
plan applications/grading plan/permit fees to the City of Raleigh for the development of
the subject parcel and surrounding original transaction parcels date back prior to the
effective date of the buffer rules.
5. The subject parcel contains 435 linear feet of stream subject to the buffer rules (15A
NCAC 2B.0233) as confirmed by DWQ-RRO staff on 10/29/98.
6. There are practical difficulties or hardships in developing the tract as proposed which
prevent compliance with the strict letter of the riparian buffer protection requirements.
7. Trinity Associates, LLC was proposing to pipe and fill approximately 435 linear feet of
stream channel and associated riparian buffer of an unnamed tributary of Richland
Creek classified as C-NSW waters of the State which lie within the Neuse River Basin.
8. Trinity Associates, LLC was proposing to construct on-site buildings, parking,
f ":C){ 1, air:?•{. ? C ,I ,:# (''? _. t, .11 '".
sidewalks and streets on 1.5 acres of the 2.23-acre site and completely eliminate the
riparian buffer now existing on the site.
9. In return for receiving the requested variance, Trinity Associates, LLC was proposing
to control all on-site and some off-site stormwater run-off by constructing an extended
detention wetland on the other side of Edwards Mill Road and Richland Creek.
10. In return for receiving the requested variance, Trinity Associates, LLC was
proposing to provide compensation in the form of payment into the Riparian Buffer
Restoration Fund per 15A NCAC 2B .0233. The amount of mitigation proposed
equaled 109,772 square feet or approximately $105,381.
11. In return for receiving the requested variance, Trinity Associates, LLC was
proposing to provide off-set nitrogen payments to the NC Wetlands Restoration
Program for annual nitrogen loading rates greater than 3.6 Ibs/ac/yr as required by the
City of Raleigh Stormwater Requirements and 15A NCAC 2B.0235.
From the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Director of the Division of Water Quality
makes the following:
Conclusions of Law
1. The application for a major variance was properly submitted to the Division of Water
Quality and the proposed activity would require the approval of a major variance.
2. An application for a major variance must meet the requirements in 15A NCAC 2B
.0233(9)(a).
3. Trinity Associates, LLC's application for a major variance does not meet the
requirements of 15A NCAC 2B .0233(9)(a) in that the practical difficulties or hardship
confronting the proposed development of the tract were created by the applicant by the
manner in which it subdivided the original tract that culminated in the 1999 subdivision
Trinity Associates; I I_C Final Decision Page / oaf 4
of the tract in issue.
THEREFORE, it is ORDERED that the application for a major variance by Trinity
Associates, LLC is -D NIED.
This the day of August, 2001
Z gory J. Thorpe, Ph.
Ing Director,
Division of Water Qu 1ty
Department of Environment &
Natural Resources
North Carolina
WQC July If. 2001 http://h2oxm.statc.nc us/aclmin/emc/committees/wq/2001/2001-07wgc.h
EMC WATER QUALITY COMMITTEE MEETING
July 11, 2001
Archdale Building - Ground Floor Hearing Room
12:00 noon - 2:00 PM
F_xrrtaive Order No 1 mandates that the Chair inquires as to whether airy member knows q(nrn known conflict q/interest at- appearance gf'con list with respect
to matters before the Commission. !l' mtv member knows of a conflict of interest or appearance qf' cats/list, please so state at this time.
12:00 Noon - Opening Comments Chairman Peterson
*1. Request for Approval of the Randleman Stormwater Management Plan for the Piedmont
Triad International Airport in Compliance with the Randleman Lake Water Supply
Watershed Stormwater Requirements - (Action Item)
(Megan Owen)
* Asterisk indicates consensus item
The Piedmont Triad International Airport has submitted a Randleman Stormwater Plan that meets
the criteria of the Randleman Lake Water Supply Watershed Stormwater Requirements. Staff has
reviewed the Plan and recommends the Water Quality Committee's approval (attachment enclosed).
2. Request for Variance from a Water Supply Watershed Protection Ordinance in Compliance
with the Water Supply Watershed Protection Act (NCGS 143-214.5) - (Action Item)
(Milt Rhodes)
Staff is requesting that the Committee consider a variance request from the City of High Point for
the High Point Square Development proposal. As proposed, High Point Square would be a regional
retail center within the jurisdiction of the City of High Point. In order to complete this project in a
configuration desirable to commercial tenants, 10.8 acres of perennial and intermittent stream
buffers will be encroached upon. The encroachment will eliminate both the natural stream channel
and the entire buffer zone. The developer (ARCON, INC) has proposed mitigation for wetlands,
buffer zones, and impacted streams. The project is located in the Oak Hollow/Deep River Water
Supply Watershed and is part of the Randleman Reservoir Watershed area. The Division of Water
Quality is requesting an action on the part of the Water Quality Committee (attachment enclosed).
3. List of Maior Variances and Conditions - (Information Item)
(Bob Zarzecki)
As per the request of Water Quality Committee members, the Division is providing a summary of all
approved Major Variances from the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico River Riparian Area Protection Rules
(15A NCAC 213 .0233 and .0259) as of the July 1 1, 2001 meeting. The summary includes action
dates, applicants' names, river basins., summary of impacts, hardships and variance conditions. The
staff will give a brief presentation (attachment enclosed).
4. Request for Consideration of a Maior Variance from the Neuse River Riparian Area
-1--) i?N OYD
G
I of 3 11
7/1 1/01 9:42 AP
WO(' July 1 I. 2001
the Committee in July (attachment enclosed).
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.tts/adnrirr/emc/committees/wq/2001/2001-07wgc.h
Discussion and Closing Comments Chairman Peterson
3 of 3 7/1 1/01 9:42 AN
Consideration of a Request for a Variance from the Neuse
Riparian Area Protection Rule 11WET-LAND-SGOURP
Water Quality Committee Meeting
North Carolina Environmental Management Commission
July 11, 2001
A request has been received for the Water Quality Committee (WQC) to grant a variance from
the Neuse River Riparian Area Protection Requirements (15A NCAC 2B .0233) for a commercial
development project to be located on the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Trinity Road
and Edwards Mill Road, Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina. The parcel is approximately
2.23 acres in size. The applicant, Trinity Associates c/o Mr. Tom Rahill, is proposing to pipe and
fill approximately 435 linear feet of stream channel and associated riparian buffers of an unnamed
tributary of Richland Creek (C NSW).
Trinity Associates is proposing an extended detention wetland to control stormwater run-off from
9.69 acres including the 2.23-acre subject parcel. In addition to the extended detention wetland,
Trinity Associates is proposing buffer mitigation to compensate for the loss of the 45,738 ft2 of
protected riparian buffer. Trinity Associates will also provide off-set nitrogen payments to the
NC Wetlands Restoration Program for increases in annual nitrogen loading from the site beyond
the minimum 3.6 lb/ac/yr.
Recommendations:
1. The Division Staff do not believe that Trinity Associates' request has mej all of the
requirements [(identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233(9)(a)] for grantin variance.
Specifically, the 2.23-acre subject property was subdivided from an original, larger tract of,,
land on January 1, 1999 (after the effective date of the rules) in a manner that made the
property not buildable as proposed without the approval of this variance. Therefore, the
Division Staff believe that Trinity Associates have brought this hardship on themselves and
are not eligible for a variance from the rules.
2. The Division Staff believe, if the variance request is deemed to be eligible by the
Commission, that Trinity Associates are proposing sufficient nitrogen removing stormwater
controls to compensate for the loss of the nutrient removal functions of the impacted buffers.
A final stormwater management plan must be approved by the Division prior to construction.
3. The Division Staff believe, if the variance request is deemed to be eligible by the
Commission, that Trinity Associates are providing sufficient buffer mitigation for the
proposed impacts. This mitigation must be provided prior to construction.
4. The Division Staff believe, if the variance request is deemed to be eligible by the
Commission, that Trinity Associates must provide the required off-set nitrogen payments to
the Wetlands Restoration Program prior to construction.
The Division Staff recommends the denial of Trinity Associates' variance request, because
of the items identified in part 1 of this recommendation.
o? W AT ?Rp?
r
O ?
Stipulated Facts
Major Variance Request
Neuse River Riparian Area Protection Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0233)
Water Quality Committee Meeting
NC Environmental Management Commission
July 11, 2001
Applicant: Trinity Associates, LLC; c/o Mr. Tom Rahill
Project Name: Trinity Road Variance Request
DWQ Project No.: 01-0677
County: Wake
[Trinity Associates, LLC (c/o Mr. Tom Rahill), Spangler Environmental (c/o Mr. Jim Spangler), Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) 401 Certification Unit and DWQ Raleigh Regional Office (RRO) staff have reviewed
this document and agree to the best of their knowledge that the stipulated facts presented below are
accurate.]
1) Trinity Associates, LLC owns the 2.23-acre subject parcel located on the southwest corner of Trinity
Road and Edwards Mill Road, Raleigh, Wake County, NC.
2) The parcel size, excluding the NC DOT right-of-way, equals 1.87 acres.
3) The subject parcel was subdivided from its. original parcel on January 1, 1999 [after the effective date
(July 22, 1997) of the buffer rules].
4) A conceptual master plan and financial records, including proof of payments and site plan
applications/grading plan/permit fees to the City of Raleigh for the development of the subject parcel
and surrounding original transaction parcels date back prior to the effective date of the buffer rules.
5) The subject parcel contains 435 linear feet of stream subject to the buffer rules (15A NCAC 2B .0233)
as confirmed by DWQ-RRO staff on 10/29/98.
6) The subject parcel contains 45,738 square feet (27,443 square feet of Zone 1 and 18,295 square feet
of Zone 2) of protected buffers pursuant to 15A NCAC 2B .0233.
7) Strict application of the buffer rules would constitute a 57% loss of developable acreage. Property
bisection by the buffer leaves disconnected, "undevelopable" (given design constraints) areas of 0.42
and 0.40 acres in an 0-1 Zoning District. This constitutes a loss in potential revenue for the
developer.
8) Trinity Associates, LLC will construct an extended detention wetland approved by DWQ to treat 9.69
acres including the 2.23-acre subject parcel if the Major Variance is approved.
9) Trinity Associates, LLC will pay into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund per 15A NCAC 2B .0242 for
impacts to the 45,738 square feet of bufffers if the Major Variance is approved. The area of mitigation
required for this impact per 15A NCAC 2B.0242 is 109,772 square feet.
10) Trinity Associates, LLC will make an off-set nitrogen payment to the NC Wetlands Restoration
Program for annual nitrogen loading rates greater than 3.6 Ibs/ac/yr as required by the City of Raleigh
Stormwater Requirements and 15A NCAC 2B .0235 if the Major Variance is approved.
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Kerr T. Stevens
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands/
SPANGLER
ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
' Major Variance Request Package
Under 15A NCAC.0233

1
fl

For Buffer Impacts to Unnamed Tributary of
Richland Creek near the intersection of Trinity and
Edwards Mill Roads
For
Trinity Associates
c/o Mr. Tom Rahill, Manager
PO Box 1354
Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480
For Review by North Carolina Environmental Management Commission
Water Quality Committee
July, 2001
Prepared By:
Spangler Environmental, Inc. --
Jim S ler c in burger
_President roject Manager
Land Planning • Permitting • Environmental Consulting • Construction Management • Expert Testimony
Post Office Box 387 Raleigh, NC 27602-0387 tel: [phone] fax: [phone] www.Spangler-SEI.com

Ll
L
1

I?

t
I OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Received- ,_-__.._ -_- Request#
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Variance Request Form
Neuse River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy
Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rule (15A NCAC.0233)
NOTE: This form may be photocopied for use as an original.
Part 1: General Information
1. Applicant's name (the corporation, individual, etc. who owns the project):
Trinity Associates c/o Tom Rahill
2. Print Owner/Signing Official (person legally responsible for the facility and its compliance)
Name: Trinity Associates, LLC Tom Rahill
Title: Manager
Street address: PO Box 1354
City, State, Zip: Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480
Telephone: ( 910 ) 256-9918__.__ -
Fax: ( 910 ) 256-0100
3. Project Name (Subdivision, facility, or establishment name - consistent with project name on
plans, specifications, letters, operation and maintenance agreements, etc.):
4. Location of Facility
Street address:
City, State, Zip:
County:
Latitude/longitude:
Trinity Road
Raleigh, NC, 2760
Wake
5. Directions to facility from nearest major intersection (Also attach a map):
Southwest Quadrant of intersection of Trinity Road and Edwards Mill Road_ _-
6. Contact person who can answer questions about the facility:
Name: Same as above______
Telephone: __-_ ---------________
Fax:
Email:
7. Requested Environmental Management Commission Hearing Date: July 2001 -

Version 1: September 1998
1

Ll

Part 2: Demonstration of Need for a Variance
NOTE: The variance provision of the Neuse Riparian Area Rule allows the Environmental Management
Commission to grant a variance to an affected party when the following conditions apply on a given project:
(a) practical difficulties or hardships would result from strict application of the rule:
(b) such difficulties or hardships result from conditios which are peculiar to the property involved; and
(c) the general purpose and intent of the Rule would be preserved, water quality would be protected and
substantial justice would be done if the variance were granted.
This part of the application is to explain how the project meets criteria (a) and (b).
Attach a detailed description (2-3 pages) explaining the following: Attached
• The practical difficulties or hardships that would result from strict application of the Rule.
• How these difficulties or hardships result from conditions that are unique to the property
involved.
• Why reconfiguring and/or reducing the built-upon area to preserve a greater portion of the
riparian area is not feasible on this project. If economic hardship is the major
consideration, then include a specific explanation of the economic hardship and the
proportion of the hardship to the entire value of the project.

i]

t
Part 3: Water Quality Protection
NOTE: This part of the application is to explain how the project meets criterion (c): the general purpose and
intent of the Rule would be preserved, water quality would be protected and substantial justice would be done if
the variance were granted.
1. Briefly summarize how water quality will be protected on this project. Also attach a detailed
narrative (1-2 pages) describing the nonstructural and structural measures that will be used for
protecting water quality and reducing nitrogen inputs to surface water.
PROPOSED PROJECT INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF STORMWATER WETLAND BY
PROPONENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH RICHLAND CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
BEING DONE BY JOINT EFFORT OF CENTENNIAL AUTHORITY AND NC WETLAND
RESTORATION PROGRAM. CONSTRUCTION OF PROPOSED STORMWATER WETLAND IS
NOT CONTINGENT UPON STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT CONSTRUCTION. PROPOSED
WETLAND WILL TREAT ENTIRE DRAINAGE BASIN THAT PRESENTLY DRAINS TO THE
SUBJECT PARCEL, NOT JUST THE SUBJECT SITE. WATER QUALITY TREATMENT WILL BE
INCREASED FROM THE EXISTING (WITH BUFFER) CONDITION OF 8% EFFICIENCY, TO 58%
NITROGEN REMOVAL EFFICIENCY VIA THE STORMWATER WETLAND. SEE ATTACHED
TEXT FOR MORE DETAILED DISCUSSION.
2. What is the total project area in acres?
2.23 Acres
3. Which of the following permits/approvals will be required for this project?
CAMA Major
X Sediment/Erosion Control
X _ 401 Certification/404 Permit
Variance Request Form, page 2
Version 1: September 1998
1
Part 3: Water Quality Protection, continued
4. Complete the following information for each drainage basin. If there are more than two
drainage basins in the project, attach an additional sheet with the information for each basin
provided in the same format as below.

Project Information Drainage Basin 1 Drainage Basin 2
Receiving stream name Un-named intermittent to
ephemeral tributary of
Richland Creek
Receiving stream class' C NSW
Drainage basin area (total2) 9.69 acres
Existing impervious area3 (totalZ) 1.89 ac. (entire basin)
Proposed impervious area3 (total2) 7.47 ac. (full build-out of
entire basin); 3.39 ac.
(existing plus proposed
project site only)
Impervious area3 (on-site) 15% of subject site
(current)
Impervious area3 (total) 19% (current)
Impervious area' Drainage basin 1 Drainage basin 2
On-site buildings 0.34 (15,000 sq. ft.)
On-site streets 0.51
On-site parking 0.58
On-site sidewalks 0.07
Other on-site 0
Total on-site 1.5
Off-site 5.97
Total 7.47
' the internet site tor this ?ntormauon is nrrparnzo.enr.stare. nc.usisrrmciassiatpnaineu.ntm1
2 Total means on-site plus off-site area that drains through the project.
3 Impervious area is defined as the built-upon area including, but not limited to, buildings, parking areas,
sidewalks, gravel areas, etc.
' 5. How was the off-site impervious area listed above derived?
Prediction of future development and field verification of existing development and
Raleigh Code of Ordinance regulations

L

6. What will be the annual nitrogen load contributed by this site after development in pounds per
acre per year without structural BMPs (stormwater pond, wetland, infiltration basin, etc)?
Attach a detailed plan for all proposed structural stormwater BMPs.
Drainage Size of Post-development BMP nitrogen Final nitrogen Final nitrogen
basin drainage nitrogen loading rate removal loading rate loading from
basin without BMPs` efficiencys (lbs/ac/yr) drainage basin
(ac) (Ibs/ac/yr) (%) (lbs)
1 9.69 17.2 58% 7.22 70
Totals 9.69 ------ ------ ----- 70
4 Attach calculations and references.
5 Attach calculations and references.
Variance Request Form, page 3
Version 1: September 1998
04/27/2001 10:56 9195460757 SPANGLER ENVIRONMENT PAGE 02

Part 3: Water Quality Protection, continued
7. The applicable supplemental form(s) listed below must be attached for each BMP specified:
Form SWU-102 Wet Detention Basin Supplement
' Form SWU-103
Form SWU-105 Infiltration Basin Supplement
Curb Outlet System Supplement
Form SWU-106 Off-Site System Supplement
Form SWU-107 Underground Infiltration Trench Supplement
Form SWU-109 Innovative BMPs Supplement
' Part 4: Submitta l Checklist
A complete appplication submittal consists of the following components. Incomplete submittals will
be returned to the applicant. The complete variance request submittal must be received 90 days
' prior to the EMC meeting at which you wish the request to be heard. Initial below to indicate that
the necessary information has been provided.
Applicant's Item
Initials
Original and two copies of the Variance Request Form and the attachments
listed below.
• A vicinity map of the project (see Part 1, Item 5)
Narrative demonstration of the need for a variance (see Part 2)
A detailed narrative description of stormwater treatment/management (see Part
3, Item 1)
Calculations supporting nitrogen loading estimates (see Part 3, Item 6)
Calculations and references supporting nitrogen removal from proposed BMPs
(see Part 3, Item 6)
Location and details for all proposed structural stormwater BMPs (see Part 3,
Item 6)
Three copies of the applicable Supplement Form(s) for each BMP and/or
narrative for each innovative BMP (see Part 3, Item 7)
Three copies of plans and specifications, including:
0 Development/Project name
o Engineer and firm
o Legend and north arrow
0 Scale 0" = 100' or 1" = 50' is preferred)
-^ 0 Revision number & date
o Mean high water line (if applicable)
0 Dimensioned property/project boundary
_ 0 Location map with named streets or NC State Road numbers
0 Original contours, proposed contours, spot elevations, finished floor
elevations
o Details of roads, parking, cul-de-sacs, sidewalks, and curb and gutter
?. 0 Footprint of any proposed buildings or other structures
.__. 0 Wetlands delineated, or a note on plains that none exist
o Existing drainage (including off-site), drainage easements, pipe sizes, runoff

'
M calculations
o Drainage basins delineated
lakes, rivers and estuaries
ponds
o Perennial and intermittent streams
,
,
0 Location of forest vegetation along the streams, ponds, lakes, rivers and
estuaries
variance Request Form, p age 4
Version 1: September 1996

04/27/2001 10:56 9195460757 SPANGLER ENVIRONMENT PAGE 03
r
r
Part 5: peed Restrictions
r By your signature in Part 7 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.
r
r Part 6: 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 firms Spangler Environmental, Inc.
Mailing address. PO Box 387__--_- _ _-„
City, State, Zip: Raleigh, NC, 27602
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: sec inc(Rbellsouth.not -,w-

Part 7: Applicant's Certification
1, Mr. Tom Rahill (print or type name of
person listed in Part I, Item 2), certify that the information included on this permit application dorm
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.
Date. --
Title.
r

r Variance Request Form, page 5
Version 1: September 1996
FJ

Inf,

Part 2: Demonstration of Need for a Variance
Planning for the development of the subject site, located in the southwest quadrant of the
intersection of Trinity Road and Edwards Mill Road in Raleigh, NC, was begun in 1995, and
master planning was completed for the area, including the Raleigh Entertainment and Sports
Arena, in 1996. Property transactions of over 100 acres, including the purchase of the subject
parcel, based upon the understanding of the buyers (current owner: Trinity Associates) and
sellers that development of the site was possible, occurred in 1995. Subsequent to the purchase
of the property, various sales transactions and subdivisions of the property have occurred
following the master plan that was completed in 1996. Development of the overall master plan
area, including rezoning, subdivision of parcels, permitting, and construction, was begun in 1995
and continues through the present time. Master plans and financial records, including proof
of payments and site plan application/grading plan/permit fees to the City of Raleigh for
the development of the subject parcel and surrounding original transaction parcels dating
back to prior to the effective date of the rules is included as Appendix 1.
The development of this 2.23-acre parcel (see attached site and location maps, Appendix 2)
cannot be realized with strict compliance to the Neuse Riparian Area Protection Rule (15 NCAC
.0233). However, the plans and information contained herein will demonstrate that, with the
approval of the variance request, greater water quality protection will be realized for this parcel.
In fact, enhanced water quality protection will be demonstrated for the entire drainage
basin of this project, above and beyond what is currently required for compliance with the
Neuse Rules, specifically Rule .0235 pertaining to on-site nitrogen treatment.
It should be noted that this proposed project is part of a series of regional watershed restoration
measures currently being planned in this portion of the Richland Creek Basin of the Neuse River
Watershed. The proposed storm water wetland is being planned in concert with stream bank and
riparian restoration between Trinity and Edwards Mill Roads and in-stream restoration in the
same area, conducted by the Centennial Authority and North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program, respectively. The areas proposed for restoration and water quality enhancement
structure development are adjacent to a City of Raleigh Greenway, which affords a concentrated
area to demonstrate to the public the benefits of different types of watershed and regional
environmental planning and restoration.
Practical Difficulties Due To Strict Application of Rule .0233
The strict application of the riparian area protection rule will result in practical difficulties in
achieving the intended and zoned use of this parcel. The preservation of the existing buffer
removes more than half the property acreage from use, the riparian area bisects the property in a
manner that renders it undevelopable, and therefore represents a financial hardship.
r The riparian area that is required to be maintained around the intermittent stream covers 1.05 of
the property's 1.87 acres that lie outside transportation corridor right-of-way/easements.
' Itemization of Acreages on Subject Parcel
Parcel Acreage (Total) 2.23 acres
Parcel Acreage (w/o NCDOT, Raleigh r-o-w) 1.87 acres
Page 1 of 9

Riparian Buffer Acreage 1.05 acres
Zone 1 Acreage 0.63 acres
Zone 2 Acreage 0.42 acres
Wetland Acreage 0.03 acres
Developable Acreage 0.82 acres
North of Riparian Buffer 0.40 acres
South of Riparian Buffer 0.42 acres
In total, the area of the riparian buffer results in a 57% loss in developable land, leaving only
0.82 acres unencumbered by the preserved riparian area. Furthermore, the manner in which
preserved riparian area runs through the property further decreases the usable acreage. The
attached plans demonstrate that the riparian area runs in an east-west direction, bisecting the
property. The result is a northern portion of the property that is unencumbered by the riparian
area that totals 0.40 acres and a similar southern portion of 0.42 acres. Because of the small size
of these areas design restrictions caused by topographic constraints, parking requirements,
ingress/egress, landscaping requirements, and property line and roadway setbacks, these small
pieces of land outside the riparian area are not usable from a development standpoint.
Development of a use that complies with the current zoning of I-1/0I-1 on these small parcels is
not practicable.
Therefore, because of the location of the riparian area relative to the referenced constraints,
preservation of the riparian buffer results in the loss of all practical development potential.
Therefore, the proposed project consists of removal of the buffer in its entirety on the subject
' parcel (Appendix 3, Figure 1), to be replaced by a storm water wetland that increases pollutant
removal effectiveness for not just the subject parcel but also for the entire drainage area
(including already-developed adjacent lands that have no similar storm water quality controls)
(Appendix 3, Figure 2).
An intermediate development alternative, consisting of the development of half the site, was
evaluated. Placement of a building on the upslope end of the subject parcel, with required
parking resulting in a development of half the size of the proposed activity, would result in the
elimination all but approximately 60 linear feet of ephemeral stream channel and associated
riparian buffer (see Appendix 3, Figure 3), due to slope stabilization and grade separation of
existing transportation thoroughfares (see Appendix 3, Figure 4). Pollutant removal
effectiveness of buffer preservation in this intermediate alternative would be reduced to less than
4%, and is therefore considered impractical.
The nearby land costs of office space (the most likely use on the subject parcel) are
approximately $12 to $14 per square foot (from property owner, and verified independently by
David Fowlkes, Broker, Carolantic Realty, April 2001). Multiplied by the size of this property,
the realized hardship as a result of strict application of Rule .0233 is potentially $982,713 to
' $1,146,499.

Page 2 of 9

Conditions Unique to the Subject Property
The current buffer does not provide adequate nutrient treatment for the majority of the
surrounding land use. The situation surrounding this property is unique in regards to the
maintenance of the riparian buffer and the consequent effect on water quality protection.
Upslope, Sunday Drive drains directly into the ephemeral stream that bisects the property via a
drop-box/culvert drainage system. The majority of adjacent built-upon impervious surfaces
(including Edwards Mill and Trinity Roads) drain into a roadside ditch network that enters the
1 stream on the subject parcel at the down-slope end of the subject parcel. The stream then enters
back into a culvert under both Edwards Mill Road and a newly constructed gas station, and then
empties directly into Richland Creek via a riprap spillway immediately upstream of the Trinity
Road crossing of Richland Creek. Based upon physical inspection of the surface drainage
patterns that presently exist, the effective area treated by the existing buffer is slightly over 3
acres, approximately one acre of which is the buffer itself. Therefore, the current buffer does not
provide adequate nutrient treatment for the majority of adjacent land uses.
Upstream of the subject parcel, the stormwater drainage from the 12.2-acre site at the top of the
1 watershed currently bypasses the subject parcel and discharges directly into Richland Creek
downstream of the Trinity-Edwards Mill intersection. This stormwater does not pass through the
buffer surrounding this intermittent stream and consequently receives minimal nitrogen
treatment.
The property west of and adjacent to the subject property (Parcel 3) is maintained in grass cover
and has no forested buffer. The runoff from this site is directed into the stream on the subject
parcel through a culvert and therefore does not receive any nutrient removal treatment from the
riparian buffer. In total, 17.75 acres of this watershed upstream of the subject parcel do not
receive nutrient treatment via sheetflow through a riparian buffer.
Downstream of the subject parcel, the development of Edwards Mill Road and a parcel on the
southeast quadrant of the Trinity-Edwards Mill intersection has resulted in the removal of
approximately 0.75 acres of riparian buffer surrounding this intermittent stream. Additionally,
approximately 325 feet of the stream has been placed in a culvert from the upstream edge of the
Edwards Mill Road grade down to the edge of the City of Raleigh Greenway Easement along the
west side of Richland Creek. Approximately 2.8 acres of this portion of the watershed
downstream of the subject parcel do not receive nutrient treatment via sheetflow through a
riparian buffer.
Furthermore, the conditions on this site are unique because the riparian buffer is not consistent
throughout the stream. Of the approximately 25.19 acres within this watershed, only 4.65 acres
receive nitrogen removal treatment via intact, forested riparian buffer and 0.5 of those acres
occur within a FEMA floodplain around Richland Creek. This equates to 19% of the watershed
' that receives nitrogen treatment under the current land uses. The value of the buffer on the
subject parcel, which is the only riparian area in this sub-watershed, is impaired because of this
isolation. This riparian area is not part of a naturally functioning stream system in terms of
stream flow of nutrient removal.

Page 3 of 9

1

t

Proposed Water Quality Protection
The water quality protection measures are proposed specifically to treat the water quality
protection shortcomings that have been outlined in the section above. Whereas the current
nutrient treatment capacity of the forested riparian area is bypassed by the current development
patterns, the proposed treatment alternatives will rectify that problem. Where the intact buffer
does not have the capacity to treat the nutrients present in the current developed condition, the
proposed treatment alternative will provide ample treatment. And whereas the current riparian
condition will likely degrade over time with hydrologic changes to this intermittent stream
resulting from continued urban development, the proposed alternative will be a monitored and
maintained structure that will protect Richland Creek from stormwater-induced degradation.
Land is available downslope of the subject parcel's watershed for use as a large, "regional"
stormwater and nutrient treatment wetland best management practice. This land is located on the
Raleigh Entertainment and Sports Arena (ESA) property, near the northeast quadrant of the
Trinity-Edwards Mill Road intersection. Specifically, this land is east of Richland Creek, north
of Trinity Road and south of the "Entrance E" road into the ESA (see figure 2).
Current Water Quality Protection
The current total nitrogen loading through the stream that exists on the subject property can be
calculated according to nitrogen export coefficients for different land uses put forth by the State
of North Carolina in the "Neuse River Basin: Model Stormwater Program for Nitrogen Control."
This document also includes best management practice (bmp) total nitrogen treatment
percentages. Combining these two calculations provides the estimated amount of total nitrogen
leaving a particular area after treatment by specific bmps. These calculations are tabulated (See
Table 1) below.
Current Total Nitrogen Load
The subject parcel drainage currently consists of 2.23 acres. This is broken down into 1.88 acres
of undisturbed vegetation and 0.35 acres of impervious surface. Employing the State's nitrogen
export coefficients, this land use results in a total nitrogen load from this site of 3.83
pounds/acre/year. A 1.92-acre portion of the developed property to the south (Parcel 2) also
drains through the subject property. With 80% impervious surface on this property, an additional
nitrogen load of 17.24 pounds/acre/year flows through the subject parcel.
Page 4 of 9

I

s

1

Table 1.
Current Total Nitrogen Loads (Pre-Dev. Subject Parcel and Parcel 3, Post-Dev. Parcel 2)
Land Coi,er /I rea (acres) Total N F-vport Total N Evl)ort Total N Load
Subject Parcel
Undisturbed 1.88 0.6 1.13
Impervious 0.3 5 21.2 7.42
Subtotal 2.23 8.54 3.83
Parcel 2
Managed 0.38 1.2 0.46
Impervious 1.54 21.2 32.65
Subtotal 1.92 33.11 17.24
Parcel 3
Managed 4.78 1.2 5.74
Impervious 0.76 21.2 16.11
Subtotal 5.54 21.85 3.94
Totals 9.69 Acres 63.50 lb/yr 6.55 lb/ac/yr
An additional undeveloped parcel to the west (Parcel 3) also drains under the subject parcel's
existing roadway and into the stream on the subject parcel. Because of the existing
roadway/culvert, drainage from this property does not receive nitrogen removal treatment from
the intact riparian buffer. The additional load from this undeveloped parcel is 3.94
pounds/acre/year.
Current Total Nitrogen Treatment
Of the three parcels in this particular watershed that drain to the stream on the subject parcel, a
portion receives nitrogen removal treatment by the existing buffer, and a portion bypasses that
buffer. Drainage from the subject property, and the portion of Parcel 2 which lie in this
watershed, are directed through the buffer. The total nitrogen load from this area is 5.08
pounds/acre/year. Employing the 30% total nitrogen removal rate promulgated by the State for
intact riparian buffers nutrient treatment effectiveness, the total nitrogen load treated from this
area is 1.52 pounds/acre/year. Therefore, the riparian buffer exports 3.56 pounds of
nitrogen/acre/year. Multiplying this rate by the acreage receiving nitrogen treatment, the total
nitrogen load treated by the riparian buffer is 6.31 pounds/year, the amount not receiving
treatment and transferred into the Neuse River Basin is 14.77 pounds/year, and the nitrogen
treatment efficiency is 30%.
As the undeveloped Parcel 3 does not benefit from the treatment potential of the riparian buffer,
an additional nitrogen load is added to the load presented by the Subject Parcel and Parcel 1.
That addition is 3.94 pounds/acre/year from the undeveloped Parcel 3. The total nitrogen
exported from the subject property increases to 7.50 pounds/acre/year. 6.31 pounds/year are still
Page 5 of 9

1
I

treated, but the amount not receiving treatment rises to 72.68 pounds/year, which, because the
intact buffer is so small relative to the watershed, reduces the treatment efficiency to 8%.
If Parcel 3 were developed, the total nitrogen load imported into the subject parcel, even with
nutrient control bmps in compliance with the "Neuse Stormwater Rule," could increase to 13.56
pounds/acre/year (3.56 from the Subject Parcel and Parcel 2 and 10 from Parcel 3. The total
load, leaving the downstream end of the subject parcel, would be 131.4 pounds/year. The
treatment efficiency of the existing riparian buffer would potentially be 4.5% for the portion of
this watershed draining through the stream with the intact riparian buffer.
In summary, the watershed, which currently drains through the stream on the subject parcel, does
not treat the nitrogen inputs to that stream in an effective manner. The treatment efficiency
afforded by the maintenance of the riparian buffer is just 8% due to the upstream inputs that do
not receive treatment from the buffer. If this upstream property were developed, as currently
planned and in compliance with the Neuse Stormwater Rule (bringing nitrogen export from the
site to 10 pounds/acre/year), the treatment efficiency of this riparian area would decrease to just
4.5% with the riparian area treating just 6.31 pounds of Nitrogen per year.
Proposed Water Quality Protection
The construction of a series of stormwater wetland best management practices according to the
specifications set forth in the State's Stormwater Best Management Practice Manual will treat
significantly more nitrogen than can be treated by the existing riparian buffer. The structures
will be designed to provide nutrient treatment and stormwater detention for all three
contributing parcels and will assume that all three parcels are fully developed at 80%
impervious surface. As these bmp structures will be located on a floodplain (that seldom
experiences flooding due to the depth to which the stream has downcut), no damming of any
stream or impact to any additional riparian area will need to occur to provide this treatment.
Furthermore, the best management practices will be located in close proximity to a City of
Raleigh Greenway, providing the opportunity for additional public education on the values of
stormwater control. Two best management practices will be employed in series to provide
nitrogen treatment. In order, these bmps will be an extended detention stormwater wetland that
flows into a 50-foot wide riparian buffer prior to the treated water re-entering Richland Creek.
At a fully developed state, the nitrogen exported from these three parcels (9.69 acres) equates to
17.2 pounds/acre/year or 167 pounds/year (see Table 2). The stormwater wetland will occupy
0.47 acres (designed to contain the 1-year, 24-hour storm per the "Neuse River Basin: Model
Stormwater Program for Nitrogen Control"). At the State-documented treatment efficiency of
40%, the wetland would remove nitrogen at a rate of 6.88 pounds/acre/year. This would bring
the nitrogen export from the three parcels to10.32 pounds/acre/year (100 pounds/year), treating
67 pounds of nitrogen per year. The addition of this bmp will provide over a 10-fold increase in
the amount of nitrogen treated by this watershed in a developed state.
Page 6 of 9

' Table 2.
Potential, Post-Development Total Nitrogen Loads
Land
rarcea
Managed 0.45 1.2 .54
Impervious 1.78 21.2 37.75
Subtotal 2.23 38.29 17.17
Parcel 2
Managed 0.38 1.2 0.46
Impervious 1.54 21.2 32.65
Subtotal 1.92 33.11 17.24
Parcel 3
Managed 1.11 1.2 1.33
Impervious 4.43 21.2 93.92
Subtotal 5.54 95.25 17.19
Totals 9.69 Acres 166.65 lblYr 17.2 Ib/ac/Yy r
' The additional flow through the riparian buffer, which is documented with 30% treatment
efficiency, will treat an additional 3.1 pounds/acre/year. This additional treatment reduces the
nitrogen export rate to 7.22 pounds/acre/year (70 pounds/year), a total that is less than the 7.50
pounds/acre/year exported currently from the subject property with an intact riparian
buffer and an undeveloped Parcel 3.
The total amount of nitrogen removed prior to entering the Neuse River Basin proper through the
implementation of these two nutrient and stormwater control best management practices has
been increased to 97 pounds/year, a 15-fold increase. This brings a net nitrogen treatment
efficiency of 58%.
Additionally, it is assumed that property owners in this drainage basin will have to contribute to
the Wetland Restoration Program an in-lieu fee to bring the total nitrogen export down to 3.6
pounds/acre/year. For the subject parcel, this contribution would amount to $2,664. For the
remainder of the watershed, the fee would calculate to $8,910.
In summary, the best management practices proposed herein to provide nutrient control, for a
fully developed watershed, supply a higher rate of nitrogen treatment, a decreased rate of
nitrogen input to Richland Creek, and the consequent exponentially higher load of nitrogen
treated than is currently present in the partially developed watershed (See Table 3). The intact
riparian buffer treats 1.52 pounds/acre/year of nitrogen. The proposed best management
practices will treat 13.62 pounds/acre/year of nitrogen. This results in a nitrogen export rate that
is currently 7.50 pounds/acre/year in a watershed that is 27% impervious being reduced to a rate
of 7.22 pounds/acre/year in a watershed that is 80% impervious. The amount of nitrogen
Page 7 of 9

' currently treated is 6.31 pounds/year with a treatment efficiency of 8%, and this efficiency could
decrease to 4.5% if Parcel 3 is developed. The proposed practices would treat 96.65 pounds/year
at an efficiency of 58%.

Table 3.
Comparison of Nitrogen Treatment Currently/Without Variance vs. Proposed/With
Variance

Area Draining Through Stream In Current/Without Variance Proposed/With
Variance
Subject Parcel (acres) 9.69 9.69
Total Nitrogen Treatment Rate
(pounds/acre/year) 1.52 13.62
Total Nitrogen Treated
(pounds/year) 6.31 96.65
Total Nitrogen Exported To
Richland Creek (pounds/year) * 72.68 -131.4 70
Treatment Efficiency * 8%-4.5% 58%
* second figure relates to potential increases exported nitrogen and alteration of treatment
efficiency, within the scope of the Neuse Rules, if Parcel 3 is developed
Conclusions
' The development of the subject parcel is not possible with strict adherence to the "Neuse Buffer
Rule" (15 NCAC .0233). DENR DWQ has determined that an intermittent stream exists on this
property. The headwaters of this stream are on the subject parcel, and the stream is confined
within a culvert downstream of the subject parcel. In essence this parcel contains a "riparian
island." The riparian area that is currently intact on the subject parcel encompasses all but 0.82
acres. This "developable" acreage is split, with 0.42 acres lying adjacent to Trinity Road and
' 0.40 acres lying adjacent to Parcel 2. With mandated property setbacks and the need for
vehicular access, there is essentially nothing that can be developed.
' The hardship created the inability to develop this property is very substantial. This is a prime
development parcel, lying on the corner of two major thoroughfares, and quickly becoming
surrounded by other successful enterprises. Independent developers, both of which have
' developed similar projects in the immediate area estimated that this property would be worth
between $12 and $14 per square foot or somewhere close to $1,000,000. Strict adherence to the
"Neuse Buffer Rule" renders impossible the realization of this property's development potential.
However, allowing the nutrient and stormwater treatment to be carried out at an off-site location
would permit the parcel to be developed and with a regional water quality benefit.
' The installation of the proposed best management practices would provide nutrient treatment and
stormwater detention not only for the subject parcel, but for the entire watershed that currently
drains to the intermittent stream on the subject parcel. Currently 72.68 pounds of nitrogen/year
Page 8 of 9

t

I

run into Richland Creek from this drainage area. If Parcel 3 were developed, this figure could
rise to 131.4 pounds of nitrogen/year and still be in compliance with the Neuse Stormwater Rule.
If the proposed best management practices were installed, the total nitrogen introduced to
Richland Creek from this drainage area would be reduced to 70 pounds/year. Additionally, the
nitrogen treatment efficiency is improved by 50% in instituting these bmps.
The stated purpose of the Neuse River Nutrient Sensitive Watershed Rules is to reduce nitrogen
inputs to the Neuse River. While preserving riparian buffers is an essential part of this process,
there are situations, especially in rapidly urbanizing environments, where a regional treatment
alternative provides more efficient nitrogen removal while still maintaining economic vitality.
This major variance request demonstrates that, employing NCDENR Division of Water Quality-
approved treatment mechanisms with creative land planning, environmental protection can be
enhanced along with the economic growth that is a result of new development.
Page 9 of 9
u

11

1 ?

1 i
1

1
73
o ?il?a I2QL
B
0
I ? fLAR!D?W,?
? ?,ooo P1
44

aL ? `? '? N

z r ? ?

J
W W
E

w

8 ?
lp
ti
j??

is

0

O
cf-
r-
L

Inventory
Date Num

1
J

L

A6,50 CA wk 5
6/19/01
Page 1
Cir Amount
Register Report by Category
1/1/94 Through 4/30/01
Description
Memo
Category
INFLOWS
Trinity WCC
2/4/99
TOTAL Trinity WCC
Uncategorized Inflows
12/31/97
TOTAL Uncategorized Inflows
AP
12/31/95 record accounts payable 3000 +600
TOTAL FROM AP
Trinity WCC
[AP]
1,710,723.17
1,710,723.17
637, 922.91
637,922.91
3.600.00
3,600.00
CCB Ch.. .
8/12/97 GeoTechnologies Past Due Amounts [CCB Checking] 1,646.72
8/12/97 Blue Ridge Site Development Invoice # 1418 [CCB Checking] 7,670.00
8/12/97 Ragsdale, Liggett & Foley Invoices 7760, 7863, 8044 [CCB Checking] 1,611.50
8/12/97 Walia Law Firm July - Dec 96 Fees [CCB Checking] 1,500.00
8/12/97 Blackmon & Associates Est. #10 [CCB Checking] 14,560.30
8/28/97 Check Order Fee [CCB Checking] 65.32
8/29/97 Blackmon & Associates Est. #11 [CCB Checking] 34,136.29
8/29/97 Blue Ridge Site Development Invoice # 1419 [CCB Checking] 15,600.00
8/29/97 Lauren Rahill Interest Reimburse [CCB Checking] 5.57
8/29/97 Wake County Map Recording [CCB Checking] 21.00
9/2/97 Duncan-Parnell Mylar Copies [CCB Checking] 28.78
924/97 State of N.C. LLC Filing Fee [CCB Checking] 200.00
924/97 N.C. Department of Transp... Stoplight Redesign [CCB Checking] 10,000.00
10/1/97 Rice & Associates CCP_EdwardsMill.008 &.0... [CCB Checking] 1,585.00
10/9/97 Blue Ridge Site Development Invoices 1446 & 1460 [CCB Checking] 11,749.30
10/9/97 Tom Rahill Reimburse for map recording [CCB Checking] 30.00
10/9/97 Riley Surveying 9-11-97 Invoice [CCB Checking] 502.15
10/16/97 Kinko's Color Copies [CCB Checking] 314.82
11/5/97 Blue Ridge Site Development 1465 (partial) [CCB Checking] 20,000.00
11/5/97 City of Raleigh Grading Permit [CCB Checking] 190.00
11/6/97 Blue Ridge Site Development 1465 (balance) [CCB Checking] 30,590.00
11/12/97 Kinko's Color Copies [CCB Checking] 314.82
1/8/98 Ragsdale, Liggett & Foley 11-21-97 Statement [CCB Checking] 868.61
1/8/98 Rice & Associates CCP_EdwardsMill.010 & 011 [CCB Checking] 2,215.00
1/8/98 Warren, Perry & Anthony Title Insurance Premium [CCB Checking] 1,438.00
1/8/98 Riley Surveying 10-31-97 Invoice [CCB Checking] 974.18
2/5/98 Blue Ridge Site Development 1478 & 1479 [CCB Checking] 29,664.12
2/9/98 Triangle Lawn Care [CCB Checking] 1,500.00
2/17/98 Erie Insurance Group 98 Premium [CCB Checking] 1,140.00
224/98 Triangle Lawn Care 2-24-98 Invoice [CCB Checking) 1,651.00
224/98 Soil & Environmental Cons... Invoice 5866 [CCB Checking] 260.00
225/98 Triangle Lawn Care 2-25-98 Invoice [CCB Checking] 4,680.00
225/98 Blackmon & Associates Est. #12 [CCB Checking] 5,527.26
3/11/98 General Concrete Invoice 4281 [CCB Checking] 1,435.00
42/98 Triangle Lawn Care [CCB Checking] 600.00
4/9/98 Blue Ridge Site Development Invoice 1508 [CCB Checking] 10,450.00
4/14/98 Wake County Revenue De... 97 Property taxes [CCB Checking] 6,343.75
4/14/98 Soil & Environmental Cons... Invoice 5764 [CCB Checking] 650.00
422/98 Riley Surveying 4-9-98 Invoice [CCB Checking] 3,277.94
429/98 Jewell Engineering Invoice 98-017 [CCB Checking] 2,138.31
5!1/98 Gilleece & Associates Invoices 1764 & 1750 [CCB Checking] 1,115.00
520/98 Triangle Lawn Care 4-13 & 5-18 Invoices [CCB Checking] 1,540.00
Inventory

L

I

rte,
I?

Register Report by Category
1/1/94 Through 4/30/01
6/19/01
Page 2
Date Num Description
6/15/98 Womble, Carlyle, Sandridg.
7/9/98 Triangle Lawn Care
7/9/98 Triangle Lawn Care
7/9/98 City of Raleigh
7/27/98 Triangle Lawn Care
TOTAL FROM CCB Checking
CCB Lo...
Retainer for Neuse Basin R..
7-3 Invoice
7-3 Invoice
Grading Permit
7-3 Invoice
Category
[CCB Checking]
[CCB Checking]
[CCB Checking]
[CCB Checking]
[CCB Checking]
Cir Amount
5,000.00
2,890.00
0.00
0.00
1,059.00
238,738.74
8/5/97 Origination Fee [CCB Loan] 8,531.25
8/5/97 Bass Corp. Appraisal Fee [CCB Loan] 1,500.00
8/5/97 Warren, Perry & Anthony Loan Closing [CCB Loan] 600.00
8/5/97 Warren, Perry & Anthony Express Mail Fee [CCB Loan] 10.00
8/5/97 Recording Fees [CCB Loan] 20.00
8/5/97 Filing Fee - Wake Co. [CCB Loan] 8.00
8/5/97 Filing Fee - Sec. of State [CCB Loan] 8.00
TOTAL FROM CCB Loan 10,677.25
Centura
9/6/96
10/9/96
10/28/96
11/5/96
11/8/96
12/4/96
12/13/96
12/20/96
1/9/97
1/13/97
1/13/97
1/15/97
1/17/97
1/17/97
2/5/97
4/11/97
4/11/97
4/16/97
4/16/97
4/16/97
4/16/97
4/16/97
4/16/97
4/16/97
4/16/97
4/21/97
5/1/97
5/13/97
7/10/98
7/10/98
7/21/98
7/21/98
7/21/98
7121/98
727/98
9/3/98
9/16/98
925/98
925/98
10/6/98
10/6/98
Loan Fee
R-Com, Inc.
Ron Biggers
GeoTechnologies
R-Com, Inc.
Blue Ridge Site Development
R-Com, Inc.
Blue Ridge Site Development
Thomas C. Worth
Ballentine & Riley Surveyors
Blue Ridge Site Development
R-Com, Inc.
Blue Ridge Site Development
Ron Biggers
Gilleece & Assoc.
Lawyer's Title of NC
The Raleigh Pre-School
Signs, Etc.
Rice & Associates
Ragsdale, Liggett & Foley
Ballentine & Riley Surveyors
Gilleece & Assoc.
Blackmon & Associates
R-Com, Inc.
Ballentine & Riley Surveyors
General Concrete
Bill Cozart
Rice & Associates
Rea Construction
Centura Bank
Ragsdale, Liggett & Foley
Triangle Lawn Care
David Wilson Grading
Womble, Carlyle, Sandridg...
Rice & Associates
GeoTechnologies
Riley Surveying
City of Raleigh
City of Raleigh
Ragsdale, Liggett & Foley
Rice & Associates
Memo
Estimate #5
Const. Mgt. 9-13 & 10-8
1-96-1531
Part of Est. #6
Invoice #'s 1065 & 1068
Part of Est. #7
Invoice # 1070
Attorney
Oct., Nov., & Dec. Invoices
Invoice # 1067 & 1078
Balance of Est. #7
Invoice # 1077
Const. Mgt. 11-8-96
Invoice #'s 1295, 1332, 1392
Escrow for paving
Settlement Agreement
Invoice 13795
CCP_EdwardsMill.002 &.0...
Invoices 7760, 7863, 8044
Dec., Jan. & Feb.
Invoice 1441
Retainage Est. #8
Estimate #9
Gilleece 1398,1419,1442
Invoice 4051
Aerial Photo Reimburse
CCP_EdwardsMill.004
R0056027
Loan Fee
6-25-98 Statement
7-14 Invoice
Grading 2 Ac. lot
Bill # 272323
CCP_EdwardsMill.012, .01...
1-98-0614 & 1-98-1025
9-11-98 Invoice
Subdivision Recording
As Builts recording
9-29-98 Statement
CCP_EdwardsMill.016, .01...
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura)
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura)
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura)
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
2,500.00
130,740.70
7,095.02
797.76
66,601.21
12,225.00
11, 000.00
4,887.50
551.25
11,816.10
12, 838.75
14, 931.45
9,047.69
3,338.56
1,740.00
60, 000.00
60, 000.00
561.80
1.300.00
2,309.12
870.50
2,962.50
707.69
2,645.00
2,939.10
365.50
111.55
4,695.00
89,149.84
2,500.00
4,653.93
1,440.00
35,249.50
0.00
2,480.00
1,618.45
1,831.10
0.00
0.00
1,772.87
6,239.08

Inventory 6/19101
Register Report by Category
1/1/94 Through 4/30/01
Page 3
D
t Descri
tion
N Memo Category Clr Amount
a
e p
um
' 11/17/98
11/18/98 GeoTechnologies
Centura Bank 1-98-1305
UC Fee [Centura]
[Centura] 256.00
1,912.00
11/19/98 Blackmon & Associates Invoice U-205 [Centura] 750.00
11/19/98 David Wilson Grading 9-28-98 Invoice [Centura] 2,878.00
11/19/98 Soil & Environmental Cons... Invoice 6411 [Centura] 122.50
12/15/98 Rice & Associates CCP EdwardsMill.018, .01... [Centura] 7,910.00
12/21/98 Gilleece & Associates Invoice 1929 [Centura] 2,697.00
12/28/98 Wake County Revenue De... 98 Property taxes - Lot 1 [Centura] 4,181.10
1228/98 Wake County Revenue De... 98 Property taxes - Tract 5 [Centura] 2,028.18
1228198 Ragsdale, Liggett & Foley Invoice # 11088 [Centura] 4,483.75
1r7/99 Gilleece & Associates Invoice 1989 [Centura] 927.50
1/9/99 Erin Gardner Reimbursement for map re... [Centura] 56.00
1/11/99 Carolinian Landscape Invoice 381 [Centura] 2,825.00
' 2/19/99 Rice & Associates CCP_ EdwardsMill.020,.02... [Centura] 2,829.04
322/99 Rice & Associates CCP_ EdwardsMill.022 [Centura] 220.00
325/99 Riley Surveying 11-21-98 & 11-30-98 Invoic... [Centura] 2,796.69
4/19/99 Blue Ridge Site Development Invoice # 1595 [Centura] 4,875.00
4/19/99 Rice & Associates Trinity Sewer.004 & .006 [Centura] 445.00
4/19199 Erie Insurance Group [Centura] 789.00
7/12/99 Womble Carlyle Sandridge ... 287501, 295635 295878, 3.. . [Centura] 6,209.47
722/99 Warren, Perry & Anthony 7-13-99 Invoice [Centura] 75.00
728/99 Loan Fee Origination Fee on Line ext... [Centura] 1,250.00
9/14/99 Rice & Associates Trinity Sewer .004 &.006 [Centura] 607.50
9/14/99 Ragsdale, Liggett & Foley 629/99 Statement [Centura] 1,292.41
1020/99 L/C Renewal Fee [Centura] 1,912.00
11/17/99 Rice & Associates Trinity Sewer.004 &.006 [Centura] 3,910.00
223/00 NC Department Of Revenue [Centura] 2,264.38
223/00 NC Department Of Revenue [Centura] 1,041.93
1 224/00 Ragsdale, Liggett & Foley 1/11/00 Statement [Centura] 536.50
224/00 P,ice & Associates Trinity_NRBB.002 [Centura] 1,585.00
228/00 Erie Insurance Group Insurance Premium [Centura] 808.00
32100
324/00 NSF Fee
UC Renewal Fee [Centura]
[Centura] 27.00
900.00
329/00 Rice & Associates Trin4_NRBB.003 Trinity_.. [Centura] 2,762.50
329/00 S.T. Wooten Reference # 990716 [Centura] 9,100.00
5/10/00
5/10/00 TerraTech Engineering
Rice & Associates Invoice 5435
Trinity_Wide.004 [Centura]
[Centura] 520.00
1,232.50
5/10/00 Ragsdale, Liggett & Foley 2/25/00 Statement [Centura] 434.54
7/11/00 Carolinian Landscape Invoice 540 [Centura] 2,860.00
7/11/00 Blackmon & Associates Balance due on sewer line [Centura] 3,187.76
7/14/00 S.T. Wooten July 5 Statement [Centura] 71,223.20
9/13/00 Rice & Associates [Centura] 1,380.00
9/13/00 Ragsdale, Liggett & Foley 7/17/00 Statement [Centura] 512.78
1025/00 S.T. Wooten Sept. 5 2000 Statement [Centura] 2,500.00
1025/00 Rice & Associates [Centura] 1,847.50
1211/00 Womble Carlyle Sandridge ... [Centura] 774.50
1227/00 Wake County Revenue Dept. 99 real estate taxes [Centura] 3,966.41
122/01 Rice & Associates Trinity_NRBB.007 [Centura] 1,585.00
122/01 Womble Carlyle Sandridge ... [Centura] 0.00
4/6/01 NC Secretary Of State LLC Fee - 1999 (Centura] 200.00
4/6/01 NIC Secretary Of State LLC Fee - 2000 [Centura] 200.00
4/12/01 Spangler Environmental Invoices 1528 & 1551 [Centura] 3,687.95
' 4/12/01 Erie Insurance Group Liability policy [Centura] 808.00
4/12/01 Doug Swanek Tax Prep. [Centura] 650.00
TOTAL FROM Centura 751,347.11
' Deposit
12/31/00 [Deposit] 28,200.00
' TOTAL FROM Deposit 28,200.00
Ir
L?
' Inventory
i Date Num

First Citi...
1

1

1
[1,

2/22/96
2/23/96
2/23/96
2/28/96
3/4/96
3/4/96
3/12/96
3/12/96
3/18/96
3/20/96
3/20/96
3/27/96
4/2/96
4/3/96
4/3/96
4/16/96
4/23/96
4/23/96
4/29/96
5/6/96
5/8/96
5/10/96
5/13/96
5/15/96
5/23/96
5/30/96
6/3/96
6/6/96
6/6/96
6/6/96
6/7/96
6/10/96
6/17/96
6/18/96
6/18/96
6/24/96
7/1/96
7/1/96
7/1/96
7/1/96
7/3/96
7/3/96
7/9/96
7/9/96
7/16/96
7/16/96
7/16/96
7/26/96
8/9/96
8/19/96
8/19/96
8/28/96
9/9/96
9/11/96
9/11/96
9/12/96
9/23/96
9/25/96
10/3/96
Description
Hatch, Little & Bunn
City of Raleigh
Wake County Register of D...
Irvin A. Staton, RLS
Dept. of Secretary of State
Ballentine & Riley Surveyors
Gilleece & Assoc.
Soil & Environmental Cons...
Lat Purser & Assoc.
City of Raleigh
City of Raleigh
Erie Insurance Group
Stephen R. Madden
Charles Elam & Assoc.
Gilleece & Assoc.
Gilleece & Assoc.
City of Raleigh
Hatch, Little & Bunn
Birch Appraisal Group
Walia Law Firm
N.C. Department of Transp...
Blue Ridge Site Development
"'VOID-City of Raleigh
Bill Cozart
Gilleece & Assoc.
Ballentine & Riley Surveyors
City of Raleigh
J. Bobby Currin & Sons
Rice & Associates
Irvin A. Staton, RLS
J. Bobby Currin & Sons
City of Raleigh
Stephen R. Madden
Wake County Register of D...
Wake County Register of D...
Bill Cozart
Erie Insurance Group
Gilleece & Assoc.
CAC I Inc.
Gilleece & Assoc.
Blue Ridge Site Development
R-Com, Inc.
P-Com, Inc.
Blackmon & Associates
Erie Insurance Group
Geo Technologies
Balientine & Riley Surveyors
R-Co m, Inc.
Blue Ridge Site Development
Gilieece & Assoc.
First Citizens Bank
Office Depot
P,-Com, inc.
Blue Ridge Site Development
Pon Biggers
Duncan Parnell
INI.C. Secretary of State
GeoTechnologies
AiphaGraphics
Register Report by Category
1/1/94 Through 4/30/01
Memo
Escrow for Stephen Madden
Map Recording
Map Recording
Feb. 22 Invoice
Cert. of Ex. copies
Flagging Ed. Mill
Invoice # 1104
Invoice # 3504
Referral Fee - Raleigh School
Financial Responsibility form
Grading Permit
Insurance Premium
Timber Money
Invoice # 960331
Invoice # 1100
Invoice # 1135
Flood Permit
Madden's Legal Fees
Balance on Appraisal
Sorority Offer work
Culvert Extension Estimate
Invoice # 1024
Trees cut from greenway
Reimburse for aerial photos
Invoice # 1159
Trees cut from greenway
2/3 of Invoice # 01952
Hotel & Retail sketches
5/16 & 6/5 Invoices
Balance of Invoice # 01952
Balance of Legal Fees
Greenway Deed Recording
Greenway Map Recording
Reimbursement for photo c
Extra Insurance Premium
Invoice # 1181
Demographic Reports
Invoice # 1187
Invoice # 1031
Part of Estimate #1
Estimate #2
Headwalls
Extra Insurance Premium
1-96-1116
24June & 09July Invoices
Estimate #3 12" Pipe Mat. .
Invoice # 1034 & 1035
Invoice #'s 1227 & 1253
UC Renewal Fee
Mktg. Packages
Estimate #4
Invoice #'s 1044 & 1049
Const. Mgt. 9-10-96
Site Plan copies
LLC Filing Fee
1-96-1323
Flyer Printing
Category
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens)
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens)
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens)
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens)
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens)
(First Citizens)
[First Citzens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
6/19/01
Page 4
Clr Amount
R
5,000.00
50.00
40.00
1,634.00
10.00
2,193.10
2,260.00
195.00
3,000.00
482.00
690.00
991.00
350.00
724.51
5,400.00
1,404.00
34.00
1,542.31
600.00
1,077.50
16,600.00
17,804.50
0.00
100.00
7,186.00
6,049.85
1,820.00
12,000.00
250.00
1,017.00
6,000.00
30.00
315.03
14.00
40.00
99.75
9.00
1,976.95
358.00
5,100.00
40,250.00
21, 884.88
4,700.40
14, 000.00
23.00
736.80
4,356.00
8,960.00
21,252.30
1,426.70
1,500.00
69.64
86,992.21
16, 561.76
4,010.74
19.08
200.00
833.40
188.68

' Inventory

ate
Register Report by Category
1/1/94 Through 4/30/01

Num Description Memo Category 6/19/01

Page 5
Clr Amount
10/11/96 Ballentine & Riley Surveyors 28 Aug. Invoice [First Citizens] 4,316.40
' 10/14/96 Gilleece & Assoc. Invoice #'s 1281 &1282 [First Citizens] 2,416.00
11/18/96 UC Renewal Fee [First Citizens] 350.00
12/19/96 UC Renewal Fee [First Citizens] 350.00
1/21/97 UC Renewal Fee (First Citizens] 700.00
2/13/97 Rea Construction Invoice [First Citizens] 85,378.44
2/13/97 General Concrete Invoice 4040 (First Citizens] 19,280.15
2/13/97 Ron Biggers Const. Mgt. 1-27-97 [First Citizens] 4,999.71
2/13/97 Warren, Perry & Anthony Loan Closing [First Citizens] 393.00
' 2/13/97 First Citizens Bank Loan Origination & Flood C... [First Citizens] 1,020.00
2/14/97 Erie Insurance Group Insurance Premium [First Citizens] 1;120.00
2/18/97 Rice & Associates CCP_ EdwardsMill.001 [First Citizens] 730.00
2/19/97 Ragsdale, Liggett & Foley Invoice 7578 [First Citizens] 811.75
2/19/97 Doug Swanek, CPA 96 Returns [First Citizens] 1,550.00
2/20/97 Blackmon & Associates Estimate #8 1-14-97 [First Citizens] 13,446.11
3/17/97 R-Com, Inc. Retainage-Invoices 1-7 [First Citizens) 18,200.57
3/18/97 L/C Renewal Fee [First Citizens] 350.00
3/18/97 General Concrete Invoice 4040 [First Citizens] 7;349.50
6/6/97 Rea Construction Invoice #55354 [First Citizens] 22,134.10
7/3/97 Rice & Associates CCP EdwardsMill.005 &.0 ... [First Citizens] 4,340.00
7/15/97 Triangle Lawn Care Seeding [First Citizens] 4,460.00
7/15/97 Ballentine & Riley Surveyors Sewer Plats Trc. 5 & Outfall... (First Citizens] 2,561.85
7/15/97 Gilleece & Assoc. 1511 & 1512 [First Citizens] 1,007.00
7/15/97 Rice &. Associates CCP
EdwardsMill.007 [First Citizens] 970.00
7/17/97 David Hall _
Rendering [First Citizens] 1,500.00
7/25/97 David Hall Copies of Rendering [First Citizens] 808.00
TOTAL FROM First Citizens 532,955.67
I Interest
12/31/98 [Interest] 107,161.47
' 2/3/99
12/31/99 [Interest]
[Interest) 15,623.58
20, 538.49
12/31/00 (Interest] 6,614.72
TOTAL FROM Interest 149,938.26
I Loan C
5/17/95 Kinko's Color Copies of Aerial #1 [Loan Cozart] 29.70
5/22/95 Duncan Parnell Copies Trinity & Deacons [Loan Cozart] 36.57
' 6/12/95 Mailboxes Etc. UPS Earnest Money [Loan Cozart] 14.95
6/20/95 Mid-Atlantic Associates Phase One Environmental [Loan Cozart] 1,200.00
6/20/95 Universal Printing Color Copies of Aerial #2 (Loan Cozart] 15.74
6/21/95 Universal Printing Color Copies of Aerial #2 [Loan Cozart] 9.90
7/4/95 Young, Moore & Henderson Clark Brewer - Advice [Loan Cozart] 157.50
TOTAL FROM Loan Cozart 1,464.36
NR C&G
12/31/98 (NR C&G] 9,000.00
TOTAL FROM NR C&G 9,000.00
' Raleigh ...
7/13/95 Envirotek Invoice # 1 TREMR [Raleigh Fed.] 5,658.72
8/28/95 Envirotek Invoice # 2 TREMR [Raleigh Fed.] 3,387.05
9/12/95 N.C. Secretary of State LLC Filing Fee [Raleigh Fed.] 200.00
10/11/95 Envirotek Invoice #4 TREMR (Raleigh Fed.] 2,029.72
10116/95 Duncan Parnell Site Plan copies [Raleigh Fed.] 25.44
10/19/95 Envirotek Invoice #3 TREMR [Raleigh Fed.] 2,857.87
10/26/95 Irvin A. Staton, RLS Survey [Raleigh Fed.] 2,700.00
Inventory
I Date Num Description
OUTFLOWS
LAND COST
2/4/99 S Sale To Principal Financial
11/16/95
12/5/95 Irvin A. Staton, RLS
Envirotek Balance on Survey
Invoice #5 TREMR
12/14/95 The News & Observer Classified Ad
12/14/95 Charles Elam & Assoc. Land Planning
12118/95
12/21/95 Envirotek
Birch Appraisal Group Invoice #6 TREMR
One half of appraisal
1/10/96 Gilleece & Assoc. Invoice 1035 Flood Study
2!7/96 Irvin A. Staton, RLS Feb. 1 Invoice
2/9/96 Charles Elam & Assoc. Invoice # 960153
' 2/9/96 Gilleece & Assoc. Invoice # 1036
2/12/96 Soil & Environmental Cons... Invoice # 3366
2/13/96 Envirotek Invoice #7 TREMR
TOTAL FROM Raleigh Fed.
Bal Fwd-Inventory
1/1/94 Opening Balance
2/22/96 S Settlement Charges on Pur... Loan Fees
Appraisal
Attorney's Fees
Title Insurance
Recording Fees
2/22/96 S Settlement Charges on Sales Rev. Stamps - Rai. School
Rev. Stamps - C & G
Attorney Fees
2/22/96 Land Purchase
2/22/96 C & G Sale $150,000 Note to Trinity
2122/96 Raleigh School Sale
1/6/97 S Sorority Closing Charges Sales Commission
Title Exam-Warren, Perry
County Recording Fees
Revenues Stamps
Wyne Recording Fees
Survey-ESP Assoc.
1996 Ad Valorem Tax
Doc. Prep.-Wyne
TOTAL TO Inventory

TOTAL INFLOWS

1

Memo
Category Clr
[Raleigh Fed.]
[Raleigh Fed.]
[Raleigh Fed.]
[Raleigh Fed.]
(Raleigh Fed.]
[Raleigh Fed.]
[Raleigh Fed.]
[Raleigh Fed.]
[Raleigh Fed.]
[Raleigh Fed.]
[Raleigh Fed.)
[Raleigh Fed.]
[Inventory]
[Inventory)
[Inventory]
[Inventory]
[Inventory]
[Inventory]
[Inventory]
[Inventory]
[Inventory]
[Inventory]
[Inventory)
[Inventory]
[inventory]
[Inventory)
[Inventory]
[Inventory]
[Inventory]
[inventory]
[Inventory]
[lnventoryj
Slope easement fee to Mad... LAND COST
Real Estate Commissions t... LAND COST
Ragsdale, Liggett & Foley f... LAND COST
Revenue Stamps LAND COST
2/5/99 7.013/13.02*1634523.5 LAND COST
12/31/00 LAND COST
TOTAL LAND COST
Uncategorized Outflows
2122/96 S Settlement Charges on Pur...
1/6/97 S Sorority Closing Balance Adjustment
TOTAL Uncategorized Outflows
AP
Register Report by Category
1/1/94 Through 4/30/01
6/19/01
Page 6
Amount
6,000.00
1,365.43
222.37
1,325.84
254.26
600.00
3,000.00
2,263.00
8,461.00
8,460.00
1,170.00
339.36
50,320.06
0.00
82000.00
600.00
1,250.00
1,622.00
46.00
1,000.00
1,200.00
35.00
1, 321, 999.00
-450,000.00
-550,000.00
13,750.00
325.00
24.00
1,100.00
28.00
1,500.00
18,803.78
480.00
371,762.78
-40,000.00
-90,536.16
-3,200.00
-3,422.00
-880,408.09
-571.069.25
-1,588,635.50
0.00
-36,050.99
-36,050.39
112/31/98 [AP] -14,160.00
TOTAL TO AP -14,160.00

L'

t

r

v

a
t
t
t
::'iY: is

e
M
r

z "..

t

N
0 150
75 50 25 0 25 50 75
SCALE: 1"= 75'

?F

Ot'Apr n ,

1

!
1
\

I+
,
1' ' \.I 1 3 1 1
1 1
t .; I
I I I ? ii '/

\
1 ? 1 ? I
I '
' .i? ? tlr#t
L I It l i

IF ?a
j . ' Assuming o.47 Acre Surface Area
extended detention Stormwater
wetland designed to control
the 1yr precipitation event
it Ili
Shallow Mamhe/Fdnge (0.17 A)
.3758 Average Depth
Plant Species C 2' Spacng
- Lobelia Cardinalls
- Hibiscus Mosheutos
- Panicum Vergatum
- Iris Virginia
tV"
Inlet / Outlet Pools (0.07 Alpool)
` aft Average Depth
Deep Marsh (0.17 A)
1.125ft Average Depth
Plant Species C 2ft Spacing
- Saurusres Cemuus
- Saggftarla latifoile
- Juncus effusus
- Plygonum sp
,
r: I
ap on

V
`ui r w.Vcawvmc os. nrawu
Suite #400
Poet Once Box 387
S PANG LER Rdelgk NC 27602-0387
ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. f0j Q1 8A6W4A
Stornawater Wetland Creation,
Raleigh, North Carolina
© 2001

mm M Mon M MM go r M m M M ON M" M
.............................. .

v
0
9
ao

9

1
t

t

I

Grin /t
Consideration of a Request for a Variance from the Neuse River
Riparian Area Protection Rule
Water Quality Committee Meeting
North Carolina Environmental Management Commission
July 11, 2001
A request has been received for the Water Quality Committee (WQC) to grant a variance from
the Neuse River Riparian Area Protection Requirements (15A NCAC 2B .0233) for a commercial
development project to be located on the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Trinity Road
and Edwards Mill Road, Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina. The parcel is approximately
2.23 acres in size. The applicant, Trinity Associates c/o Mr. Tom Rahill, is proposing to pipe and
fill approximately 435 linear feet of stream channel and associated riparian buffers of an unnamed
tributary of Richland Creek (C NSW).
Trinity Associates is proposing an extended detention wetland to control stormwater run-off from
9.69 acres including the 2.23-acre subject parcel. In addition to the extended detention wetland,
Trinity Associates is proposing buffer mitigation to compensate for the loss of the 45,738 ft2 of
protected riparian buffer. Trinity Associates will also provide off-set nitrogen payments to the
NC Wetlands Restoration Program for increases in annual nitrogen loading from the site beyond
the minimum 3.61b/ac/yr.
Recommendations:
1. The Division Staff do not believe that Trinity Associates' request has me all of the
requirements [(identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233(9)(a)] for grantirivariance.
Specifically, the 2.23-acre subject property was subdivided from an original, larger tract of ;
land on January 1, 1999 (after the effective date of the rules) in a manner that made the
property not buildable as proposed without the approval of this variance. Therefore, the
Division Staff believe that Trinity Associates have brought this hardship on themselves and
are not eligible for a variance from the rules. ?
2. The Division Staff believe, if the variance request is deemed to be eligible by the
Commission, that Trinity Associates are proposing sufficient nitrogen removing stormwater
controls to compensate for the loss of the nutrient removal functions of the impacted buffers.
A final stormwater management plan must be approved by the Division prior to construction.
3. The Division Staff believe, if the variance request is deemed to be eligible by the
Commission, that Trinity Associates are providing sufficient buffer mitigation for the
proposed impacts. This mitigation must be provided prior to construction.
4. The Division Staff believe, if the variance request is deemed to be eligible by the
Commission, that Trinity Associates must provide the required off-set nitrogen payments to
the Wetlands Restoration Program prior to construction.
The Division Staff recommends the denial of Trinity Associates' variance request, because
of the items identified in part 1 of this recommendation.
O?O? W A T ?9pG
Stipulated Facts
Major Variance Request
Neuse River Riparian Area Protection Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0233)
Water Quality Committee Meeting
NC Environmental Management Commission
July 11, 2001
Applicant: Trinity Associates, LLC; c/o Mr. Tom Rahill
Project Name: Trinity Road Variance Request
DWQ Project No.: 01-0677
County: Wake
[Trinity Associates, LLC (c/o Mr. Tom Rahill), Spangler Environmental (c/o Mr. Jim Spangler), Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) 401 Certification Unit and DWQ Raleigh Regional Office (RRO) staff have reviewed
this document and agree to the best of their knowledge that the stipulated facts presented below are
accurate.]
1) Trinity Associates, LLC owns the 2.23-acre subject parcel located on the southwest corner of Trinity
Road and Edwards Mill Road, Raleigh, Wake County, NC.
2) The parcel size, excluding the NC DOT right-of-way, equals 1.87 acres.
3) The subject parcel was subdivided from its original parcel on January 1, 1999 [after the effective date
(July 22, 1997) of the buffer rules].
4) A conceptual master plan and financial records, including proof of payments and site plan
applications/grading plan/permit fees to the City of Raleigh for the development of the subject parcel
and surrounding original transaction parcels date back prior to the effective date of the buffer rules.
5) The subject parcel contains 435 linear feet of stream subject to the buffer rules (15A NCAC 2B .0233)
as confirmed by DWQ-RRO staff on 10/29/98.
6) The subject parcel contains 45,738 square feet (27,443 square feet of Zone 1 and 18,295 square feet
of Zone 2) of protected buffers pursuant to 15A NCAC 2B .0233.
7) Strict application of the buffer rules would constitute a 57% loss of developable acreage. Property
bisection by the buffer leaves disconnected, "undevelopable" (given design constraints) areas of 0.42
and 0.40 acres in an 0-1 Zoning District. This constitutes a loss in potential revenue for the
developer.
8) Trinity Associates, LLC will construct an extended detention wetland approved by DWQ to treat 9.69
acres including the 2.23-acre subject parcel if the Major Variance is approved.
9) Trinity Associates, LLC will pay into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund per 15A NCAC 2B.0242 for
impacts to the 45,738 square feet of bufffers if the Major Variance is approved. The area of mitigation
required for this impact per 15A NCAC 2B .0242 is 109,772 square feet.
10) Trinity Associates, LLC will make an off-set nitrogen payment to the NC Wetlands Restoration
Program for annual nitrogen loading rates greater than 3.6 Ibs/ac/yr as required by the City of Raleigh
Stormwater Requirements and 15A NCAC 2B .0235 if the Major Variance is approved.
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Kerr T. Stevens
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwet]ands/
f9
SPANGLER
ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
LETTER OFTRANSMITTAL
Date: June 26, 2001
Company Name: NCDWQ c/o Bob Zarzecki
Project Number/Name: Trinity Road / 200102040
From: Jim Spangler RE: Variance Package
WE ARE SENDING YOU:
X Attached Under Separate Cover via
Shop Drawings Specifications X Reports
Prints _ Change Order Reproducibles
Plans Computer Disk Samples
COPIES DATE DESCRIPTION
?22 6/22/01 Variance Request Package
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
_X-For approval Approved as submitted Resubmit Copies for Approval
For your use Approved as noted Submit _ --Copies for Distribut.
_X As requested Return for corrections Return Corrected Prints
For review & comment FOR BIDS DUE Other
COMMENTS:
SIGNED: CC:
Land Planning • Permitting • Environmental Consulting* Construction Management* Expert Testimony
Post Office Box 387 Raleigh, NC 27602-0387 tel: [phone] fax: [phone] www.Spangler-SEI.com
SPANG LER
ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
Major Variance Request Package
Under 15A NCAC.0233
' For Buffer Impacts to Unnamed Tributary of
Richland Creek near the intersection of Trinity and
Edwards Mill Roads
For
Trinity Associates
' c/o Mr. Tom Rahill, Manager
PO Box 1354
Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480
For Review by North Carolina Environmental Management Commission
Water Quality Committee
' JulY, 2001

Prepared By:
Spangler Environmental, Inc. --
Jig} S ler c I burger
'resident roject Manager

Land Planning • Permitting • Environmental Consulting* Construction Management* Expert Testimony
Post Office Box 387 Raleigh, NC 27602-0387 tel: [phone] fax: [phone] www.Spangler-SEI.com

II
['I

I OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Received Request # _ ___,, ___
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Variance Request Form
Neuse River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy
Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rule (15A NCAC.0233)
NOTE: This form may be photocopied for use as an original.
Part 1: General Information
1. Applicant's name (the corporation, individual, etc. who owns the project):
Trinity Associates c/o Tom Rahill
2. Print Owner/Signing Official (person legally responsible for the facility and its compliance)
Name: Trinity Associates, ILL ;:Tom Rahill
Title: Manager
Street address: PO Box 1354
City, State, Zip: Wrightsville Beach, .____
Telephone: ( 910 ) 256-9918
Fax: ( 910 ) 256-0100_
3. Project Name (Subdivision, facility, or establishment name - consistent with project name on
plans, specifications, letters, operation and maintenance agreements, etc.):
4. Location of Facility
Street address: Trinity
City, State, Zip: Raleigh, INC, 2760
County: Wake
Latitude/longitude:
5. Directions to facility from nearest major intersection (Also attach a map):
Southwest Quadrant of intersection of Trinity Road and Edwards Mill Road 6. Contact person who can answer questions about the facility:
Name: Same as above_____
Telephone:
Fax:._
Email:
7. Requested Environmental Management Commission Hearing Date: July 2001 -

Version 1: September 1998

Part 2: Demonstration of Need for a Variance
' NOTE: The variance provision of the Neuse Riparian Area Rule allows the Environmental Management
Commission to grant a variance to an affected party when the following conditions apply on a given project:
(a) practical difficulties or hardships would result from strict application of the rule:
(b) such difficulties or hardships result from conditios which are peculiar to the property involved; and
(c) the general purpose and intent of the Rule would be preserved, water quality would be protected and
substantial justice would be done if the variance were granted.
This part of the application is to explain how the project meets criteria (a) and (b).

1. Attach a detailed description (2-3 pages) explaining the following: Attached
• The practical difficulties or hardships that would result from strict application of the Rule.
• How these difficulties or hardships result from conditions that are unique to the property
involved.
• Why reconfiguring and/or reducing the built-upon area to preserve a greater portion of the
' riparian area is not feasible on this project. If economic hardship is the major
consideration, then include a specific explanation of the economic hardship and the
proportion of the hardship to the entire value of the project.
i
' Part 3: Water Quality Protection
NOTE: This part of the application is to explain how the project meets criterion (c): the general purpose and
intent of the Rule would be preserved, water quality would be protected and substantial justice would be done if
the variance were granted.
1. Briefly summarize how water quality will be protected on this project. Also attach a detailed
narrative (1-2 pages) describing the nonstructural and structural measures that will be used for
protecting water quality and reducing nitrogen inputs to surface water.
PROPOSED PROJECT INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF STORMWATER WETLAND BY
PROPONENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH RICHLAND CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
BEING DONE BY JOINT EFFORT OF CENTENNIAL AUTHORITY AND NC WETLAND
RESTORATION PROGRAM. CONSTRUCTION OF PROPOSED STORMWATER WETLAND IS
NOT CONTINGENT UPON STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT CONSTRUCTION. PROPOSED
WETLAND WILL TREAT ENTIRE DRAINAGE BASIN THAT PRESENTLY DRAINS TO THE
SUBJECT PARCEL, NOT JUST THE SUBJECT SITE. WATER QUALITY TREATMENT WILL BE
INCREASED FROM THE EXISTING (WITH BUFFER) CONDITION OF 8% EFFICIENCY, TO 58%
NITROGEN REMOVAL EFFICIENCY VIA THE STORMWATER WETLAND. SEE ATTACHED
TEXT FOR MORE DETAILED DISCUSSION.

2. What is the total project area in acres? __ 2.23 Acres
' 3. Which of the following permits/approvals will be required for this project?
CAMA Major
X_ Sediment/Erosion Control
__X__401 Certification/404 Permit
Variance Request Form, page 2
Version 1: September 1998

I Part 3: Water Quality Protection, continued
4. Complete the following information for each drainage basin. If there are more than two
drainage basins in the project, attach an additional sheet with the information for each basin
provided in the same format as below.

Project Information Drainage Basin 1 Drainage Basin 2
Receiving stream name Un-named intermittent to
ephemeral tributary of
Richland Creek
Receiving stream class' C NSW
Drainage basin area (total') 9.69 acres
Existing impervious area3 (total') 1.89 ac. (entire basin)
Proposed impervious area3 (total') 7.47 ac. (full build-out of
entire basin); 3.39 ac.
(existing plus proposed
project site only)
Impervious area3 (on-site) 15% of subject site
(current)
Impervious area3 (total') 19% (current)
Impervious area3 Drainage basin 1 Drainage basin 2
On-site buildings 0.34 (15,000 sq. ft.)
On-site streets 0.51
On-site parking 0.58
On-site sidewalks 0.07
Other on-site 0
Total on-site 1.5
Off-site 5.97
Total 7.47
' The internet site for this information is http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/strmclass/alpha/neu.html
2 Total means on-site plus off-site area that drains through the project.
3 Impervious area is defined as the built-upon area including, but not limited to, buildings, parking areas,
sidewalks, gravel areas, etc.
' 5. How was the off-site impervious area listed above derived?
Prediction of future development and field verification of existing development and
Raleigh Code of Ordinance regulations
' 6. What will be the annual nitrogen load contributed by this site after development in pounds per
acre per year without structural BMPs (stormwater pond, wetland, infiltration basin, etc)?
Attach a detailed plan for all proposed structural stormwater BMPs.

Drainage Size of Post-development BMP nitrogen Final nitrogen Final nitrogen
basin drainage nitrogen loading rate removal loading rate loading from
basin without BMPs° efficiency5 (Ibs/ac/yr) drainage basin
(ac) (Ibs/ac/yr) (%) (Ibs)
1 9.69 17.2 58% 7.22 70
Totals 9.69 ------ ------ ----- 70
4 Attach calculations and references.
5 Attach calculations and references.
Variance Request Form, page 3
Version 1: September 1998
04/27/2001 10:56 9195460757 SPANGLER ENVIRONMENT PAGE Flt
Part 3: Water Quality Protection, continued
' 7, The applicable supplemental form(s) listed below must be attached for each BMP specified:
Form SWU-102 Wet Detention Basin Supplement
Form SWU-103
Form SWU-105 Infiltration Basin Supplement
Curb Outlet System Supplement
Form SWU-106 Off-Site System Supplement
Form SWU-107 Underground Infiltration Trench Supplement
Form SWU-109 Innovative BMPs Supplement
Part 4: Submitta l Checklist
A complete appplication submittal consists of the following components. Incomplete submittals will
be returned to the applicant. The complete variance request submittal must be received 90 days
prior to the EMC meeting at which you wish the request to be heard. Initial below to indicate that
the necessary information has been provided.
Applicant's Item
Initials
Original and two copies of the variance Request Form and the attachments
listed below.
-
r A vicinity map of the project (see Part 1, Item 5)
_
_ Narrative demonstration of the need for a variance (see Part 2)

a ....w. A detailed narrative description of stormwater treatment/management (see Part
' 3, Item 1)
Calculations supporting nitrogen loading estimates (see Part 3, Item 6)
• Calculations and references supporting nitrogen removal from proposed 8MPs
(see Part 3, Item 6)
• Location and details fnr all proposed structural stormwater BMPs (see Part 3,
Item 6)
- Three copies of the applicable Supplement Form(s) for each BMP and/or
' narrative for each innovative BMP (see Part 3, Item 7)
• Three copies of plans and specifications, including:
0 Development/Project name
o Engineer and firm
0 Legend and north arrow
0 Scale 0" = 100' or 1" = 50' is preferred)
^ 0 Revision number & date
o Mean high water line (if applicable)
0 Dimensioned property/project boundary
0 Location map with named streets or NC State Road numbers
0 Original contours, proposed contours, spot elevations, finished floor
elevations
o Details of roads
arkin
cul-de-sacs
sidewalks
utter
and curb and
,
g,
,
g
, p
w ._.__.J... _._ 0 Footprint of any proposed buildings or other structures
0 Wetlands delineated, or a note on plans that none exist
o Existing drainage (including off-site), drainage easements, pipe sizes, runoff

+
w
_ calculations
o Drainage basins delineated
G Perennial and intermittent streams, ponds, lakes, rivers and estuaries
0 Location of forest vegetation along the streams, ponds, lakes, rivers and
estuaries
variance Request Form, page 4
Version 1: September 199 8

04/27/2001 10:56 9195460757 SPANGLER ENVIRONMENT PAGE 03
Part 5: Deed Restrictions
By your signature in Part 7 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 6: 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)-, Spangler Environmental, Inc.
Mailing address. PO Box 387
City, State, Zip: Raleigh, NC, 27602
Telephone: [phone].
Fax: [phone] W
Email: sec inclbellsouth.net

' Part 7: Applicant's Certification
I, . Mr. Tom Rahill (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:
Date:
Title.

Variance Request Form, page 5
version 1: September 1996

1

F1
L
Part 2: Demonstration of Need for a Variance
Planning for the development of the subject site, located in the southwest quadrant of the
intersection of Trinity Road and Edwards Mill Road in Raleigh, NC, was begun in 1995, and
master planning was completed for the area, including the Raleigh Entertainment and Sports
Arena, in 1996. Property transactions of over 100 acres, including the purchase of the subject
parcel, based upon the understanding of the buyers (current owner: Trinity Associates) and
sellers that development of the site was possible, occurred in 1995. Subsequent to the purchase
of the property, various sales transactions and subdivisions of the property have occurred
following the master plan that was completed in 1996. Development of the overall master plan
area, including rezoning, subdivision of parcels, permitting, and construction, was begun in 1995
and continues through the present time. Master plans and financial records, including proof
of payments and site plan application/grading plan/permit fees to the City of Raleigh for
the development of the subject parcel and surrounding original transaction parcels datin
back to prior to the effective date of the rules is included as Appendix 1.
The development of this 2.23-acre parcel (see attached site and location maps, Appendix 2)
cannot be realized with strict compliance to the Neuse Riparian Area Protection Rule (15 NCAC
.0233). However, the plans and information contained herein will demonstrate that, with the
approval of the variance request, greater water quality protection will be realized for this parcel.
In fact, enhanced water quality protection will be demonstrated for the entire drainage
basin of this project, above and beyond what is currently required for compliance with the
Neuse Rules, specifically Rule .0235 pertaining to on-site nitrogen treatment.
It should be noted that this proposed project is part of a series of regional watershed restoration
measures currently being planned in this portion of the Richland Creek Basin of the Neuse River
Watershed. The proposed storm water wetland is being planned in concert-with stream bank and
riparian restoration between Trinity and Edwards Mill Roads and in-stream restoration in the
' same area, conducted by the Centennial Authority and North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program, respectively. The areas proposed for restoration and water quality enhancement
structure development are adjacent to a City of Raleigh Greenway, which affords a concentrated
area to demonstrate to the public the benefits of different types of watershed and regional
environmental planning and restoration.
Practical Difficulties Due To Strict Application of Rule .0233
The strict application of the riparian area protection rule will result in practical difficulties in
achieving the intended and zoned use of this parcel. The preservation of the existing buffer
removes more than half the property acreage from use, the riparian area bisects the property in a
manner that renders it undevelopable, and therefore represents a financial hardship.
! The riparian area that is required to be maintained around the intermittent stream covers 1.05 of
the property's 1.87 acres that lie outside transportation corridor right-of-way/easements.
Itemization of Acreages on Subject Parcel
Parcel Acreage (Total) 2.23 acres
Parcel Acreage (w/o NCDOT, Raleigh r-o-w) 1.87 acres
I Page I of 9

1
Riparian Buffer Acreage 1.05 acres
' Zone 1 Acreage 0.63 acres
Zone 2 Acreage 0.42 acres
Wetland Acreage 0.03 acres

Developable Acreage 0.82 acres
North of Riparian Buffer 0.40 acres
t South of Riparian Buffer 0.42 acres
In total, the area of the riparian buffer results in a 57% loss in developable land, leaving only
0.82 acres unencumbered by the preserved riparian area. Furthermore, the manner in which
preserved riparian area runs through the property further decreases the usable acreage. The
attached plans demonstrate that the riparian area runs in an east-west direction, bisecting the
property. The result is a northern portion of the property that is unencumbered by the riparian
area that totals 0.40 acres and a similar southern portion of 0.42 acres. Because of the small size
of these areas design restrictions caused by topographic constraints, parking requirements,
ingress/egress, landscaping requirements, and property line and roadway setbacks, these small
pieces of land outside the riparian area are not usable from a development standpoint.
' Development of a use that complies with the current zoning of I-1/0I-1 on these small parcels is
not practicable.
s
Therefore, because of the location of the riparian area relative to the referenced constraint,
preservation of the riparian buffer results in the loss of all practical development potential.
Therefore, the proposed project consists of removal of the buffer in its entirety on the subject
parcel (Appendix 3, Figure 1), to be replaced by a storm water wetland that increases pollutant
removal effectiveness for not just the subject parcel but also for the entire drainage area
(including already-developed adjacent lands that have no similar storm water quality controls)
(Appendix 3, Figure 2).
An intermediate development alternative, consisting of the development of half the site, was
evaluated. Placement of a building on the upslope end of the subject parcel, with required
parking resulting in a development of half the size of the proposed activity, would result in the
elimination all but approximately 60 linear feet of ephemeral stream channel and associated
riparian buffer (see Appendix 3, Figure 3), due to slope stabilization and grade separation of
existing transportation thoroughfares (see Appendix 3, Figure 4). Pollutant removal
effectiveness of buffer preservation in this intermediate alternative would be reduced to less than
4%, and is therefore considered impractical.
The nearby land costs of office space (the most likely use on the subject parcel) are
approximately $12 to $14 per square foot (from property owner, and verified independently by
David Fowlkes, Broker, Carolantic Realty, April 2001). Multiplied by the size of this property,
the realized hardship as a result of strict application of Rule .0233 is potentially $982,713 to
$1,146,499.
s
Page 2 of 9

r

F1

Conditions Unique to the Subject Property
The current buffer does not provide adequate nutrient treatment for the majority of the
surrounding land use. The situation surrounding this property is unique in regards to the
maintenance of the riparian buffer and the consequent effect on water quality protection.
Upslope, Sunday Drive drains directly into the ephemeral stream that bisects the property via a
drop-box/culvert drainage system. The majority of adjacent built-upon impervious surfaces
(including Edwards Mill and Trinity Roads) drain into a roadside ditch network that enters the
stream on the subject parcel at the down-slope end of the subject parcel. The stream then enters
back into a culvert under both Edwards Mill Road and a newly constructed gas station, and then
empties directly into Richland Creek via a riprap spillway immediately upstream of the Trinity
Road crossing of Richland Creek. Based upon physical inspection of the surface drainage
patterns that presently exist, the effective area treated by the existing buffer is slightly over 3
acres, approximately one acre of which is the buffer itself. Therefore, the current buffer does not
provide adequate nutrient treatment for the majority of adjacent land uses.
Upstream of the subject parcel, the stormwater drainage from the 12.2-acre site at the top of the
watershed currently bypasses the subject parcel and discharges directly into Richland Creek
downstream of the Trinity-Edwards Mill intersection. This stormwater does not pass through the
buffer surrounding this intermittent stream and consequently receives minimal nitrogen
treatment.
The property west of and adjacent to the subject property (Parcel 3) is maintained in grass cover
and has no forested buffer. The runoff from this site is directed into the stream on the subject
parcel through a culvert and therefore does not receive any nutrient removal treatment from the
riparian buffer. In total, 17.75 acres of this watershed upstream of the subject parcel do not
receive nutrient treatment via sheetflow through a riparian buffer.
Downstream of the subject parcel, the development of Edwards Mill Road and a parcel on the
southeast quadrant of the Trinity-Edwards Mill intersection has resulted in the removal of
approximately 0.75 acres of riparian buffer surrounding this intermittent stream. Additionally,
approximately 325 feet of the stream has been placed in a culvert from the upstream edge of the
Edwards Mill Road grade down to the edge of the City of Raleigh Greenway Easement along the
west side of Richland Creek. Approximately 2.8 acres of this portion of the watershed
downstream of the subject parcel do not receive nutrient treatment via sheetflow through a
riparian buffer.
Furthermore, the conditions on this site are unique because the riparian buffer is not consistent
throughout the stream. Of the approximately 25.19 acres within this watershed, only 4.65 acres
receive nitrogen removal treatment via intact, forested riparian buffer and 0.5 of those acres
occur within a FEMA floodplain around Richland Creek. This equates to 19% of the watershed
that receives nitrogen treatment under the current land uses. The value of the buffer on the
subject parcel, which is the only riparian area in this sub-watershed, is impaired because of this
isolation. This riparian area is not part of a naturally functioning stream system in terms of
stream flow of nutrient removal.
Page 3 of 9

Proposed Water Quality Protection
The water quality protection measures are proposed specifically to treat the water quality
protection shortcomings that have been outlined in the section above. Whereas the current
nutrient treatment capacity of the forested riparian area is bypassed by the current development
patterns, the proposed treatment alternatives will rectify that problem. Where the intact buffer
does not have the capacity to treat the nutrients present in the current developed condition, the
proposed treatment alternative will provide ample treatment. And whereas the current riparian
' condition will likely degrade over time with hydrologic changes to this intermittent stream
resulting from continued urban development, the proposed alternative will be a monitored and
maintained structure that will protect Richland Creek from stormwater-induced degradation.
Land is available downslope of the subject parcel's watershed for use as a large, "regional"
stormwater and nutrient treatment wetland best management practice. This land is located on the
Raleigh Entertainment and Sports Arena (ESA) property, near the northeast quadrant of the
Trinity-Edwards Mill Road intersection. Specifically, this land is east of Richland Creek, north
of Trinity Road and south of the "Entrance E" road into the ESA (see figure 2).
I Current Water Quality Protection
The current total nitrogen loading through the stream that exists on the subject property can be
' calculated according to nitrogen export coefficients for different land uses put forth by the State
of North Carolina in the "Neuse River Basin: Model Stormwater Program for Nitrogen Control."
This document also includes best management practice (bmp) total nitrogen treatment
percentages. Combining these two calculations provides the estimated amount of total nitrogen
leaving a particular area after treatment by specific bmps. These calculations are tabulated (See
Table 1) below.
Current Total Nitrogen Load
The subject parcel drainage currently consists of 2.23 acres. This is broken down into 1.88 acres
of undisturbed vegetation and 0.35 acres of impervious surface. Employing the State's nitrogen
export coefficients, this land use results in a total nitrogen load from this site of 3.83
pounds/acre/year. A 1.92-acre portion of the developed property to the south (Parcel 2) also
drains through the subject property. With 80% impervious surface on this property, an additional
nitrogen load of 17.24 pounds/acre/year flows through the subject parcel.
i

Page 4 of 9

1
Table 1.
Current Total Nitrogen Loads (Pre-Dev. Subject Parcel and Parcel 3, Post-Dev. Parcel 2)
1 .,.
Subject Parcel
Undisturbed 1.88 0.6 1. )
Impervious 0.35 21.2 7.42
Subtotal 2.23 8.54 3.83
Parcel 2
Managed 0.38 1.2 0.46
Impervious 1.54 21.2 32.65
Subtotal 1.92 33.11 17.24
Parcel3
Managed 4.78 1.2 5.74
Impervious 0.76 21.2 16.11
Subtotal 5.54 21.85 3.94
Totals 9.69 Acres 63.501b/yr 6.55 Ib/ac/yr

An additional undeveloped parcel to the west (Parcel 3) also drains under the subject parcel's
existing roadway and into the stream on the subject parcel. Because of the existing
roadway/culvert, drainage from this property does not receive nitrogen removal treatment from
the intact riparian buffer. The additional load from this undeveloped parcel is 3.94
pounds/acre/year.
Current Total Nitrogen Treatment
Of the three parcels in this particular watershed that drain to the stream on the subject parcel, a
portion receives nitrogen removal treatment by the existing buffer, and a portion bypasses that
buffer. Drainage from the subject property, and the portion of Parcel 2 which lie in this
watershed, are directed through the buffer. The total nitrogen load from this area is 5.08
' pounds/acre/year. Employing the 30% total nitrogen removal rate promulgated by the State for
intact riparian buffers nutrient treatment effectiveness, the total nitrogen load treated from this
area is 1.52 pounds/acre/year. Therefore, the riparian buffer exports 3.56 pounds of
' nitrogen/acre/year. Multiplying this rate by the acreage receiving nitrogen treatment, the total
nitrogen load treated by the riparian buffer is 6.31 pounds/year, the amount not receiving
treatment and transferred into the Neuse River Basin is 14.77 pounds/year, and the nitrogen
' treatment efficiency is 30%.
As the undeveloped Parcel 3 does not benefit from the treatment potential of the riparian buffer,
an additional nitrogen load is added to the load presented by the Subject Parcel and Parcel 1.
That addition is 3.94 pounds/acre/year from the undeveloped Parcel 3. The total nitrogen
exported from the subject property increases to 7.50 pounds/acre/year. 6.31 pounds/year are still
Page 5 of 9

treated, but the amount not receiving treatment rises to 72.68 pounds/year, which, because the
intact buffer is so small relative to the watershed, reduces the treatment efficiency to 8%.
If Parcel 3 were developed, the total nitrogen load imported into the subject parcel, even with
nutrient control bmps in compliance with the "Neuse Stormwater Rule," could increase to 13.56
pounds/acre/year (3.56 from the Subject Parcel and Parcel 2 and 10 from Parcel 3. The total
load, leaving the downstream end of the subject parcel, would be 131.4 pounds/year. The
treatment efficiency of the existing riparian buffer would potentially be 4.5% for the portion of
this watershed draining through the stream with the intact riparian buffer.
In summary, the watershed, which currently drains through the stream on the subject parcel, does
not treat the nitrogen inputs to that stream in an effective manner. The treatment efficiency
afforded by the maintenance of the riparian buffer is just 8% due to the upstream inputs that do
not receive treatment from the buffer. If this upstream property were developed, as currently
planned and in compliance with the Neuse Stormwater Rule (bringing nitrogen export from the
site to 10 pounds/acre/year), the treatment efficiency of this riparian area would decrease to just
4.5% with the riparian area treating just 6.31 pounds of Nitrogen per year.
Proposed Water Quality Protection
The construction of a series of stormwater wetland best management practices according to the
specifications set forth in the State's Stormwater Best Management Practice Manual will treat
significantly more nitrogen than can be treated by the existing riparian buffer. The structures
will be designed to provide nutrient treatment and stormwater detention for all three
contributing parcels and will assume that all three parcels are fully developed at 80%
impervious surface. As these bmp structures will be located on a floodplain (that seldom
experiences flooding due to the depth to which the stream has downcut), no damming of any
stream or impact to any additional riparian area will need to occur to provide this treatment.
Furthermore, the best management practices will be located in close proximity to a City of
Raleigh Greenway, providing the opportunity for additional public education on the values of
stormwater control. Two best management practices will be employed in series to provide
nitrogen treatment. In order, these bmps will be an extended detention stormwater wetland that
flows into a 50-foot wide riparian buffer prior to the treated water re-entering Richland Creek.
At a fully developed state, the nitrogen exported from these three parcels (9.69 acres) equates to
17.2 pounds/acre/year or 167 pounds/year (see Table 2). The stormwater wetland will occupy
0.47 acres (designed to contain the 1-year, 24-hour storm per the "Neuse River Basin: Model
Stormwater Program for Nitrogen Control"). At the State-documented treatment efficiency of
40%, the wetland would remove nitrogen at a rate of 6.88 pounds/acre/year. This would bring
the nitrogen export from the three parcels to10.32 pounds/acre/year (100 pounds/year), treating
67 pounds of nitrogen per year. The addition of this bmp will provide over a 10-fold increase in
the amount of nitrogen treated by this watershed in a developed state.
Page 6 of 9

' Table 2.
Potential, Post-Development Total Nitrogen Loads
Land Cover Ilrea (acrt?v) Total N Export
1
Subject Parcel
Managed
0.45
1.2
.54
Impervious 1.78 21.2 37.75

' Subtotal
Parcel 2 2.23 38.29 17.17
Managed 0.38 1.2 0.46
Impervious 1.54 21.2 32.65
Subtotal 1.92 33.11 17.24
Parcel 3
Managed 1.11 12 1.33
Impervious 4.43 21.2 93.92
Subtotal 5.54 95.25 17.19

Totals 9.69 Acres 166.65 lb/yr 17.2 lb/ac/yr

The additional flow through the riparian buffer, which is documented with 30% treatment
efficiency, will treat an additional 3.1 pounds/acre/year. This additional treatment reduces the
nitrogen export rate to 7.22 pounds/acre/year (70 pounds/year), a total that is less than the 7.50
pounds/acre/year exported currently from the subject property with an intact riparian
buffer and an undeveloped Parcel 3.
1 The total amount of nitrogen removed prior to entering the Neuse River Basin proper through the
implementation of these two nutrient and stormwater control best management practices has
been increased to 97 pounds/year, a 15-fold increase. This brings a net nitrogen treatment
' efficiency of 58%.
Additionally, it is assumed that property owners in this drainage basin will have to contribute to
' the Wetland Restoration Program an in-lieu fee to bring the total nitrogen export down to 3.6
pounds/acre/year. For the subject parcel, this contribution would amount to $2,664. For the
remainder of the watershed, the fee would calculate to $8,910.
In summary, the best management practices proposed herein to provide nutrient control, for a
fully developed watershed, supply a higher rate of nitrogen treatment, a decreased rate of
nitrogen input to Richland Creek, and the consequent exponentially higher load of nitrogen
treated than is currently present in the partially developed watershed (See Table 3). The intact
riparian buffer treats 1.52 pounds/acre/year of nitrogen. The proposed best management
practices will treat 13.62 pounds/acre/year of nitrogen. This results in a nitrogen export rate that
is currently 7.50 pounds/acre/year in a watershed that is 27% impervious being reduced to a rate
of 7.22 pounds/acre/year in a watershed that is 80% impervious. The amount of nitrogen
' Page 7 of 9

' currently treated is 6.31 pounds/year with a treatment efficiency of 8%, and this efficiency could
decrease to 4.5% if Parcel 3 is developed. The proposed practices would treat 96.65 pounds/year
' at an efficiency of 58%.
L

Table 3.
Comparison of Nitrogen Treatment Currently/Without Variance vs. Proposed/With
Variance

Area Draining Through Stream In Current/Without Variance Proposed/With
Variance
Subject Parcel (acres) 9.69 9.69
Total Nitrogen Treatment Rate
(pounds/acre/year) 1.52 13.62
Total Nitrogen Treated
(pounds/year) 6.31 96.65
Total Nitrogen Exported To
Richland Creek (pounds/year) * 72.68 -131.4 70
Treatment Efficiency * 8%-4.5% 58%
* second figure relates to potential increases exported nitrogen and alteration of treatment
efficiency, within the scope of the Neuse Rules, if Parcel 3 is developed
Conclusions
The development of the subject parcel is not possible with strict adherence to the "Neuse Buffer
Rule" (15 NCAC .0233). DENR DWQ has determined that an intermittent stream exists on this
property. The headwaters of this stream are on the subject parcel, and the stream is confined
within a culvert downstream of the subject parcel. In essence this parcel contains a "riparian
island." The riparian area that is currently intact on the subject parcel encompasses all but 0.82
acres. This "developable" acreage is split, with 0.42 acres lying adjacent to Trinity Road and
0.40 acres lying adjacent to Parcel 2. With mandated property setbacks and the need for
vehicular access, there is essentially nothing that can be developed.
' The hardship created the inability to develop this property is very substantial. This is a prime
development parcel, lying on the corner of two major thoroughfares, and quickly becoming
surrounded by other successful enterprises. Independent developers, both of which have
developed similar projects in the immediate area estimated that this property would be worth
between $12 and $14 per square foot or somewhere close to $1,000,000. Strict adherence to the
"Neuse Buffer Rule" renders impossible the realization of this property's development potential.
' However, allowing the nutrient and stormwater treatment to be carried out at an off-site location
would permit the parcel to be developed and with a regional water quality benefit.
The installation of the proposed best management practices would provide nutrient treatment and
stormwater detention not only for the subject parcel, but for the entire watershed that currently
' drains to the intermittent stream on the subject parcel. Currently 72.68 pounds of nitrogen/year
Page 8 of 9

r

run into Richland Creek from this drainage area. If Parcel 3 were developed, this figure could
rise to 131.4 pounds of nitrogen/year and still be in compliance with the Neuse Stormwater Rule.
If the proposed best management practices were installed, the total nitrogen introduced to
Richland Creek from this drainage area would be reduced to 70 pounds/year. Additionally, the
nitrogen treatment efficiency is improved by 50% in instituting these bmps.
The stated purpose of the Neuse River Nutrient Sensitive Watershed Rules is to reduce nitrogen
inputs to the Neuse River. While preserving riparian buffers is an essential part of this process,
there are situations, especially in rapidly urbanizing environments, where a regional treatment
alternative provides more efficient nitrogen removal while still maintaining economic vitality.
This major variance request demonstrates that, employing NCDENR Division of Water Quality-
approved treatment mechanisms with creative land planning, environmental protection can be
enhanced along with the economic growth that is a result of new development.
Page 9 of 9

? I
? I
? I
? I
? I
I?

1-,-, )

s
a?
Q ? -`s
ZrI
r Z
L
w
I
tD
g ?

/

G_
pt;L
1 1 rrr.
z ?
?. s
o
Z
0
0 2
CD
L 1L 2 ?L e-
d M J d1 J
43
Q N- M -- N 0
n??b7d I r---- ......... -`
f 10A
I -A
3?b7 ?? ' `?`
IA?G ?.
-44 24L4
J

i
i
1
4

I Inventory
I Date Num

1

11

I

t

raw CA
G-
Description
INFLOWS
Trinity WCC
2/4/99
TOTAL Trinity WCC
Uncategorized Inflows
12/31/97
TOTAL Uncategorized Inflows
AP
Register Report by Category
111194 Through 4/30/01
Memo
Category
Trinity WCC
6/19/01
Page 1
Clr Amount
1,710,723.17
1,710,723.17
637,922.91
637,922.91
12/31/95 record accounts payable 3000+ 600 [AP] 3,600.00
TOTAL FROM AP 3,600.00
CCB Ch...
8/12/97 GeoTechnologies Past Due Amounts [CCB Checking) 1,646.72
8/12/97 Blue Ridge Site Development Invoice # 1418 [CCB Checking] 7,670.00
8/12/97 Ragsdale, Liggett & Foley Invoices 7760, 7863, 8044 [CCB Checking] 1,611.50
8/12/97 Walia Law Firm July - Dec 96 Fees [CCB Checking] 1,500.00
8/12/97 Blackmon & Associates Est. #10 [CCB Checking] 14,560.30
828/97 Check Order Fee [CCB Checking] 65.32
829/97 Blackmon & Associates Est. #11 [CCB Checking] 34,136.29
829/97 Blue Ridge Site Development Invoice # 1419 [CCB Checking] 15,600.00
829/97 Lauren Rahill Interest Reimburse [CCB Checking] 5.57
829/97 Wake County Map Recording [CCB Checking] 21.00
92/97 Duncan-Parnell Mylar Copies [CCB Checking] 28.78
924/97 State of N.C. LLC Filing Fee [CCB Checking] 200.00
924/97 N.C. Department of Transp... Stoplight Redesign [CCB Checking] 10,000.00
10/1/97 Rice & Associates CCP_EdwardsMill.008 &.0... [CCB Checking] 1,585.00
10/9/97 Blue Ridge Site Development Invoices 1446 & 1460 [CCB Checking] 11,749.30
10/9/97 Tom Rahill Reimburse for map recording [CCB Checking] 30.00
10/9/97 Riley Surveying 9-11-97 Invoice [CCB Checking] 502.15
10/16/97 Kinko's Color Copies [CCB Checking] 314.82
11/5/97 Blue Ridge Site Development 1465 (partial) [CCB Checking] 20,000.00
11/5/97 City of Raleigh Grading Permit [CCB Checking] 190.00
11/6/97 Blue Ridge Site Development 1465 (balance) [CCB Checking] 30,590.00
11/12/97 Kinko's Color Copies [CCB Checking] 314.82
1/8/98 Ragsdale, Liggett & Foley 11-21-97 Statement [CCB Checking] 868.61
118/98 Rice & Associates CCP_EdwardsMill.010 & 011 [CCB Checking] 2,215.00
1/8/98 Warren, Perry & Anthony Title Insurance Premium [CCB Checking] 1,438.00
1/8/98 Riley Surveying 10-31-97 Invoice [CCB Checking] 974.18
2/5/98 Blue Ridge Site Development 1478 & 1479 [CCB Checking) 29,664.12
2/9/98 Triangle Lawn Care [CCB Checking] 1,500.00
2/17/98 Erie Insurance Group 98 Premium (CCB Checking) 1,140.00
224/98 Triangle Lawn Care 2-24-98 Invoice [CCB Checking] 1,651.00
224/98 Soil & Environmental Cons... Invoice 5866 [CCB Checking] 260.00
225/98 Triangle Lawn Care 2-25-98 Invoice [CCB Checking] 4,680.00
225/98 Blackmon & Associates Est. #12 [CCB Checking] 5,527.26
3/11/98 General Concrete Invoice 4281 [CCB Checking] 1,435.00
42/98 Triangle Lawn Care [CCB Checking] 600.00
4/9/98 Blue Ridge Site Development Invoice 1508 [CCB Checking] 10,450.00
4/14/98 Wake County Revenue De... 97 Property taxes [CCB Checking] 6,343.75
4/14/98 Soil & Environmental Cons... Invoice 5764 [CCB Checking] 650.00
422/98 Riley Surveying 4-9-98 Invoice [CCB Checking) 3,277.94
429/98 Jewell Engineering Invoice 98-017 [CCB Checking] 2,138.31
5/7/98 Gilleece & Associates Invoices 1764 & 1750 [CCB Checking] 1,115.00
520/98 Triangle Lawn Care 4-13 & 5-18 Invoices [CCB Checking] 1,540.00
Inventory

Date Num Description
Register Report by Category
1/1/94 Through 4/30/01
Memo
6/15/98 Womble, Carlyle, Sandridg.
7/9/98 Triangle Lawn Care
7/9/98 Triangle Lawn Care
7/9/98 City of Raleigh
727/98 Triangle Lawn Care
TOTAL FROM CCB Checking

E

CCB Lo...
Retainer for Neuse Basin R
7-3 Invoice
7-3 Invoice
Grading Permit
7-3 Invoice
Category
[CCB Checking]
[CCB Checking]
[CCB Checking]
[CCB Checking]
[CCB Checking]
6/19/01
Page 2
Clr Amount
5,000.00
2,890.00
0.00
0.00
1,059.00
238,738.74
8/5/97 Origination Fee [CCB Loan] 8,531.25
8/5/97 Bass Corp. Appraisal Fee [CCB Loan] 1,500.00
8/5/97 Warren, Perry & Anthony Loan Closing [CCB Loan] 600.00
8/5/97 Warren, Perry & Anthony Express Mail Fee [CCB Loan] 10.00
8/5/97 Recording Fees [CCB Loan] 20.00
8/5/97 Filing Fee - Wake Co. [CCB Loan] 8.00
8/5/97 Filing Fee - Sec. of State [CCB Loan] 8.00
TOTAL FROM CCB Loan 10,677.25
Centura
9/6/96
10/9/96
1028/96
11/5/96
11/8/96
12/4/96
12/13/96
1220/96
1/9/97
1/13/97
1/13/97
1/15/97
1/17/97
1/17/97
2/5/97
4/11/97
4/11/97
4/16/97
4/16/97
4/16/97
4/16/97
4/16/97
4/16/97
4/16/97
4/16/97
4/21/97
5/1/97
5/13/97
7/10/98
7/10/98
7/21/98
7/21/98
7/21/98
7/21/98
727/98
9/3/98
9/16/98
925/98
925/98
10/6/98
10/6/98
Loan Fee
R-Com, Inc.
Ron Biggers
GeoTechnologies
R-Com, Inc.
Blue Ridge Site Development
R-Com, Inc.
Blue Ridge Site Development
Thomas C. Worth
Ballentine & Riley Surveyors
Blue Ridge Site Development
R-Com, Inc.
Blue Ridge Site Development
Ron Biggers
Gilleece & Assoc.
Lawyer's Title of NC
The Raleigh Pre-School
Signs, Etc.
Rice & Associates
Ragsdale, Liggett & Foley
Ballentine & Riley Surveyors
Gilleece & Assoc.
Blackmon & Associates
R-Com, Inc.
Ballentine & Riley Surveyors
General Concrete
Bill Cozart
Rice & Associates
Rea Construction
Centura Bank
Ragsdale, Liggett & Foley
Triangle Lawn Care
David Wilson Grading
Womble, Carlyle, Sandridg...
Rice & Associates
GeoTechnologies
Riley Surveying
City of Raleigh
City of Raleigh
Ragsdale, Liggett & Foley
Rice & Associates
Estimate #5
Const. Mgt. 9-13 & 10-8
1-96-1531
Part of Est. #6
Invoice #'s 1065 & 1068
Part of Est. #7
Invoice # 1070
Attorney
Oct., Nov., & Dec. Invoices
Invoice # 1067 & 1078
Balance of Est. #7
Invoice # 1077
Const. Mgt. 11-8-96
Invoice #'s 1295, 1332, 1392
Escrow for paving
Settlement Agreement
Invoice 13795
CCP_EdwardsMill.002 &.0...
Invoices 7760, 7863, 8044
Dec., Jan. & Feb.
Invoice 1441
Retainage Est. #8
Estimate #9
Gilleece 1398,1419,1442
Invoice 4051
Aerial Photo Reimburse
CCP_EdwardsMill.004
R0056027
Loan Fee
6-25-98 Statement
7-14 Invoice
Grading 2 Ac. lot
Bill # 272323
CCP_EdwardsMill.012, .01...
1-98-0614 & 1-98-1025
9-11-98 Invoice
Subdivision Recording
As Builts recording
9-29-98 Statement
CCP_EdwardsMill.016, .01...
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura)
[Centura)
[Centura)
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
2,500.00
130,740.70
7,095.02
797.76
66,601.21
12, 225.00
11,000.00
4,887.50
551.25
11,816.10
12, 838.75
14, 931.45
9,047.69
3,338.56
1,740.00
60, 000.00
60, 000.00
561.80
1.300.00
2,309.12
870.50
2,962.50
707.69
2,645.00
2,939.10
365.50
111.55
4,695.00
89,149.84
2,500.00
4,653.93
1,440.00
35,249.50
0.00
2,480.00
1,618.45
1,831.10
0.00
0.00
1,772.87
6,239.08

Inventory 6119/01
Register Report by Category
1/1/94 Through 4/30/01
Page 3
Date Num Description Memo Category Clr Amount
11/17/98 GeoTechnologies 1-98-1305 [Centura] 256.00
11/18/98 Centura Bank UC Fee [Centura] 1,912.00
11/19/98 Blackmon & Associates Invoice U-205 [Centura] 750.00
11/19/98 David Wilson Grading 9-28-98 Invoice [Centura] 2,878.00
11/19198 Soil & Environmental Cons... Invoice 6411 [Centura] 122.50
12/15/98 Rice & Associates CCP EdwardsMill.018, .01... (Centura] 7,910.00
1221/98 Gilleece & Associates Invoice 1929 [Centura] 2,697.00
1228/98 Wake County Revenue De... 98 Property taxes - Lot 1 [Centura] 4,181.10
1228/98 Wake County Revenue De... 98 Property taxes - Tract 5 [Centura] 2,028.18
1228/98 Ragsdale, Liggett & Foley Invoice # 11088 [Centura] 4,483.75
1(7/99 Gilleece & Associates Invoice 1989 [Centura] 927.50
1/9/99 Erin Gardner Reimbursement for map re... [Centura] 56.00
1/11/99 Carolinian Landscape Invoice 381 [Centura] 2,825.00
2/19/99 Rice & Associates CCP_ EdwardsMill.020,.02... (Centura) 2,829.04
322/99 Rice & Associates CCP_ EdwardsMill.022 [Centura] 220.00
325/99 Riley Surveying 11-21-98 & 11-30-98 Invoic... [Centura] 2,796.69
4/19/99 Blue Ridge Site Development Invoice # 1595 [Centura] 4,875.00
4/19/99 Rice & Associates Trinity Sewer.004 & .006 [Centura] 445.00
4/19/99 Erie Insurance Group [Centura] 789.00
7/12/99 Womble Carlyle Sandridge ... 287501, 295635 295878, 3... [Centura] 6,209.47
722/99 Warren, Perry & Anthony 7-13-99 Invoice [Centura] 75.00
728/99 Loan Fee Origination Fee on Line ext... (Centura] 1,250.00
9/14/99 Rice & Associates Trinity Sewer .004 &.006 [Centura] 607.50
9/14/99
1020/99 Ragsdale, Liggett & Foley
L/C Renewal Fee 6/29/99 Statement [Centura]
[Centura] 1,292.41
1,912.00
11/17/99 Rice & Associates Trinity Sewer.004 &.006 [Centura] 3,910.00
223/00 NC Department Of Revenue [Centura] 2,264.38
223/00
224/00 NC Department Of Revenue
Ragsdale, Liggett & Foley
1 /11 /00 Statement (Centura]
(Centura] 1,041.93
536.50
224/00 Rice & Associates Trinity_NRBB.002 [Centura] 1,585.00
228/00 Erie Insurance Group Insurance Premium [Centura] 808.00
32/00 NSF Fee [Centura) 27.00
324/00 L/C Renewal Fee [Centura] 900.00
329/00 Rice & Associates Trinity_NRBB.003 Trinity-... [Centura] 2,762.50
329/00 S.T. Wooten Reference # 990716 [Centura] 9,100.00
5/10/00 TerraTech Engineering Invoice 5435 [Centura] 520.00
5/10/00 Rice & Associates Trinity_Wide.004 (Centura] 1,232.50
5/10/00 Ragsdale, Liggett & Foley 2/25/00 Statement [Centura] 434.54
7/11/00 Carolinian Landscape Invoice 540 [Centura] 2,860.00
7/11/00 Blackmon & Associates Balance due on sewer line [Centura] 3,187.76
7/14/00 S.T. Wooten July 5 Statement [Centura] 71,223.20
9/13/00 Rice & Associates [Centura] 1,380.00
9/13/00 Ragsdale, Liggett & Foley 7/17/00 Statement [Centura] 512.78
1025/00 S.T. Wooten Sept. 5 2000 Statement [Centura] 2,500.00
1025/00 Rice & Associates [Centura] 1,847.50
1211/00 Womble Carlyle Sandridge ... [Centura] 774.50
12/27/00 Wake County Revenue Dept. 99 real estate taxes [Centura] 3,966.41
1/22/01 Rice & Associates Trinity_NRBB.007 [Centura] 1,585.00
122/01 Womble Carlyle Sandridge ... [Centura] 0.00
4/6/01 NC Secretary Of State LLC Fee - 1999 rCentura) 200.00
4/6/01 NC Secretary Of State LLC Fee - 2000 [Centura] 200.00
4/12/01 Spangler Environmental Invoices 1528 & 1551 [Centura] 3,687.95
4/12/01 Erie Insurance Group Liability policy [Centura] 808.00
4/12/01 Doug Swanek Tax Prep. [Centura] 650.00
TOTAL FROM Centura 751,347.11
De
osit
p
12/11/00 [Deposit] 28,200.00
TOTAL FROM Deposit 28,200.00
Inventory
Date Num

First Citi...
L I

n

2/22/96
2/23/96
2/23/96
2/28/96
3/4/96
3/4/96
3/12/96
3/12/96
3/18/96
3/20/96
3/20/96
3/27/96
4/2/96
4/3/96
4/3/96
4/16/96
4/23/96
4/23/96
4/29/96
5/6/96
5/8/96
5/10/96
5/13/96
5/15/96
5/23/96
5130/96
6/3/96
6/6/96
6/6/96
6/6/96
6/7/96
6/10/96
6/17/96
6/18/96
6/18/96
6/24/96
7/1/96
7/1/96
7/1/96
7/1/96
7/3/96
7/3/96
7/9/96
7/9/96
7/16/96
7/16/96
7/16/96
7/26/96
8/9/96
8/19/96
8/19/96
8/28/96
9/9/96
9/11/96
9/11/96
9/12/96
9/23/96
9/25/96
10/3/96
Description
Hatch, Little & Bunn
City of Raleigh
Wake County Register of D...
Irvin A. Staton, RLS
Dept. of Secretary of State
Ballentine & Riley Surveyors
Gilleece & Assoc.
Soil & Environmental Cons...
Lat Purser & Assoc.
City of Raleigh
City of Raleigh
Erie Insurance Group
Stephen R. Madden
Charles Elam & Assoc.
Gilleece & Assoc.
Gilleece & Assoc.
City of Raleigh
Hatch, Little & Bunn
Birch Appraisal Group
Walia Law Firm
N.C. Department of Transp...
Blue Ridge Site Development
"'VOID*" City of Raleigh
Bill Cozart
Gilleece & Assoc.
Ballentine & Riley Surveyors
City of Raleigh
J. Bobby Currin & Sons
Rice & Associates
Irvin A. Staton, RLS
J. Bobby Currin & Sons
City of Raleigh
Stephen R. Madden
Wake County Register of D...
Wake County Register of D...
Bill Cozart
Erie Insurance Group
Gilleece & Assoc.
CACI Inc.
Gilleece & Assoc.
Blue Ridge Site Development
R-Com, Inc.
P-Com, Inc.
Blackmon & Associates
Erie Insurance Group
Geo Technologies
Balientine & Riley Surveyors
R-Co ; , Inc.
Blue Ridge Site Development
Gilleece & Assoc.
First Citizens Bank
Office Depot
P-Com, Inc.
Blue Ridge Site Development
Pon Biggers
Duncan Parnell
N.C. Secretary of State
GeoTechnologies
AiphaGraphics
Register Report by Category
1/1/94 Through 4/30/01
Memo
Escrow for Stephen Madden
Map Recording
Map Recording
Feb. 22 Invoice
Cert. of Ex. copies
Flagging Ed. Mill
Invoice # 1104
Invoice # 3504
Referral Fee - Raleigh School
Financial Responsibility form
Grading Permit
Insurance Premium
Timber Money
Invoice # 960331
Invoice # 1100
Invoice # 1135
Flood Permit
Madden's Legal Fees
Balance on Appraisal
Sorority Offer work
Culvert Extension Estimate
Invoice # 1024
Trees cut from greenway
Reimburse for aerial photos
Invoice # 1159
Trees cut from greenway
2/3 of Invoice # 01952
Hotel & Retail sketches
5/16 & 6/5 Invoices
Balance of Invoice # 01952
Balance of Legal Fees
Greenway Deed Recording
Greenway Map Recording
Reimbursement for photo c.
Extra Insurance Premium
Invoice # 1181
Demographic Reports
Invoice # 1187
Invoice # 1031
Part of Estimate #1
Estimate #2
Headwalls
Extra Insurance Premium
1-96-1116
24June & 09July Invoices
Estimate #3 12" Pipe Mat...
Invoice # 1034 & 1035
Invoice #'s 1227 & 1253
UC Renewal Fee
Mktg. Packages
Estimate #4
Invoice #'s 1044 & 1049
Const. Mgt. 9-10-96
Site Plan copies
LLC Filing Fee
1-96-1323
Flyer Printing
Category
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
[First Citizens]
6/19/01
Page 4
Clr Amount
R
5,000.00
50.00
40.00
1,634.00
10.00
2,193.10
2,260.00
195.00
3,000.00
482.00
690.00
991.00
350.00
724.51
5,400.00
1,404.00
34.00
1,542.31
600.00
1,077.50
16,600.00
17, 804.50
0.00
100.00
7,186.00
6,049.85
1,820.00
12,000.00
250.00
1,017.00
6,000.00
30.00
315.03
14.00
40.00
99.75
9.00
1,976.95
358.00
5,100.00
40,250.00
21, 884.88
4,700.40
14, 000.00
23.00
736.80
4,356.00
8,960.00
21,252.30
1,426.70
1,500.00
69.64
86, 992.21
16, 561.76
4,010.74
19.08
200.00
833.40
188.68

1 Inventory
Register Report by Category
1/1/94 Through 4/30/01
6/19/01
Page 5
¦ Date Num Description Memo Category Clr Amount
10/11/96 Ballentine & Riley Surveyors 28 Aug. Invoice [First Citizens] 4,316.40
10/14/96 Gilleece & Assoc. Invoice #'s 1281 &1282 [First Citizens] 2,416.00
11/18/96 UC Renewal Fee [First Citizens] 350.00
12/19/96 L/C Renewal Fee [First Citizens] 350.00
1/21/97 L/C Renewal Fee [First Citizens] 700.00
' 2/13/97 Rea Construction Invoice [First Citizens] 85,378.44
2/13/97 General Concrete Invoice 4040 [First Citizens] 19,280.15
2/13/97 Ron Biggers Const. Mgt. 1-27-97 [First Citizens] 4,999.71
2/13/97 Warren, Perry & Anthony Loan Closing [First Citizens] 393.00
2/13/97 First Citizens Bank Loan Origination & Flood C... [First Citizens] 1,020.00
2/14/97 Erie Insurance Group Insurance Premium [First Citizens] 17120.00
2/18/97 Rice & Associates CCP
EdwardsMill.001 [First Citizens] 730.00
2/19/97 Ragsdale, Liggett & Foley _
Invoice 7578 [First Citizens] 811.75
1 2/19/97 Doug Swanek, CPA 96 Returns [First Citizens] 1,550.00
2/20/97 Blackmon & Associates Estimate #8 1-14-97 [First Citizens] 13,446.11
3/17/97 R-Corn, inc. Retainage-Invoices 1-7 [First Citizens] 18,200.57
3/18/97 L/C Renewal Fee [First Citizens] 350.00
3/18/97 General Concrete Invoice 4040 [First Citizens] 71349.50
6/6/97 Rea Construction Invoice #55354 [First Citizens] 22,134.10
7/3/97 Rice & Associates CCP
EdwardsMill.005 &.0 ... [First Citizens] 4,340.00
7/15197 Triangle Lawn Care _
Seeding [First Citizens] 4,460.00
7/15/97 Ballentine & Riley Surveyors Sewer Plats Trc. 5 & Outfall... [First Citizens] 2,561.85
7/15/97 Gilleece & Assoc. 1511 & 1512 [First Citizens] 1,007.00
7/15/97
7/17/97 Rice &. Associates
David Hall CCP_EdwardsMill.007
Rendering [First Citizens]
[First Citizens] 970.00
1,500.00
7/25/97 David Hall Copies of Rendering [First Citizens] 808.00
TOTAL FROM First Citizens 532,955.67
Interest
12/31/98 [I rterest] 107,161.47
2/3/99 [Interest] 15,623.58
12/31/99 [Interest] 20, 538.49
12/31/00 [Interest] 6,514.72
TOTAL FROM Interest 149,938.26
Loan C...
5/17/95 Kinko's Color Copies of Aerial #1 [Loan Cozart] 29.70
5/22/95 Duncan Parnell Copies Trinity & Deacons [Loan Cozart] 36.57
6/12/95 Mailboxes Etc. UPS Earnest Money [Loan Cozart] 14.95
6/20/95 Mid-Atlantic Associates Phase One Environmental [Loan Cozart] 1,200.00
6/20/95 Universal Printing Color Copies of Aerial #2 [Loan Cozart] 15.74
6/21/95 Universal Printing Color Copies of Aerial #2 [Loan Cozart] 9.90
7/4/95 Young, Moore & Henderson Clark Brewer - Advice [Loan Cozart] 157.50
TOTAL FROM Loan Cozart 1,464.36
NR C&G
12/31/98 [NR C&G] 9,000.00
TOTAL FROM NR C&G 9,000.00
Ralei
h
g
...
7/13/95 Envirotek Invoice # 1 TREMR [Raleigh Fed.] 5,658.72
8/28/95 Envirotek Invoice # 2 TREMR [Raleigh Fed.] 3,387.05
9/12/95 N.C. Secretary of State LLC Filing Fee [Raleigh Fed.] 200.00
10/11/95 Envirotek Invoice #4 TREMR [Raleigh Fed.] 2,029.72
10/16/95 Duncan Parnell Site Plan copies [Raleigh Fed.] 25.44
10/19/95 Envirotek Invoice #3 TREMR [Raleigh Fed.] 2,857.87
10/26/95 Irvin A. Staton, RLS Survey [Raleigh Fed.] 2,700.00

' Inventory
Re
gister Report by Cate
gory 6/19!01
1/1/94 Through 4/30/01
Page 6
Date Num Descri
tion Memo Cate
or Clr A
t
p g
y moun
11/16/95 Irvin A. Staton, RLS Balance on Survey [Raleigh Fed.] 6,000.00
12/5/95 Envirotek Invoice #5 TREMR [Raleigh Fed.] 1,365.43
12/14/95 The News & Observer Classified Ad [Raleigh Fed.] 222.37
12/14/95 Charles Elam & Assoc. Land Planning [Raleigh Fed.] 1,325.84
12/18/95 Envirotek Invoice #6 TREMR [Raleigh Fed.] 254.26
1221/95 Birch Appraisal Group One half of appraisal [Raleigh Fed.] 600.00
1/10/96 Gilleece & Assoc. Invoice 1035 Flood Study [Raleigh Fed.] 3,000.00
217/96 Irvin A. Staton, RLS Feb. 1 Invoice [Raleigh Fed.] 2,263.00
2/9/96 Charles Elam & Assoc. Invoice # 960153 [Raleigh Fed.] 8,461.00
2/9/96 Gilleece & Assoc. Invoice # 1036 [Raleigh Fed.] 8,460.00
2/12/96 Soil & Environmental Cons... Invoice # 3366 [Raleigh Fed.] 1,170.00
2/13/96 Envirotek Invoice #7 TREMR [Raleigh Fed.] 339.36
TOTAL FROM Raleigh Fed. 50,320.06
Bal Fwd-Inventory
111194 Opening Balance [Inventory] 0.00
222/96 S Settlement Charges on Pur... Loan Fees [Inventory] 8,000.00
Appraisal [Inventory] 600.00
Attorney's Fees [Inventory] 1,250.00
Title Insurance [Inventory] 1,622.00
Recording Fees [Inventory] 46.00
222/96 S Settlement Charges on Sales Rev. Stamps - Ral. School [Inventory] 1,000.00
Rev. Stamps - C & G [Inventory] 1,200.00
Attorney Fees [Inventory] 35.00
222/96 Land Purchase [Inventory] 1,321,999.00
2/22/96 C & G Sale $150,000 Note to Trinity [Inventory] -450,000.00
2/22/96 Raleigh School Sale [Inventory] -550,000.00
1/6/97 S Sorority Closing Charges Sales Commission
Title Exam-Warren, Perry [Inventory]
[inventory] 13,750.00
325.00
County Recording Fees [Inventory] 24.00
Revenues Stamps [Inventory] 1,100.00
Wyne Recording Fees
Survey-ESP Assoc. [Inventory]
[Inventory] 28.00
1,500.00
1996 Ad Valorem Tax [Inventory] 18,803.78
Doc. Prep.-Wyne [inventoryj 480.00
TOTAL TO Inventory 371,762.78
TOTAL INFLOWS 4,496,650.31
I OUTFLOWS
LAND COST
2/4/99 S Sale To Principal Financial Slope easement fee to Mad... LAND COST -40,000.00
Real Estate Commissions t... LAND COST -90,536.16
Ragsdale, Liggett & Foley f... LAND COST -3,200.00
Revenue Stamps LAND COST -3,422.00
2/5/99 7.013/13.02'1634523.5 LAND COST -880,408.09
12/31/00 LAND COST -571,069.25
TOTAL LAND COST -1,588,635.50
Uncategorized Outflows
222/96 S Settlement Charges on Pur... 0.00
1/6/97 S Sorority Closing Balance Adjustment -36,050.99
TOTAL Uncategorized Outflows -36,050.99
AP
12/31/98 [AP] -14,160.00
TOTAL TO AP -14,160.00

I

I

t

t

t
11

t

??? j€ :Edwards Mill Rox ? ? + ? ^ ?:
b t }k
Ricldand flask w? ??
4

Iw +w? wr ?w ww w Iw wI ww IwI w Iw wI wl ?w
w w lik--
r•
r
g- z
SUN
0
SUNDA
D
r f,
S
1/. .n.nr•• -.- .. f\ ?,. _.,._ , ? / ? '? • `, h ??' ',;aa . ,?? RO AN CATHOLIC DIOCESE
?? ? ? r ? ' ? ? ? ? PIN 0784.08 07 1051
.,3-,?, I-1 ZONING, SINGLE FAMIL
AR?EL E
U DEVELO
?r EXI TING o ?o ( ROWEL , LLC
if BARKER LOVE TT
WES
%
/
fr
,R-1?-
}
t , -
`N/F Wfl JAM A. HARRINGTON
A. '
U PIN 0784.09 06 346
?
0&1-1 ZONING, UNDEVELOPED
K ! : /O
«. i
/ 4201
PARC
410
t
-' f
,
- r
;
400;, - '
2
S;R
MIL AD
390
p 1
r !?/ ?:
..... ..
PROPOSE
' -
380
r / , r
... ?•? 'fir::
acct 6
. ........... 7vM11Y Aaeoclotes. LLC .... ...... '.r•. _•••-.; .,:;
MB 1996 P9 263
P.IN.0704,00.1..0777
I ,
TRACT 5
a
cne
........ NE :. / Y j
PROPERTY TINE
' RICHLAND CREEK
a
mWIF V,
t ..
,' r F
?. °9 TRACY 2 ?..
/
b l 1 PV CA N
. o lllx?
L? ? '
M V+
Wz
01 tz
fiiAWFO

V
a tea.
o
J

? a
"la
a a ?.
=
;i
?Q

rn
z
N ?C
EA O-A
' c CD
• a 9• $
? W rD
? I'-+ d rn d W Ste'
w?€ s ?
o T
C c
9
0

`ter

I
N
0 160
75 60 25 0 26 60 75
SCALE: 1" = 75'
Assuming 0.47 Acre Surface Area
- = extended detention Stormwater
' wetland designed to control
- the 1yr precipitation event

1
'1
Shallow Mamhe/Fdnge (0.17 A)
a .375ft Average Depth
ades C 2' Spadng
Plant S
p
Lobelia Cardinalis
- Hibiscus Mosheutos
- Panicum Vergatum
- Iris Virginia
I
- Carex
' Inlet / Outlet Pools (0.07 A/pool)
3ft Average Depth

Deep Marsh (0.17 A)
1.125ft Average Depth
Plant Species @ 21t Spacing
- Saurusres Cemuus
13 - Saggftada 1800118
- Juncus etfusus
- Plygonum sp

.
I
l ?
?
,r' I
'
r,
••
,
r
rr
r
.
/

r
:t, ' n

[J

11

az z
.j .° ..
ZOO
0.<z
.A0. ? M
UM
I

M tee--
?' k ?z..., arm -t o

3? v c?? 1 + (L 6 V 2?.1 PnV c? -fit rv R' ;'
pJ,Il_?y vtih? 3n.o.` W, SaNr(bC-C-r->s1w)
r-? ?? ?v n.?cr?,v y f rya r 1-o r- x_ s rd crt
46

?vctcl co ? ? l rvG 4,v +? >tfs'?
D d
W A rFRp?
7?
O 'C qlll::? William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Kerr T. Stevens
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley
Governor
June 26, 2001
Trinity Associates, LLC
c/o Mr. Tom Rahill (manager)
PO Box 1354
Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480
Cc: Spangler Environmental, Inc.
Attn: Mr. Jim Spangler
PO Box 387
Raleigh, NC 27602-0387
FILE COPY
RE: Neuse Buffer Rules (15A NCAC .0233) Major Variance Request
Trinity Road Project, Raleigh, Wake County, NC
Dear Sirs,
DWQ Project # 01-0677
Wake County
On May 1, 2001, the NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ) received your application for a Major Variance
from the Neuse River Buffer rules (15A NCAC 2B .0233) for the subject property located on the southwest corner
of Trinity Road and Edwards Mill Road, Raleigh, NC. This request is on the July 11, 2001 agenda of the Water
Quality Committee (WQC) of the NC Environmental Management Commission (EMC) starting at 12 noon (note
this time maybe subject to change please confirm on 7/10/01). The meeting will take place in, the Ground Floor
Hearing Room of the Archdale Building, downtown Raleigh. I strongly suggest that all parties involved be
available at both meetings to answer any technical or background questions that the Commission members may
have. The agenda for this meeting can be downloaded from the web at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/emc/committees/wci/2001/index2001.htm or a copy can be mailed to you at your
request. Please note that the review of this Major Variance request is not subject to the same 60-day review
period as identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233(8) or 15A NCAC 2H .0507.
Please call me at Mr. Bob Zarzecki at 919-733-9726 to confirm your attendance or if you have any
questions or if you would like to discuss this matter further.
Sincerely,
Kerr T. Stevens,
Director
Cc: Steve Mitchell, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files

010677
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands/
WQC/FMC Meeting Agendas
Subject: WQC/EMC Meeting Agendas
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 14:41:25 -0400
From: Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR DWQ Planning Branch
To: Dan Oakley <DOAKLEY@mail Jus.state.nc.us>,
Frank Crawley <[e-mail]. nc.us>,
Jill Hickey <[e-mail]. nc.us>, Beth McGee <[e-mail]>,
Betty Wilcox <[e-mail]. nc.us>,
Bill Kreutzberger <[e-mail]>,
Caroline Bellis <[e-mail]>,
Charles Peterson <[e-mail]>, Corey <[e-mail]>,
Dave Moreau <[e-mail]>, Gary Hunt <[e-mail]>,
Jessica Miles <[e-mail]. nc.us>, Joe Rudek <[e-mail]>,
Marion Deerhake <[e-mail]>, Sandra Birckhead <[e-mail]>,
Steve Bevington <[e-mail]>,
Steve Coffey <Steve-Coffey @ mai l.enr. state. nc.us>,
Steve Mauney <[e-mail]>, Pat Davis <[e-mail]>,
Mick Noland <[e-mail]>,
Bernie Sims <[e-mail]>, John Kime <[e-mail]>,
Gina Weaver <[e-mail]>,
Jimmy Carter <Jimmy.Carter@ncmai].net>, Lark Hayes <[e-mail]>,
Derb Carter <[e-mail]>, George Everett <[e-mail]>,
Preston Howard <[e-mail]>, Edward Beck <[e-mail]>,
Don Cordell <[e-mail]>,
WQ Supervisors <[e-mail]>,
Todd Miller <[e-mail]>, Jack Blackner <[e-mail]>,
Bobby Blowe <[e-mail]>, Ernie Seneca <[e-mail]>,
Bill Sabata <[e-mail]>, Craig Bromby <[e-mail]>,
Trish Gray <tgray @ ki I stock. com>, Robert Midgette <[e-mail]>,
Surabhi Shah <[e-mail]>,
Donna Moffitt <Dorm a.Moffi tt @ nc mai l.net>, Preston Pate <[e-mail]>,
Arthur Mouberry <[e-mail]>,
Raine Lee <[e-mail]>, Rick Dove <Ri verkeeper @coastal net.com>,
Paula Thomas <[e-mail]>, Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>,
ECO Group <[e-mail]>, David Merritt <dmeri tec@belIsouth. net>,
Michael Shore <[e-mail]>, Matt Lauffer <[e-mail]. nc.us>,
Michelle Nowlin <[e-mail]>,
Sarah Alston <[e-mail]>,
Robin Smith <[e-mail]>, "doug.lewis" <[e-mail]>,
George House <ghouse@BROOKS PIERCE. COM>, anne coan <[e-mail]>,
Mitch Peele <[e-mail]>, Chester Lowder <[e-mail]>,
Boyd Devane <[e-mail]>,
CAM COVER <[e-mail]>,
Roger Thorpe <[e-mail]>, Steve Tedder <Steve.Tedder@ncmai].net>,
"jay.sauber" <[e-mail]>, Linda Sewall <Linda.sewall@ncmail. net>,,
Don Reuter <[e-mail]>,
RegionalSups <[e-mail]>,
David Williams <[e-mail]>,
John Sutherland <John.sutherland@ncmail. net>,
John Hunter <[e-mail]>, Betsy Pearce <[e-mail]>,
I of 2 7/2/01 8:12 An
WQC/EMC Meeting Agendas
omnipro2 <omnipro2 @email. msn.com>, Carla DuPuy <[e-mail]>,
"Holt, Fred" <[e-mail]>, Jeri Gray <[e-mail]>,
Ina Zucker <[e-mail]>, Planning Branch <[e-mail]>,
"ed.harrison" <[e-mail]>,
Tim Baumgartner <[e-mail]>,
Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>, Bill Holman <[e-mail]>,
Paul Clark <[e-mail]>,
Russell Hageman <[e-mail]>, crispd <[e-mail]>,
"Mick.Greeson" <[e-mail]>,
Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>, wnoyes <[e-mail]>
FYI: MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT & AGENDA
The Water Quality Committee (WQC) of the Environmental Management
Commission (EMC) will meet on July 11th, 2001 from 12:00 noon to 2:00 PM
in the Ground Floor Hearing Room of the Archdale Building in Raleigh.
The WQC meeting agenda is attached to this message in MS Word. The
agenda (including attachments, as available) is also online at the
following link:
htt-o://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/emc/committees/wq/2001/index2001.htm
The EMC agenda for its meeting on the following day is located on the
EMC's webpage at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/emc/index.htm
Thanks,
Jeff Manning
[phone] x.579
NC Division of Water Quality / Planning
DWQ's webpage is located at http://h20.enr.state.nc.us
Name: WQCJuly0l.agn.Mailout.doc
M-N WQCJuly0l.agn.Mailout.doc Type: Microsoft Word Document (application/msword)
Encoding: base64
Download Status: Not downloaded with message
2 of 2 7/2/01 8:12 AN
07/02/01
EMC WATER QUALITY COMMITTEE MEETING
July 11, 2001
Archdale Building - Ground Floor Hearing Room
12:00 noon - 2:00 PM
Executive Order No. I mandates that the Chair inquires as to whether any member knows of any known conflict of interest or
appearance of conflict with respect to matters before the Commission. If any member knows of a conflict of interest or appearance
of conflict, please so state at this time.
12:00 Noon - Opening Comments
Chairman Peterson
*1. Request for Approval of the Randleman Stormwater Management Plan for the Piedmont Triad
International Airport in Compliance with the Randleman Lake Water Supply Watershed
Stormwater Requirements - (Action Item) (Megan Owen)
* Asterisk indicates consensus item
The Piedmont Triad International Airport has submitted a Randleman Stormwater Plan that meets
the criteria of the Randleman Lake Water Supply Watershed Stormwater Requirements. Staff has
reviewed the Plan and recommends the Water Quality Committee's approval (attachment enclosed).
2. Request for Variance from a Water Supply Watershed Protection Ordinance in Compliance with
the Water Supplv Watershed Protection Act (NCGS 143-214.5) - (Action Item) (Milt Rhodes)
Staff is requesting that the Committee consider a variance request from the City of High Point for
the High Point Square Development proposal. As proposed, High Point Square would be a regional
retail center within the jurisdiction of the City of High Point. In order to complete this project in a
configuration desirable to commercial tenants, 10.8 acres of perennial and intermittent stream buffers
will be encroached upon. The encroachment will eliminate both the natural stream channel and the
entire buffer zone. The developer (ARCON, INC) has proposed mitigation for wetlands, buffer zones,
and impacted streams. The project is located in the Oak Hollow/Deep River Water Supply Watershed
and is part of the Randleman Reservoir Watershed area. The Division of Water Quality is requesting an
action on the part of the Water Quality Committee (attachment enclosed).
3. List of Ma *or Variances and Conditions - (Information Item) (Bob Zarzecki)
As per the request of Water Quality Committee members, the Division is providing a summary of
all approved Major Variances from the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico River Riparian Area Protection Rules
(15A NCAC 213 .0233 and .0259) as of the July 11, 2001 meeting. The summary includes action dates,
applicants' names, river basins, summary of impacts, hardships and variance conditions. The staff will
give a brief presentation (attachment enclosed).
4. Request for Consideration of a Maior Variance from the Neuse River Riparian Area Protection
Rule - (Action Item) (Bob Zarzecki)
A request has been received for the Water Quality Committee to grant a variance from the Neuse
River Riparian Area Protection Requirements (15A NCAC 213 .0233) for a commercial development
project to be located on the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Trinity Road and Edwards Mill
Road, Raleigh, Wake County, NC. The parcel is approximately 2.23 acres in size. The applicant,
Trinity Associates c/o Mr. Tom Rahill, is proposing to pipe and fill approximately 435 linear feet of
stream channel and associated riparian buffers of an unnamed tributary of Richland Creek (C NSW).
The Division staff recommends the denial of Trinity Associates' variance request due to the fact that the
Page 1
07/02/01
2.23-acre subject property was subdivided from a larger tract of land on January 1, 1999 which was after
the effective date of the buffer rules (attachment enclosed).
5. Request Permission to Send the Draft Roanoke River Basinwide Water Quality Plan to the EMC
(Action Item) (Callie Dobson)
DWQ staff will present the draft Roanoke River Basinwide Water Quality Plan to the Committee
and request permission to take the plan to the EMC for final approval the following day. Staff will
briefly summarize changes that were made to the public review draft as a result of public comment
(attachment enclosed; see EMC package for draft Basinwide Plan).
6. Request Permission to Proceed to the EMC for Proposed Reclassification of a Section of the
Hiwassee River in Cherokee County to WS-IV CA (Action Item) (Elizabeth Kountis)
A request to reclassify this surface water has been received by the Division of Water Quality.
Because this river segment is located within a current water supply (WS-IV) watershed, it meets water
quality standards for a water supply classification, and hence no studies to show that this water meets
the qualifications for this reclassification were required. The Committee will be asked to approve this
reclassification request to publish the Notice of Rule-Making Proceedings in the NC Register and to
proceed to the full Commission to get permission to notice the rule text for public hearing (attachment
enclosed).
7. Rulemakina for Isolated Surface Waters and Wetlands - (Action Item) (John Dorney)
At the April Environmental Management Commission meeting and at the May WQC meeting, the
DWQ staff was directed to work with an advisory group to develop temporary rules to establish a
permitting system for impacts to isolated wetlands and isolated waters. The purpose of the permitting
system is to replace the previous permitting system that was the subject of a recent U.S. Supreme Court
case (Solid Waste Authority of Northern Cook County vs. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). DWQ staff
have met with the advisory group three times since April to review and modify proposed temporary rules
for this purpose. Although some participants of the advisory group do not support the proposed rules
citing legal reasons, DWQ staff and other members of the advisory group believe that the proposed rules
have been improved by the advisory group process. A "Notice of Rulemaking" as directed by the May
WQC was published in the June 15`h, 2001 issue of the NC Register. Staff was also directed by the
WQC in May to obtain a written opinion from the Attorney General's office regarding the authority for
temporary rules, and this information will be presented to the Committee in July.
The DWQ staff will recommend that rules be adopted as temporary rules by the WQC in July and
that the EMC waive the 30 day period in order to adopt the temporary rules at the July EMC meeting.
Staff will present the temporary rules and request a 30-day waiver to present the temporary rules to the
EMC and will seek the EMC's permission to notice the permanent rule text and hold public hearing(s)
(see EMC package for attachments).
Discussion and Closing Comments
Chairman Peterson
Page 2
AGENDA ITEM #
Consideration of a Request for a Variance from the Neuse River
Riparian Area Protection Rule
Water Quality Committee Meeting
North Carolina Environmental Management Commission
July 11, 2001
A request has been received for the Water Quality Committee (WQC) to grant a variance from
the Neuse River Riparian Area Protection Requirements (15A NCAC 2B .0233) for a commercial
development project to be located on the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Trinity Road
and Edwards Mill Road, Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina. The parcel is approximately
2.23 acres in size. The applicant, Trinity Associates c/o Mr. Tom Rahill, is proposing to pipe and
fill approximately 435 linear feet of stream channel and associated riparian buffers of an unnamed
tributary of Richland Creek (C NSW).
Trinity Associates is proposing an extended detention wetland to control stormwater run-off from
9.69 acres including the 2.23-acre subject parcel. In addition to the extended detention wetland,
Trinity Associates is proposing buffer mitigation to compensate for the loss of the 45,738 ft2 of
protected riparian buffer. Trinity Associates will also provide off-set nitrogen payments to the
NC Wetlands Restoration Program for increases in annual nitrogen loading from the site beyond
the minimum 3.61 lb/ac/yr.
Recommendations:
1. The Division Staff do not believe that Trinity Associates' request has met all of the
requirements [(identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233(9)(a)] for granting a variance.
Specifically, the 2.23-acre subject property was subdivided from an original, larger tract of
land on January 1, 1999 (after the effective date of the rules) in a manner that made the
property not buildable as proposed without the approval of this variance. Therefore, the
Division Staff believe that Trinity Associates have brought this hardship on themselves and
are not eligible for a variance from the rules.
2. The Division Staff believe, if the variance request is deemed to be eligible by the
Commission, that Trinity Associates are proposing sufficient nitrogen removing stormwater
controls to compensate for the loss of the nutrient removal functions of the impacted buffers.
A final stormwater management plan must be approved by the Division prior to construction.
3. The Division Staff believe, if the variance request is deemed to be eligible by the
Commission, that Trinity Associates are providing sufficient buffer mitigation for the
proposed impacts. This mitigation must be provided prior to construction.
4. The Division Staff believe, if the variance request is deemed to be eligible by the
Commission, that Trinity Associates must provide the required off-set nitrogen payments to
the Wetlands Restoration Program prior to construction.
The Division Staff recommends the denial of Trinity Associates' variance request, because
of the items identified in part 1 of this recommendation.

OtOF W ATF9QG Michael F. Easley
Governor
rte. William G. Ross, Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Kerr T. Stevens
Division of Water Quality
Stipulated Facts [DRAFT VERSION 6-25-01] ('?o ?
Major Variance Request
Neuse River Riparian Area Protection Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0233) I
Water Quality Committee Meeting
LLC; c/o Mr. Tom Rahill
Project Name: Trinity Road Variance Request
DWQ Project No.: 01-0677
County: Wake
[The applicant and the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) 401 Certification Unit and DWQ Raleigh Regional
Office (RRO) staff agree to the best of their knowledge that the stipulated facts presented below are
accurate.]
July 11, 2001
NC Applicant: Trinity Environmental Associates, Management Commission

1) Trinity Associates, LLC owns the 2.23-acre subject parcel located on the southwest corner of Trinity
Road and Edwards Mill Road, Raleigh, Wake County, NC.
2) The parcel size excluding the NC DOT right-of-way equals 1.87 acres.
3) The subject parcel was subdivided from its original parcel on January 1, 1999 [after the effective date v
(July 22, 1997)of the buffer rules].
A
4) A conceptual master plan and financial records, including proof of payments and site plan
applications/grading plan/permit fees to the City of Raleigh for the development of the subject parcel
and surrounding original transaction parcels date back prior to the effective date of the buffer rules.
5) The subject parcel contains 435 linear feet of stream subject to the buffer rules (15A NCAC 2B .0233)
as confirmed by DWQ-RRO staff on 10/29/98.
6) The subject parcel contains 45,738 square feet (27,443 square feet of Zone 1 and 18,295 square feet
of Zone 2) of protected buffers pursuant to 15A NCAC 2B .0233.
7) Strict application of the buffer rules would constitute a 57% loss of developable acreage. Property
bisection by the buffer leaves disconnected, "undevelopable" (given design constraints) areas of 0.42
and 0.40 acres in an 0-1 Zoning District. This constitutes a loss in potential revenue for the
developer.
8) Trinity Associates, LLC will construct an extended detention wetland approved by DWQ to treat 9.69
acres including the 2.23-acre subject parcel if the Major Variance is approved.
9) Trinity Associates, LLC will pay into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund per 15A NCAC 2B.0242 for
impacts to the 45,738 square feet of bufffers if the Major Variance is approved. The area of mitigation
required for this impact per 15A NCAC 26 .0242 is 109,772 square feet.
10) Trinity Associates, LLC will make an off-set nitrogen payment to the NC Wetlands Restoration
Program for annual nitrogen loading rates greater than 3.6 Ibs/ac/yr as required by the City of Raleigh
Stormwater Requirements and 15A NCAC 2B.0235 if the Major Variance is approved.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc,us/ncwetlands/
-SP L ER ENVIRONMENTAL,, INC.,
284 FAYETTEVILLE STREET MALL, SUITE 400 EMAIL: JASPANGLEROAOL.COM
P.O. BOX 3$7 TELEPHONE [phone]
RALEIGH, NC 27608-0387 FAX [phone]
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
Date
i '
Company Name ?, = -
Project Number/Name
From
WE ARE SENDING YOU:
L Attached
Shop Drawings
Prints
Plans
?, ??i.x??YU r
- J-1
RE C c c-'14116 6-
Under Separate Cover via
Specifications Copy of Letter
Change Order Reproducibles
Computer Disk Samples
COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION

THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
L, For approval Approved as submitted
For your use Approved as noted
v As requested Return for corrections
For review & comment
>l
COMMENTS:
Resubmit Copies for Approval
Submit Copies for Distributn
Return Corrected Prints
CC: SIGNED:..'-
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES • REMEDIATION • LAND PLANNING • EXPERT TESTIMONY
FOR BIDS DUE Other

.4
SPANGLER
ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
d
Major Variance Request Package
Under 15A NCAC.0233
For Buffer Impacts to Unnamed Tributary of
Richland Creek near the intersection of Trinity and
Edwards Mill Roads
For
Trinity Associates
c/o Mr. Tom Rahill, Manager
PO Box 1354
Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480
For Review by North Carolina Environmental Management Commission
Water Quality Committee
July, 2001

Prepared By:
Spangler Environmental, Inc.
Jim Spangler
President
Scott Linnenburger
Project Manager
Land Planning • Permitting • Environmental Consulting • Construction Management • Expert Testimony
Post Office Box 387 Raleigh, NC 27602-0387 tel: [phone] fax: [phone] www.Spangler-SEI.com
t T ?..
I
OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Received Request #
j
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Variance Request Form
Neuse River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy
Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rule (15A NCAC .0233)
NOTE: This form may be photocopied for use as an original.
Part 1: General Information
1. Applicant's name (the corporation, individual, etc. who owns the project):
Trinity Associates c/o Tom Rahill
2. Print Owner/Signing Official (person legally responsible for the facility and its compliance)
Name: Trinity Associates, LLC Tom Rahill
Title: Manager
Street address: PO Box 1354
City, State, Zip: Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480
Telephone: ( 910 )_256-9918
Fax: ( 910 )_256-0100
3. Project Name (Subdivision, facility, or establishment name - consistent with project name on
plans, specifications, letters, operation and maintenance agreements, etc.):
4. Location of Facility
Street address: Trinity Road
City, State, Zip: Raleigh, NC, 2760
County: Wake
Latitude/longitude:,,,
5. Directions to facility from nearest major intersection (Also attach a map):
_Southwest Quadrant of intersection of Trinity Road and Edwards Mill Road
6. Contact person who can answer questions about the facility:
Name: Same as above
Telephone: r."
...... .._
Fax: i 5
Email:
7. Requested Environmental Management Commission Hearing Date: July 2001
Version 1: September 1998
Part 2: Demonstration of Need for a Variance
NOTE: The variance provision of the Neuse Riparian Area Rule allows the Environmental Management
Commission to grant a variance to an affected party when the following conditions apply on a given project:
(a) practical difficulties or hardships would result from strict application of the rule:
(b) such difficulties or hardships result from conditios which are peculiar to the property involved; and
(c) the general purpose and intent of the Rule would be preserved, water quality would be protected and
substantial justice would be done if the variance were granted.
This part of the application is to explain how the project meets criteria (a) and (b).
1. Attach a detailed description (2-3 pages) explaining the following: Attached
• The practical difficulties or hardships that would result from strict application of the Rule.
• How these difficulties or hardships result from conditions that are unique to the property
involved.
• Why reconfiguring and/or reducing the built-upon area to preserve a greater portion of the
riparian area is not feasible on this project. If economic hardship is the major
consideration, then include a specific explanation of the economic hardship and the
proportion of the hardship to the entire value of the project.
Part 3: Water Quality Protection
NOTE: This part of the application is to explain how the project meets criterion (c): the general purpose and
intent of the Rule would be preserved, water quality would be protected and substantial justice would be done if
the variance were granted.
1. Briefly summarize how water quality will be protected on this project. Also attach a detailed
narrative (1-2 pages) describing the nonstructural and structural measures that will be used for
protecting water quality and reducing nitrogen inputs to surface water.
PROPOSED PROJECT INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF STORMWATER WETLAND BY
PROPONENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH RICHLAND CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
BEING DONE BY JOINT EFFORT OF CENTENNIAL AUTHORITY AND NC WETLAND
RESTORATION PROGRAM. CONSTRUCTION OF PROPOSED STORMWATER WETLAND IS
NOT CONTINGENT UPON STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT CONSTRUCTION. PROPOSED
WETLAND WILL TREAT ENTIRE DRAINAGE BASIN THAT PRESENTLY DRAINS TO THE
SUBJECT PARCEL, NOT JUST THE SUBJECT SITE. WATER QUALITY TREATMENT WILL BE
INCREASED FROM THE EXISTING (WITH BUFFER) CONDITION OF 8% EFFICIENCY, TO 58%
NITROGEN REMOVAL EFFICIENCY VIA THE STORMWATER WETLAND. SEE ATTACHED
TEXT FOR MORE DETAILED DISCUSSION.
2. What is the total project area in acres? __ 2.23 Acres
3. Which of the following permits/approvals will be required for this project?
CAMA Major
X Sediment/Erosion Control
X 401 Certification/404 Permit
Variance Request Form, page 2
Version 1: September 1998
Part 3: Water Quality Protection, continued
4. Complete the following information for each drainage basin. If there are more than two
drainage basins in the project, attach an additional sheet with the information for each basin
provided in the same format as below.
Project Information Drainage Basin 1 Drainage Basin 2
Receiving stream name Un-named intermittent to
ephemeral tributary of
Richland Creek
Receiving stream class' C NSW
Drainage basin area (total2) 9.69 acres
Existing impervious area3 (total2) 1.89 ac. (entire basin)
Proposed impervious area3 (total2) 7.47 ac. (full build-out of
entire basin); 3.39 ac.
(existing plus proposed
project site only)
Impervious area3 (on-site) 15% of subject site
(current)
Impervious area3 (total2) 19% (current)
Impervious area3 Drainage basin 1 Drainage basin 2
On-site buildings 0.34 (15,000 sq. ft.)
On-site streets 0.51
On-site parking 0.58
On-site sidewalks 0.07
Other on-site 0
Total on-site 1.5
Off-site 5.97
Total 7.47
the Internet site for this information ?s http://h2o.enrstate.nc.us/strmclass/alpha/neu.html
Total means on-site plus off-site area that drains through the project.
Impervious area is defined as the built-upon area including, but not limited to, buildings, parking areas,
sidewalks, gravel areas, etc.
5. How was the off-site impervious area listed above derived?
Prediction of future development and field verification of existing development and
Raleigh Code of Ordinance regulations
6. What will be the annual nitrogen load contributed by this site after development in pounds per
acre per year without structural BMPs (stormwater pond, wetland, infiltration basin, etc)?
Attach a detailed plan for all proposed structural stormwater BMPs.
Drainage Size of Post-development BMP nitrogen Final nitrogen Final nitrogen
basin drainage nitrogen loading rate removal loading rate loading from
basin without BMPs° efficiency' (Ibs/ac/yr) drainage basin
(ac) (Ibs/ac/yr) (%) (Ibs)
1 9.69 17.2 58% 7.22 70
Totals 9.69 ------ ------ 70
" Attach calculations and references.
5 Attach calculations and references.
Variance Request Form, page 3
Version 1: September 1998
6,4/27/2001 10:56 9195460757 SPANULER ENVIRUNMENI rHUt ei?
Part 3: Water Quality Protection, continued
7. The applicable supplemental form(s) listed below must be attached for each BMP specified:
Form SWU-102 Wet Detention Basin Supplement
Form SWU-103 Infiltration Basin Supplement
Form SWU-105 Curb Outlet System Supplement
Form SWU-105 Off-Site System Supplement
Form SWU-107 Underground Infiltration Trench Supplement
Form SWU-109 innovative BMPs Supplement
Part 4: Submittal Checklist
A complete appplication submittal consists of the following components. Incomplete submittals will
be returned to the applicant. The complete variance request submittal must be received 90 days
prior to the EMC meeting at which you wish the request to be heard. Initial below to indicate that
the necessary information has been provided.
Applicant's Item
Initials
Original and two copies of the Variance Request Form and the attachments
listed below.
•
- A vicinity map of the project (see Part 1, Item 5)
•
_ Narrative demonstration of the need for a variance (see Part 2)
. A detailed narrative description of stormwater treatment/management (see Part
3, Item 1)
_ _ • Calculations supporting nitrogen loading estimates (see Part 3, Item 6)
• Calculations and references supporting nitrogen removal from proposed BMPs
(see Part 3, Item 6)
Location and details for all proposed structural stormwater BMPs (see Part 3,
Item 6)
13Z. Three copies of the applicable Supplement Form(a) for each BMP and/or
narrative for each innovative BMP (see Part 3, Item 7)
Three copies of plans and specifications, including:
0 Development/Project name
o Engineer and firm

- o Legend and north arrow
?_ 0 Scale 0" - 100' or 1" = 50' is preferred)
_-^ 0 Revision number& date
0 Mean high water line (if applicable)
_ 0 Dimensioned property/project boundary
0 Location map with named streets or NC State Road numbers
0 Original contours, proposed contours, spot elevations, finished floor
_ elevations
0 Details of roads, parking, cul-de-sacs, sidewalks, and curb and gutter
w - 0 Footprint of any proposed buildings or other structures
_ 0 Wetlands delineated, or a note on plains that none exist
0 Existing drainage (including off-site), drainage easements, pipe sizes, runoff
calculations
o Drainage basins delineated
?M 0 Perennial and intermittent streams, ponds, lakes, rivers and estuaries
0 Location of forest vegetation along the streams, ponds, lakes, rivers and
estuaries
Variance Request Form, page 4
Version 1: September 1998
04/27/2001 10:56 9195460757 SPANGLER ENVIRONMENT PAUL u?
Part 5: peed Restrictions
By your signature in Part 7 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 6: 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 firml„ Spangler Environmental, Inc.
Mailing address. PO Box 387 _
City, State, Zip: Raleigh, NC, 27602_ _.. ??
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: sec ineftellsouth.not„
Part 7: Applicant's Certification
I, Mr. Tom Rahill (print or type name of
person listed in Part 1, 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:
Date:
Title.
i11. I
Z - -?i
Variance Request Form, page 5
Version 1: September 1998
j
Part 2: Demonstration of Need for a Variance
Planning for the development of the subject site, located in the southwest quadrant of the
intersection of Trinity Road and Edwards Mill Road in Raleigh, NC, was begun in 1995, and
master planning was completed for the area, including the Raleigh Entertainment and Sports
Arena, in 1996. Property transactions of over 100 acres, including the purchase of the subject
parcel, based upon the understanding of the buyers (current owner: Trinity Associates) and
sellers that development of the site was possible, occurred in 1995. Subsequent to the purchase
of the property, various sales transactions and subdivisions of the property have occurred
following the master plan that was completed in 1996. Development of the overall master plan
area, including rezoning, subdivision of parcels, permitting, and construction, was begun in 1995
and continues through the present time. Master plans and financial records, including proof
of payments and site plan application/grading plan/permit fees to the City of Raleigh for
the development of the subject parcel and surrounding original transaction parcels dating
back to prior to the effective date of the rules is included as Appendix 1.
The development of this 2.23-acre parcel (see attached site and location maps, Appendix 2)
cannot be realized with strict compliance to the Neuse Riparian Area Protection Rule (15 NCAC
.0233). However, the plans and information contained herein will demonstrate that, with the
approval of the variance request, greater water quality protection will be realized for this parcel.
In fact, enhanced water quality protection will be demonstrated for the entire drainage
basin of this project, above and beyond what is currently required for compliance with the
Neuse Rules, specifically Rule .0235 pertaining to on-site nitrogen treatment.
It should be noted that this proposed project is part of a series of regional watershed restoration
measures currently being planned in this portion of the Richland Creek Basin of the Neuse River
Watershed. The proposed storm water wetland is being planned in concert with stream bank and
riparian restoration between Trinity and Edwards Mill Roads and in-stream restoration in the
same area, conducted by the Centennial Authority and North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program, respectively. The areas proposed for restoration and water quality enhancement
structure development are adjacent to a City of Raleigh Greenway, which affords a concentrated
area to demonstrate to the public the benefits of different types of watershed and regional
environmental planning and restoration.
Practical Difficulties Due To Strict Application of Rule .0233
The strict application of the riparian area protection rule will result in practical difficulties in
achieving the intended and zoned use of this parcel. The preservation of the existing buffer
removes more than half the property acreage from use, the riparian area bisects the property in a
manner that renders it undevelopable, and therefore represents a financial hardship.
The riparian area that is required to be maintained around the intermittent stream covers 1.05 of
the property's 1.87 acres that lie outside transportation corridor right-of-way/easements.
Itemization of Acreages on Subject Parcel
Parcel Acreage (Total) 2.23 acres
Parcel Acreage (w/o NCDOT, Raleigh r-o-w) 1.87 acres
Riparian Buffer Acreage 1.05 acres
Zone 1 Acreage 0.63 acres
Zone 2 Acreage 0.42 acres
Wetland Acreage 0.03 acres
Developable Acreage 0.82 acres
North of Riparian Buffer 0.40 acres
South of Riparian Buffer 0.42 acres
In total, the area of the riparian buffer results in a 57% loss in developable land, leaving only
0.82 acres unencumbered by the preserved riparian area. Furthermore, the manner in which
preserved riparian area runs through the property further decreases the usable acreage. The
attached plans demonstrate that the riparian area runs in an east-west direction, bisecting the
property. The result is a northern portion of the property that is unencumbered by the riparian
area that totals 0.40 acres and a similar southern portion of 0.42 acres. Because of the small size
of these areas design restrictions caused by topographic constraints, parking requirements,
ingress/egress, landscaping requirements, and property line and roadway setbacks, these small
pieces of land outside the riparian area are not usable from a development standpoint.
Development of a use that complies with the current zoning of I-1/0I-1 on these small parcels is
not practicable.
Therefore, because of the location of the riparian area relative to the referenced constraints
preservation of the riparian buffer results in the loss of all practical development potential.
Therefore, the proposed project consists of removal of the buffer in its entirety on the subject
parcel (Appendix 3, Figure 1), to be replaced by a storm water wetland that increases pollutant
removal effectiveness for not just the subject parcel but also for the entire drainage area
(including already-developed adjacent lands that have no similar storm water quality controls)
(Appendix 3, Figure 2).
An intermediate development alternative, consisting of the development of half the site, was
evaluated. Placement of a building on the upslope end of the subject parcel, with required
parking resulting in a development of half the size of the proposed activity, would result in the
elimination all but approximately 60 linear feet of Qphowtemt stream channel and associated
riparian buffer (see Appendix 3, Figure 3), due to slope stabilization and grade separation of
existing transportation thoroughfares (see Appendix 3, Figure 4). Pollutant removal
effectiveness of buffer preservation in this intermediate alternative would be reduced to less than
4%, and is therefore considered impractical.
The nearby land costs of office space (the most likely use on the subject parcel) are
approximately $12 to $14 per square foot (from property owner, and verified independently by
David Fowlkes, Broker, Carolantic Realty, April 2001). Multiplied by the size of this property,
the realized hardship as a result of strict application of Rule .0233 is potentially $982,713 to
$1,146,499.
h?
Conditions Unique to the Subject Property
The current buffer does not provide adequate nutrient treatment for the majority of the
surrounding land use. The situation surrounding this property is unique in regards to the
maintenance of the riparian buffer and the consequent effect on water quality protection.
Upslope, Sunday Drive drains directly into the ephemeral stream that bisects the property via a
drop-box/culvert drainage system. The majority of adjacent built-upon impervious surfaces
(including Edwards Mill and Trinity Roads) drain into a roadside ditch network that enters the
stream on the subject parcel at the down-slope end of the subject parcel. The stream then enters
back into a culvert under both Edwards Mill Road and a newly constructed gas station, and then
empties directly into Richland Creek via a riprap spillway immediately upstream of the Trinity
Road crossing of Richland Creek. Based upon physical inspection of the surface drainage
patterns that presently exist, the effective area treated by the existing buffer is slightly over 3
acres, approximately one acre of which is the buffer itself. Therefore, the current buffer does not
provide adequate nutrient treatment for the majority of adjacent land uses.
Upstream of the subject parcel, the stormwater drainage from the 12.2-acre site at the top of the
watershed currently bypasses the subject parcel and discharges directly into Richland Creek
downstream of the Trinity-Edwards Mill intersection. This stormwater does not pass through the
buffer surrounding this intermittent stream and consequently receives minimal nitrogen
treatment.
The property west of and adjacent to the subject property (Parcel 3) is maintained in grass cover
and has no forested buffer. The runoff from this site is directed into the stream on the subject
parcel through a culvert and therefore does not receive any nutrient removal treatment from the
riparian buffer. In total, 17.75 acres of this watershed upstream of the subject parcel do not
receive nutrient treatment via sheetflow through a riparian buffer.
Downstream of the subject parcel, the development of Edwards Mill Road and a parcel on the
southeast quadrant of the Trinity-Edwards Mill intersection has resulted in the removal of
approximately 0.75 acres of riparian buffer surrounding this intermittent stream. Additionally,
approximately 325 feet of the stream has been placed in a culvert from the upstream edge of the
Edwards Mill Road grade down to the edge of the City of Raleigh Greenway Easement along the
west side of Richland Creek. Approximately 2.8 acres of this portion of the watershed
downstream of the subject parcel do not receive nutrient treatment via sheetflow through a
riparian buffer.
Furthermore, the conditions on this site are unique because the riparian buffer is not consistent
throughout the stream. Of the approximately 25.19 acres within this watershed, only 4.65 acres
receive nitrogen removal treatment via intact, forested riparian buffer and 0.5 of those acres
occur within a FEMA floodplain around Richland Creek. This equates to 19% of the watershed
that receives nitrogen treatment under the current land uses. The value of the buffer on the
subject parcel, which is the only riparian area in this sub-watershed, is impaired because of this
isolation. This riparian area is not part of a naturally functioning stream system in terms of
stream flow of nutrient removal.
Proposed Water Quality Protection
The water quality protection measures are proposed specifically to treat the water quality
protection shortcomings that have been outlined in the section above. Whereas the current
nutrient treatment capacity of the forested riparian area is bypassed by the current development
patterns, the proposed treatment alternatives will rectify that problem. Where the intact buffer
does not have the capacity to treat the nutrients present in the current developed condition, the
proposed treatment alternative will provide ample treatment. And whereas the current riparian
condition will likely degrade over time with hydrologic changes to this intermittent stream
resulting from continued urban development, the proposed alternative will be a monitored and
maintained structure that will protect Richland Creek from stormwater-induced degradation.
Land is available downslope of the subject parcel's watershed for use as a large, "regional"
stormwater and nutrient treatment wetland best management practice. This land is located on the
Raleigh Entertainment and Sports Arena (ESA) property, near the northeast quadrant of the
Trinity-Edwards Mill Road intersection. Specifically, this land is east of Richland Creek, north
of Trinity Road and south of the "Entrance E" road into the ESA (see figure 2).
Current Water Quality Protection
The current total nitrogen loading through the stream that exists on the subject property can be
calculated according to nitrogen export coefficients for different land uses put forth by the State
of North Carolina in the "Neuse River Basin: Model Stormwater Program for Nitrogen Control."
This document also includes best management practice (bmp) total nitrogen treatment
percentages. Combining these two calculations provides the estimated amount of total nitrogen
leaving a particular area after treatment by specific bmps. These calculations are tabulated (See
Table 1) below.
Current Total Nitrogen Load
The subject parcel drainage currently consists of 2.23 acres. This is broken down into 1.88 acres
of undisturbed vegetation and 0.35 acres of impervious surface. Employing the State's nitrogen
export coefficients, this land use results in a total nitrogen load from this site of 3.83
pounds/acre/year. A 1.92-acre portion of the developed property to the south (Parcel 2) also
drains through the subject property. With 80% impervious surface on this property, an additional
nitrogen load of 17.24 pounds/acre/year flows through the subject parcel.
Table 1.
Current Total Nitrogen Loads (Pre-Dev. Subject Parcel and Parcel 3, Post-Dev. Parcel 2)
k3 U"J V" r a i 4cx
Undisturbed 1.88 0.6 1.13
Impervious 0.35 21.2 7.42
Subtotal 2.23 8.54 3.83
Parcel 2
Managed 0.38 1.2 0.46
Impervious 1.54 21.2 32.65
Subtotal 1.92 33.11 17.24
Parcel 3
Managed 4.78 1.2 5.74
Impervious 0.76 21.2 16.11
Subtotal 5.54 21.85 3.94
Totals 9.69 Acres 63.50 lb/yr, 6.55 lb/
An additional undeveloped parcel to the west (Parcel 3) also drains under the subject parcel's
existing roadway and into the stream on the subject parcel. Because of the existing
roadway/culvert, drainage from this property does not receive nitrogen removal treatment from
the intact riparian buffer. The additional load from this undeveloped parcel is 3.94
pounds/acre/year.
Current Total Nitrogen Treatment
Of the three parcels in this particular watershed that drain to the stream on the subject parcel, a
portion receives nitrogen removal treatment by the existing buffer, and a portion bypasses that
buffer. Drainage from the subject property, and the portion of Parcel 2 which lie in this
watershed, are directed through the buffer. The total nitrogen load from this area is 5.08
pounds/acre/year. Employing the 30% total nitrogen removal rate promulgated by the State for
intact riparian buffers nutrient treatment effectiveness, the total nitrogen load treated from this
area is 1.52 pounds/acre/year. Therefore, the riparian buffer exports 3.56 pounds of
nitrogen/acre/year. Multiplying this rate by the acreage receiving nitrogen treatment, the total
nitrogen load treated by the riparian buffer is 6.31 pounds/year, the amount not receiving
treatment and transferred into the Neuse River Basin is 14.77 pounds/year, and the nitrogen
treatment efficiency is 30%.
As the undeveloped Parcel 3 does not benefit from the treatment potential of the riparian buffer,
an additional nitrogen load is added to the load presented by the Subject Parcel and Parcel 1.
That addition is 3.94 pounds/acre/year from the undeveloped Parcel 3. The total nitrogen
exported from the subject property increases to 7.50 pounds/acre/year. 6.31 pounds/year are still
treated, but the amount not receiving treatment rises to 72.68 pounds/year, which, because the
intact buffer is so small relative to the watershed, reduces the treatment efficiency to 8%.
If Parcel 3 were developed, the total nitrogen load imported into the subject parcel, even with
nutrient control bmps in compliance with the "Neuse Stormwater Rule," could increase to 13.56
pounds/acre/year (3.56 from the Subject Parcel and Parcel 2 and 10 from Parcel 3. The total
load, leaving the downstream end of the subject parcel, would be 131.4 pounds/year. The
treatment efficiency of the existing riparian buffer would potentially be 4.5% for the portion of
this watershed draining through the stream with the intact riparian buffer.
In summary, the watershed, which currently drains through the stream on the subject parcel, does
not treat the nitrogen inputs to that stream in an effective manner. The treatment efficiency
afforded by the maintenance of the riparian buffer is just 8% due to the upstream inputs that do
not receive treatment from the buffer. If this upstream property were developed, as currently
planned and in compliance with the Neuse Stormwater Rule (bringing nitrogen export from the
site to 10 pounds/acre/year), the treatment efficiency of this riparian area would decrease to just
4.5% with the riparian area treating just 6.31 pounds of Nitrogen per year.
Proposed Water Quality Protection
The construction of a series of stormwater wetland best management practices according to the
specifications set forth in the State's Stormwater Best Management Practice Manual will treat
significantly more nitrogen than can be treated by the existing riparian buffer. The structures
will be designed to provide nutrient treatment and stormwater detention for all three
contributing parcels and will assume that all three parcels are fully developed at 80%
impervious surface. As these bmp structures will be located on a floodplain (that seldom
experiences flooding due to the depth to which the stream has downcut), no damming of any
stream or impact to any additional riparian area will need to occur to provide this treatment.
Furthermore, the best management practices will be located in close proximity to a City of
Raleigh Greenway, providing the opportunity for additional public education on the values of
stormwater control. Two best management practices will be employed in series to provide
nitrogen treatment. In order, these bmps will be an extended detention stormwater wetland that
flows into a 50-foot wide riparian buffer prior to the treated water re-entering Richland Creek.
At a fully developed state, the nitrogen exported from these three parcels (9.69 acres) equates to
17.2 pounds/acre/year or 167 pounds/year (see Table 2). The stormwater wetland will occupy
0.47 acres (designed to contain the 1-year, 24-hour storm per the "Neuse River Basin: Model
Stormwater Program for Nitrogen Control"). At the State-documented treatment efficiency of
40%, the wetland would remove nitrogen at a rate of 6.88 pounds/acre/year. This would bring
the nitrogen export from the three parcels to 10.32 pounds/acre/year (100 pounds/year), treating
67 pounds of nitrogen per year. The addition of this bmp will provide over a 10-fold increase in
the amount of nitrogen treated by this watershed in a developed state.
Table 2.
Potential, Post-Development Total Nitrogen Loads
Subject Parcel
Managed
Impervious
Subtotal
Parcel 2
Managed'
Impervious
Subtotal
Parcel 3
Managed
Impervious
Subtotal
0.45
1.78
2.23
0.38
1.54
1.92
4.43
5.54
1.2 .54
21.2 37.75
38.29 17.17
1.2 0.46
21.2 32.65
33.11 17.24
1.2 1.33
21.2 93.92
95.25 17.19
Totals 9.69 Acres 166.65 lb/yr 17.2 lb/ac/yr
The additional flow through the riparian buffer, which is documented with 30% treatment
efficiency, will treat an additional 3.1 pounds/acre/year. This additional treatment reduces the
nitrogen export rate to 7.22 pounds/acre/year (70 pounds/year), a total that is less than the 7.50
pounds/acre/year exported currently from the subject property with an intact riparian
buffer and an undeveloped Parcel 3.
The total amount of nitrogen removed prior to entering the Neuse River Basin proper through the
implementation of these two nutrient and stormwater control best management practices has
been increased to 97 pounds/year, a 15-fold increase. This brings a net nitrogen treatment
efficiency of 58%.
Additionally, it is assumed that property owners in this drainage basin will have to contribute to
the Wetland Restoration Program an in-lieu fee to bring the total nitrogen export down to 3.6
pounds/acre/year. For the subject parcel, this contribution would amount to $2,664. For the
remainder of the watershed, the fee would calculate to $8,910.
In summary, the best management practices proposed herein to provide nutrient control, for a
fully developed watershed, supply a higher rate of nitrogen treatment, a decreased rate of
nitrogen input to Richland Creek, and the consequent exponentially higher load of nitrogen
treated than is currently present in the partially developed watershed (See Table 3). The intact
riparian buffer treats 1.52 pounds/acre/year of nitrogen. The proposed best management
practices will treat 13.62 pounds/acre/year of nitrogen. This results in a nitrogen export rate that
is currently 7.50 pounds/acre/year in a watershed that is 27% impervious being reduced to a rate
of 7.22 pounds/acre/year in a watershed that is 80% impervious. The amount of nitrogen
currently treated is 6.31 pounds/year with a treatment efficiency of 8%, and this efficiency could
decrease to 4.5% if Parcel 3 is developed. The proposed practices would treat 96.65 pounds/year
at an efficiency of 58%.
Table 3.
Comparison of Nitrogen Treatment Currently/Without Variance vs. Proposed/With
Variance

Area Draining Through Stream In Current/Without Variance Proposed/With
Variance
Subject Parcel (acres) 9.69 9.69
Total Nitrogen Treatment Rate
(pounds/acre/year) 1.52 13.62
Total Nitrogen Treated
(pounds/year) 6.31 96.65
Total Nitrogen Exported To
Richland Creek (pounds/year) * 72.68 -131.4 70
Treatment Efficiency * 8%-4.5% 58%
* second figure relates to potential increases exported nitrogen and alteration of treatment
efficiency, within the scope of the Neuse Rules, if Parcel 3 is developed
Conclusions
The development of the subject parcel is not possible with strict adherence to the "Neuse Buffer
Rule" (15 NCAC .0233). DENR DWQ has determined that an intermittent stream exists on this
property. The headwaters of this stream are on the subject parcel, and the stream is confined
within a culvert downstream of the subject parcel. In essence this parcel contains a "riparian
island." The riparian area that is currently intact on the subject parcel encompasses all but 0.82
acres. This "developable" acreage is split, with 0.42 acres lying adjacent to Trinity Road and
0.40 acres lying adjacent to Parcel 2. With mandated property setbacks and the need for
vehicular access, there is essentially nothing that can be developed.
The hardship created the inability to develop this property is very substantial. This is a prime
development parcel, lying on the corner of two major thoroughfares, and quickly becoming
surrounded by other successful enterprises. Independent developers, both of which have
developed similar projects in the immediate area estimated that this property would be worth
between $12 and $14 per square foot or somewhere close to $1,000,000. Strict adherence to the
"Neuse Buffer Rule" renders impossible the realization of this property's development potential.
However, allowing the nutrient and stormwater treatment to be carried out at an off-site location
would permit the parcel to be developed and with a regional water quality benefit.
The installation of the proposed best management practices would provide nutrient treatment and
stormwater detention not only for the subject parcel, but for the entire watershed that currently
drains to the intermittent stream on the subject parcel. Currently 72.68 pounds of nitrogen/year
run into Richland Creek from this drainage area. If Parcel 3 were developed, this figure could
rise to 131.4 pounds of nitrogen/year and still be in compliance with the Neuse Stormwater Rule.
If the proposed best management practices were installed, the total nitrogen introduced to
Richland Creek from this drainage area would be reduced to 70 pounds/year. Additionally, the
nitrogen treatment efficiency is improved by 50% in instituting these bmps.
The stated purpose of the Neuse River Nutrient Sensitive Watershed Rules is to reduce nitrogen
inputs to the Neuse River. While preserving riparian buffers is an essential part of this process,
there are situations, especially in rapidly urbanizing environments, where a regional treatment
alternative provides more efficient nitrogen removal while still maintaining economic vitality.
This major variance request demonstrates that, employing NCDENR Division of Water Quality-
approved treatment mechanisms with creative land planning, environmental protection can be
enhanced along with the economic growth that is a result of new development.
II?'ll?

cri
U r
d ? rn
IV%
713
N
3 m m
= r
?. 3
-z
10,
y
? 0 O ? 4 f
e. F. K I s
' ? 1 I
., ? lip ? W N ? I

e N _ - N 7?
tI rjh rn
D
Ch ^I -I 3 a?
0
Z
O
I
y /
? I
o?
1
I
I
I
f '#
'
-
II V

? 1a 7

i?
of Ir

r 1
(,

?
a?rra

i
i
i

i I
?r??.?-y A3soc;+w4?s
Inventory
Register Report by Category
111194 Through 4/30/01
6/19/01
Page 1
Date Num Description Memo Category Clr Amount
INFLOWS
Trinity WCC
2/4/99 Trinity WCC 1,710,723.17
TOTAL Trinity WCC 1,710,723.17
Uncategorized Inflows
12/31/97 637,922.91
TOTAL Uncategorized Inflows 637,922.91
AP
12/31/95 record accounts payable 3000+ 600 [AP] 3,600.00
TOTAL FROM AP 3,600.00
CCB Ch.. .
8/12/97 GeoTechnologies Past Due Amounts [CCB Checking] 1,646.72
8/12/97 Blue Ridge Site Development Invoice # 1418 [CCB Checking] 7,670.00
8/12/97 Ragsdale, Liggett & Foley Invoices 7760, 7863, 8044 [CCB Checking] 1,611.50
8/12/97 Walia Law Firm July - Dec 96 Fees [CCB Checking] 1,500.00
8/12/97 Blackmon & Associates Est. #10 [CCB Checking] 14,560.30
828/97 Check Order Fee [CCB Checking] 65.32
829/97 Blackmon & Associates Est. #11 [CCB Checking] 34,136.29
829/97 Blue Ridge Site Development Invoice # 1419 [CCB Checking] 15,600.00
829/97 Lauren Rahill Interest Reimburse [CCB Checking] 5.57
829/97 Wake County Map Recording [CCB Checking] 21.00
92/97 Duncan-Parnell Mylar Copies [CCB Checking] 28.78
924/97 State of N.C. LLC Filing Fee [CCB Checking] 200.00
924/97 N.C. Department of Transp... Stoplight Redesign [CCB Checking] 10,000.00
10/1/97 Rice & Associates CCP_EdwardsMi11.008 &.0... [CCB Checking] 11585.00
10/9/97 Blue Ridge Site Development Invoices 1446 & 1460 [CCB Checking] 11,749.30
10/9/97 Tom Rahill Reimburse for map recording [CCB Checking] 30.00
10/9/97 Riley Surveying 9-11-97 Invoice [CCB Checking] 502.15
10/16/97 Kinko's Color Copies [CCB Checking] 314.82
11/5/97 Blue Ridge Site Development 1465 (partial) [CCB Checking] 20,000.00
11/5/97 City of Raleigh Grading Permit [CCB Checking] 190.00
11/6/97 Blue Ridge Site Development 1465 (balance) [CCB Checking] 30,590.00
11/12/97 Kinko's Color Copies [CCB Checking] 314.82
1/8/98 Ragsdale, Liggett & Foley 11-21-97 Statement [CCB Checking] 868.61
1/8/98 Rice & Associates CCP_EdwardsMill.010 & 011 [CCB Checking] 2,215.00
1/8/98 Warren, Perry & Anthony Title Insurance Premium [CCB Checking] 1,438.00
1/8/98 Riley Surveying 10-31-97 Invoice [CCB Checking] 974.18
2/5/98 Blue Ridge Site Development 1478 & 1479 [CCB Checking] 29,664.12
2/9/98 Triangle Lawn Care [CCB Checking] 1,500.00
2/17/98 Erie Insurance Group 98 Premium [CCB Checking] 1,140.00
224/98 Triangle Lawn Care 2-24-98 Invoice [CCB Checking] 1,651.00
224/98 Soil & Environmental Cons... Invoice 5866 [CCB Checking] 260.00
225/98 Triangle Lawn Care 2-25-98 Invoice [CCB Checking] 4,680.00
225/98 Blackmon & Associates Est. #12 [CCB Checking] 5,527.26
3111/98 General Concrete Invoice 4281 [CCB Checking] 1,435.00
42198 Triangle Lawn Care [CCB Checking] 600.00
4/9/98 Blue Ridge Site Development Invoice 1508 [CCB Checking] 10,450.00
4/14/98 Wake County Revenue De... 97 Property taxes [CCB Checking] 6,343.75
4/14/98 Soil & Environmental Cons... Invoice 5764 [CCB Checking] 650.00
422/98 Riley Surveying 4-9-98 Invoice [CCB Checking] 3,277.94
429/98 Jewell Engineering Invoice 98-017 [CCB Checking] 2,138.31
517/98 Gilleece & Associates Invoices 1764 & 1750 [CCB Checking] 1,115.00
520/98 Triangle Lawn Care 4-13 & 5-18 Invoices [CCB Checking] 1,540.00
Inventory 6/19/01
Register Report by Category
1/1/94 Through 4/30/01
Page 2
Date Num
Description Memo Category Clr
6/15/98 Womble, Carlyle, Sandridg...
7/9/98 Triangle Lawn Care
7/9/98 Triangle Lawn Care
7/9/98 City of Raleigh
727/98 Triangle Lawn Care
TOTAL FROM CCB Checking
CCB Lo...
Retainer for Neuse Basin R... [CCB Checking]
7-3 Invoice [CCB Checking]
7-3 Invoice [CCB Checking]
Grading Permit [CCB Checking]
7-3 Invoice [CCB Checking]
Amount
5,000.00
2,890.00
0.00
0.00
1.059.00
238,738.74
8/5/97 Origination Fee [CCB Loan] 8,531.25
8/5/97 Bass Corp. Appraisal Fee [CCB Loan) 1,500.00
B/5/97 Warren, Perry & Anthony Loan Closing [CCB Loan] 600.00
8/5/97 Warren, Perry & Anthony Express Mail Fee [CCB Loan] 10.00
8/5/97 Recording Fees [CCB Loan] 20.00
8/5/97 Filing Fee - Wake Co. [CCB Loan] 8.00
8/5/97 Filing Fee - Sec. of State [CCB Loan] 8.00
TOTAL FROM CCB Loan 10,677.25
Centura
9/6/96
10/9/96
1028/96
11/5/96
11/8/96
12/4/96
12/13/96
1220/96
1/9/97
1/13/97
1/13/97
1/15/97
1/17/97
1/17/97
2/5/97
4/11/97
4/11/97
4/16/97
4/16/97
4/16/97
4/16/97
4/16/97
4/16/97
4/16/97
4/16/97
4/21/97
5/1/97
5/13/97
7/10/98
7/10/98
7/21/98
7/21/98
7/21/98
7/21/98
727/98
9/3/98
9/16/98
925/98
925/98
10/6/98
10/6/98
Loan Fee
R-Com, Inc.
Ron Biggers
GeoTechnologies
R-Com, Inc.
Blue Ridge Site Development
R-Com, Inc.
Blue Ridge Site Development
Thomas C. Worth
Ballentine & Riley Surveyors
Blue Ridge Site Development
R-Com, Inc.
Blue Ridge Site Development
Ron Biggers
Gilleece & Assoc.
Lawyer's Title of NC
The Raleigh Pre-School
Signs, Etc.
Rice & Associates
Ragsdale, Liggett & Foley
Ballentine & Riley Surveyors
Gilleece & Assoc.
Blackmon & Associates
R-Com, Inc.
Ballentine & Riley Surveyors
General Concrete
Bill Cozart
Rice & Associates
Rea Construction
Centura Bank
Ragsdale, Liggett & Foley
Triangle Lawn Care
David Wilson Grading
Womble, Carlyle, Sandridg...
Rice & Associates
GeoTechnologies
Riley Surveying
City of Raleigh
City of Raleigh
Ragsdale, Liggett & Foley
Rice & Associates
Estimate #5
Const. Mgt. 9-13 & 10-8
1-96-1531
Part of Est. #6
Invoice #'s 1065 & 1068
Part of Est. #7
Invoice # 1070
Attorney
Oct., Nov., & Dec. Invoices
Invoice # 1067 & 1078
Balance of Est. #7
Invoice # 1077
Const. Mgt. 11-8-96
Invoice #'s 1295, 1332, 1392
Escrow for paving
Settlement Agreement
Invoice 13795
CCP_EdwardsMill,002 &.0...
Invoices 7760, 7863, 8044
Dec., Jan. & Feb.
Invoice 1441
Retainage Est. #8
Estimate #9
Gilleece 1398,1419,1442
Invoice 4051
Aerial Photo Reimburse
CCP_EdwardsMill.004
R0056027
Loan Fee
6-25-98 Statement
7-14 Invoice
Grading 2 Ac. lot
Bill # 272323
CCP_EdwardsMill.012, .01...
1-98-0614 & 1-98-1025
9-11-98 Invoice
Subdivision Recording
As Builts recording
9-29-98 Statement
CCP_EdwardsMill.016, .01...
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura)
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura)
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
[Centura]
2,500.00
130,740.70
7,095.02
797.76
66,601.21
12,225.00
11, 000.00
41887.50
551.25
11,816.10
12, 838.75
14,931.45
9,047.69
3,338.56
1,740.00
60, 000.00
60,000.00
561.80
1,300.00
2,309.12
870.50
2,962.50
707.69
2,645.00
2,939.10
365.50
111.55
4,695.00
89,149.84
2,500.00
4,653.93
1,440.00
35,249.50
0.00
2,480.00
1,618.45
1,831.10
0.00
0.00
1,772.87
6,239.08
Inventory

ate
Register Report by Category
1/1/94 Through 4/30/01

Num Description Memo Category 6119101

Page 3
Clr Amount
11/17/98 GeoTechnologies 1-98-1305 [Centura] 256.00
11/18/98 Centura Bank UC Fee [Centura] 1,912.00
11/19/98 Blackmon & Associates Invoice U-205 [Centura] 750.00
11/19/98 David Wilson Grading 9-28-98 Invoice [Centura] 2,878.00
11/19/98 Soil & Environmental Cons... Invoice 6411 [Centura] 122.50
12/15/98 Rice & Associates CCP_EdwardsMill.018, .01... [Centura] 7,910.00
12/21/98 Gilleece & Associates Invoice 1929 [Centura] 2,697.00
1228/98 Wake County Revenue De... 98 Property taxes - Lot 1 [Centura] 4,181.10
1228/98 Wake County Revenue De... 98 Property taxes - Tract 5 [Centura] 2,028.18
1228/98 Ragsdale, Liggett & Foley Invoice # 11088 [Centura] 4,483.75
1!1/99 Gilleece & Associates Invoice 1989 [Centura] 927.50
1/9/99 Erin Gardner Reimbursement for map re... [Centura] 56.00
1/11/99 Carolinian Landscape Invoice 381 [Centura] 2,825.00
2/19/99 Rice & Associates CCP_EdwardsMill.020, .02... [Centura] 2,829.04
322/99 Rice & Associates CCP_EdwardsMill.022 [Centura] 220.00
325/99 Riley Surveying 11-21-98 & 11-30-98 Invoic... [Centura] 2,796.69
4/19/99 Blue Ridge Site Development Invoice # 1595 [Centura] 4,875.00
4119199 Rice & Associates Trinity Sewer.004 &.006 [Centura] 445.00
4/19/99 Erie Insurance Group [Centura) 789.00
7/12/99 Womble Carlyle Sandridge ... 287501, 295635 295878, 3... [Centura) 6,209.47
722/99 Warren, Perry & Anthony 7-13-99 Invoice [Centura) 75.00
728/99 Loan Fee Origination Fee on Line ext... [Centura] 1,250.00
9/14/99 Rice & Associates Trinity Sewer.004 &.006 [Centura] 607.50
9/14/99 Ragsdale, Liggett & Foley 629/99 Statement [Centura] 1,292.41
1020/99 UC Renewal Fee [Centura] 1,912.00
11/17/99 Rice & Associates Trinity Sewer .004 &.006 [Centura] 3,910.00
223/00 NC Department Of Revenue [Centura] 2,264.38
223/00 NC Department Of Revenue [Centura] 1,041.93
224/00 Ragsdale, Liggett & Foley 1/11/00 Statement [Centura] 536.50
224/00 Rice & Associates Trinity_NRBB.002 [Centura] 1,585.00
228/00 Erie Insurance Group Insurance Premium [Centura] 808.00
32/00 NSF Fee [Centura] 27.00
324/00 UC Renewal Fee [Centura] 900.00
329/00 Rice & Associates Trinity_NRBB.003 Trinity_... [Centura] 2,762.50
329/00 S.T. Wooten Reference # 990716 [Centura) 9,100.00
5/10/00 TerraTech Engineering Invoice 5435 (Centura) 520.00
5/10/00 Rice & Associates Trinity_Wide.004 [Centura] 1,232.50
5/10/00 Ragsdale, Liggett & Foley 225/00 Statement [Centura] 434.54
7/11/00 Carolinian Landscape Invoice 540 [Centura] 2,860.00
7/11/00 Blackmon & Associates Balance due on sewer line [Centura] 3,187.76
7/14/00 S.T. Wooten July 5 Statement [Centura] 71,223.20
9/13/00 Rice & Associates [Centura] 1,380.00
9/13/00 Ragsdale, Liggett & Foley 7/17/00 Statement [Centura] 512.78
1025/00 S.T. Wooten Sept. 5 2000 Statement [Centura] 2,500.00
1025/00 Rice & Associates [Centura] 1,847.50
12/1/00 Womble Carlyle Sandridge ... [Centura] 774.50
1227/00 Wake County Revenue Dept. 99 real estate taxes [Centura] 3,966.41
122/01 Rice & Associates Trinity_NRBB.007 [Centura] 1,585.00
122101 Womble Carlyle Sandridge... [Centura) 0.00
4/6/01 NC Secretary Of State LLC Fee - 1999 [Centura] 200.00
4/6/01 NC Secretary Of State LLC Fee - 2000 [Centura] 200.00
4/12/01 Spangler Environmental Invoices 1528 & 1551 [Centura] 3,687.95
4/12/01 Erie Insurance Group Liability policy [Centura] 808.00
4/12/01 Doug Swanek Tax Prep. (Centura) 650.00
TOTAL FROM Centura 751,347.11
Deposit
12/31/00 [Deposit] 28,200.00
TOTAL FROM Deposit 28,200.00
Inventory 6/19/01
Register Report by Category 1/1/94 Through 4/30/01
Page 4
Date Num Description Memo Category Clr Amount
First Citi...
222/96 Little & Bunn
Hatch Escrow for Stephen Madden [First Citizens] 5,000.00
223/96 ,
City of Raleigh Map Recording [First Citizens] 50.00
223/96 Wake County Register of D... Map Recording [First Citizens] 40.00
228/96 Irvin A. Staton, RLS Feb. 22 Invoice [First Citizens] 1,634.00
314/96 Dept. of Secretary of State Cert. of Ex. copies [First Citizens] 10.00
3/4/96 Ballentine & Riley Surveyors Flagging Ed. Mill [First Citizens] 2,193.10
3/12/96 Gilleece & Assoc. Invoice # 1104 [First Citizens] 2,260.00
3/12/96 Soil & Environmental Cons... Invoice # 3504 [First Citizens] 195.00
3/18/96 Lat Purser & Assoc. Referral Fee - Raleigh School [First Citizens] 3,000.00
320/96 City of Raleigh Financial Responsibility form [First Citizens] 482.00
320/96 City of Raleigh Grading Permit [First Citizens) 690.00
327/96 Erie Insurance Group Insurance Premium [First Citizens] 991.00
42/96 Stephen R. Madden Timber Money [First Citizens] 350.00
4/3/96 Charles Elam & Assoc. Invoice # 960331 [First Citizens] 724.51
4/3/96 Gilleece & Assoc. Invoice # 1100 [First Citizens] 5,400.00
4/16/96 Gilleece & Assoc. Invoice # 1135 [First Citizens] 1,404.00
34
00
423/96 City of Raleigh Flood Permit
' [First Citizens] .
31
1
542
423/96 Hatch, Little & Bunn s Legal Fees
Madden [First Citizens] ,
.
600
00
4/29/96 Birch Appraisal Group Balance on Appraisal [First Citizens] .
5/6/96 Walia Law Firm Sorority Offer work [First Citizens] 1,077.50
5/8/96 N.C. Department of Transp... Culvert Extension Estimate [First Citizens] 16,600.00
5/10/96 Blue Ridge Site Development Invoice # 1024 (First Citizens] 17,804.50
5/13/96 ""VOID"City of Raleigh Trees cut from greenway [First Citizens) R 0.00
5/15/96 Bill Cozart Reimburse for aerial photos [First Citizens] 100.00
523/96 Gilleece & Assoc. Invoice # 1159 [First Citizens] 7,186.00
5/30/96 Ballentine & Riley Surveyors [First Citizens] 6,049.85
6/3/96 City of Raleigh Trees cut from greenway [First Citizens] 1,820.00
6/6/96 J. Bobby Currin & Sons 2/3 of Invoice # 01952 [First Citizens] 12,000.00
6/6/96 Rice & Associates Hotel & Retail sketches [First Citizens] 250.00
6/6/96 Irvin A. Staton, RLS 5/16 & 6/5 Invoices [First Citizens] 1,017.00
617/96 J. Bobby Currin & Sons Balance of Invoice # 01952 [First Citizens] 6,000.00
6/10/96 City of Raleigh [First Citizens] 30.00
6117/96 Stephen R. Madden Balance of Legal Fees [First Citizens] 315.03
6/18/96 Wake County Register of D... Greenway Deed Recording [First Citizens] 14.00
6/18/96 Wake County Register of D... Greenway Map Recording [First Citizens] 40.00
624/96 Bill Cozart Reimbursement for photo c... [First Citizens] 99.75
7/1/96 Erie Insurance Group Extra Insurance Premium [First Citizens] 9.00
7/1/96 Gilleece & Assoc. Invoice # 1181 [First Citizens] 1,976.95
7/1/96 CACI Inc. Demographic Reports (First Citizens] 358.00
711/96 Gilleece & Assoc. Invoice # 1187 [First Citizens] 5,100.00
7/3/96 Blue Ridge Site Development Invoice # 1031 [First Citizens] 40,250.00
7/3/96 R-Com, Inc. Part of Estimate #1 [First Citizens] 21,884.88
7/9/96 Inc.
R-Com Estimate #2 [First Citizens] 4,700.40
7/9/96 ,
Blackmon & Associates Headwalls [First Citizens] 14,000.00
7/16/96 E ie Insurance Group Extra Insurance Premium [First Citizens] 23.00
7/16/96 Geo Technologies 1-96-1116 [First Citizens] 736.80
7/16/96 Ballentine & Riley Surveyors 24June & 09July Invoices [First Citizens] 4,356.00
726/96 Inc.
R-Com Estimate #3 12" Pipe Mat.... [First Citizens] 8,960.00
8/9/96 ,
Blue Ridge Site Development Invoice # 1034 & 1035 [First Citizens] 21,252.30
8/19/96 Gilieece & Assoc. Invoice #'s 1227 & 1253 [First Citizens] 1,426.70
00
1
500
8/19/96 First Citizens Bank UC Renewal Fee [First Citizens] ,
.
64
69
828/96 Office Depot Mktg. Packages
Estimate #4 (First Citizens]
[First Citizens] .
86,992.21
9/9/96
9/11/96 P,-Com, Inc.
Blue Ridge Site Development Invoice #'s 1044 & 1049 [First Citizens] 16,561.76
9/11/96 Ron Biggers Const. Mgt. 9-10-96 [First Citizens] 4,010.74
08
19
9/12/96 Duncan Parnell Site Plan copies [First Citizens] .
200
00
923/96 N.C. Secretary of State LLC Filing Fee [First Citizens] .
833
40
925/96 GeoTechnologies 1-96-1323 [First Citizens] .
68
188
10/3/96 AlohaGraphics Flyer Printing [First Citizens] .
Inventory 6/19/01
Register Report by Category
1/1/94 Through 4/30/01
Page 5
Date Num Description Memo Category Clr Amount
10/11/96 Ballentine & Riley Surveyors 28 Aug. Invoice [First Citizens] 4,316.40
10/14/96 Gilleece & Assoc. Invoice #'s 1281 &1282 [First Citizens] 2,416.00
11/18/96 L/C Renewal Fee [First Citizens] 350.00
12/19/96 L/C Renewal Fee [First Citizens] 350.00
121/97 L/C Renewal Fee [First Citizens] 700.00
2/13/97 Rea Construction Invoice [First Citizens] 85,378.44
2/13/97 General Concrete Invoice 4040 [First Citizens] 19,280.15
2113/97 Ron Biggers Const. Mgt. 1-27-97 [First Citizens] 4,999.71
2/13/97 Warren, Perry & Anthony Loan Closing [First Citizens] 393.00
2/13/97 First Citizens Bank Loan Origination & Flood C... [First Citizens] 1,020.00
2114/97 Erie Insurance Group Insurance Premium [First Citizens] 1,120.00
2/18/97 Rice & Associates CCP_EdwardsMill.001 [First Citizens] 730.00
2/19/97 Ragsdale, Liggett & Foley Invoice 7578 [First Citizens] 811.75
2/19/97 Doug Swanek, CPA 96 Returns [First Citizens] 1,550.00
220/97 Blackmon & Associates Estimate #8 1-14-97 [First Citizens] 13,446.11
3/17/97 R-Com, Inc. Retainage-Invoices 1-7 [First Citizens] 18,200.57
3/18/97 L/C Renewal Fee [First Citizens] 350.00
3/18/97 General Concrete Invoice 4040 [First Citizens] 7,349.50
6/6/97 Rea Construction Invoice #55354 [First Citizens] 22,134.10
7/3/97 Rice & Associates CCP_EdwardsMill.005 &.0 ... [First Citizens] 4,340.00
7/15/97 Triangle Lawn Care Seeding [First Citizens] 4,460.00
7/15/97 Ballentine & Riley Surveyors Sewer Plats Trc. 5 & Outfall... [First Citizens] 2,561.85
7/15/97 Gilleece & Assoc. 1511 & 1512 [First Citizens] 1,007.00
7/15/97 Rice & Associates CCP_EdwardsMill.007 [First Citizens] 970.00
7/17/97 David Hall Rendering [First Citizens] 1,500.00
725/97 David Hall Copies of Rendering [First Citizens] 808.00
TOTAL FROM First Citizens 532,955.67
Interest
12/31/98 [Interest] 107,161.47
2/3/99 [Interest] 15,623.58
12/31199 [Interest] 20, 538.49
12/31/00 [Interest] 6,614.72
TOTAL FROM Interest 149,938.26
Loan C...
5/17/95 Kinko's Color Copies of Aerial #1 [Loan Cozart] 29.70
522/95 Duncan Parnell Copies Trinity & Deacons [Loan Cozart] 36.57
6/12/95 Mailboxes Etc. UPS Earnest Money [Loan Cozart] 14.95
620/95 Mid-Atlantic Associates Phase One Environmental [Loan Cozart] 1,200.00
620/95 Universal Printing Color Copies of Aerial #2 [Loan Cozart] 15.74
621/95 Universal Printing Color Copies of Aerial #2 [Loan Cozart] 9.90
7/4/95 Young, Moore & Henderson Clark Brewer - Advice [Loan Cozart] 157.50
TOTAL FROM Loan Cozart 1,464.36
NR C&G
12/31/98 [NR C&G] 9,000.00
TOTAL FROM NR C&G 9,000.00
Raleigh ...
7/13/95 Envirotek Invoice # 1 TREMR [Raleigh Fed.] 5,658.72
828/95 Envirotek Invoice # 2 TREMR [Raleigh Fed.] 3,387.05
9/12/95 N.C. Secretary of State LLC Filing Fee (Raleigh Fed.) 200.00
10/11/95 Envirotek Invoice #4 TREMR [Raleigh Fed.] 2,029.72
10/16/95 Duncan Parnell Site Plan copies [Raleigh Fed.] 25.44
10/19/95 Envirotek Invoice #3 TREMR [Raleigh Fed.] 2,857.87
1026/95 Irvin A. Staton, RLS Survey [Raleigh Fed.] 2,700.00
Inventory 6/19101
Register Report by Category
1/1/94 Through 4/30/01
Page 6
Date Num Description Memo Category Clr Amount
11/16/95 Irvin A. Staton, RLS Balance on Survey [Raleigh Fed.] 6,000.00
12/5/95 Envirotek Invoice #5 TREMR [Raleigh Fed.] 1,365.43
12/14/95 The News & Observer Classified Ad [Raleigh Fed.] 222.37
12/14/95 Charles Elam & Assoc. Land Planning [Raleigh Fed.] 1,325.84
12118/95 Envirotek Invoice #6 TREMR [Raleigh Fed.] 254.26
1221/95 Birch Appraisal Group One half of appraisal [Raleigh Fed.] 600.00
1/10/96 Gilleece & Assoc. Invoice 1035 Flood Study [Raleigh Fed.) 3,000.00
217/96 Irvin A. Staton, RLS Feb. 1 Invoice [Raleigh Fed.] 2,263.00
2/9/96 Charles Elam & Assoc. Invoice # 960153 [Raleigh Fed.] 8,461.00
2/9/96 Gilleece & Assoc. Invoice # 1036 [Raleigh Fed.] 8,460.00
2/12/96 Soil & Environmental Cons... Invoice # 3366 [Raleigh Fed.] 1,170.00
2/13/96 Envirotek Invoice #7 TREMR [Raleigh Fed.] 339.36
TOTAL FROM Raleigh Fed. 50,320.06
Bal Fwd-Inventory
1/1/94 Opening Balance [Inventory] 0.00
222/96 S Settlement Charges on Pur... Loan Fees (Inventory) 8,000.00
Appraisal [Inventory] 600.00
Attorney's Fees [Inventory] 1,250.00
Title Insurance [Inventory] 1,622.00
Recording Fees [Inventory] 46.00
222/96 S Settlement Charges on Sales Rev. Stamps - Rai. School [Inventory] 1,000.00
Rev. Stamps - C & G [Inventory] 11200.00
Attorney Fees [Inventory] 35.00
222/96 Land Purchase [Inventory] 1,321,999.00
222/96 C & G Sale $150,000 Note to Trinity [Inventory] -450,000.00
222/96 P.a!eigh School Sale [Inventory] -550,000.00
1/6/97 S Sorority Closing Charges Sales Commission [Inventory] 13,750.00
Title Exam-Warren, Perry [Inventory) 325.00
County Recording Fees [Inventory] 24.00
Revenues Stamps [Inventory) 1,100.00
Wyne Recording Fees [Inventory] 28.00
Survey-ESP Assoc. [Inventory] 1,500.00
1996 Ad Valorem Tax [Inventory] 18,803.78
Doc. Prep.-Wyne [Inventory] 480.00
TOTAL TO Inventory 371,762.78
TOTAL INFLOWS 4,496,650.31
OUTFLOWS
LAND COST
2/4/99 S Sale To Principal Financial Slope easement fee to Mad... LAND COST -40,000.00
Real Estate Commissions t... LAND COST -90,536.16
Ragsdale, Liggett & Foley f... LAND COST -3,200.00
Revenue Stamps LAND COST -3,422.00
2/5/99 7.013/13.02"1634523.5 LAND COST -880,408.09
12/31/00 LAND COST -571,069.25
TOTAL LAND COST -1,588,635.50
Uncategorized Outflows
222/96 S Settlement Charges on Pur... 0.00
1/6/97 S Sorority Closing Balance Adjustment -36,050.99
TOTAL Uncategorized Outflows -36,050.99
AP
12/31/98 [AP] -14,160.00
TOTAL TO AP -14,160.00

-z , T
' I ?, ( ?" '71' J J fJ A (t? I 1 /, (
}.;. 11 \ r
•,,` j L
1?
v( ?\ 1
?.?r a N?p;_??'' ?li•?
u ,
??
? ? ? N
'
?'
l / !^+ r..
! (. \
ti.. J '1 , / ` +.? .,1 ` a ? ?wl•}I: ?• . 1 . h
\? ? Y \
'
,?,
,??. y?. / •?? \ ?
? `"? fir, l ?? '' "i} .""'"k? 360,."`
r -.-- ? Sri. T J + .?r
?) I'?`1 ?1 ;` ?`; •, ? , a\ `? l
;'' ?'"` ? ? ? % ,? ? ?µ 1
?•? t??'"i°;` } l t :
i , het
:l ? ? mac. l ?...?-,, \? •,`z 1 ?
??? I ? /
f?? ~ ,'Call! ?L'?,ar?,y y
.i •

vlae
`
,? r

1 ? \I? , •? '` r :.? t G l l ?r?`? ???./% `? ,`?T f?01LY f b L '.i ???,'1?1 ? ? ? ,?+

__?
...
• . ..
95 I jry (?li, r ` `l
10
J
'
dl
'\ 41
r
'
\ ` Ron
7
dwurJn M
??'
I R
?
•
nlou h Fn(ertalnm?rtl• 1 IM
??
r
"

??
iY. ? }. •? -- I
?;: h
\ _
r
\
'? I ?, Aiul ,rorlsArena ., fh ,
?ij ,&xr
' ' /-,
A; .
J.

r b" ol ?nrcdl 'I
_

I I
? Pnrc
r 1 `
'
\\
(' e1 }` 4
?
?•
?
?N Pro cd Stormwxler W
T
rt !t
d elland ` - U ; -
? r
[
i ; `
`? `
\
A?
'
? f
,
;
/
l ?
e rm
oa '?- ?ti"
? • ;,
; ><7 ?? ?`
1 ?(, ? ? rucl 2 I
,
? 1 I' _
.?? ?? .?
? ?

1 '•• x,•? 1 ?'
r l l Ili. ,?,
--. jj
--V'?.
Lt ?,
`
Colnvlll9?'
l! ,-
/j ,?, •?
?/ .
?
? 1'? .?,,
,
\ •
.?\
?
1
!f .
.
do TOW 4 \\- II i°C .
,
(\
/ (" //? ?•
i•
?! )? `• ,
-
1 ?
tar

a 1 ! -? _. , r I ??II - {-•#CCr,?'? 1 :?y.y+\ , . /
? ?C! } r,y'?l \ ??.' ? .,? ??
?
• f:' '
7ly / -; _-, , / ,,°.'y • .., r
' t?. ta
`
•

`. rw ?' ?i r !G
ti•
'
.
Cti 0a
\, ?N:;,' Mc9R?
.a
i'
.7p1Ye.?`? T
i ,'
r
. • T
t.1
•(?i `
i
?
` ,.
•
eJ?? 1?'?
N I
t u
te E ,
ivf 1.
1.\ y?r.... • f ..

Of10?0A11
?? ' V?? (

f( 1 f

`\
\ \?
It » t ?•w a

y ,(, ? •

? t _• :•y•'r • ,
?
», ?. r 7 r?(

• + I• ! 1

, / . y " , 1 ` `-
';l
'
j

'. POOMOBMW

NM52Mll m
gpM10LERuofer
iirwolsertK tr+a e
LRM

vimny MW
some X1.1
21:41000
?
i J•I t
,
n-f
. •,;
,
,•
AN00.Va1'Mna
11111 i`_ _ , ` G~ 4D IM SPOSWIMMOMOMM Ms

t
l ? a
d8?5
r *?
{. r _ ?.?11,?°?.,L :',I,`,.., ~ `•w,?yw„
`rdwArd.Mill Road
ichlnnd Creak * + ! `/"` ? -l' • 1? ?
Raley`gh`-E:ntert_ain?p-eer, nt?
1 i d orts AreCna,
?..? ¦ t
1 ?t ^q„• .. r,, Prop-ond Slormwnter WclluAd •''y, .`_
Subject Novel
PANCI
t?iA
?4N
rrinrl- Road '^?'?ti..?, '"'•"
J l ^'
* )nrcel2 ??.
® 2m pee+lrNs w
errNOo
tata¦oHalm
WrTOWMA USM o
.....?-.,. ?`.... ,_ _ 1:8,000 Sods M
ti Trines An= VWWM ,?
. .
i
z -?
N
N
e N
O o
z c
a's
?z o?z
Iz-
x? a ? O
?c Oo
a H
rn z __

?Ot
o "ron
• `, `t ,, 3 ;, r - Assuming 0.47 Acre Surface Area
X - extended detention Stormwater
\, qtr "? I wetland designed to control
(ff C i r trl; r , • the 1yr precipitation event
I Shallow Marsha/Fringe (0.17 A)
.375ft Average Depth
, ' ter, Plant Species @ 2 Spacing
?? ,• ? ? , ,?, ? , , ; v? ? ; , ?, ; , . - Lobena cardlnans
1', 1 i! -Hibiscus Mosheutos
- Panicum Vergatum
a t, v
1 , t , 4 5' - ids..V?I,?/}(?+nica
1;; '', !1 I 4 4 ' , t Inlet / Outlet Pools (0.07 Atpool)
3R Average Depth
Deep Marsh (0. 17 A)
1.125ft Average Depth
Plant Species @ 2ft Spacing
- Saurusras Cemuus
- Saggftada latifolia
- Juncus eff isus
it
1 t ?1 1 ? II ,;i 1 1 '
` I p ! r!
• .i I t ? 1' 1 i ?r? j' 1 ?I 1 r
? I t I it y ?, i r11,3 rr ?I ?r; 1 ! r
>. 1 iii ( I ! li ! 4l Fr! +.r
\ I 1 i 'I
! i. ! l tAp n
?` ' I I r
` 1 1 t IA
a ,

N
?AL
SPANGLER
ENVIRONMCNTAL, INC.
suite #400
Poet OfAee Box 387
Rddak NC 276024387
0 150 Stormwater Wetland Creation A
eeee?r Raleigh, North Carolina
75 50 25 0 25 50 75
SCALE: I'm 75' copyti& © 2001 Spoingler Eav@onment4

°p z
z A
IQ
w
?z PAZ
j
?z
° W a , -..
ZI c O
.CL
V i W:

? Cr
Q'
1,6
f
a
?h-
??r
az '? ? o
Wz
J41
ZZ
a& H M

file:///Untitle
Thanks Steve. Now I definitely know your opinion! I'll pass this along to Domey and we'll get a letter
outa here.
Steve Mitchell wrote:
This project is SHIT.
I don't know what you have in hand but the application must treat the drainage area of 30 acres at the
nutrient export rate of 10.8 lbs/a/yr 12 acres untreated and the treated 18 acre tract yeild a valus of 8.9
lbs. Then d othey mention any offset payment for the difference for the 30 year period? This guy tried
this in Dec. 99 and failed to get my support. I guess we will see this time.
Cyndi Karoly wrote:
Hi folks, I'm handling Hennessy's tardy projects while he's in Colorado this week. I have only one left,
this Tom Rahill major variance request for Trinity Associates : Neuse Buffer Impacts to ut of Richland
Creek near intersections of Trinity and Edwards Mill Roads.
It appears Dorney, Todd St. John, and Bob have all reviewed this file at one time or another, although
there aren't notes or letters from DWQ staff in the file, just one original application. As of today, June
25, there's no staff report from RRO yet. Steve, please let me know as soon as you possibly can about
your opinion on this project. A reply is due to the applicant out of our office by June 29, 2001.
Bob and John, I'm alerting the two of you as well that I've got this file, so please let me know if you
need to see it.
Thanks.
1 of 1 6/25/01 3:33 PN
Re: Trinity Associates Major Variance Request
Bob:
Subject: Re: Trinity Associates Major Variance Request
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 200107:33:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: Scott Linnenburger <[e-mail]>
To: Bob Zarzecki <bob.zarzecki @ncmail.net>
The date that the property was subdivided (filed for
registration with the City of Raleigh) was January 1,
1999. Please let me know as soon as possible if there
is anything more that is necessary for your submittal
to the EMC. I believe we delivered you our proposed
final draft of the application packet. I have not yet
seen the summary of facts that you'll present. If you
could get that to us, I would appreciate it. Thanks.
Scott
--- Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Scott,
> Thanks. I should have the information for your
> review today or tomorrow at the latest. The
> summary will be provided for the agenda by tomorrow
> as well.
> - Bob
> Scott Linnenburger wrote:
> > Bob:
> > I've attached the information you need to create
> the
> > facts summary sheet(s). Please call me if you
> have
> > trouble with the attachment.

Scott
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
> > http://personal. mail. yahoo.com/
> > Name:
> BZ 6-20-01 Summary of Facts.doc
> > Type:
> Microsoft Word Document (applicationlmsword)
> > BZ 6-20-01 Summary of Facts.doc Encoding:
> base64
> > Description:
> BZ 6-20-01 Summary of Facts.doc
> > Download Status:
> Not downloaded with message
> > begin:vcard
> n:;
> tel;fax:[phone]
> tel;work:919-733-9726
> x-mozilla-html:FALSE
1 of 2 6/25/01 8:02 AN
Re: Trinity Associates Major Variance Request
> org:Environmental Specialist III - DENR/ DWQ;401
> Wetlands Certification Unit
> version:2.1
> title:Bob Zarzecki
> adr;quoted-printable:;;2321 Crabtree Blvd (office
> address)=OD=OA1650 Mail Service Center (mail
> address)=OD=OA;Raleigh;NC;27669-1650;
> end:vcard
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
2 of 2 6/25/01 8:02 AM
Date: June 20, 2001
To: Bob Zarzecki, NCDENR DWQ 401 Unit
From: Scott Linnenburger, Spangler Environmental, Inc.
Re: Summary of Facts- Trinity Associates Major Variance Request
Bob:
I was able to locate the subdivision information this afternoon for the Trinity Associates parcel
for which Spangler Environmental, Inc. has submitted a major variance request. The property
was prepared and approved by the City of Raleigh in October 1998 and filed on January 1, 1999.
I was also able to locate a preliminary sketch plan for the area created in December 1996 and
another iteration of the same theme, with minor variation and without a date. I will have these
hand-delivered to your office before June 25, 2001 for inclusion with the final package.
I have included for your use, statements to be included within the summary of facts as well as
pertinent tables, both taken from the variance package.
Practical Difficulties Due To Strict Application of Rule .0233
• 57% loss of developable acreage
• Property bisection by buffer leaves disconnected, developable "slivers" of 0.42 and 0.40
acres in an O-I Zoning District
• $1,000,000 loss in potential revenue for developer, long-term tax loss to City of Raleigh
on prime commercial land
Conditions Unique to the Subiect Property
• "Buffer Island"- no stream on upstream property, 325 feet of buffer absent downstream
of property prior to confluence with Richland Creek
• Current, intact buffer on subject parcel treats only 8% of the total nitrogen load it
receives, resulting in a total nitrogen export of 7.5 pounds/acre/year without development
Proposed Water Quality Protection
• Large, off-line, regional stormwater wetland that will treat stormwater runoff from 9.69
acres of fully developed property. Such an approach achieves an economy of scale in
terms of treatment and maintenance efficiency
• Proposed BMPs provide reduction of total nitrogen exported into Richland Creek over
the present, undeveloped condition
• Payment of balance of nutrient reduction to Wetland Restoration Program for use in other
water quality improvements. This fee would not be paid if the buffer were left intact
SPANGLER
ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
June 12, 2001
DWQ Major Variance Request Meeting
Attendees:
Discussion Points
Following taken from 616 email, referred to as 401 Section comments
1.) Hardship created by Neuse Rules or by Applicant. Additional justification needed
?
?
2.) Detailed information needed for proposed development. An additional alternative needed
other than "no" or "total" impact to Neuse Buffer
Av rwy?
3.) Length of stream impacted U2? /}?-
4.) Square footage of Zone 1 impacted
27 l? /}-Zf4 ?.?.
5.) Square footage of Zone 2 impacted
1g, Z9S ?"z< ?fZa? .
6.) Existence of wetlands on-site
U`cg- ? J,'Q? _t'o e t" Sc;¢
7.) How does 7.22 lb/ac/yr comply with City of Raleigh Neuse Stormwater Ordinance
Land Planning • Permitting • Environmental _Consulting • Construction Management • Expert Testimony
Post Office Box 387 Raleigh, NC 27602-0387 tel: [phone] fax: [phone] www.Spangler-SEI.com

8.) Drainage of 12.2 acre parcel upstream of subject parcel
-41 -7
>IZZze coo OL?
9.) Measurement o buffefs
(Additional RRO Comments, as follows:
Spangler Environmental questions
1.) Technical vs. Procedural

2.) By what date must technical revisions be in DWQ possession, how many copies, etc.
7Z, "
* , D11"'e
b4a*01
PII s 0'r ze, ?Z ol,,cca
4
77110-3 , s&, ,Bz
t'o
0?-ad- ??,???' at?? ,Gy ??.PP, tip ? -} ?}
y3?f,2. .
4rte. ?.

Trinity Road Project
Subject: Trinity Road Project
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 14:59:48 -0400
From: Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>
Organization: Division of Water Quality; 401 Certification Unit
To: "Scott Linnenburger (SpanglerEnv)" <[e-mail]>,
"Todd St. John" <[e-mail]>, John Dorney <[e-mail]>,
Steve Mitchell <[e-mail]>
Scott,
We're still scheduled for our meeting next week, Tuesday the 12th at loam. I won't be able to provide you
our comments prior to then in writing. I haven't received all of the Regional Office's coments. The 401
Unit's comments are as follows (other comments including those specific to the constructed wetland will
be provided next week).
• It is the understanding of this office that the 2.23 acre parcel was subdivided or recombined from a
larger parcel after the effective date of the buffer rules in a manner and configuration that created a
parcel that "essentially nothing can be developed" on without a variance. Therefore, it is the
determination of this office that the applicant and not the rules created the hardship and that the
applicant has already received a reasonable return from the original parcel of land. It is for this
reason that this office will recommend denial of the variance to the EMC. You may want to provide
additional justification with regards to this issue.
• The variance request needs to provide detailed information on the proposed development of the
property. Is it the intention of the owner to pipe the entire length of stream and buffer? Does it
require the entire length to be piped or will only a portion of the buffer be adequate? I only see two
alternatives presented (impact everything and impact nothing). Please provide an alternative that
shows something in between and justification as to why this is not preferred.
• What is the length of stream proposed to be impacted?
• What is the square footage of Zone 1 proposed to be impacted?
• What is the square footage of Zone 2 proposed to be impacted?
• Do any wetlands exist on the site?
• The request states that the final nitrogen loading rate will be 7.22. How will this comply with the
Raleigh Neuse Stormwater Ordinance inlcuding any required off-set payments?
• The request states that stormwater associated with the 12.2 acres parcel above the subject parcel was
bypassed directly to the stream. When did this occur and why wasn't diffuse flow provided as
required by the buffer rules?
• Buffers were measured from centerline of Richland's Creek near the proposed constructed wetland
site. These need to be measured from the bank not centerline.
I'll be out the rest of the week. Please contact Todd or John with any questions or wait until Tuesday.
Thanks,
- Bob
Bob Zarzecki
Environmental Specialist III - DENR/ DWQ
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
1 of 2 6/6/01 3:04 PM
CA
r
but
JZ.
Al?
Iota)
rinity Road
UJ
Subject: Trinity Road
Date: Tue, 15 May 200108:33:32 -0400
From: "Todd St. John" <[e-mail]> f \ i "
Organization: DWQ Wetlands Unit w )
To: "bob.zarzecki" <[e-mail]>
CC: "john.dorney" <[e-mail]>
In regards to the variance request for Trinity Road:
1) In Figure 1, there is a structure called "bypass pipe" parallel and
south of Trinity Road. Any new stormwater discharge needs treatment to
bypass the buffer. An explaination of why this will be bypassed and not
treated is requested.
2) Was the stream crossing of Edwards Mill road south of Trinity Road YJD
supposed to be less than 150' of stream impact? Is this a violation and
if so who conducted it?
3) There is some very weak yet present buffer that will be abandoned
when the stream is rerouted below Edwards Mill Road. Was this addressed?
4) The wetland size proposed in the calcs is acceptable, but the plans
of the wetland show the bufffer from the center line of Richlands creek.
There is also a proposed level spreader, but no details are given. I
suggest the the level spreader be sized per Bill Hunt's latest
guidelines.
Todd St. John, P.E.
Environmental Engineer II
DWQ
Wetlands Unit

1,5+(
1?u I
..-tom

1 of 1 5/15/01 9:06 AM

e OA
NCDENR
JAMES B. HUNTJR..
1 GOVERNOR
Subject: Neuse River Basin Riparian Buffer Rules
WAYNEMCDVAW NBR-RRO 68
SECRETARY Trowell Property
Coliseum Heights Office Complex
Trinity Road & Edwards Mill Extension
Wake County
;Dear Mr. Rice:
On August 20 1998, I met with you at the subject property to conduct a site visit for the above
+ referenced project. This project is referenced by the Raleigh Regional Office as NBR RRO-068.
< ti - At your request, an evaluation was performed to determine if the feature present would require
compllanbe with the Neuse River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy; Protection
?. -,and Maintenance of Existing Riparian Areas, Administrative Code T15A:02B.0233 (NCAC 0233 .
t- Y - ` It was determined that the unnamed tributary, is an intermittent stream and therefore is subject to the
Y = ?? Neuse Buffer Rules. This feature becomes a stream approximately 150 feet from the property line
" .off Trinity Road just below the proposed access easement. The required buffer has been delineated
on the attached map.
?-In addition, in accordance with the rule, sheet flow from stormwater must be maintained, to the
Jr 1 t _:t•?maximum extent practical, through dispersing concentrated flow and/or re-establishment of
vegetation to maintain the efficacy of the riparian area.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and if this Office can be of any assistance or if you have
additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sin lY,
' Steve Mitche 1
}y' Environmental Scientist
.=.. Y.y
-'' `•; cc: RRO/John Dorney
\neuse.buflcoliseum.off
Z'
47711
3800 BARRETT DRIVE, SUITE 101, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 2760E
1r
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 80%NRECYCLKO/10% POST CONEUM R1 PAPER
..o.rr`
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
RALEIGH REGIONAL OFFICE
October 29, 1998
;JSteve Rice
%Rice & Associates
106 New Edition Court
Cary, N. C. 27511
li
GIB3
?IC3
y
CEB2 r
I ?
i o
7
N
A
t
O
co
co
CD
cu
u
cn
O
O
O
O
O
O -
N
O
O
m0

(Joins sheet 57)
r'

N??I (Joins sheet 37)

u

u

F
f9
PANGLER
ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
Major Variance Request Package
Under 15A NCAC.0233

For Buffer Impacts to Unnamed Tributary of
Richland Creek near the intersection of Trinity and
Edwards Mill Roads
Prepared By:
' Scott Linnenb r

7
Spangler Environmental, Inc.
PO Box 387
Raleigh, NC 27602-0387
Ph: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
For
Trinity Associates
c/o Mr. Tom Rahill
PO Box 1354
Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480
Submitted on May 1, 2001
Oob
lz$ Ja mg

Land Planning • Permitting • Environmental Consulting • Construction Management • Expert Testimony
Post Office Box 387 Raleigh, NC 27602-0387 tel: [phone] fax: [phone] www.Spangler-SEI.com

' I OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Received Request # _
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
r Variance Request Form
Neuse River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy
Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rule (15A NCAC .0233)
NOTE. This form may be photocopied for use as an original.
Part 1: General Information
1. Applicant's name (the corporation, individual, etc. who owns the project):
Trinity Associates c/o Tom Rahill
' 2. Print Owner/Signing Official (person legally responsible for the facility and its compliance)
Name: Tom Rahill
Title:
Street address: PO_ Box 1354
City, State, Zip: Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480
Telephone: ( 910 256-9918
Fax: [phone]
3. Project Name (Subdivision, facility, or establishment name - consistent with project name on
' plans, specifications, letters, operation and maintenance agreements, etc.):
' 4. Location of Facility
Street address: Trinity Road
City, State, Zip: Raleigh, NC, 2760
County: Wake
Latitude/longitude:
5. Directions to facility from nearest major intersection (Also attach a map):
Southwest Quadrant of intersection of Trinity Road and Edwards Mill Road_ _
6. Contact person who can answer questions about the facility:
Name: Same as above
' Telephone: _
Fax:
Email
7. Requested Environmental Management Commission Hearing Date: June 2001
1
' Version 1: September 1998

i

Part 2: Demonstration of Need for a Variance
NOTE: The variance provision of the Neuse Riparian Area Rule allows the Environmental Management
Commission to grant a variance to an affected party when the following conditions apply on a given project:
(a) practical difficulties or hardships would result from strict application of the rule:
(b) such difficulties or hardships result from conditios which are peculiar to the property involved; and
(c) the general purpose and intent of the Rule would be preserved, water quality would be protected and
substantial justice would be done if the variance were granted.
This part of the application is to explain how the project meets criteria (a) and (b).
1. Attach a detailed description (2-3 pages) explaining the following: Attached
• The practical difficulties or hardships that would result from strict application of the Rule.
• How these difficulties or hardships result from conditions that are unique to the property
involved.
• Why reconfiguring and/or reducing the built-upon area to preserve a greater portion of the
riparian area is not feasible on this project. If economic hardship is the major
consideration, then include a specific explanation of the economic hardship and the
proportion of the hardship to the entire value of the project.
Part 3: Water Quality Protection
NOTE: This part of the application is'to explain how the project meets criterion (c): the general purpose and
intent of the Rule would be preserved, water quality would be protected and substantial justice would be done if
the variance were granted.
1. Briefly summarize how water quality will be protected on this project. Also attach a detailed
narrative (1-2 pages) describing the nonstructural and structural measures that will be used for
protecting water quality and reducing nitrogen inputs to surface water.
See Attached Text_
2. What is the total project area in acres? __ 2.23 Acres
3. Which of the following permits/approvals will be required for this project?
CAMA Major
X Sediment/Erosion Control
X 401 Certification/404 Permit
Variance Request Form, page 2
Version 1: September 1998

1

Part 3: Water Quality Protection, continued
4. Complete the following information for each drainage basin. If there are more than two
drainage basins in the project, attach an additional sheet with the information for each basin
provided in the same format as below.
Project Information Drainage Basin 1 Drainage Basin 2
Receiving stream name Richland Creek
Receiving stream class' C NSW
Drainage basin area (totalz) 9.69 acres
Existing impervious area3 (totalz) 1.89
Proposed impervious area3 (totalz) 7.47
% Impervious area3 (on-site) 15%
% Impervious area3 (totalz) 27%
Impervious area3 Drainage basin 1 Drainage basin 2
On-site buildings 0.34 (15,000 sq. ft.)
On-site streets 0.51
On-site parking 0.58
On-site sidewalks 0.07
Other on-site 0
Total on-site 1.5
Off-site 5.97
Total 7.47
The Internet site forthis information is http://h2o.enr.state.nc.uslstrmclass/alphalneU.html
2 Total means on-site plus off-site area that drains through the project.
3 Impervious area is defined as the built-upon area including, but not limited to, buildings, parking areas,
sidewalks, gravel areas, etc.
5. How was the off-site impervious area listed above derived?
Prediction of future development and field verification of existing development and
Raleigh Code of Ordinance regulations
6. What will be the annual nitrogen load contributed by this site after development in pounds per
acre per year without structural BMPs (stormwater pond, wetland, infiltration basin, etc)?
Attach a detailed plan for all proposed structural stormwater BMPs.

1
Drainage
basin Size of
drainage
basin
(ac) Post-development
nitrogen loading rate
without BMPs°
(Ibs/ac/yr) BMP nitrogen
removal
e r ' ncy5 Final nitrogen
loading rate
(Ibs/ac/yr) Final nitrogen
loading from
drainage basin
(Ibs)
1 9.69 17.2 7.22 70
2 2
3
4
5
Totals 9.69 ------ ------ ------ 70
" Attach calculations and references.
5 Attach calculations and references.
' Variance Request Form, page 3
Version 1: September 1998

1

'1
r]

I

04/27/2001 10:56 9195460757 SPANGLER EN%/IRONMENT PAGE 02
Part 3: Water Quality Protection, continued
The applicable supplemental form(s) listed below must be attached for each BMP specified:
Form SWU-102 Wet Detention Basin Supplement
Form SWU-103 Infiltration Basin Supplement
Form SWU-105 Curb Outlet System Supplement
Form SWU-105 Off-Site System Supplement
Form SWU-107 Underground Infiltration Trench Supplement
Form SWU-109 Innovative BMPs Supplement
Dart 4: Submittal Checklist
A complete appplication submittal consists of the following components. Incomplete submittals will
be returned to the applicant. The complete variance request submittal must be received 90 days
prior to the EMC meeting at which you wish the request to be heard. Initial below to indicate that
the necessary information has been provided.
Applicant's Item
Initials
• Original and two copies of the variance Request Form and the attachments
listed below-
A vicinity map of the project (see Part 1, Item 5)
• Narrative demonstration of the need for a variance (see Part 2)
• A detailed narrative description of stormwater treatment/management (see Part
3, Item 1)
Calculations supporting nitrogen loading estimates (see Part 3, Item 6)
_ Calculations and references supporting nitrogen removal from proposed BMPs
(see Part 3, Item 6)
W._.,.. ...__ Location and details for all proposed structural stormwater BMPs (see Part 3,
Item 6)
Three copies of the applicable Supplement Form(s) for each BMP andior
narrative for each innovative BMP (see Part 3, Item 7)
Three copies of plans and specifications, including:
____..? ...._., 0 Development/Project name
0 Engineer and firm
o Legend and north arrow
M` 0 Scale (1" = 100' or 1" = 50' is preferred)
0 Revision number & date
o Mean high water line (if applicable)
0 Dimensioned property/project boundary
o Location map with named streets or NC State Road numbers
......... _,0 Original contours, proposed contours, spot elevations, finished floor
elevations
... o Details of roads, parking, cul-de-sacs, sidewalks, and curb and gutter
0 Footprint of any proposed buildings or other structures
0 Wetlands delineated, or a note on plans that none exist
_____ o Existing drainage (including off-site), drainage easements, pipe sizes, runoff
calculations
o Drainage basins delineated
Perennial and intermittent streams, ponds, lakes, rivers and estuaries
0 Location of forest vegetation along the streams, ponds, lakes, rivers and
estuaries
Variance Request Form, page 4
Version 1: September 1998

' 04/27/2001 10:56 9195460757 SPANGLER ENVIRONMENT PAGE 03
' Part 5: Deed Restrictions
By your signature in Part 7 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 6: 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)- _Spangler environmental, Inc. _, w _.?. __...._ .._ . .
Mailing address. PO Box 387
City, State, Zip; Raleigh, NC. 27602 ._.? .. ... _.. _ .?. ._ ... _.?..?_.
Telephone: [phone] M _.__ ..?.._., ?. _.?._.._ ...
Fax: [phone]
Email: sec incobellsouth.net

Part 7: Applicant's Certification
1, . Mr. To Rahill (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-
Date: _.. ---,
Title
,!._?..
Variance Request Form, page 5
Version 1: September 1998

1 '
1 Q
Part 2: Demonstration of Need for a Variance ,
' The development of this 2.23-acre parcel (see attached site and location maps) cannot be realized
with strict compliance to the Neuse Riparian Area Protection Rule (15 NCAC.0233). However,
' the plans and information contained herein will demonstrate that, with the approval of the
variance request, greater water quality protection will be realized for this parcel. In fact,
enhanced water quality protection will be demonstrated for the entire drainage basin of this
project, above and beyond what is currently required for compliance with the Neuse Rules,
specifically Rule .0235 pertaining to on-site nitrogen treatment.

1

1

0

It should be noted that this proposed project is just one in a handful of regional watershed
restoration measures currently being planned in this portion of the Richland Creek Basin of the
Neuse River Watershed. It is being planned in concert with bank and riparian restoration
between Trinity and Edwards Mill Roads and in-stream restoration in the same area, conducted
by the Centennial Authority and North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program, respectively.
The areas proposed for restoration and water quality enhancement structure development are
adjacent to a City of Raleigh Greenway, which affords a concentrated area to demonstrate to the
public the benefits of different types of watershed and regional environmental planning and
restoration.
Practical Difficulties Due To Strict Application of Rule .0233
The strict application of the riparian area protection rule will result in practical difficulties in
achieving the intended and zoned use of this parcel. The preservation of the existing buffer
removes more than half the property acreage from use, the riparian area bisects the property in a
manner that renders it undevelopable, and preservation of the buffer brings a financial hardship
due to the location of the property and surrounding development patterns. 0
L'
The riparian area that is required to be maintained around the intermittent stream covers 1.05 of
the property's 1.87 acres that lie outside NCDOT easement. This is a 57% loss in developable
land, leaving only 0.82 acres unencumbered by the preserved riparian area. This is not ample
acreage for the placement of a use that complies with the current zoning of I- 1 /01- 1.
Furthermore, the manner in which the preserved riparian area runs through the property further
decreases the usable acreage. The attached plans demonstrate that the riparian area runs in an
east-west direction, bisecting the property. The result is a northern portion of the property that is
unencumbered by the riparian area that totals 0.40 acres and a similar southern portion of 0.42
acres. Because of the small size of these areas and the mandatory property line and roadway
setbacks, these small pieces of land outside the riparian area are not usable from a development
standpoint.
Therefore, because of the location of the riparian area relative to the property boundaries, all
development potential is lost. The nearby land costs of office space, the most likely use on this
parcel, are approximately $12 to $14 per square foot (from property owner, and verified
independently by David Fowlkes of Carolantic Realty, April 2001). Multiplied by the size of
this property, the realized hardship as a result of strict application of Rule .0233 is potentially
$982,713 to $1,146,499.

1
' Conditions Unique to the Subject Property
The situation surrounding this property is unique in regards to the maintenance of the riparian
buffer and the consequent effect on water quality protection. The nutrient treatment afforded by
the buffer is currently bypassed both upstream and downstream of the subject property.
Therefore the current buffer does not provide adequate nutrient treatment for the surrounding
land use.
1

1

n
I!?

fl

Upstream of the subject parcel, the stormwater drainage from the 12.2-acre site at the top of the '
watershed currently bypasses the subject parcel and discharges directly into Richland Creek
ownstream of the Trinity-Edwards Mill intersection. This stormwater does not pass through the
buffer surrounding this intermittent stream and consequently receives minimal nitrogen
treatment. The property west of and adjacent to the subject property (Parcel 3) is maintained in
grass cover and has no forested buffer. The runoff from this site is directed into the stream on
the subject parcel through a culvert and therefore does not receive any nutrient removal treatment
from the riparian buffer. In total, 17.75 acres of this watershed upstream of the subject parcel do
not receive nutrient treat en via s eetflow t roug a riparian er.
Downstream of the subject parcel, the development of Edwards Mill Road and a parcel on the
southeast quadrant of the Trinity-Edwards Mill intersection has resulted in the removal of
approximately 0.75 acres of riparian buffer surrounding this intermittent stream. Additionally,
approximately 325 feet of the stream has been placed in a culvert from the upstream edge of the
Edwards Mill Road grade down to the edge of the City of Raleigh Greenway Easement along the
west side of Richland Creek. Approximately 2.8 acres of this portion of the watershed
downstream of the subject parcel do not receive nutrient treatment via sheetflow through a
riparian buffer.
The conditions on this site are unique because the currently intact, forested riparian buffer is not
consistent throughout the stream. Of the approximately 25.19 acres within this watershed, only
4.65 acres receive nitrogen removal treatment via the intact, forested riparian buffer and 0.5 of
those acres occur within a FEMA floodplain around Richland Creek. This equates to 19% of the
watershed that receives nitrogen treatment under the current land uses. The value of the buffer
on the subject parcel, which is the only riparian area in this subwatershed, is impaired because of
this isolation. This riparian area is not part of a naturally functioning stream system in terms of
stream flow of nutrient removal.
Proposed Water Quality Protection
The water quality protection measures are proposed specifically to treat the water quality
protection shortcomings that have been outlined in the section above. Whereas the current
nutrient treatment capacity of the forested riparian area is bypassed by the current development
patterns, the proposed treatment alternatives will rectify that problem. Where the intact buffer
does not have the capacity to treat the nutrients present in the current developed condition, the
proposed treatment alternative will provide ample treatment. And whereas the current riparian
condition will likely degrade over time with hydrologic changes to this intermittent stream
resulting from continued urban development, the proposed alternative will be a monitored and
maintained structure that will protect Richland Creek from stormwater-induced degradation.
1

Land is available downslope of the subject parcel's watershed for use as a large, "regional"
' stormwater and nutrient treatment wetland best management practice. This land is located on the
Raleigh Entertainment and Sports Arena (ESA) property, near the northeast quadrant of the
' Trinity-Edwards Mill Road intersection. Specifically, this land is east of Richland Creek, north
of Trinity Road and south of the "Entrance E" road into the ESA (see figure 2).
Current Water Quality Protection
The current total nitrogen loading through the stream that exists on the subject property can be
calculated according to nitrogen export coefficients for different land uses put forth by the State
' of North Carolina in the "Neuse River Basin: Model Stormwater Program for Nitrogen Control."
This document also includes best management practice (bmp) total nitrogen treatment
percentages. Combining these two calculations provides the estimated amount of total nitrogen
leaving a particular area after treatment by specific bmps. These calculations are tabulated (See 1
Table 1) below.
' Current Total Nitrogen Load
The subject parcel drainage currently consists 2.23 acres This is broken down into 1.88 acres
of undisturbed vegetation and 0.35 acres of impee rface. Employing the State's nitrogen
export coefficients, this land use results in a total nitrogen load from this site of 3.83
pounds/acre/year. A 1.92-acre portion of the developed property to the south (Parcel 2) also
drains through the subject property. With 80% impervious surface on this property, an additional
nitrogen load of 17.24 pounds/acre/yea s t roug t e su sec parce .
Table 1.
Current Total Ni trogen Loads (Pre-Development Subject Parcel and Parcel 3, Post-
Develo ment Parcel 2

Subject Parcel
' - Undisturbed 1.88 0.6 1.13
Impervious 0.35 21.2 7.42
Subtotal 2,23 8.54 3.83
Parcel2
Managed 0.38 1.2 0.46
Impervious
Subtotal 1.54
1.92 21.2 32.65
33.11
17.24
Parcel 3

r Managed
Impervious 4.78 '
0.76 1:2
21.2 5.74
16.11
Subtotal 5.54 21.85 3.94

Totals 9.69 Acres 63.50 lb/yr 6.55 lb/ac/yr
J

' An additional undeveloped parcel to the west (Parcel 3) also drains under the subject parcel's
existing roadway and into the stream on the subject parcel. Because of the existing ?l'Q'

roadway/culvert, drainage from this property does not receive nitrogen removal treatment from
the intact riparian buffer. The additional load from this undeveloped parcel is 3.94 t?2 ,
pounds/acre/year.
Current 'T'otal Nitrogen Treatment
Of the three parcels in this particular watershed that drain to the stream on the subject parcel, a
portion receives nitrogen removal treatment by the existing buffer, and a portion bypasses that
buffer. Drainage from the subject property, and the portion of Parcel 2 which lie in t i
watershed, are directed through the buffer. The total nitrogen load from this area is 5.08
pounds/acre/year. Employing the 30% total nitrogen removal rate promulgated by the State for
intact riparian buffers nutrient treatment effectiveness, the total nitrogen load treated from this
area is 1.52 pounds/acre/year. Therefore, the riparian buffer exports 3.56 pounds of
nitrogen/acre/year. Multiplying this rate by the acreage receiving nitrogen treatment, the total
nitrogen load treated by the riparian buffer is 6.31 pounds/year, the amount not receiving
treatment and transferred into the Neuse River Basin is 14.77 pounds/year, and the nitrogen
treatment efficiency is 30%.
v
a?3
n

As the undeveloped Parcel 3 does not benefit from the treatment potential of the riparian buffer,
' an additional nitrogen load is added to the load presented by the Subject Parcel and Parcel 1.
That addition is 3.94 pounds/acre/year from the undeveloped Parcel 3. The total nitrogen
exported from the subject property increases to 7.50 pounds/acre/year. 6.31 pounds/year are still
' treated, but the amount not receiving treatment rises to 72.68 pounds/year, which, because the
intact buffer is so small relative to the watershed, reduces the treatment efficiency to 8%.

?J

If Parcel 3 were developed, the total nitrogen load imported into the subject parcel, even with
nutrient control bmps in compliance with the "Neuse Stormwater Rule," could increase to 13.5
pounds/acre/year (3.56 from the Subject Parcel and Parcel 2 and 10 from Parcel 3. The total
load, leaving the downstream end of the subject parcel, would be 131.4 pounds/year. The
treatment efficiency of the existing riparian buffer would potentially be 4.5% for the portion of
this watershed draining through the stream with the intact riparian buffer.
In summary, the watershed, which currently drains through the stream on the subject parcel, does
not treat the nitrogen inputs to that stream in an effective manner. The treatment efficiency
afforded by the maintenance of the riparian buffer is just 8% due to the upstream inputs that do
not receive treatment from the buffer. If this upstream property were developed, as currently
planned and in compliance with the Neuse Stormwater Rule (bringing nitrogen export from the
site to 1.0 pounds/acre/year), the treatment efficiency of this riparian area would decrease to just
4.5% with the riparian area treating just 6.31 pounds of Nitrogen per year.
Proposed Water Quality Protection
The construction of a series of stormwater wetland best management practices according to the
specifications set forth in the State's Stormwater Best Management Practice Manual will treat

significantly more nitrogen than can be treated by the existing riparian buffer. The structures
will be designed to provide n trient treatment and stormwater detention fof_a Tree '
con1?iWti _ ce &n will assume tha ree parcels are fully a oped a W/o
,.)mpervio surface. AsItibse bmp structures wi be loca e on a floo p am that se om
p experiences flooding due to the depth to which the stream has downcut), no damming of any
stream or impact to any additional riparian area will need to occur to provide this treatment.
Furthermore, the best management practices will be located in close proximity to a City of
Raleigh Greenway, providing the opportunity for additional public education on the values of
stormwater control. Two best management practices will be employed in series to provide
nitrogen treatment. In order, these bmps will be an extended detention stormwater wetland that
flows into a 50-foot wide riparian buffer prior to the treated water re-entering Richland Creek.

At a fully developed state, the nitrogen exported from these three parcels (9.69 acres) equates to
17.2 pounds/acre/year or 167 pounds/year (see Table 2). The stormwater wetland will occupy
0.47 acres (designed to contain the 1-year, 24-hour storm per the "Neuse River Basin: Model
Stormwater Program for Nitrogen Control"). At the State-documented treatment efficiency of
40%, the wetland would remove nitrogen at a rate of 6.88 pounds/acre/year. This would bring
-t e m rogen expo rom the t ree parce . 2 pounds/acre/year (-uU-pounds/year), treating
67 pounds of nitrogen per year. The addition of this bmp will provide over a 10-fold increase in
the amount of nitrogen treated by this watershed in a developed state.
Table 2.
Potential, Post-Develo ment Total Nitro en Loads
subject parcel
Managed, 0.45 1.2 .54
Impervious 1.78 21.2 37.75
Subtotal 2.23 38.29 17.17
Parcel 2
Managed 0.38 1.2 0.46
Impervious 1.54 21.2 32.65
Subtotal 1.92 33.11 17,24
Parcel 3
Managed 1.11 1.2 1.33
- Impervious 4.43 21.2 93.92
Subtotal 5.54 95.25 1.7.19
Totals 9.69 Acres 166.65 lb/yr 17.2 lb/ac/yr

fl

7
IL
IIIL l

The additional flow through the riparian buffer, which is documented with 30% treatment
efficiency, will treat an additional 3.1 pounds/acre/year. This additional treatment reduces the
nitrogen export rate to 7.22 pounds/acre/year (70 pounds/year), a total that is less than the 7.50
pounds/acre/year exported currently from the subject property with an intact riparian
buffer and an undeveloped Parcel 3.
The total amount of nitrogen removed prior to entering the Neuse River Basin proper through the
implementation of these two nutrient and stormwater control best management practices has
been increased to 97 pounds/year, a 15-fold increase. This-brings a net nitrogen treatment
efficiency of 58%. 6K)-?-
In summary, the best management practices proposed herein to provi8 nutrient control, for a
fully developed watershed, supply a higher rate of nitrogen treatment, a decreased rate of
nitrogen input to Richland Creek, and the consequent exponentially higher load of nitrogen
treated than is currently present in the partially developed watershed (See Table 3). The intact
riparian buffer treats 1.52 pounds/acre/year of nitrogen. The proposed best management
practices will treat 13.62 pounds/acre/year of nitrogen. This results in a nitrogen export rate that
is currently 7.50 pounds/acre/year in a watershed that is 27% impervious being reduced to a rate
of 7.22 pounds/acre/year in a watershed that is 80% impervious. The amount of nitrogen
currently treated is 6.31 pounds/year with a treatment efficiency of 8%, and this efficiency could
decrease to 4.5% if Parcel 3 is developed. The proposed practices would treat 96.65 pounds/year
at an efficiency of 58%.
Table 3.
Comparison of Nitrogen Treatment Currently/Without Variance vs. Proposed/With
Variance
Area Draining Through Stream In
Subject Parcel acres 9.69 9.69
Total Nitrogen Treatment Rate
(pounds/acre/year) 1.52 13.62
Total Nitrogen Treated
(pounds/year) 6.31 96.65
Total Nitrogen Exported To
Richland Creek (pounds/year) * 72.68 -131.4 70
Treatment Efficiency * 8%-4.5% 58%
* second figure relates to potential increases exported nitrogen and alteration of treatment
efficiency, within the scope of the Neuse Rules, if Parcel 3 is developed
Conclusions
The development of the subject parcel is not possible with strict adherence to the "Neuse Buffer
Rule" (15 NCAC.0233). DENR DWQ has determined that an intermittent stream exists on this

' m are on the ? subject parcel, and the stream is confined
property. The headwaters of this stream
within a culvert downstream of the subject parcel. In essence this parcel contains a "riparian
island." The riparian area that is currently intact on the subject parcel encompasses all but 0.82
acres. This "developable" acreage is split, with 0.42 acres lying adjacent to Trinity Road and
' 0.40 acres lying adjacent to Parcel 2. With mandated property setbacks and the need for
vehicular access, there is essentially nothing that can be eve ope .
The hardship created the inability to develop this property is very substantial. This is a prime
development parcel, lying on the corner of two major thoroughfares, and quickly becoming
surrounded by other successful enterprises. Independent developers, both of which have
' developed similar projects in the immediate area estimated that this property would be worth
between $12 and $14 per square foot or somewhere close to $1,000,000. Strict adherence to the
"Neuse Buffer Rule" renders impossible the realization of this property's development potential.
However, allowing the nutrient and stormwater treatment to be carried out at an off-site location
nutrient treatment and
i
stormwater detention not only for the subject parcel, but for the entire watershed that currently
drains to the intermittent stream on the subject parcel. Currently 72.68 pounds of nitrogen/year
' run into Richland Creek from this drainage area. If Parcel 3 were developed, this figure could
rise to 131.4 pounds of nitrogen/year and still be in compliance with the Neuse Stormwater Rule.
If the proposed best management practices were installed, the total nitrogen introduced to
Richland Creek from this drainage area would be reduced to 70 pounds/year. Additionally, the
nitrogen treatment efficiency is improved by 50% in instituting these bmps.
The stated purpose of the Neuse River Nutrient Sensitive Watershed Rules is to reduce nitrogen
inputs to the Neuse River. While preserving riparian buffers is an essential part of this process,
there are situations, especially in rapidly urbanizing environments, where a regional treatment
' alternative provides more efficient nitrogen removal while still maintaining economic vitality.
This major variance request demonstrates that, employing NCDENR Division of Water Quality-
approved treatment mechanisms with creative land planning, environmental protection can be
' enhanced along with the economic growth that is a result of new development.

1

would The permit installation the of the parcel to be proposed best developed and with management a practices regional would water quality provide benefit.

t

i]
I?Y, L

r?

w
Yj
\,`^., ??
{?\
f?'
-
( f ?r
!/ i 1?, 1•,\, `rl???f ?
Sf.,y'f
i?
K\ ? 8? k /Q , `y[? ?/y\ /'
j
R
1-1!`A 1
lr
?
` ?a?
\
, ,
?
!
^
?M1 '` f? + (? `,
q
• t 1
.
111 a I , I ?.
...
.
\4 ? . !
ye
,
r
1.
h
/ ?+ I ? 1
may 1
i . !r ,?ti - a y (j'
? ,?
J
?.,J L t T
?\ ' ' ` / ? i ? • ? y ? ?.. , r . •k
:

•

1`
T ? i 17 „'
? • ? ?? , ? X71
, x,
.?;,
;, ,
'l?i.
.? ? ?r ,1`.I ji, 'F iT ? ?,10? k ?v
1 1 ?r ?
1' ,+ ?
11t\
` ?
k
a ?
ft{I,jf
f
! v
?,
y
?
? ?sl{
v.l' In t`? ,
4
•, C~ ?;. i ?,
VInHY ?i'
-a+_

?/ ?
/??J'
1 1V? r
• .
.
/?j^"?..-•+?
??I. CSC
( ++ ? .?N X
??TI? ??I I t
.r' 1 `.1 1a
• ?i ?
,h ''`,'• f, y
y I t
1 ? ?
? '? 1vy 'ru r
Y
r '
? ?
,
r !r?.
,
? ?
?+,?. J i._ ?. '?' KJ¢?7t?1 i ,? ( ?
?
£`ilr,?' ?l h
i a p `
Y
? 'i j
'
'?
r/ s ?i• .
.?1`
r

7 '
r if!
I
(
?
?
1 •+, ,
'•. _ t ? irk , r?
r J+/ F?'..
lr
?
! i
,,? `•?.
? ?
rl? ?a z+ ??
? T f ? a
'„
, ,r?,
/
//
??y.^
y.
'
IAR p `IBC` t
(
r J? + i f { .
•
?T',` - ?
•
ry
; •t
1 ,•`v
?.- ? :'... ?. I i) '?} ?I'l,n J,:. ;.? r'',#ta'?j
a?e-?. ,
°.`1 `m •_oj:,., ?? ? ? ,

f r1NIMa{IlA r ? '
- A•..Y r t '??\ ,` tf 1'
r'. . , 1 ! a1•- ?.
"'"s ?.*,? ,'..
'? ?dwards Mill Rwcl .
;`y, ? , ra
4•.r _ •,,;t 7 ?•„?';: ?4
a1
1 f. . ??''

tq?

•

' y ?w X
3
t `..? Y
t 1 `
•f
1 , ?? ? ?
fir ` i'tt y k
`
lr?t *< ??
} nlergh EnlerialnmerlR'- I?
Ancl.S
Aorta Arena `R;"•'
r y,..

.,,. 1• '' ,7 • p; ? ; ,-? l,;,lf I f','t;
1 ':? saner r.t??i ?[?[y 1 r * ? ,,..?. •?•=
? ('yt ,,?ti+,
. ?, ?

? • { y ?'

i"k w{4Q ?~ l? ? 1 P .
r
? r ??' 1 j t 111

r II' ..a
s tc ,+
Cr? Or
o

.
??i??
''4+4!a'TFp ?..F z.c

•. II
~• t .... a
y M ..
?,- • 7;!
1 if -._ ToM,d SlotanvatOr W
I ?
/ e
m• ..
1 i

IF?<? • 1 t' ? ?1/! i t ! ???i! .^ ty i Q ? P ?L 1 ?,?l J,.•? _ r t k?? IL

to T
n
'
,.:_ , ?r,.;
j
_.i vltfl
crxt?
?
? .,,?,?,,y' h
t ? ? a . o'fi

r
P
r.
, •
14
e
_
iV

a
00

IF MIRIAM
II

1 I } ` %? ,1
.
• r
''
. ! r
? Ay. a w. r
rte
t
•
} fa• k
j
• ..J.
,T„

.•V. •tr?i
! ( 1 i i t',
J l • . • , •
l ?.. 1. ' ?+a7,Al?j t
^•' `• ul?
r ' • • •'• . ; , 124.000 Sodo
Aron NluMoo ...

1

t

1

1
I

1

r

1

1

t

4

?
o
a

,6,

" rl

C/4
_-- - \' Assuming 0.47 Acre Surface Area
extended detention Stormwater
wetland designed to control
?
the 1yr precipitation event
Shallow Marshe/Fringe (0. 17 A)
375ft Average Depth
Plant species Q 2' Spedng
- Lobelia Cardinalis
1 - Hibiscus Mosheutos
- Panicum Vergatum
„ - Iris Vlrglnica
- Carex 5p.
Inlet I Outlet Pools (0.07 Alpool)
® aft Average Depth
Deep Marsh (0. 17 A)
1.125ft A rage Depth
@ 2ft Spacing
tjrus Cemuus
- latifolla
- J sue
Ygo sp
1
;. v v fU -

400 c?u
`vrSaitC(1 1x#400
Poet Once Bo]
SPANGLER Rdd^NC270
ENVIRONMENTAL iNC. [phone]
Stormwater Wetland Creation Area
Raleigh, North Carolina
.opyright (c) 2001 Spengler Environmental, Inc.

z .?
• R

a
0
0
0
W
0
W
W
a
U
U
U
V 1
U
a
Cd
Q.?
_U
CC3
N
M
M
N
TV?J

0
G.
O
M
o,
? - ae
j .?
i

I'

''
?, l 1 l l l l l
°' l l l l l l l'
; ,
A lllllll''
? ,
1>>>11I

M
111 ° o
l l l l °°? ooe``
lull o
v llllll`
w
60
1-4
,L
M
U
e?
a~
d'
O
z
a?
0
?. o
o w
o
z
O
V
Q .?
U ?
N r
o?
? .v
N G;
C
_O

Q
O
.O
N
O
v
a?
0
C-)
U
0
CJ
a?
a
o LP M ?
V1 OHO Q Ri ci
? 064
z
IZ
.a a ? o
Ld N
a> ? o
U w
x
N
O ?

W

00

a

0
M
a

/ \
/ ?
r M

to ai
1
T z

O

r
I
I
'

1

P
W4
-
J< ?
104z v
tU

Permit No.
(to be provided by DWQ)
State of North Carolina
' Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality

11

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
WET DETENTION BASIN SUPPLEMENT
This form may be photocopied for use as an original
DWO Stormwater Management Plan Review:
plan submittal includes an application form, a wet detention basin
A complete stormwater management
supplement for each basin, design calculations, and plans and specifications showing all basin and outlet
structure details.
1. PROJECT INFORMATION _
Project Name. _ f?? 5y
Contact Person: 5C!477 LIAl Phone Number:
For projects with multiple basins, specify which basin this worksheet applies to:
elevations
Basin Bottom Elevation v6 ft
Permanent Pool Elevation 36 ft.
Temporary Pool Elevation 3,C S- ft.
areas `? T'3 l
Permanent Pool Surface Area __/ sq
Drainage Area ac
Impervious Area S? ac
volumes
Permanent Pool Volume
Temporary Pool Volume
Forebay Volume
Other parameters
SA/DA 1
Diameter of Orifice
Design Rainfall
Design TSS Removal 2
Form SWU-102 Rev 3.99
(floor of the basin)
(elevation of the orifice)
(elevation of the discharge structure overflow)
?)J
ft. (water surface area at the orifice elevation)
(on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
(on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
??d < cu. ft. (combined volume of main basin and forebay)
i
` /q cu. ft. (volume detained above the permanent pool)
`?/ yY cu. ft. (approximately 20% of total volume)
in.
G in.
%
O?
Pa
(surface area to drainage area ratio from DWQ table)
(2 to S day temporary pool draw-down required)
(minimum 85% required)
gelof4
04/27/2001 10:56 9195460757 SPANGLER ENVIRONMENT PAGE 04
Footnotes:
' I When using the Division SA/DA tables, the correct SA/DA ratio for permanent pool sizing should be computed based upon the
actual impervious % and permanent pool depth. Linear interpolation should be employed to determine the correct value for non-
standard table entries.
z In the 20 coastal counties, the zequirernent for a vegetative filter may be waived if the wet deterrtiort basin is designed w provide
' 90% TSS removal. The NCDENR BMF manual provides design tables for both 85% TSS removal and 90%'ISS removal.
' IL REQUIRED ITEMS CHECKLIST
The following checklist outlines design requirements per the Stoxmwater Best Management Practices Manual
(N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, pebruaxy 1999) and Administrative Code
' Section: 15 A NCAC 2H .1008.
Initial in the space provided to indicate the following design requirements have been met and supporting
' documentation is attached. If the applicant has designated an agent in the Stormwater Management Permit
Application Foray, the agent may initial below. If a requirement has not been met, attach Justification,
Applicants Initials
' /L a. The pcr manent pool depth is between 3 and 6 feet (required minimum of 3 feet).
?()2 b. The forebay volume is approximately equal to 20% of the basin volume.
' -1YL c. The temporary pool controls runoff from the design storm event.
d. The temporary pool draws dowry in 2 to 5 days.
`?- e. If required, a 30-foot vegetative filter is provided at the outlet (include non-erosive flow
calculations)
f The basin length to width ratio is greater than 3:1.
The basin side slopes above the permanent pool are no steeper than 3:1.
h. A submerged and vegetated perimeter shelf with a slope of 6:1 or less (show detail).
i_ Vegetative cover above the permanent pool elevation is specified.
j. A trash rack or similar device is provided for both the overflow and orifice.
13?k k. A recorded drainage easement is provided for each basirt including access to nearest right-
of-way.
way.
1_ If the basin is used for sediment and erosion control during construction, clean out of the
basin is specified prior to use as a wet detention basim_
in. A mechanism is specified which will drain the basin for maintenance or an emergency.
' III. WET )DETENTION BASIN OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
' The wet detention basin system is defined as the wet detention basin, pretreatment including forebays and the
vegetated filter if one is provided.
' This system (check owe) does 0 does not incorporate a vegetated filter at the outlet.
This system (check one) 0 does 0 does not incorporate pretreatment other than a forebay.
Form SWU-102 Rrv 3.99
Page 2 of 4
J
04/27/2001 10:56 9195460757 SPANGLER ENVIRONMENT PAGE 05

' Maintenance activities shall be performed as follows:
V After every significant runoff producinS rainfall event and at least monthly:
' a. Inspect the wet detention basin system for sediment accumulation, erosion, trash accumulation,
vegetated cover, and general condition.
b. Check and clear the orifice of any obstructions such that drawdown of the temporary pool occurs within
2 to 5 days as designed.
' 2. Repair eroded areas immediately, re-seed as necessary to maintain good vegetative cover, mow vegetative
cover to maintain a maximum height of six inches, and remove trash as needed.
' 3. Inspect and repair the collection systern (i_e_ catch basins, piping, swales, riprap, etc.) quarterly to maintain
proper functioning.
4. Remove accumulated sediment from the wet detention basin system semi-annually or when depth is
' reduced to 75% of the original design depth (see diagram below). Removed sediment shall be disposed of
in an appropriate manner and shall be handled in a manner that will not adversely impact water quality (i_e_
stockpiling gear a wet detention basin or stream, ctc.).
' The measuring device used to determine the sediment elevation shall be such that it will give an accurate
depth reading and not readily penetrate into accumulated sediments.
f When the permanent pool depth reads feet in the main pond, the sediment shall be removed.
When the permanent pool depth reads feet in the forebay, the sediment shall be removed.
BASIN DIAGRAM
' Ull in the blanks)
t F Permanent Pool Elevation
Sediment R oval El. 75 °
_--------_-_ Sediment Removal Elevation 75%
13otbom Ele ation % ---------- ------------------------ ----------- -----
' aOttotn Elevation 15°Jo
FOREBAY MAIN POND
' 5. Remove cattails and other indigenous wetland plants when they cover 509/6 of the basin surface. These
plants shall be encouraged to grow along the vegetated shelf and forebay berm.
6. If the basin must be drained for an emergency or to perform maintenance, the flushing of sediment through
t the emergency drain shall be minimized to the maximum extent practical-
Form SWU-102 Rev 3.99 Paste 3 of4
1
04/27/2001 10:56 9195460757 SPANGLER ENVIRONMENT PAGE 06
7_ All components of the wet detention basin system shall be maintained in good working order.
I acknowledge and agree by my signature below that 1 sun responsible for the performance of the seven
maintenance procedures listed above. I agree to notify DWQ of any problems with the system or prior to any
changes to the system or responsible party.
Punt name: ???dl'J/IIfS /yI ?i9 H / L C-
I
I

t

Address: 2D /t// Q41 ry G Z; Yo 2j
Phone:
Signature:
Date: `f - 3 U 1
Note' The legally responsible party should not be a homeowners association unless more than 50%a of the lots have been sold and a
resident of the subdivision has been named the president.
a Notary Public for the State of &o k +t-t 2 0 ?;
County of ALe 60 M, kz - , do hereby certify that -7X v,-VIA
personally appeared before nze this 3 o day of >L &Lt L...., ... , 2-,-,, , and acknowledge the due
execution of the forgoing wet eterit baSi" maintenance requirements
t -?-ioti It tvt (/o?
SEAL

My commission expires A uc?' 1
I Fam SWU-102 Rev 3.99
Page 4 of 4
Witness my hand and official seal,

SPAN LER
ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
PROJECT: Trinity Associates Variance Alternative No. I
' Assuming 9.69 acres of watershed to be accommodated.
1-yr / 24-hr Rain Event = 3"
2-yr / 24-hr Rain Event = 3.7'
l 0-yr / 24-hr Rain Event = 5.6"
25-yr / 24-hr Rain Event = 6.4"
' Design Culvert
waters to proposed wetland creation area with no benefit of
precipitation Design culvert to carry
storage on Trinity Associates and/or Trowel], LLC properties.
Since culverts will pass through NCDOT roadways, design culverts to accommodate flow runoff
from 25-year rain event without overtopping roadway.
' Using the "Free Outlet Condition" with water surface at inlet same elevation as top of pipe, and
outlet unsubmerged, evaluate size of culvert needed.
Assuming Runoff from 9.69 acres equals 85 cfs for 25-year rain event (based on TR-55
Modeling), assume slope of culvert at this location equals 1.4% given by 9ft elevation change
divided by 650ft culvert length. From Table 26-2 in the Handbook of Drainage and Construction
' Products (Smirnoff, 1955), 85 cfs can be accommodated by a 54" concrete culvert. A 48" culvert
would be undersized to accommodate flow.
' Design Apron for Outlet Stabilization
For the 54" Diameter culvert, the peak flow rate for the 25-year event is 85 cfs. To determine
' apron length and stone size, evaluate based on the following.
Assume minimum tailwater condition (T,,, > 0.5 diameter). Therefore, use Figure 8.06a of
Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual. From Figure 8.06a, a 54" diameter
pipe having "Free Outlet" has a maximum discharge of 110 cfs. Size Apron for maximum
discharge condition. From Figure 8.06a, by entering 110 cfs on diagram there is no connection
with 54" culvert curve; therefore, use the lowest intercept point to size apron. This gives an
apron length (La) for the 54" culvert outlet of 30ft.
Do= 54" = 4.5ft
3 Do= 13.5ft
' L8= 30ft
Width of Apron = Do + Ld = 34.5ft
d5o= 0.90ft (for lowest intercept point on Figure 8.06a)
dmaz 1.5 x d5o= 1.35ft
Apron Thickness = 1.5 x dmax= 2.025ft
' Land Planning • Permitting • Environmental Consulting • Construction Management • Expert Testimony
Anet OffirP Rnx 397 Raleigh, NC 27602-0387 tel: [phone] fax: [phone] www.Spangler-SEI.com
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.10
Project : Trinity Associates User: Jay Date: 04-04-2001
County : Wake State: NC Checked: _ Date:
Subtitle: Culvert Inflow
Subarea : AREA
---- ------------------ ---_
Hydrologic Soil Group
COVER DESCRIP"PION A B C D
Acres (CN)
------------------
FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.)
Impervious Areas
Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways - - - 7.75(98)
OTHER AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Brush - brush, weed, grass mix good - - - 1.94(73)
Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) 9.69
SUBAREA: AREA TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 9.69 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 93
TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME Version Z 10
Project : Trinity Associates User: Jay Date: 04-04-2001
County : Wake State: NC Checked: Date:
Subtitle: Culvert Inflow
------------------------------ Subarea #1 - AREA ------------------------------
Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time
rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr)
---------------------- --------------------------------------------------------
Sheet 3.7 300 .0533 A 0.031
Shallow Concent'd 600 0.04 P 0.041
Time of Concentration = 0.07*
--- Sheet Flow Surface Codes ---
A Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense --- Shallow Concentrated ---
B Fallow (No Res.) G Grass, Burmuda --- Surface Codes ---
C Cultivated < 20 % Res. H Woods, Light P Paved
D Cultivated > 20 % Res . I Woods. Dense U Unpaved
E Grass-Range, Short J Range, Natural
* - Generated for use by TABULAR method
1
TABULAR HYDR0GRAPH METHOD Version 2.10
' Project : Trinity Variance User: Jay Date: 04-25-2001
County : Wake State: NC Checked: Date:
' Subtitle: Wetland Storm Control Evaluation
Total watershed area: 0.015 sq mi Rainfall type: 11 Frequency: I years
-------------------------- Subareas --------------------------
W SCE
Area(sq mi) 0.02*
Rainfall(in) 3.0
' Curve number 93*
Runoff(in) 2.25
Tc (hrs) 0.07*
(Used) 0.10
TimeToOutlet 0.00
la/P 0.05
(Used) 0.10
Time Total ------------- Subarea Contribution to Total Flow (cfs) ------------
(hr) Flow WSCE
11.0 1 1
11.3 1 1
11.6 2 2
' 11.9 11 11
12.0 22 22
12.1 34P 34P
12.2 21 21
' 12.3 7 7
12.4 5 5
12.5 4 4
12.6 4 4
12.7 3 3
12.8 3 3
13.0 2 2
13.2 2 2
13.4 2 2
' 13.6 2 2
13.8 1 1
14.0 1 1
14.3 1 I
14.6 1 1
15.0 1 1
' 15.5 1 1
16.0 1 1
16.5 1 1
' 17.0 1 1
17.5 1 1
18.0 1 1
' 19.0 1 1
20.0 0 0
22.0 0 0
26.0 0 0
' P - Peak Flow * - value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines

TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Version 2.10
Project : Trinity Variance User: Jay Date: 04-25-2001
County : Wake State: NC Checked: Date:
' Subtitle: Wetland Capacity
Total watershed area: 0.015 sq mi Rainfall type: 11 Frequency: 2 years
' -------------------------- Subareas --------------------------
W C
Area(sq mi) 0.02*
Rainfall(in) 3.7
' Curve number 93*
Runoff(in) 2.93
Tc (hrs) 0.07*
' (Used) 0.10
TimeToOutlet 0.00
la/P 0.04
(Used) 0.10
Time Total ------------- Subarea Contribution to Total Flow (cfs) ------------
(hr) Flow W C
11.0 1 1
11.3 2 2
11.6 2 2
11.9 15 15
12.0 29 29
12.1 45P 45P
' 12.2 28 28
12.3 10 10
12.4 7 7
' 12.5 5 5
12.6 5 5
12.7 4 4
' 12.8 3 3
13.0 3 3
13.2 3 3
13.4 2 2
' 13.6 2 2
13.8 2 2
14.0 2 2
14.3 2 2
14.6 1 1
15.0 1 1
' 15.5 1 1
16.0 1 1
' 16.5 1 1
17.0 1 1
17.5 1 1
18.0 1 1
' 19.0 1 1
20.0 1 1
22.0 1 1
26.0 0 0
P - Peak Flow * - value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines

1

I

I I
TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Version 2.10
Project : Trinity Associates User: Jay Date: 04-04-2001
County : Wake State: NC Checked: Date:
Subtitle: Culvert Inflow
Total watershed area: 0.015 sq mi Rainfall type: II Frequency: 10years
-------------------------- Subareas --------------------------
AREA
Area(sq mi) 0.02*
Rainfall(in) 5.6
Curve number 93*
Runoff(in) 4.77
Tc (hrs) 0.07*
(Used) 0.10
TimeToOutlet 0.00
Ia/P 0.03
(Used) 0.10
Time Total ------------- Subarea Contribution to Total Flow (cfs) ------------
(hr) Flow AREA
11.0 2 2
11.3 2 2
11.6 4 4
11.9 24 24
12.0 47 47
12.1 73P 73P
12.2 45 45
12.3 16 16
12.4 11 11
12.5 9 9
12.6 8 8
12.7 6 6
12.8 5 5
13.0 5 5
13.2 4 4
13.4 4 4
13.6 3 3
13.8 3 3
14.0 3 3
14.3 2 2
14.6 2 2
15.0 2 2
15.5 2 2
16.0 2 2
16.5 2 2
17.0 1 1
17.5 1 1
18.0 1 1
19.0 1 1
20.0 1 1
22.0 1 1
26.0 0 0
P - Peak Flow * - value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines

u
r

I

I I

LJ

TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD
Project : Trinity Associates User: Jay Date: 04-04-2001
County : Wake State: NC Checked: Date:
Subtitle: Culvert Inflow
Total watershed area: 0.015 sq mi Rainfall type: II Frequency: 25 years
-------------------------- Subareas --------------------------
AREA
Area(sq mi) 0.02*
Rainfall(in) 6.4
Curve number 93*
Runoff(in) 5.58
Tc (hrs) 0.07*
(Used) 0.10
TimeToOutlet 0.00
Ia/P 0.02
(Used) 0.10
Time Total ------------- Subarea Contribution to Total Flow (cfs) ------------
(hr) Flow AREA
11.0 2 2
11.3 3 3
11.6 4 4
11.9 28 28
12.0 55 55
12.1 85P 85P
12.2 53 53
12.3 18 18
12.4 12 12
12.5 10 10
12.6 9 9
12.7 7 7
12.8 6 6
13.0 6 6
13.2 5 5
13.4 4 4
13.6 4 4
13.8 4 4
14.0 3 3
14.3 3 3
14.6 3 3
15.0 2 2
15.5 2 2
16.0 2 2
16.5 2 2
17.0 2 2
17.5 2 2
18.0 2 2
19.0 1 1
20.0 1 1
22.0 1 1
26.0 0 0
P - Peak Flow * - value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines
Version Z 10
I

STORAGE VOLUME FOR DETENTION BASINS Version 2.10
' Project : Trinity Associates User: Jay Date: 04-04-2001
County : Wake State: NC Checked: Date:
Subtitle: Culvert Inflow
r

0

e

H

Drainage Area: 1.514062E-02 Sq miles Rainfall Frequency: 25 years
Rainfall-Type: II
Runoff: 5.6 inches
Peak Inflow: 85.00 cfs
Detention Basin Storage Volume: 0.79 Peak Outflow: 68 cfs
Drainage Area: 1.514062E-02 Sq miles Rainfall Frequency: 25 years
Rainfall-Type: 11
Runoff: 5.6 inches
Peak Inflow: 85.00 cfs
Detention Basin Storage Volume: 1.22 Peak Outflow: 44 cfs
Drainage Area: 1.514062E-02 Sq miles Rainfall Frequency: 25 years
Rainfall-Type: 11
Runoff: 5.6 inches
Peak Inflow: 85.00 cfs
Detention Basin Storage Volume: 1.64 Peak Outflow: 27 cfs
Drainage Area: 1.514062E-02 Sq miles Rainfall Frequency: 25 years
Rainfall-Type: 11
Runoff: 5.6 inches
Peak Inflow: 85.00 cfs
Detention Basin Storage Volume: 2.06 Peak Outflow: 17 cfs
Drainage Area: 1.514062E-02 Sq miles Rainfall Frequency: 25 years
Rainfall-Type: 11
Runoff: 5.6 inches
Peak Inflow: 85.00 cfs
Detention Basin Storage Volume: 2.49 Peak Outflow: 9 cfs

230
0
W
ix
W
I
cc
M
N
Z
W
H
0
H Q
0 Z
=
i Q
W
a
LL.
G. 'C
_ U- O
0 V
N
4.
N 0 GI
i ? H d
W
N
J Q ?
t D Z u
V 0
U.
a "
W
J
Q W
Q
V tan
t-
N W
i J
Z
N
L Q
co
W
~ Q
LL
? N
OC
W
H
Q
3
DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES
o?
S;
O?
O
Q
y
o Co g oo 0 OOOCOOcoo
o
l l l
C
` l
N
L.D cD D [ oD 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
ao O O O O O C O O C O C O O O
I I_ I
M
M
M
M
M
M
J
? ?
? N ? ? ?t'J ? 7 c
c
7 c
c
?p c
D c
D c
7
C C O O O C C C O C C O
C
O
I
00 O
?- ?'
I
+
N M -t4 V'
d
-V OCCOCCOO
-M

? M (00 CV cD
I I
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
?
'
'
'
•-? N CV M M M M ? ? ? d
? ?
rt
?
O O C O O O O 0 o c c c 0 0 0
? M C M I
t? c I
O I
N t'f M M M M M M M
.--? .--? CV c?7 N M M M M M M M M M M
00 C?C ? OO

? Icq I IaooWWWXXX
r+ ? ?--? GV CV N N N C?7 N C?] CV C?1 N C?1
?J O C O O O
O O O CC C C C C
00 M Lo 00
I I
_
N I
cq m M M M M M M
.--i .--i .--i r--i CV CV N CV CV CV N CV CV N
t? O O C O O O O O p o O C 52!R
I I I

t? I? ti O O O O O O C O C C C C
,

-.
(?` C ~ (CV M ^t
.--
r
itJ
't v1 tt it ?
ccI_ cgMO 1-O O COCCOC
I
C M UL t- 00 c I
C O •" I
00 LO cq M.I CV 00 CV I t- O I M I M M M M

1T CV '?}+ ?J cc c0 t-
00 00
t- 00 00
00 00 00 00
sv Cot- I cq 0 1 U'D t- a^I-- -_ I.

? cq c
00 O O IC O C IO
b
J CV M M IM ?7
O
o 00 --??I NNI NNr ?m
I
? cq N
00 M Lo
"
Ql2 4Oo6 c6 --I M-, 'n L2 'o in Lo Ul?

M U, C^ 00 U.
O
c.
Qq col ??cot`co c:I cooo
00
I
I
Cv M M d' Lo cc cD cD I- K I` U- I- t-
?O
M O -tP I 00 O M .tom O M I
c0 cc
VD .0 cz
*? • , ? c i CV M M M ,!r -t. -t -V -r -f
C CrJ LJ l? C? M ifJ ?O C C CC cD
ci N ci cq ?i ei ci c? c?i
O "rcD00^O -,N-}+? ?OCDCC I - cm

i1J eD O o0
CV M d•
00 a0 Q` c c c c ^7
`'0 oooocool oo oooool o E
N v
CV M d? ?J Cc 00 O CV cD 00 O Cpl -r
- - CV CV CV
.j
O
d
yc3
r
k
O
v
a
a
M
a?
b
? o
O a?i
.N. a
C
i. ?
d
O ?
y 4+

y :J
a-? cd
eo ?
? a
? C
:J
b d
c? y
«? y
r"
C
? d
d v Cd;
? IK
n ?.
C
o
'x
a V
w
Appendices
30
Outlet W = Do + La
pipe
diameter (Do)
La -'?
ilwater < 0.5130
o?PP 60,
Le?glr ??' } V It
513
4 t r C: t fii•. :: ;f
AT r 'r fill
20
Mt.
9 I,
I I I! ,??. I li
80:
11 _Ili1.111,
+ -s
4
r -r r' r r
i ? 1 t J 3

N

- 77 '
T
"
i CL
-
yr T: •t I 1. a as

P
? r 'LO l r:t 1i ! - I M l M 1
r .
I
I T

!

i•• I
i

i
v
tou
hrd !t

,

,

; , '1
5
0
3 5 10 20 50 100 200 500 10 00
Discharge (ft3/sec)
Curves may not be extrapolated.
Figure 8.06a Design of outlet protection protection from a round pipe flowing full, minimum tailwater condition (Tw < 0.5 diameter).
Rev. 11J93
8.063
SPANGLER
' ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
' PROJECT: Outlet Design for Stormwater Wetland
Assuming Outlet of 54" Concrete Culvert carrying flow from upgradient Trinity Associates and
' Trowell Properties produces a peak discharge of 34 cfs of flow during the 1-year rain event.
Combine with peak runoff for stormwater wetland watershed equal to 2.19 acres.
' From TR-55 Method 1-year Rain Event peak flow rate equals 7 cfs. Determine outlet required to
handle combined 1-year peak flow rate of 41 cfs (35 cfs + 7 cfs = 41 cfs).
' Calculate Runoff Volume (VR) for 1-year rain event for this area. 9.69 acres flows to 54"
culvert and 2.19 acres flows to wetland area from adjacent hillsides. Use 2.25 inches of runoff
from the 9.69 acres and 1.90 inches of runoff for the 2.19 acres.
' VR (9.69) = 2.25 inches x 0.0833 ft/i„ x 422,096.4 ft2 = 79,111.418 ft'
' VR (2.19) = 1.90 inches x 0.0833 ft/i„ x 95,396.40 ft2 = 15,098.388 ft'
VR (toWD = 79,111.418 ft' + 15,098.388 ft' = 94,209.81 ft'
' Runoff Number(Weiowd) = 94,209.81 ft' / 517,492.80 ft2 / 0.0833 ft/i? = 2.18 inches
' Calculate Available Storage Volume of Wetland with 5ft high earthen berm dam and 1 ft of
freeboard. Surface area of wetland creation area is equal to 0.47 acres. Total area draining into
wetland creation area equal to 11.88 acres.
Approximate Storage Volume Available (VA) equals:
0.47 acres x 1.436ft average storage depth = 0.675 acre-ft = 29,481.41 ft'
' Evaluate Storage Volume Available versus Runoff Volume
' VR (W.1) = 94,209.81 ft' = 2.16 acre-ft > VA = 29,481.41 ft' = 0.675 acre-ft
' Therefore, since Runoff Volume is greater than Available Storage Volume, must control peak
flow rate of 1-yr storm without overtopping dam.
Using TR-55 Modeling calculate wetland outflow with 0.675 acre-ft of storage volume. From
TR-55 Modeling the peak outflow during the 1-year storm (3" of rainfall) = 17 cfs. Size Culvert
for 1-year peak discharge = 41 cfs.

Land Planning • Permitting • Environmental Consulting • Construction Management • Expert Testimony
Post Office Box 387 Raleigh, NC 27602-0387 tel: [phone] fax: [phone] www.Spangler-SEI.com

' Design pipe and riser outlet for wetland pond. Barrel should be selected to deliver maximum
outflow when water surface is at the maximum expected stage, Zmax• Size by application of the
orifice equation assuming "Inlet Control".
Q = (0.0437)(CI))(D2)(?( Zmax-D/24) (ORIFICE EQUATION
' where: CD = Coefficient of Discharge = 0.6
D = Pipe Diameter
' Zmax = Maximum Expected Stage = 5ft (overtopping height)
Q = Peak Discharge for 1-year Rain Event = 41 cfs
' Solving for the Orifice Equation for Pipe Diameter (D) give s DZ28.282".
Therefore, use standard size pipe diameter of 30".
Determine Riser Size.
The Cross Sectional area of the riser pipe should be at least 1.5 times the cross-sectional area of
the calculated barrel size.
Barrel Cross Sectional area = A= nr2= (3.1415927){0.5(28.282/12")}2 = 4.36 ft2
Determine Riser Size (Driser) = 1.5 x 4.36 ft2 = 6.54 ft2
?(A/n) = r x(6.54 ft2/3.1415927) = 1.44ft = r
Drier = 2r = 2.88ft = 34.56 inches
Therefore, use a 36" Diameter Riser Pipe and 30" Diameter Barrel.
' Compute Stage of Top of Riser:
The Stage or Elevation of the Top of the Riser pipe should be sufficiently below the maximum
expected water level to allow flow to enter the riser pipe freely. The top of the riser pipe should
' be computed from the maximum expected water level Zmax and an application of the Weir
Equation.
ZRmr - Zmax - L Qo/0.86D]2/3
' where: Qo = Expected Maximum Flow Rate (cfs)
D = Selected Pipe Diameter (inches)
Zmax = Maximum Expected Water Level (ft)
ZRiser = Recommended Top of Riser (ft)
' ZR1,, = 5 - [41/0.86(30)]'/' = 3.64 ft above bottom of pond
Since the Pond Depth Desired 3-4ft in depth. Place Top of Riser at 4ft above bottom of pond;
however adjust dam height from 5ft to 5.36ft above bottom of pond to allow for sufficient
freeboard.

09
SPANGLER
ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.

Design Apron for Outlet Stabilization
' For the 30" diameter corrugated metal barrel, the peak flow rate traveling through the pipe equals
41 cfs. Evaluated assuming minimum tailwater condition (TW > 0.5 diameter). Therefore Use
Figure 8.06a of Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual. From Figure 8.06a,
' a 30" diameter pipe having "Free Outlet" has a maximum discharge of 41 cfs. Size Apron for
maximum discharge condition. From Figure 8.06a, by entering 41 cfs on diagram there is no
connection with 30" culvert curve; therefore, use the lowest intercept point to size apron. This
' gives an apron length (La) for the 30" culvert outlet of 18ft.

Do=30"=2.5ft
3 Do= 7.5ft
La= 18ft
Width of Apron = Do + La = 20.5ft
d50= 0..50ft (for lowest intercept point on Figure 8.06a)
dn,ax= 1.5 x d50= 0.75ft
Apron Thickness = 1.5 x dr„a,,= 1.125ft
Design Anti-Floatation Block to anchor riser pipe
Riser Mass with Rebar Reinforced Concrete Mass
weight of water displaced by the riser pipe.
Weight of Fresh Water z 62 "s/ft3
Volume of Water Displaced-- nr2 x height of riser
(3.1415927)(2.5/2)2 x 4ft
and guard against floatation. Anchor the
that has weight greater that 1.1 times the
= 19.64ft3
Weight of Water Displaced ? 19.64 ft3 x 62 `/ft3 = 1,217.68 lbs
' Concrete Mass needed to Prevent Floatation = 1.1 x 1,217.68 lbs = 1,339.45 lbs. of concrete
Determine Dimensions of Anti-floatation Block:
' Normal Concrete Weight = 4,000 ins/vd3
1339.45 lbs of concrete needed / 4,000 lbs/yd3 = 0.335 cubic yards needed
Size of Anti-floatation Block: aft Wide by 3ft Long by 1.005ft Thick
Place No. 4 Rebar on 6" Centers for Concrete Reinforcement
Number of Bars Required = 10 Bars at 3ft in length

iF
SPANGLER
ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
i
i
RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.10
Project : Trinity Associates User: Jay Date: 04-04-2001
County : Wake State: NC Checked: Date: ?-
Subtitle: Culvert Inflow
Subarea : AREA ------- _,.-
---------------------------------------------
Hydrologic Soil Group
COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D
Acres (CN)
-- -----------------------------------------
FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.)
Impervious Areas 7.75(98)
Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways
OTHER AGRICULTURAL LANDS _ 1.94(73)
Brush - brush, weed, grass mix good -
Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) =__ 9.69
----------------------------------------93
------------------------
---------------
SUBAREA: AREA TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 9.69 Acres--- WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER:
____ ------
Version 2.10
TIME OF CONCENTRA TION AND TRAVEL TIME
Project : Trinity Associates User: Jay Date: 04-04-2001
State: NC Checked: Date:
County :Wake
Subtitle: Culvert Inflow
--------- -------------------- Subarea #I - AREA ------------------------------
Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr)
------------------------------------------------------------ -
- -------------------------------- --------------------------
Sheet 3.7 300 0533 A 0.031
p 04 P 0.041
Shallow Concent'd 600
Time of Concentration = 0.07*
--- Sheet Flow Surface Codes ---
Dense --
F Grass
- Shallow Concentrated ?_-
A Smooth Surface
s
B Fallow (No Re .) ,
G Grass, Burmuda
--- Surface Codes -
d
C Cultivated < 20 % Res. H Woods, Light
Woods P Pave
U Unpaved
D Cultivated > 20 % Res , Dural
. J Range
E Grass-Range, Short ,
* - Generated for use by TABULAR method

J

TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD
Project : Trinity Variance User: Jay Date: 04-25-2001
County : Wake State: NC Checked: Date:
Subtitle: Wetland Storm Control Evaluation
Total watershed area: 0.003 sq mi Rainfall type: II Frequency: 1 years
-------------------------- Subareas --------------------------
WSCE
Area(sq mi) 0.00*
Rainfall(in) 3.0
Curve number 89*
Runoff(in) 1.90
Tc (hrs) 0.11
(Used) 0.10
TimeToOutlet 0.00
la/P 0.08
(Used) 0.10
Time Total ------------- Subarea Contribution to Total Flow (cfs) ----------
(hr) Flow WSCE
11.0 0 0
11.3 0 0
11.6 0 0
11.9 2 2
12.0 4 4
12.1 7P 7P
12.2 4 4
12.3 1 1
12.4 1 1
12.5 1 1
12.6 1 1
12.7 1 1
12.8 0 0
13.0 0 0
13.2 0 0
13.4 0 0
13.6 0 0
13.8 0 0
14.0 0 0
14.3 0 0
14.6 0 0
15.0 0 0
15.5 0 0
16.0 0 0
16.5 0 0
17.0 0 0
17.5 0 0
18.0 0 0
19.0 0 0
20.0 0 0
22.0 0 0
26.0 0 0
P - Peak Flow * - value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines
Version 2.10

i
RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.10
Project : Trinity Associates User: Jay Date: 04-04-2001
County : Wake State: NC Checked: Date:
Subtitle: Culvert Inflow
Subarea : AREA
Hydrologic Soil Group
COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D
Acres (CN)
--------------------- -------------------------
FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.)
Impervious Areas
Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways - - - 7.75(98)
OTHER AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Brush - brush, weed, grass mix good - - - 1.94(73)
Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group)
9.69
SUBAREA: AREA TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 9.69 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 93
TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME Version 2.10
Project : Trinity Associates User: Jay Date: 04-04-2001
County : Wake State: NC Checked: Date:
Subtitle: Culvert Inflow
------------------------------ Subarea #I - AREA -----------------------
Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time
rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheet 3.7 300 .0533 A 0.031
Shallow Concent'd 600 0.04 P 0.041
Time of Concentration = 0.07*
--- Sheet Flow Surface Codes ---
A Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense --- Shallow Concentrated ---
B Fallow (No Res.) G Grass, Burmuda --- Surface Codes ---
C Cultivated < 20 % Res . H Woods, Light P Paved
D Cultivated > 20 % Res . I Woods, Dense U Unpaved
E Grass-Range, Short J Range, Natural
* - Generated for use by TABULAR method

I
1

1

u

TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Version Z10
Project : Trinity Variance User: Jay Date: 04-25-2001
County : Wake State: NC Checked: Date:
Subtitle: Wetland Storm Control Evaluation
Total watershed area: 0.015 sq mi Rainfall type: II Frequency: I years
-------------------------- Subareas --------------------------
WSCE
Area(sq mi) 0.02*
Rainfall(in) 3.0
Curve number 93*
Runoff(in) 2.25
Tc (hrs) 0.07*
(Used) 0.10
TimeToOutlet 0.00
Ia/P 0.05
(Used) 0.10
Time Total ------------- Subarea Contribution to Total Flow (cfs) ------------
(hr) Flow WSCE
11.0 1 1
11.3 1 1
11.6 2 2
11.9 11 11
12.0 22 22
12.1 34P 34P
12.2 21 21
12.3 7 7
12.4 5 5
12.5 4 4
12.6 4 4
12.7 3 3
12.8 3 3
13.0 2 2
13.2 2 2
13.4 2 2
13.6 2 2
13.8 1 1
14.0 1 1
14.3 1 1
14.6 1 1
15.0 1 1
15.5 1 1
16.0 1 1
16.5 1 1
17.0 1 1
17.5 1 1
18.0 1 1
19.0 1 1
20.0 0 0
22.0 0 0
26.0 0 0
P - Peak Flow * - value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines
F

' STORAGE VOLUME FOR DETENTION BASINS Version 2.10
Project : Trinity Variance
User: Jay
Date: 04-25-2001
County : Wake
' State: NC
Subtitle: Wetland Storage Peak Outflow
Drainage Area: 11.9 Acres
Rainfall Frequency: 1 years
Rainfall-Type: II
Runoff. 2.2 inches
Peak Inflow: 41.00 cfs
Detention Basin Storage Volume: 0.68
Peak Outflow: 17 cfs

1

11
t
r
Appendices
20
141-
10
3 5 10
50 100
Discharge (0/sec)
F-
a>
2 N
CL
co
LM
cc
0
1 L0
;,- O,S
-j 0
1000
Curves may not be extrapolated.
Figure 8.06a Design of outlet protection protection from a round pipe flowing full, minimum tailwater condition (Tw < 0.5 diameter).
Rev. 12/93
30
Outlet IW = Da + La
pipe
diameter (De)
i
iIwater < 0.5Do

toy l?al`t?l
ng?r of w 60
?
.
rrE
501-144
: < <
8.06.3
"00?
?C?>.
MAY
?J h
1.,F "1y`T'ER OF' "F AN M ITI A L,
Date: May 1, 2001 k;
Company Name: Division of Water Quality- Wetland/401 Certification Unit v1?
Project Number/Name: Major Variance Request, Trinity Associates
From: Scott Linnenburger RE:
0
WE ARE SENDING YOU: 1
X Attached
Shop Drawings
Prints
Plans
Under Separate Cover via
Specifications
Change Order
Computer Disk
X Reports
Reproducibles
Samples
COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION
1
2 Original major variance request package
Copies, major variance request package
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
For approval Approved as submitted Resubmit
`For your use Approved as noted Submit
As requested Return for corrections Return
X For review & comment FOR BIDS DUE
COMMENTS:
Copies for Approval
Copies for Distribut.
Corrected Prints
Other
Cam' \-
CC: SIGNED '?
SPANGLER
' ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
Major Variance Request Package
Under 15A NCAC.0233

t
For Buffer Impacts to Unnamed Tributary of
Richland Creek near the intersection of Trinity and
Prepared BY:

`V
Scott Linnen urger
Spangler Environmental, Inc.
PO Box 387
Raleigh, NC 27602-0387
Ph: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Edwards Mill Roads
For
Trinity Associates
c/o Mr. Tom Rahill
PO Box 1354
Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480
Submitted on May 1, 2001
ay o?ng ?
I)N Z,6,11
Land Planning • Permitting • Environmental Consulting* Construction Management* Expert Testimony
Post Office Box 387 Raleigh, NC 27602-0387 tel: [phone] fax: [phone] www.Spangler-SEI.com

1

OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Received Request #
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Variance Request Form
Neuse River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy
Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rule (15A NCAC .0233)
NOTE: This form may be photocopied for use as an original.
Part 1: General Information
1. Applicant's name (the corporation, individual, etc. who owns the project):
Trinity Associates c/o Tom Rahill
2. Print Owner/Signing Official (person legally responsible for the facility and its compliance)
Name: Tom Rahill
Title:
Street address: PO Box 1354
City, State, Zip: Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480_
Telephone: ( 910) 256-991$_
Fax: ( 910) 256-0100
3. Project Name (Subdivision, facility, or establishment name - consistent with project name on
plans, specifications, letters, operation and maintenance agreements, etc.):
4. Location of Facility
Street address: Trinity Road
City, State, Zip: Raleigh, NC, 2760
County: Wake - - -
Latitude/longitude:
5. Directions to facility from nearest major intersection (Also attach a map):
' Southwest Quadrant of intersection of Trinity Road and Edwards Mill Road

6. Contact person who can answer questions about the facility:
Name: Same as above
Telephone:
Fax:
Email:
7. Requested Environmental Management Commission Hearing Date: June 2001
Version 1: September 1998

Part 2: Demonstration of Need for a Variance
' NOTE: The variance provision of the Neuse Riparian Area Rule allows the Environmental Management
Commission to grant a variance to an affected party when the following conditions apply on a given project:
(a) practical difficulties or hardships would result from strict application of the rule:
(b) such difficulties or hardships result from conditios which arepeculiar to the property involved; and
(c) the general purpose and intent of the Rule would be preserved, water quality would be protected and
substantial justice would be done if the variance were granted.
' This part of the application is to explain how the project meets criteria (a) and (b).
1. Attach a detailed description (2-3 pages) explaining the following: Attached
• The practical difficulties or hardships that would result from strict application of the Rule.
• How these difficulties or hardships result from conditions that are unique to the property
involved.
• Why reconfiguring and/or reducing the built-upon area to preserve a greater portion of the
' riparian area is not feasible on this project. If economic hardship is the major
consideration, then include a specific explanation of the economic hardship and the
proportion of the hardship to the entire value of the project.
' Part 3: Water Quality Protection
NOTE: This part of the application is to explain how the project meets criterion (c): the general purpose and
intent of the Rule would be preserved, water quality would be protected and substantial justice would be done if
the variance were granted.
1. Briefly summarize how water quality will be protected on this project. Also attach a detailed
narrative (1-2 pages) describing the nonstructural and structural measures that will be used for
' protecting water quality and reducing nitrogen inputs to surface water.
__.See Attached Text

2. What is the total project area in acres? ___ 2.23 Acres
3. Which of the following permits/approvals will be required for this project?
_ CAMA Major
X Sediment/Erosion Control
X 401 Certification/404 Permit

' Variance Request Form, page 2
Version 1: September 1998
t
Part 3: Water Quality Protection, continued

I

4. Complete the following information for each drainage basin. If there are more than two
drainage basins in the project, attach an additional sheet with the information for each basin
provided in the same format as below.
Project Information Drainage Basin 1 Drainage Basin 2
Receiving stream name Richland Creek
Receiving stream class' C NSW
Drainage basin area (total2) 9.69 acres
Existing impervious area' (total2) 1.89
Proposed impervious area' (total2) 7.47
Impervious area' (on-site) 15%
Impervious area' (total2) 27%
Impervious area' Drainage basin 1 Drainage basin 2
On-site buildings 0.34 (15,000 sq. ft.)
On-site streets 0.51
On-site parking 0.58
On-site sidewalks 0.07
Other on-site 0
Total on-site 1.5
Off-site 5.97
Total 7.47
ine Internet site rortnts Inrorrnauun m; nuN.imcv.crn.aiaic.n?.U?.?Mll%,,ocl Qw w-
2 Total means on-site plus off-site area that drains through the project.
J Impervious area is defined as the built-upon area including, but not limited to, buildings, parking areas,
sidewalks, gravel areas, etc.
5. How was the off-site impervious area listed above derived?
Prediction of future development and field verification of existing development and
Raleigh Code of Ordinance regulations
6. What will be the annual nitrogen load contributed by this site after development in pounds per
' acre per year without structural BMPs (stormwater pond, wetland, infiltration basin, etc)?
Attach a detailed plan for all proposed structural stormwater BMPs.

Drainage
basin Size of
drainage
basin
(ac) Post-development
nitrogen loading rate
without BMPs`
(Ibs/ac/yr) BMP nitrogen
removal
efficiency5
(%) Final nitrogen
loading rate
(Ibs/ac/yr) Final nitrogen
loading from
drainage basin
(Ibs)
1 9.69 17.2 58% 7.22 70
2
3
4
5
Totals 9.69 ------ ------ ------ 70
" Attacn calculations ana rererences.
5 Attach calculations and references.
' Variance Request Form, page 3
Version 1: September 1998
' 04/27/2001 10:56 9195460757 SPANGLER ENVIRONMENT PAGE 02

Part 3: Water Quality Protection, continued
'
7, The applicable supplemental form(s) listed below must be attached for each BMP specified
Form SWU-102 Wet Detention Basin Supplement
Form SWU-103 Infiltration Basin Supplement
Form SWU-105 Curb Outlet System Supplement
Form SWU-106 Off-Site System Supplement
Form SWU-107
Form SWU-109 Underground Infiltration Trench Supplement
Innovative BMPs Supplement

' Part 4: Submittal Checklist
A complete appplication submittal consists of the following components. Incomplete submittals will
be returned to the applicant. The complete variance request submittal must be received 90 days
prior to the EMC meeting at which you wish the request to be heard. Initial below to indicate that
the necessary information has been provided.
' Applicants Item
Initials
Original and two copies of the Variance Request Form and the attachments
listed below.
• A vicinity map of the project (see Part 1, Item 5)
_
- Narrative demonstration of the need for a variance (see Part 2)
A detailed narrative description of stormwater treatment/management (see Part
3, Item 1)
Calculations supporting nitrogen loading estimates (see Part 3, Item 6)
• Calculations and references supporting nitrogen removal from proposed BMPs
(see Part 3, Item 6)
• Location and details for all proposed structural stormwater BMPs (see Part 3,
Item 6)
Three copies of the applicable Supplement Form(s) for each BMP and/or
narrative for each innovative BMP (see Part 3, Item 7)
Three copies of plans and specifications, including;
0 Development/Project name
0 Engineer and firm
U Legend and north arrow
0 Scale (1" - 100' or 1" = 50' is preferred)
^
-...
._ 0 Revision number & date

o Mean high water line (if applicable)
, 0 Dimensioned propertylproject boundary
0 Location map with named streets or NC State Road numbers
0 Original contours, proposed contours, spot elevations, finished floor
elevations
„ca 0 Details of roads, parking, cul-de-sacs, sidewalks, and curb and gutter
0 Footprint of any proposed buildings or other structures
0 Wetlands delineated, or a note on plans that none exist
0 Existing drainage (including off-site), drainage easements, pipe sizes, runoff

_ calculations
0 Drainage basins delineated
0 Perennial and intermittent streams, ponds, lakes, rivers and estuaries
0 Location of forest vegetation along the streams, ponds, lakes, rivers and
estuaries
variance Request Form, page 4
Version 1: September 1998

' 04/27/2001 10:56 9195460757 SPANGLER ENVIRONMENT PAGE 03
Part 5: Deed Restrictions
By your signature in Part 7 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 6: 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 firms Spangler Environmental, Inc.
Mailing address. PO Box 387
City, State, Zip, Raleigh, NC, 27602.____ __... ...?,. _ __ .,M. _.
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: see Inc riot
I?
u
Part 7: Applicant's Certification
I, . Mr. Tom Rabill (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-
Date:
Title:

Variance Request Form, page 5
Version 1: September 1998

I
Part 2: Demonstration of Need for a Variance
The development of this 2.23-acre parcel (see attached site and location maps) cannot be realized
with strict compliance to the Neuse Riparian Area Protection Rule (15 NCAC .0233). However,
the plans and information contained herein will demonstrate that, with the approval of the
variance request, greater water quality protection will be realized for this parcel. In fact,
enhanced water quality protection will be demonstrated for the entire drainage basin of this
project, above and beyond what is currently required for compliance with the Neuse Rules,
specifically Rule .0235 pertaining to on-site nitrogen treatment.
It should be noted that this proposed project is just one in a handful of regional watershed
restoration measures currently being planned in this portion of the Richland Creek Basin of the
Neuse River Watershed. It is being planned in concert with bank and riparian restoration
between Trinity and Edwards Mill Roads and in-stream restoration in the same area, conducted
by the Centennial Authority and North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program, respectively.
The areas proposed for restoration and water quality enhancement structure development are
adjacent to a City of Raleigh Greenway, which affords a concentrated area to demonstrate to the
public the benefits of different types of watershed and regional environmental planning and
restoration.

1

t

Practical Difficulties Due To Strict Application of Rule .0233
The strict application of the riparian area protection rule will result in practical difficulties in
achieving the intended and zoned use of this parcel. The preservation of the existing buffer
removes more than half the property acreage from use, the riparian area bisects the property in a
manner that renders it undevelopable, and preservation of the buffer brings a financial hardship
due to the location of the property and surrounding development patterns.
The riparian area that is required to be maintained around the intermittent stream covers 1.05 of
the property's 1.87 acres that lie outside NCDOT easement. This is a 57% loss in developable
land, leaving only 0.82 acres unencumbered by the preserved riparian area. This is not ample
acreage for the placement of a use that complies with the current zoning of I- 1 /01- 1.
Furthermore, the manner in which the preserved riparian area runs through the property further
decreases the usable acreage. The attached plans demonstrate that the riparian area runs in an
east-west direction, bisecting the property. The result is a northern portion of the property that is
unencumbered by the riparian area that totals 0.40 acres and a similar southern portion of 0.42
acres. Because of the small size of these areas and the mandatory property line and roadway
setbacks, these small pieces of land outside the riparian area are not usable from a development
standpoint.
Therefore, because of the location of the riparian area relative to the property boundaries, all
development potential is lost. The nearby land costs of office space, the most likely use on this
parcel, are approximately $12 to $14 per square foot (from property owner, and verified
independently by David Fowlkes of Carolantic Realty, April 2001). Multiplied by the size of
this property, the realized hardship as a result of strict application of Rule .0233 is potentially
$982,713 to $1,146,499.
t

FJ
Conditions Unique to the Subiect Property
The situation surrounding this property is unique in regards to the maintenance of the riparian
buffer and the consequent effect on water quality protection. The nutrient treatment afforded by
the buffer is currently bypassed both upstream and downstream of the subject property.
Therefore the current buffer does not provide adequate nutrient treatment for the surrounding
land use.

11

t

Upstream of the subject parcel, the stormwater drainage from the 12.2-acre site at the top of the
watershed currently bypasses the subject parcel and discharges directly into Richland Creek
downstream of the Trinity-Edwards Mill intersection. This stormwater does not pass through the
buffer surrounding this intermittent stream and consequently receives minimal nitrogen
treatment. The property west of and adjacent to the subject property (Parcel 3) is maintained in
grass cover and has no forested buffer. The runoff from this site is directed into the stream on
the subject parcel through a culvert and therefore does not receive any nutrient removal treatment
from the riparian buffer. In total, 17.75 acres of this watershed upstream of the subject parcel do
not receive nutrient treatment via sheetflow through a riparian buffer.
Downstream of the subject parcel, the development of Edwards Mill Road and a parcel on the
southeast quadrant of the Trinity-Edwards Mill intersection has resulted in the removal of
approximately 0.75 acres of riparian buffer surrounding this intermittent stream. Additionally,
approximately 325 feet of the stream has been placed in a culvert from the upstream edge of the
Edwards Mill Road grade down to the edge of the City of Raleigh Greenway Easement along the
west side of Richland Creek. Approximately 2.8 acres of this portion of the watershed
downstream of the subject parcel do not receive nutrient treatment via sheetflow through a
riparian buffer.
The conditions on this site are unique because the currently intact, forested riparian buffer is not
consistent throughout the stream. Of the approximately 25.19 acres within this watershed, only
4.65 acres receive nitrogen removal treatment via the intact, forested riparian buffer and 0.5 of
those acres occur within a FEMA floodplain around Richland Creek. This equates to 19% of the
watershed that receives nitrogen treatment under the current land uses. The value of the buffer
on the subject parcel, which is the only riparian area in this subwatershed, is impaired because of
this isolation. This riparian area is not part of a naturally functioning stream system in terms of
stream flow of nutrient removal.
Proposed Water Quality Protection
The water quality protection measures are proposed specifically to treat the water quality
protection shortcomings that have been outlined in the section above. Whereas the current
nutrient treatment capacity of the forested riparian area is bypassed by the current development
patterns, the proposed treatment alternatives will rectify that problem. Where the intact buffer
does not have the capacity to treat the nutrients present in the current developed condition, the
proposed treatment alternative will provide ample treatment. And whereas the current riparian
condition will likely degrade over time with hydrologic changes to this intermittent stream
resulting from continued urban development, the proposed alternative will be a monitored and
maintained structure that will protect Richland Creek from stormwater-induced degradation.

Land is available downslope of the subject parcel's watershed for use as a large, "regional"
stormwater and nutrient treatment wetland best management practice. This land is located on the
Raleigh Entertainment and Sports Arena (ESA) property, near the northeast quadrant of the
Trinity-Edwards Mill Road intersection. Specifically, this land is east of Richland Creek, north
of Trinity Road and south of the "Entrance E" road into the ESA (see figure 2).
Current Water Quality Protection
The current total nitrogen loading through the stream that exists on the subject property can be
calculated according to nitrogen export coefficients for different land uses put forth by the State
of North Carolina in the "Neuse River Basin: Model Stormwater Program for Nitrogen Control."
This document also includes best management practice (bmp) total nitrogen treatment
percentages. Combining these two calculations provides the estimated amount of total nitrogen
leaving a particular area after treatment by specific bmps. These calculations are tabulated (See
Table 1) below.
Current Total Nitrogen Load
The subject parcel drainage currently consists of 2.23 acres. This is broken down into 1.88 acres
of undisturbed vegetation and 0.35 acres of impervious surface. Employing the State's nitrogen
export coefficients, this land use results in a total nitrogen load from this site of 3.83
pounds/acre/year. A 1.92-acre portion of the developed property to the south (Parcel 2) also
drains through the subject property. With 80% impervious surface on this property, an additional
nitrogen load of 17.24 pounds/acre/year flows through the subject parcel.
Table 1.
Current Total Nitrogen Loads (Pre-Development Subject Parcel and Parcel 3, Post-
Development Parcel 2
Subject Parcel
Undisturbed 1.88 0.6
Impervious 0.35 212
Subtotal 2.23
Parcel2
Managed 0.38 1.2
Impervious 1.54 21.2
Subtotal 1.92
Parcel.3
Managed
Impervious 4.78
0.76 1.2
21.2
Subtotal 5.54

Totals 9.69 Acres
Li
1.13
7.42
8 54 3 83
0.46
32.65
33.11 17.24
5.74
16.11
21.85
63.50 lb/yr
3.94
6.55 lb/ac/yr;

An additional undeveloped parcel to the west (Parcel 3) also drains under the subject parcel's
existing roadway and into the stream on the subject parcel. Because of the existing
roadway/culvert, drainage from this property does not receive nitrogen removal treatment from
the intact riparian buffer. The additional load from this undeveloped parcel is 3.94
pounds/acre/year.
Current Total Nitrogen Treatment
Of the three parcels in this particular watershed that drain to the stream on the subject parcel, a
portion receives nitrogen removal treatment by the existing buffer, and a portion bypasses that
buffer. Drainage from the subject property, and the portion of Parcel 2 which lie in this
watershed, are directed through the buffer. The total nitrogen load from this area is 5.08
pounds/acre/year. Employing the 30% total nitrogen removal rate promulgated by the State for
intact riparian buffers nutrient treatment effectiveness, the total nitrogen load treated from this
area is 1.52 pounds/acre/year. Therefore, the riparian buffer exports 3.56 pounds of
nitrogen/acre/year. Multiplying this rate by the acreage receiving nitrogen treatment, the total
nitrogen load treated by the riparian buffer is 6.31 pounds/year, the amount not receiving
treatment and transferred into the Neuse River Basin is 14.77 pounds/year, and the nitrogen
treatment efficiency is 30%.
As the undeveloped Parcel 3 does not benefit from the treatment potential of the riparian buffer,
an additional nitrogen load is added to the load presented by the Subject Parcel and Parcel 1.
That addition is 3.94 pounds/acre/year from the undeveloped Parcel 3. The total nitrogen
exported from the subject property increases to 7.50 pounds/acre/year. 6.31 pounds/year are still
treated, but the amount not receiving treatment rises to 72.68 pounds/year, which, because the
intact buffer is so small relative to the watershed, reduces the treatment efficiency to 8%.
If Parcel 3 were developed, the total nitrogen load imported into the subject parcel, even with
nutrient control bmps in compliance with the "Neuse Stormwater Rule," could increase to 13.56
pounds/acre/year (3.56 from the Subject Parcel and Parcel 2 and 10 from Parcel 3. The total
load, leaving the downstream end of the subject parcel, would be 131.4 pounds/year. The
treatment efficiency of the existing riparian buffer would potentially be 4.5% for the portion of
this watershed draining through the stream with the intact riparian buffer.
In summary, the watershed, which currently drains through the stream on the subject parcel, does
not treat the nitrogen inputs to that stream in an effective manner. The treatment efficiency
afforded by the maintenance of the riparian buffer is just 8% due to the upstream inputs that do
not receive treatment from the buffer. If this upstream property were developed, as currently
planned and in compliance with the Neuse Stormwater Rule (bringing nitrogen export from the
site to 10 pounds/acre/year), the treatment efficiency of this riparian area would decrease to just
4.5% with the riparian area treating just 6.31 pounds of Nitrogen per year.
Proposed Water Quality Protection
The construction of a series of stormwater wetland best management practices according to the
specifications set forth in the State's Stormwater Best Management Practice Manual will treat

r

significantly more nitrogen than can be treated by the existing riparian buffer. The structures
will be designed to provide nutrient treatment and stormwater detention for all three
contributing parcels and will assume that all three parcels are fully developed at 80%
impervious surface. As these bmp structures will be located on a floodplain (that seldom
experiences flooding due to the depth to which the stream has downcut), no damming of any
stream or impact to any additional riparian area will need to occur to provide this treatment.
Furthermore, the best management practices will be located in close proximity to a City of
Raleigh Greenway, providing the opportunity for additional public education on the values of
stormwater control. Two best management practices will be employed in series to provide
nitrogen treatment. In order, these bmps will be an extended detention stormwater wetland that
flows into a 50-foot wide riparian buffer prior to the treated water re-entering Richland Creek.
At a fully developed state, the nitrogen exported from these three parcels (9.69 acres) equates to
17.2 pounds/acre/year or 167 pounds/year (see Table 2). The stormwater wetland will occupy
0.47 acres (designed to contain the 1-year, 24-hour storm per the "Neuse River Basin: Model
Stormwater Program for Nitrogen Control"). At the State-documented treatment efficiency of
40%, the wetland would remove nitrogen at a rate of 6.88 pounds/acre/year. This would bring
the nitrogen export from the three parcels to 10.32 pounds/acre/year (100 pounds/year), treating
67 pounds of nitrogen per year. The addition of this bmp will provide over a 10-fold increase in
the amount of nitrogen treated by this watershed in a developed state.
Table 2.
' Pow

Post-Development Total Nitrogen Loads
Subject Parcel
Managed 0.45< 1.2
Impervious' 1.79 21.2
Subtotal 2.23
Parcel 2.
Managed 038 1.2
Impervious 1.54 21.2
Subtotal 1.92 `
Parcel 3
Managed 1.11 1.2
impervious 4.43 21.2
Subtotal 5.54
Totals 9.69 Acres
.54
3'7.75
38.29 17.17
0.46
32.65
33,11 17.24
1,33
93.92
95.25 17.19!
166.65 lb/yr 17.2 lb/ac/yr

1

I?
?J

The additional flow through the riparian buffer, which is documented with 30% treatment
efficiency, will treat an additional 3.1 pounds/acre/year. This additional treatment reduces the
nitrogen export rate to 7.22 pounds/acre/year (70 pounds/year), a total that is less than the 7.50
pounds/acre/year exported currently from the subject property with an intact riparian
buffer and an undeveloped Parcel 3.
The total amount of nitrogen removed prior to entering the Neuse River Basin proper through the
implementation of these two nutrient and stormwater control best management practices has
been increased to 97 pounds/year, a 15-fold increase. This brings a net nitrogen treatment
efficiency of 58%.
In summary, the best management practices proposed herein to provide nutrient control, for a
fully developed watershed, supply a higher rate of nitrogen treatment, a decreased rate of
nitrogen input to Richland Creek, and the consequent exponentially higher load of nitrogen
treated than is currently present in the partially developed watershed (See Table 3). The intact
riparian buffer treats 1.52 pounds/acre/year of nitrogen. The proposed best management
practices will treat 13.62 pounds/acre/year of nitrogen. This results in a nitrogen export rate that
is currently 7.50 pounds/acre/year in a watershed that is 27% impervious being reduced to a rate
of 7.22 pounds/acre/year in a watershed that is 80% impervious. The amount of nitrogen
currently treated is 6.31 pounds/year with a treatment efficiency of 8%, and this efficiency could
decrease to 4.5% if Parcel 3 is developed. The proposed practices would treat 96.65 pounds/year
at an efficiency of 58%.
Table 3.
Comparison of Nitrogen Treatment Currently/Without Variance vs. Proposed/With
Variance
Area Draining Through Stream In
Subject Parcel (acres) 9.69 9.69
Total Nitrogen Treatment Rate
(pounds/acre/year) 1.52 13.62
Total Nitrogen Treated
(pounds/year) 6.31 96.65
Total Nitrogen Exported To
Richland Creek (pounds/year) * 72.68 - 131.4 70
Treatment Efficiency * 8%-4.5% 58%
* second figure relates to potential increases exported nitrogen and alteration of'treatment
efficiency, within the scope of'the Neuse Rules, if Parcel 3 is developed
Conclusions
The development of the subject parcel is not possible with strict adherence to the "Neuse Buffer
Rule" (15 NCAC.0233). DENR DWQ has determined that an intermittent stream exists on this

' property. The headwaters of this stream are on the subject parcel, and the stream is confined
' within a culvert downstream of the subject parcel. In essence this parcel contains a "riparian
island." The riparian area that is currently intact on the subject parcel encompasses all but 0.82
acres. This "developable" acreage is split, with 0.42 acres lying adjacent to Trinity Road and
' 0.40 acres lying adjacent to Parcel 2. With mandated property setbacks and the need for
vehicular access, there is essentially nothing that can be developed.
1 The hardship created the inability to develop this property is very substantial. This is a prime
development parcel, lying on the corner of two major thoroughfares, and quickly becoming
surrounded by other successful enterprises. Independent developers, both of which have
developed similar projects in the immediate area estimated that this property would be worth
between $12 and $14 per square foot or somewhere close to $1,000,000. Strict adherence to the
"Neuse Buffer Rule" renders impossible the realization of this property's development potential.
However, allowing the nutrient and stormwater treatment to be carried out at an off-site location
would permit the parcel to be developed and with a regional water quality benefit.
The installation of the proposed best management practices would provide nutrient treatment and
stormwater detention not only for the subject parcel, but for the entire watershed that currently
drains to the intermittent stream on the subject parcel. Currently 72.68 pounds of nitrogen/year
run into Richland Creek from this drainage area. If Parcel 3 were developed, this figure could
rise to 131.4 pounds of nitrogen/year and still be in compliance with the Neuse Stormwater Rule.
If the proposed best management practices were installed, the total nitrogen introduced to
Richland Creek from this drainage area would be reduced to 70 pounds/year. Additionally, the
nitrogen treatment efficiency is improved by 50% in instituting these bmps.
The stated purpose of the Neuse River Nutrient Sensitive Watershed Rules is to reduce nitrogen
inputs to the Neuse River. While preserving riparian buffers is an essential part of this process,
there are situations, especially in rapidly urbanizing environments, where a regional treatment
alternative provides more efficient nitrogen removal while still maintaining economic vitality.
This major variance request demonstrates that, employing NCDENR Division of Water Quality-
approved treatment mechanisms with creative land planning, environmental protection can be
enhanced along with the economic growth that is a result of new development.

u

w

t

1

A

0
I

m

g. z
r
t
m °?>N TRACT
CD.
r i
4
A CD ? W
o ?x ??

+Z r

N
0 160
75 50 25 0 25 6t) 75
SME

Aesumin9 0.47 Acre Surface Area
expended detention Storrrlwater
wetland designed to control
the 1yr precipitation event
F-I
A)
InW I W N Pools (0.07 Atpoof)
f 3R Average Depth
Deep Mesh (0.17 A)
1.125f't Avsrage Depth
Pat Species 0 211 SP"V
9aunm= Carr
- Se?ria
- Jur>cus et?usus
- Plygorsrm ap
Sslte N?00
Pat Of11ce Box 387
SPANGLER ltdd&kNC276924387
ENV1RWWENTAL. INC. /01a1s"54 i
Raleigh, North Carolina
p 1001 SPNSW Bavhoumma
N
0
GA
U

w ?

w old"
r.

II
V =
II
V1 N / I I
M _-
4-4 M
o ?? M
?, -
Cid U -
l
-I I
? II
? II
II
II
------------
000 ----
000 --
0
oa?oG
o
l l l l o0o
lllll Boa I
a
v „
a ? llllll
lllllll:
lllllll ?
N
? a lllllil ?
M z
rx
0
z
r.
0
0
w
a?
Q
U
C
0
0 .?
a 3
t>
0
Cd
A
Q
U
a?
Q
V
v
Q
u
sz
0
U
y
0
U
a
? U
JA
W.K
z 0 J? a 8
W N
U
z a FFWII O
?a
IL
Uf w U 8
Q
oS
a
d
z
z

a
i
t

E

a
? 1
1
E C?
' rt
E
? s rlt

11
• ? rlr

? t \
's_' rr r

\ 1

r
r
-? \ r

1,
> -lr?
11
• ? ? > 111
? > fl
tt
•• ? 3 )? 111
l?
3 !r
t 1,
111
I1
11
t
U
's
?g
c?i

Permit No.
(to be provided by DWQ)
' State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
' STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
WET DETENTION BASIN SUPPLEMENT
This form may be photocopied for use as an original
' DW Stormwater l na ement Plan Review:
A complete stormwater management plan submittadl flans andasPa application
showing all t basin and outlet
supplement for each basin, design calculations, anp
structure details.
1. PROJECT INFORMATION l Z'-9, a 1-04 SS•G?t'.?? 7?s
Project Name: ???`?? _ ???' ?1?/?• (?'7? Sy
Phone )
Contact Person: 6LCTI Li.ti,U Number: i
For projects with multiple basins, specify which basin this worksheet applies to:
' elevations
-5(,- ft. (floor of the basin)
Basin Bottom Elevation
ft. (elevation of the orifice)
Permanent Pool Elevation
Temporary Pool Elevation ?? S ft (elevation of the discharge structure overflow)
areas
Permanent Pool Surface Area / 731 sq. ft. (water surface area at the orifice elevation)
ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
Drainage Area
Impervious Area S ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
volumes
Permanent Pool Volume cu. ft. (combined volume of main basin and forebav)
Temporary Pool Volume cu. ft. (volume detained above the permanent pool)
Forebay Volume 91 1/ iY cu. ft. (approximately 20% of total volume)
' Other parameters
SA/DA? (surface area to drainage area ratio from DWQ table)
in. (2 to 5 day temporary pool draw-down required)
' Diameter of Orifice
Design Rainfall G?- in.
o
Design TSS Removal 2 4 % (minimum 85 /o required)
Page I of 4
Form SWU-102 Rev 3.99

n
04/27/2001 10:56
-Footnotes:
9195460757
SPANGLER ENVIRONMENT
PAGE 04
1 When using the Division sA/17A tables, the correct SA/DA ratio for permanent pool sizing should be computed based upon the
actual impervious % and permanent pool depth. Linear interpolation should be employed to determine the correct value for non-
standard table entries.
z In the 20 coastal counties, the requirement for a vegetative filter may be waived if the wet detention basin is designed to provide
90% TSS removal- The NCDENR BMP manual provides design tables for both 85% TSS removal and 90% TSS removal.
U. REQUIRED )ITEMS CHECKLIST
The following checklist outlines design requirements per the Stornrrwater Best Management Practices Manual
(N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, February 1999) and Administrative Code
Section: 15 A NCAC 2H .1008.
Initial in the space provided to indicate the following design requirements have been met and supporting
documentation is attached. If the applicant has designated an agent in the Stormwater Management Permit
Application Forte, the agent may initial below. If a requirement has not been met, attach justification.
Applicants Initials
a. The pcrrnanemt pool depth is between 3 and 6 feet (required minimum of 3 feet).
_ b. The f'orebay volume is approximately equal to 20% of the basin volume.
'?YL c. The temporary pool controls runoff from the design storm event.
_ d. The temporary pool draws down in 2 to 5 days.
_ e. If required, a 30-foot vegetative filter is provided at the outlet (include non-erosive now
calculations)
f The basin length to width ratio is greater than 3.1.
g. The basin side slopes above the permanent pool are no steeper than 3:1.
_ h. A submerged and vegetated perimeter shelf with a slope of 6:1 or less (show detail).
i. Vegetative cover above the permanent pool elevation is specified.
_ j. A trash rack or similar device is provided for both the overflow and orifice.
13?k k. ,A recorded drainage easement is provided for each basilic including access to nearest right-
of-way.
1. If the basin is used for sediment and erosion control during construction, clean out of the
' basin is specified prior to use as a wet detention basin.
m. A mechanism is specified which will drain the basin for maintenance or an emergency.
III. WET DETENTION BASIN OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
The wet detention basin system is defined as the wet detention basin, pretreatment including forebays and the
vegetated filter if one is provided.
This system (check one) jdoes 0 does not incorporate a vegetated filter at the outlet.
This system (check one) 0 does 0 does not incorporate pretreatment other than a fotrebay.
Form SWU-102 Rev 3.99 page 2 of4

04/227/2001 10:56 9195460757 SPANGLER ENVIRONMENT PAGE 05
L
Maintenance activities shall be performed as follows:
I. After every significant runoff producing rainfall event and at least monthly:
a. Inspect the wet detention basin system for sediment accumulation, erosion, trash accumulation,
vegetated cover, and general condition.
b. Check and clear the orifice of any obstructions such that drawdown of the temporary pool occurs within
2 to 5 days as designed.
2. Repair eroded areas immediately, re-seed as necessary to maintain good vegetative cover, mow vegetative
cover to maintain a maximum height of six inches, and remove trash as needed.
3. Inspect and repair the collection system (i_e_ catch basins, piping, swales, riprap, etc.) quarterly to maintain
proper functioning.
4. Remove accumulated sediment from the wet detention basin system semi-annually or when depth is
reduced to 75% of the original design depth (see diagram below). Removed sediment shall be disposed of
in an appropriate manner and shall be handled in a manner that will not adversely impact water quality (i_e_
stockpiling near a wet detention basin or stream, etc.).
The measuring device used to determine the sediment elevation shall be such that it will give an accurate
depth reading and not readily penetrate into accumulated sediments.
When the permanent pool depth reads feet in the main pond, the sediment shall be removed.
When the permanent pool depth reads feet in the forebay, the sediment shall be removed.
BASIN DIAGRAM
(fill in the blanks)
Permanent Pool Elevation
Sediment R oval 1 75 0
_---_------- Sediment Removal Elevation 75°to
l3othom Ele ation - % -------------------------------------------- ---
Sottvm Elevation 25°'
.0
FORERAY ;MAIN POND
5. Rernove cattails and other indigenous wetland plants when they cover 50% of the basin surface. These
plants shall be encouraged to grow along the vegetated shelf and forebay berm.
6. If the basin must be drained for an emergency or to perform maintenance, the flushing of sediment through
the emergency drain shall be minimized to the maximum extent practical.
I Form SWU-102 Rev 3.99 Page 3 of4

04/27/2001 10:56 9195460757 SPANGLER ENVIRONMENT PAGE 06
7. All components of the wet detention basin system shall be maintained in good working order.
I acknowledge and agrcc by my signature below that I am responsiblc for the performance of the scven
maintenance procedures listed above. I agree to notify DWQ of any problems with the system or prior to any
changes to the system or responsible party.
Print name: n4lowI I'1il Al ? J1' / L C_
Title:
Address- 7 2 2 t"'Y' e ,?/ /A// Lkjj IV G 7? ll o Zj

1

I Forma SWU-102 Rev 3.99
Note, The legally responsible party should not be a homeowners association unless more than 50% of the lots have been sold and a
resident of the subdivision has been named the president.
o e " 1h b-) f L -,a Notary Public for the State of &)c k.4-L1 C .4 ,toe, -L.(?
County of l a 14ri it , do hereby certify that --r.4 ..A J 1-n. Ra G, , w
4ti, (- . and acknowledge the due
personally appeared before me this -'? c day of --11411,1'
execution of the forgoing wet etcrition basin maintenance requirements.
tvL
SEAL
My commission expires
Page 4 of 4
Witness my hand and official seal,

Date: el- 30,01
SPANGLER
ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
PROJECT- Trinity Associates Variance Alternative No. I
Assuming 9.69 acres of watershed to be accommodated.
1-yr / 24-hr Rain Event = 3"
2-yr / 24-hr Rain Event = 3.7'
10-yr / 24-hr Rain Event = 5.6"
25-yr / 24-hr Rain Event = 6.4"
Design Culvert
waters to proposed wetland creation area with no benefit of
precipitation Design culvert to carry
storage on Trinity Associates and/or Trowell, LLC properties.
Since culverts will pass through NCDOT roadways, design culverts to accommodate flow runoff
from 25-year rain event without overtopping roadway.
Using the "Free Outlet Condition" with water surface at inlet same elevation as top of pipe, and
outlet unsubmerged, evaluate size of culvert needed.
' Assuming Runoff from 9.69 acres equals 85 cfs for 25-year rain event (based on TR-55
Modeling), assume slope of culvert at this location equals 1.4% given by 9ft elevation change
divided by 650ft culvert length. From Table 26-2 in the Handbook of Drainage and Construction
Products (Smirnoff, 1955), 85 cfs can be accommodated by a 54" concrete culvert. A 48" culvert
would be undersized to accommodate flow.
Design Apron for Outlet Stabilization
For the 54" Diameter culvert, the peak flow rate for the 25-year event is 85 cfs. To determine
' apron length and stone size, evaluate based on the following.
Assume minimum tailwater condition J, > 0.5 diameter). Therefore, use Figure 8.06a of
Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual. From Figure 8.06a, a 54" diameter
pipe having "Free Outlet" has a maximum discharge of 110 cfs. Size Apron for maximum
discharge condition. From Figure 8.06a, by entering
lowest interOcepcfs on t diagram there is no
to size apron. Thisognveslan
with 54" culvert curve; therefore, use the
apron length (L,,) for the 54" culvert outlet of 30ft.
Do= 54" = 4.5ft
3 Do= 13.5ft
' L8= 30ft
Width of Apron = Do + La = 34.5ft
d50= 0.90ft (for lowest intercept point on Figure 8.06a)
' d,,,,,,= 1.5 x d50= 1.35ft
Apron Thickness = 1.5 x dma 2.025ft
Land Planning • Permitting * Environmental Consulting • Construction Management • Expert Testimony
Pnct Office Box 387 Raleigh, NC 27602-0387 tel: [phone] fax: [phone] www.Spangler-SEI.com
r
RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.10
Project : Trinity Associates User: Jay Date: 04-04-2001
County : Wake State: NC Checked: _ Date:
Subtitle: Culvert Inflow
Subarea : AREA
Hydrologic Soil Group
COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D
Acres (CN)
-------------------
FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.)
Impervious Areas
Paved parking lots, roofs. driveways - - - 7.75(98)
OTHER AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Brush - brush, weed, grass mix good - - - 1.94(73)
Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) 9.69
SUBAREA: AREA TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 9.69 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 93
TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME Version 2.10
Project : Trinity Associates User: Jay Date: 04-04-2001
County : Wake State: NC Checked: Date:
Subtitle: Culvert Inflow
---- Subarea # 1 -AREA ------------------------------
--------------------------
Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time
rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sy/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheet 3.7 300 .0533 A 0.031
Shallow Concent'd 600 0.04 P 0.041
Time of Concentration = 0.07*
--- Sheet Flow Surface Codes ---
A Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense --- Shallow Concentrated ---
B Fallow (No Res.) G Grass, Burmuda --- Surface Codes ---
C Cultivated < 20 % Res . H Woods, Light P Paved
D Cultivated > 20 % Res . I Woods, Dense U Unpaved
E Grass-Range, Short J Range, Natural
* - Generated for use by TABULAR method

TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Version 2.10
Project : Trinity Variance User: Jay Date: 04-25-2001
County : Wake State: NC Checked: Date:
' Subtitle: Wetland Storm Control Evaluation
Total watershed area: 0.015 sq mi Rainfall type: 11 Frequency: 1 years
' -------------------------- Subareas --------------------------
WSCE
Area(sq mi) 0.02*
Rainfall(in) 3.0
Curve number 93*
Runoff(in) 2.25
Tc (hrs) 0.07*
(Used) 0.10
TimeToOutlet 0.00
la/P 0.05
(Used) 0.10
Time Total ------------- Subarea Contribution to Total Flow (cfs) ------------
(hr) Flow WSCE
11.0 1 1
11.3 1 1
11.6 2 2
11.9 11 11
12.0 22 22
12.1 34P 34P
' 12.2 21 21
12.3 7 7
12.4 5 5
12.5 4 4
12.6 4 4
12.7 3 3
12.8 3 3
13.0 2 2
13.2 2 2
13.4 2 2
13.6 2 2
13.8 1 1
14.0 1 1
14.3 1 1
14.6 1 1
15.0 1 1
15.5 1 I
16.0 1 1
16.5 1 1
17.0 1 1
17.5 1 1
18.0 1 1
' 19.0 1 1
20.0 0 0
22.0 0 0
26.0 0 0
P - Peak Flow * - value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines

TABULAR H YDR 0 GRA PH ME THOD Version 2.10
' Project : Trinity Variance User: Jay Date: 04-25-2001
County : Wake State: NC Checked: Date:
' Subtitle: Wetland Capacity
Total watershed area: 0.015 sq mi Rainfall type: 11 Frequency: 2 years
' -------------------------- Subareas --------------------------
W C
Area(sq mi) 0.02*
Rainfall(in) 3.7
Curve number 93*
Runoff(in) 2.93
Tc (hrs) 0.07*
(Used) 0.10
TimeToOutlet 0.00
la/P 0.04
(Used) 0.10
' Time Total ------------- Subarea Contribution to Total Flow (cfs) ------------
(hr) Flow W C
11.0 1 1
11.3 2 2
11.6 2 2
11.9 15 15
12.0 29 29
12.1 45P 45P
' 12.2 28 28
12.3 10 10
12.4 7 7
12.5 5 5
12.6 5 5
12.7 4 4
12.8 3 3
13.0 3 3
13.2 3 3
13.4 2 2
' 13.6 2 2
13.8 2 2
' 14.0 2 2
14.3 2 2
14.6 1 1
15.0 1 1
' 15.5 1 I
16.0 1 1
16.5 1 1
17.0 1 1
17.5 1 1
18.0 1 1
' 19.0 1 1
20.0 1 1
22.0 1 1
26.0 0 0
P - Peak Flow * - value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines

E
1
u

n
u
r

w
1

L

TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Version 2.10
Project : Trinity Associates User: Jay Date: 04-04-2001
County : Wake State: NC Checked: Date:
Subtitle: Culvert Inflow
Total watershed area: 0.015 sq mi Rainfall type: 11 Frequency: 10years
-------------------------- Subareas --------------------------
AREA
Area(sq mi) 0.02*
Rainfall(in) 5.6
Curve number 93*
Runoff(in) 4.77
Tc (hrs) 0.07*
(Used) 0.10
TimeToOutlet 0.00
la/P 0.03
(Used) 0.10
Time Total ------------- Subarea Contribution to Total Flow (cfs) -----------
(hr) Flow AREA
11.0 2 2
11.3 2 2
11.6 4 4
11.9 24 24
12.0 47 47
12.1 73P 73P
12.2 45 45
12.3 16 16
12.4 11 11
12.5 9 9
12.6 8 8
12.7 6 6
12.8 5 5
13.0 5 5
13.2 4 4
13.4 4 4
13.6 3 3
13.8 3 3
14.0 3 3
14.3 2 2
14.6 2 2
15.0 2 2
15.5 2 2
16.0 2 2
16.5 2 2
17.0 1 1
17.5 1 1
18.0 1 1
19.0 1 1
20.0 1 1
22.0 1 1
26.0 0 0
P - Peak Flow * - value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines

0

TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Version 210
Project : Trinity Associates User: Jay Date: 04-04-2001
County : Wake State: NC Checked: Date:
Subtitle: Culvert Inflow
Total watershed area: 0.015 sq mi Rainfall type: 11 Frequency: 25 years
-------------------------- Subareas --------------------------
AREA
Area(sq mi) 0.02*
Rainfall(in) 6.4
Curve number 93*
Runoff(in) 5.58
Tc (hrs) 0.07*
(Used) 0.10
TimeToOutlet 0.00
Ia/P 0.02
(Used) 0.10
Time Total ------------- Subarea Contribution to Total Flow (cfs) -----------
(hr) Flow AREA
11.0 2 2
11.3 3 3
11.6 4 4
11.9 28 28
12.0 55 55
12.1 85P 85P
12.2 53 53
12.3 18 18
12.4 12 12
12.5 10 10
12.6 9 9
12.7 7 7
12.8 6 6
13.0 6 6
13.2 5 5
13.4 4 4
13.6 4 4
13.8 4 4
14.0 3 3
14.3 3 3
14.6 3 3
15.0 2 2
15.5 2 2
16.0 2 2
16.5 2 2
17.0 2 2
17.5 2 2
18.0 2 2
19.0 1 1
20.0 1 1
22.0 1 1
26.0 0 0
P - Peak Flow * - value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines

STORAGE VOLUME FOR DETENTION BASINS Version 2.10
' Project : Trinity Associates User: Jay Date: 04-04-2001
County : Wake State: NC Checked: Date:
Subtitle: Culvert Inflow

I
G'

C?
Drainage Area: 1.514062E-02 Sq miles Rainfall Frequency: 25 years
Rainfall-Type: II
Runoff: 5.6 inches
Peak Inflow: 85.00 cfs
Detention Basin Storage Volume: 0.79 Peak Outflow: 68 cfs
Drainage Area: 1.514062E-02 Sq miles Rainfall Frequency: 25 years
Rainfall-Type: 11
Runoff. 5.6 inches
Peak Inflow: 85.00 cfs
Detention Basin Storage Volume: 1.22 Peak Outflow: 44 cfs
Drainage Area: 1.514062E-02 Sq miles Rainfall Frequency: 25 years
Rainfall-Type: 11
Runoff: 5.6 inches
Peak Inflow: 85.00 cfs
Detention Basin Storage Volume: 1.64 Peak Outflow: 27 cfs
Drainage Area: 1.514062E-02 Sq miles Rainfall Frequency: 25 years
Rainfall-Type: II
Runoff. 5.6 inches
Peak Inflow: 85.00 cfs
Detention Basin Storage Volume: 2.06 Peak Outflow: 17 cfs
Drainage Area: 1.514062E-02 Sq miles Rainfall Frequency: 25 years
Rainfall-Type: II
Runoff. 5.6 inches
Peak Inflow: 85.00 cfs
Detention Basin Storage Volume: 2.49 Peak Outflow: 9 cfs

230
0
W
O
cc
w
I
co
N
Z
H
J O
H t7
=
O Z
Q
LL.
O. -O
_ U- 0
O V
CL L
CL
J Q
Z U
V
U- 0 '
v
o
` C
LU
J L
V w o
Q
CL. . 0
N r
`6 Z
N
J Q
co W
F- Q
U -
w
D
N
w
H
Q
3
3
DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES
o,
sz,
0
q

0 0 C OC O oOo0o00 0 o
I l I
r, ~
(
.r M C:7 cC [? 0 00
~ a0 00 00 00 00 00 00 0
i
op O O O O O O p 0 0 0 C co
O 0
C I
1- 00 I
? I_
I
00 N M M M M M M M M
11 N M -M Lo ra U'? 0 .O Cn CC CC c0 -J^ cm CO G

O o oo000CCCC0 s
O loc l l
CD K I- I-
-t t
?
l
N
-- C' J M `t
"I,
-t
d
V 1r 1r ?
p,

C Oc O 00
- O co0oo00g
C O O o 0 0 C 0
c0 M k
00 N I
M Cc I
.- N N M M M M'T -M t dt -t, v 't

0 0 C O O o o o o co 0 C O O

06 co C : M I
i- = l
O l
N M M M M M M M M
O
-+ -+ N N N M M M M M M M M M M -
0

00 O O C O O 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e n
c0 ,-,- l
I
N " UD t- l
co 00 00 00 00 X 00 00
r+ N N N N N N N N N N N N O U

ul? 0O 0O 0O 000OO0C0
O y
1
00 M Lei l
00 N l
m m M M M M M M
-- -? -- N N N N N N N N N N 7
r. O
i -?
I-000 OO OO o0 0 ocoo
c CN -V u(:D 0000 lo?c c-

.-q --1
rl
--1 --I
--1 --I
'- - = ^ - - --I
w C3
O
?
t • t? t? C O O 0 0 O C O C C O O
^
f
'
'
-M I
I I
N M -M
- - h it lcr L
. Lo l
t
D
-
- -
- -. r
i -r
CCI_ NMO CO C OCCCO Ct
I
M Lo
Clt- I
t_ 00 G I
V
O ^
?? - O
F

?
?
l 00
N
?l M
°
i `o
l c`
M
?'
? y
c
v
a ? .?c
c
.oi o00 a
O
o O
o o
o
OO
o
o
vv O o
m It
? •Y

?c N OLo 00 Mti 0 0 OI 00 C IO
C'4 CN M M M co 11 -V 11 "1, -1,
a

C 00 N in ti C^ (? M -M l u J UZ %0 c0 I
c d •?
? -- -- - N N N N N r N N cq
? a
.C

d? CO oo O O - I c -t+ ,t in I ?J ?fJ ifJ -CS a?i
c? y
M t`coo??o cc °0 ?°'
ail s U c? r- 00 o o 0

N
l
`? cic•?I c•??d'?cGc? cC[? ?:t?t?t- ? II=
K

M O -t l 00 o M .? O M l _t. ' ?O c0 c0 0 r a?
- c? c? N mmm -M -fi -t-T. v -r4-1"

? I tz ?-

--r ?Lv 00

N M d 0 o0 00 00 O 0 C? -Z
0000C0ol 0 o oooool o -
o
N IV
N -M
'
- = C
CC 00 C
N M -M Lo CC 00 O N
!t :

N
N N N -
? G? V
r Appendices
r
r
r .
3 o
Outlet W = Do + La 9 1 l'
I : ifi Ij I ::? I I It
pipe
diameter (Do) 80
La
iNater < 0.50o f_ t._:l _ Ii itl• I li ,
4-1
r ?P 50,
ar ?,-
?ex, g t
N1 a
;
50 ri ..} I :? ?w I..I : .+ ,tl ? .f,1 I• (Ir . ! I Ii?I{{ ? I,:l!Ii
q
4 l 1. .k r i .f ?Il d' } P"
` r' L.i '` fir a t f
7-1
JR, „? r.. I Ili 1 }? d tt r i t t t - } t 3
20
11 MUM
it 2 U)
IL v!' 44, lit ' $4'r' i CL
4? 141
2.5
77 1z C LLL
l i L
04
}} , ?5 , a I ,ill i. , L+}. q0 Fr
71
Y . 10 t,d I ii 1
I. .. 0
r i .
3 I 5 10 20 50 100 200 500 1000
Discharge (ft /sec)
r
Curves may not be extrapolated.
r Figure 8.06a Design of outlet protection protection from a round pipe flowing full, minimum tailwater condition (Tw < 0.5 diameter).
r
r
' Rev. M93 8.063
SPANGLER
' ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
PROJECT: Outlet Design for Stormwater Wetland
Assuming Outlet of 54" Concrete Culvert carrying flow from upgradient Trinity Associates and
' Trowell Properties produces a peak discharge of 34 cfs of flow during the 1-year rain event.
Combine with peak runoff for stormwater wetland watershed equal to 2.19 acres.
From TR-55 Method 1-year Rain Event peak flow rate equals 7 cfs. Determine outlet required to
handle combined 1-year peak flow rate of 41 cfs (35 cfs + 7 cfs = 41 cfs).
Calculate Runoff Volume (VR) for 1-year rain event for this area. 9.69 acres flows to 54"
culvert and 2.19 acres flows to wetland area from adjacent hillsides. Use 2.25 inches of runoff
from the 9.69 acres and 1.90 inches of runoff for the 2.19 acres.
VR (9.69) = 2.25 inches x 0.0833 ft/in x 422,096.4 ftz = 79,111.418 ft3
VR (2.19) = 1.90 inches x 0.0833 ft/in x 95,396.40 ftz = 15,098.388 ft3
VR (totaD = 79,111.418 ft3 + 15,098.388 ft3 = 94,209.81 ft3
' Runoff Numberl,,,eig,ted> = 94,209.81 ft3 / 517,492.80 ft2 / 0.0833 ft/in = 2.18 inches
Calculate Available Storage Volume of Wetland with 5ft high earthen berm dam and lft of
freeboard. Surface area of wetland creation area is equal to 0.47 acres. Total area draining into
wetland creation area equal to 11.88 acres.
' Approximate Storage Volume Available (VA) equals:
0.47 acres x 1.436ft average storage depth = 0.675 acre-ft = 29,481.41 ft3
' Evaluate Storage Volume Available versus Runoff Volume
VR (WW) = 94,209.81 ft-1 = 2.16 acre-ft > VA = 29,481.41 ft3 = 0.675 acre-ft
' Therefore, since Runoff Volume is greater than Available Storage Volume, must control peak
flow rate of 1-yr storm without overtopping dam.
' Using TR-55 Modeling calculate wetland outflow with 0.675 acre-ft of storage volume. From
TR-55 Modeling the peak outflow during the 1-year storm (3" of rainfall) = 17 cfs. Size Culvert
for 1-year peak discharge = 41 cfs.

Land Planning • Permitting • Environmental Consulting • Construction Management • Expert Testimony
Post Office Box 387 Raleigh, NC 27602-0387 tel: [phone] fax: [phone] www.Spangler-SEI.com

1

Design pipe and riser outlet for wetland pond. Barrel should be selected to deliver maximum
outflow when water surface is at the maximum expected stage, Zmax• Size by application of the
orifice equation assuming "Inlet Control".
Q = (0.0437)(CI,)(13 )(?( Zmax-n/24) (ORIFICE EQUATION)
where: CD = Coefficient of Discharge = 0.6
D = Pipe Diameter
Zmar = Maximum Expected Stage = 5ft (overtopping height)
Q = Peak Discharge for 1-year Rain Event = 41 cfs
Solving for the Orifice Equation for Pipe Diameter (D) give s D;:::?28.282".
Therefore, use standard size pipe diameter of 30".
Determine Riser Size.
The Cross Sectional area of the riser pipe should be at least 1.5 times the cross-sectional area of
the calculated barrel size.
Barrel Cross Sectional area = A= nr2 = (3.1415927){0.5(28.282/12")}2 = 4.36 ft2
Determine Riser Size (Di,,,) = 1.5 x 4.36 ft2 = 6.54 ft2
?(A/n) = r x(6.54 ft2/3.1415927) = 1.44ft = r
Driser = 2r = 2.88ft = 34.56 inches

Therefore, use a 36" Diameter Riser Pipe and 30" Diameter Barrel.
Compute Stage of Top of Riser:
The Stage or Elevation of the Top of the Riser pipe should be sufficiently below the maximum
expected water level to allow flow to enter the riser pipe freely. The top of the riser pipe should
be computed from the maximum expected water level Zmar and an application of the Weir
Equation.
ZRise, = Zmax- [ Qo/0.86D]2/3
where: Qo = Expected Maximum Flow Rate (cfs)
D = Selected Pipe Diameter (inches)
Zmax = Maximum Expected Water Level (ft)
ZRi,,, = Recommended Top of Riser (ft)
ZRi,u = 5 - [41/0.86(30)] 2i3 = 3.64 ft above bottom of pond
Since the Pond Depth Desired 3-4ft in depth. Place Top of Riser at 4ft above bottom of pond;
however adjust dam height from 5ft to 5.36ft above bottom of pond to allow for sufficient
freeboard.
SPANGLER
ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.

Design Apron for Outlet Stabilization
For the 30" diameter corrugated metal barrel, the peak flow rate traveling through the pipe equals
41 cfs. Evaluated assuming minimum tailwater condition (TW > 0.5 diameter). Therefore Use
Figure 8.06a of Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual. From Figure 8.06a,
a 30" diameter pipe having "Free Outlet" has a maximum discharge of 41 cfs. Size Apron for
maximum discharge condition. From Figure 8.06a, by entering 41 cfs on diagram there is no
' connection with 30" culvert curve; therefore, use the lowest intercept point to size apron. This
gives an apron length (La) for the 30" culvert outlet of 18ft.
Do= 30" = 2.5ft
3 Do= 7.5ft
L,, 18ft
Width of Apron = Do + La = 20.5ft
d50= 0..50ft (for lowest intercept point on Figure 8.06a)
d.,, 1.5 x d50= 0.75ft
Apron Thickness = 1.5 x dmaz 1.125ft
Design Anti-Floatation Block to anchor riser pipe
Riser Mass with Rebar Reinforced Concrete Mass
weight of water displaced by the riser pipe.
Weight of Fresh Water ;?-- 62 lbs/ft3
' Volume of Water Displaced z n-r2 x height of riser
(3.1415927)(2.5/2)2 x 4f1
and guard against floatation. Anchor the
that has weight greater that 1.1 times the
= 19.64ft3
Weight of Water Displaced z- 19.64 ft' x 62 `/ft3 = 1,217.681bs
' Concrete Mass needed to Prevent Floatation = 1.1 x 1,217.68 lbs = 1,339.45 lbs. of concrete
Determine Dimensions of Anti-floatation Block:
' Normal Concrete Weight = 4,000 lbs/yd3
1339.45 lbs of concrete needed / 4,000 lbs/yd3 = 0.335 cubic yards needed

1

Size of Anti-floatation Block: 3ft Wide by 3ft Long by 1.005ft Thick
Place No. 4 Rebar on 6" Centers for Concrete Reinforcement
Number of Bars Required = 10 Bars at 3ft in length
SPANG LER
ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTAT14N Version 2.10
Project : Trinity Associates User: Jay Date: 04-04-2001
County : Wake State: NC Checked: Date: ?-
Subtitle: Culvert Inflow
Subarea : AREA --------
---------------------------------------------
Hydrologic Soil Group
COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D
Acres (CN)
___________
__ _________________________
FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.)
Impervious Areas 7.75(98)
Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways
OTHER AGRICULTURAL LANDS _ 1.94(73)
Brush - brush, weed, grass mix good -
9.69
Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group)
-------------------------------------------
---------------------
---------
A: AREA TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 9.69-Acres----WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 93
SUBAREEA:
,rruF nF CONCENTRA
VEL TIME Version 2.10
Project : Trinity Associates User: Jay Date: 04-04-2001
State: NC Checked: Date:
County : Wake
Subtitle: Culvert Inflow
---
---------------- Subarea # 1 -AREA --------------------------- Time
Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr)
----------------------
-----------
-----------------------------
Sheet 3.7 300 .053 0 04 P 0.031
0.041
Shallow Concent'd 600
Time of Concentration = 0.07*
--- Sheet Flow Surface Codes ---
Dense --
F Grass
- Shallow Concentrated ---
A Smooth Surface
B Fallow (No Res.) ,
G Grass, Burmuda --- Surface Codes ---
P Paved
C Cultivated < 20 % Res . H Woods, Light
Dense
I Woods U Unpaved
D Cultivated > 20 % Res ,
.
l
J Range
E Grass-Range, Short ,
* - Generated for use by TABULAR method

TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Version_ 2.10
1

1

C

Project : Trinity Variance User: Jay Date: 04-25-2001
County : Wake State: NC Checked: Date:
Subtitle: Wetland Storm Control Evaluation
Total watershed area: 0.003 sq mi Rainfall type: II Frequency: 1 years
-------------------------- Subareas --------------------------
WSCE
Area(sq mi) 0.00*
Rainfall(in) 3.0
Curve number 89*
Runoff(in) 1.90
Tc (hrs) 0.11
(Used) 0.10
TimeToOutlet 0.00
Ia/P 0.08
(Used) 0.10
Time Total ------------- Subarea Contribution to Total Flow (cfs) ------------
(hr) Flow WSCE
11.0 0 0
11.3 0 0
11.6 0 0
11.9 2 2
12.0 4 4
12.1 7P 7P
12.2 4 4
12.3 1 1
12.4 1 1
12.5 1 1
12.6 1 1
12.7 1 1
12.8 0 0
13.0 0 0
13.2 0 0
13.4 0 0
13.6 0 0
13.8 0 0
14.0 0 0
14.3 0 0
14.6 0 0
15.0 0 0
15.5 0 0
16.0 0 0
16.5 0 0
17.0 0 0
17.5 0 0
18.0 0 0
19.0 0 0
20.0 0 0
22.0 0 0
26.0 0 0
P - Peak Flow * - value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines

i
t
i
RUNOFF CUR VE NUMBER 00AIPUTA TION Version 2.10
Project : Trinity Associates User: Jay Date: 04-04-22001
County : Wake State: NC Checked: Date:
Subtitle: Culvert Inflow
Subarea : AREA
Hydrologic Soil Group
COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D
Acres (CN)
--------------------- -------------------------
FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.)
Impervious Areas
Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways - - - 7.75(98)
OTHER AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Brush - brush, weed, grass mix good - - - 1.94(73)
Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group)
9.69
SUBAREA: AREA TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 9.69 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 93
TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME Version 210
Project : Trinity Associates User: Jay Date: 04-04-2001
County : Wake State: NC Checked: Date:
Subtitle: Culvert Inflow
------------------------------ Subarea # 1 - AREA ------------------------------
Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time
rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheet 3.7 300 .0533 A 0.031
Shallow Concent'd 600 0.04 P 0.041
Time of Concentration = 0.07*
--- Sheet Flow Surface Codes ---
A Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense --- Shallow Concentrated ---
B Fallow (No Res.) G Grass, Burmuda --- Surface Codes ---
C Cultivated < 20 % Res . H Woods, Light P Paved
D Cultivated > 20 % Res . I Woods, Dense U Unpaved
E Grass-Range, Short J Range, Natural
* - Generated for use by TABULAR method

1

TABULAR H YDR 0 GRA PH ME THOD [version 2.10
Project : Trinity Variance User: Jay Date: 04-25-2001
County : Wake State: NC Checked: Date:
Subtitle: Wetland Storm Control Evaluation
Total watershed area: 0.015 sq mi Rainfall type: 11 Frequency: I years
-------------------------- Subareas --------------------------
WSCE
Area(sq mi) 0.02*
Rainfall(in) 3.0
Curve number 93*
Runoff(in) 2.25
Tc (hrs) 0.07*
(Used) 0.10
TimeToOutlet 0.00
Ia/P 0.05
(Used) 0.10
Time Total ------------- Subarea Contribution to Total Flow (cfs) ------------
(hr) Flow WSCE
11.0 1 1
11.3 1 1
11.6 2 2
11.9 11 11
12.0 22 22
12.1 34P 34P
12.2 21 21
12.3 7 7
12.4 5 5
12.5 4 4
12.6 4 4
12.7 3 3
12.8 3 3
13.0 2 2
13.2 2 2
13.4 2 2
13.6 2 2
13.8 1 1
14.0 1 1
14.3 1 1
14.6 1 1
15.0 1 1
15.5 1 1
16.0 1 1
16.5 1 1
17.0 1 1
17.5 1 1
18.0 1 1
19.0 1 1
20.0 0 0
22.0 0 0
26.0 0 0
P - Peak Flow * - value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines

STORAGE VOLUME FOR DETENTION BASINS Version 2.10
Project : Trinity Variance
User: Jay
Date: 04-25-2001
County : Wake
State: NC
Subtitle: Wetland Storage Peak Outflow
Drainage Area: 11.9 Acres
Rainfall Frequency: 1 years
Rainfall-Type: II
Runoff. 2.2 inches
Peak Inflow: 41.00 cfs
Detention Basin Storage Volume: 0.68
Peak Outflow: 17 cfs

F
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
Appendices
3

Outlet W = Do + La 9 -

pipe
diameter (Do)
80
y
a
ilwater < 0.5Do
I
l

a
P
k 60 . ".." y
o I
y
50 4I i+ 41 . } s y^

It 10

30. W MI
20 IT. Z1 111 3
1 3
_ 1 ! Ij ^
10 __ r i?
i
H
I I
l t
it t t 'I t i - 2 U)
0
I :
-
a CL

i.?.
_

'

ff

t

}

t
i
? t

?

y

?

'
y
0.

d
a:
20
f
f
-
o
I I ;i 4
i'_ V
0
3 i' „ . .
3 5 10 20 50 100 200 500 1000
Discharge (ft 3/sec)
Curves may not be extrapolated.
Figure 8.06a Design of outlet protection protection from a round pipe flowing full, minimum tailwater condition (Tw < 0.5 diameter).
Rev. 12193
8.06.3
r
. .
, + • ~ ~;t
. ~ • r~l,L~'
` ~ ~ ~ , • ~ .
~ . , . 1.
• E ~ ' ~
. , . , .

' ~ , ~ aa- ~
~r ~0 cn
U1 i
J W W' w j oa ~ ~ O
,J W W w ~ u z W LL LL o ~ o ci ~ a u+
' LL Q z u ~ u a
L H
Z ~ ~ O •O O ~ W ~ a~ ~ z ~ N ~ z a a O V Q N 01 a~ p
U / w oz y~¢ _J ~ a r~no ;a O
i F- N ~ i a 4 az~ gyn. ~ :a Q W Z ~0•C ~ U LL1 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~
~ (.I) LL ~ 1- O J - ~ a oho ~a (t~ ,y f. w a W' W W 'i 1?~
i ~ V~ Q j ~ ~ ~ ..b z 4 L ~t'
Q ~ u o ~ 0 ~ ~ o~ ~w~ a Q U Z w W~
Z ~ ~ ~yo ~ O
a
V ~ n a r
~ ~ ~~a d Q Z 0 0 7a~ w
m ~ . . N r q 1 S =i V I J r~ O
. _ z J~ ~ - -
o i w I- W W I----_ ~I
i ~ > K
o W y.. _
0 J
a f J ~ h_ O J Z - Q
a W W
a J Z ~ u ~ J
J fA W J Q O c Z N W
z N Q ~ (A Z ~ Q i ~
~ ~ ~ Z W W W Z M N 1 ~
~ Q Z W N C Q C U N O~ 0 ~ S
~ = Z Z i ~ Q- QWJ V ~ ~ ~
f U d =0 ~ N
\ UZ C 0 ~
, W , ~ ~ ~ N U ~ J
W p W
0 Z L N Z ~a
f Z d Z c ~ a~ ~
~ ~ W h Q ~ a ~
W ~ 0 ~ ti S O N ;i 7~( _ ~ 1 - ~ .D
Z ~ - U _ U _v ,
~ 0 ~ 1, v, r j ~
~ a 'V ' , W
~ 't Z ~3rn
'1 .y i
0 _1 O d' 0
W Z (n N fY • ~
Z . H 0 ii4"Z `'f'Zii i I
i - j z z j ~1~~
~ ~ , W _ Q - ~ ~ l J ~ .j.._..y---_
~ _ ~ ~ -I W ; _ ~ s
l ~ I- v ' Z
/ I ~X U W ~ J r Z J , tR
2~(;~ _ ~
i U ~
G
~l '
~-..r-~- U7 _
~ W
~ y Z
. Q
i
U i
M
o ' J
fit, t,~, W
1 ~ ' 9 Z •
Z ,
Q
M ~ I _
U r J
~n~,+
.~11,`. ~ sl
I
~ -
~ ~
• o
r ,
a

E
~
c
~ i v
i
i ~ 4 ~ ~ •
• 1t: ' 4
4 . 'F
• ~ ~
i
r ,y F~ 'YI 1
/ : 3 . r _ . I{S, .r, 2(!411F'~. ad. -aVa, a ~ 7 !'t.~ .r+.~• ....fitee M1 • t
•;f ;..1 te.l . l~ir ~ . ~ ~ rtr~^-~ i. .1 .v" i •r. n'+ ,r ,t:- t i a. , i ~ . , r.,.., t., b~. g' r. . r+-r i Jvf