20190928 Ver 2_DWR comment_20200303

Strickland, Bev
From: Wojoski, Paul A
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2020 4:31 PM
To: Greer, Emily C CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Cc: Mairs, Robb L
Subject: RE: [External] SAW-2014-01693 The Terraces SD-DWR comment
Attachments: PCN Excerpt.PNG; GC Conditions.PNG; PCN Exhibit Edited.PNG
Hi Emily -
Thanks for reaching out. So the issue is that the project shows lots platted within wetlands. These areas are not called
out as permanent impacts and accounted for in the proposed development. (See attached capture titled, "PCN Exhibited
Edited"). I circled in red the areas showing wetlands on platted lots. The concern is that lot will be sold, and a developer
will grade/fill the individual lots for construction, thereby causing additional impacts. They may apply for individual
NWPs, when the impacts are already anticipated and more appropriately reviewed as part of the subdivision
development.
We'd prefer the lots platted outside of any wetlands. But the usual way we address this is to require deed notifications
on the lots with retained wetlands. This is a standard condition for our applicable General Certifications (see "GC
Conditions" attached). They have also agreed to do so per the PCN application (see "PCN Excerpt" attached). In this way
a future lot owner can't plead ignorance to knowledge of wetlands on the property they purchased and thus, request a
hardship. Based on Harnett County's ordinance, as you've described, I'm unsure if some of the lots are buildable if they
require a 50' setback from the wetlands. At any rate, the Addlnfo letter we sent was an attempt to nail down this issue
on the front end.
In any respect, we've seen a few projects come with this issue. An individual lot builder requesting wetland impacts to
build what would be otherwise an unbuildable lot. They state no deed restriction was disclosed at the time of purchase,
and are usually correct. Therefore it seems to be a failure of recording the restrictions. We don't have a program to audit
the recording of deed restrictions (though we could require they are provided as a condition...), so I can't say for certain
how much of a problem it is beyond anecdotal evidence.
At any rate this issue has come to the attention of our EMC (Environmental Management Commission). This is the
appointed Commission that provides oversight to the Department of Environmental Quality's programs, rules, etc. They
also oversee our State's Buffer rules. We've have a few Buffer variances requests come before them and they are often
single-family homeowners who want to impact a riparian buffer on their property. In these cases we find that deed
restrictions are usually not recorded. Therefore we've received some attention from the EMC and requests for more info
on the topic. Again, this is specific to the Buffer Rules, but I have seen a recent PCN or two with this issue regarding
impacts to wetlands.
Sorry for the throwing acronyms out there, I appreciate you asking. Also please feel free to reach out if we want to have
a longer conversation. It sounds like we are on the same page, and I appreciate your work (and planned work) with the
counties.
Paul Wojoski
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch Supervisor Division of Water Resources Department of Environmental Quality
[phone] office
[e-mail]
1

512 N. Salisbury Street (Archdale Building), Suite 942-F, Raleigh, NC 27604
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed
to third parties.
-----Original Message -----
From: Greer, Emily C CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2020 2:19 PM
To: Wojoski, Paul A <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] SAW-2014-01693 The Terraces SD-DWR comment
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail]<maiIto: [e-mail]>
Hey Paul -
I'm in the middle of writing the EA for this project and I just noticed that you mentioned that recording the deed
notification has been a big thing for EMC lately. Can you explain a little further? First, I know a lot of acronyms but not
EMC :) Second, what has been the issue exactly? I haven't heard a thing from the field on the notification and I've been
including it as a condition for a couple of years, which makes me think I probably have a lot of non-compliance out there.
I worked with Harnett County on their newly updated ordinances for residential/commercial development. They now
require a 50' setback from wetlands and 100' from perennial/intermittent streams except where they must be impacted
for things like infrastructure. No wetlands are allowed to encroach into lot boundaries. It has made the permit review
easier and will be a saver in the long run as far as workload for unauthorized activities. I'm hoping after Martin Marietta
is completed that Robb and I will have time to sit down with Pender County to not only educate them on our programs
but to start a dialogue that will result in similar ordinance changes because this is such an issue there. If you can shed
some light on any issues, we may be able to come up with a resolution in the meantime.
Thank you!
Emily Greer, Regulatory Specialist
Wilmington District - Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, NC 28403
910.251.4567 (o)

In ,wljwviw with roe,wiLue uW minimiveon eRdls ou irud in Table a, large uae and o1M1a woland
ngetllim will only M1e mometl wM1ae nxhd. w IM1e Hedw,M Fmel and Swamp Fares and Ruing Ne emMu[lim
paeeve.Ewlmwganempaztlxe win ce mIisd Roy u npamyimpact mwnlande. eectiMdwlm 11re mebnation
mbammotnndewapmnn w;ncerew.amueo-me.a eanmmneud 9loxzdro«v[getue
iulwany mexdW wimawnlmJeelmu.or ram lure wh Applinan� auiog d hu�nM1ue.niei lo,wid M1,rmg
wnlarele mvmah Into the mdrviduel la4 For rnee bu. wnne m i. num4 datl mtifiwdanv wnl be raordetl,s W e
New I,,dA Cmmry Regieuro(DeWf ba¢ureuna as ttdwetland impvdonnbtegaa, aPerrM lolsbmr
mnveyed A AeP o(0e notifieanon M1u bem mssM1ed a Apperdi n 1.

If this Water Quality Certification is used to access residential, commercial or industrial
building sites, then all parcels owned by the applicant that are part of the single and
complete project authorized by this Certification must be buildable without additional
impacts to streams or wetlands. If required In writing by DWR, the applicant shall provide
evidence that the parcels are buildable without requiring additional impacts to wetlands,
waters, or state regulated riparian buffers. (15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(4) and (c)(4))
For road and driveway construction purposes, this Certification shall only be utilized from
natural high ground to natural high ground. [15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(2) and (c)(2)]
Deed notifications or similar mechanisms shall be placed on all lots with retained
jurisdictional wetlands, waters, and state regulated riparian buffers within the project
boundaries in order to assure compliance with NC Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 02H .0500), NC
Isolated Welland Rules (15A NCAC 02H .1300), and/or state Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules
(15A NCAC 02B .0200). These mechanisms shall be put in place at the time of recording of
the property or Individual parcels, whichever is appropriate. [15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(4)
and (c)(4)]

The Terraces
Town of Surf City, North Carolina O
It Q
�t, PE
an
S
I
I
.,I -/ it 'off:.`
....
SF I
I L
PARAMOUNTP,
P1N� law
/
�'V . 7 -