20011495 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_20010109

O? WATER Michael F. Easley
COI QG Governor
Cq William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
October 12, 2001
DWQ Project # 01-1495
Durham County
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Soil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. (S&EC,Inc.)
Attn: Mr. Todd Preuninger
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27614
Re: Summer Meadows Development, Durham, Durham County, NC
S&EC, Inc. Job #6517
Unnamed tributary stream to Eno River [03-04-01; 27-2-(19.5); WS-IV NSW]
Dear Mr. Preuninger,
On October 9, 2001, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) received your request for a "no practical alternatives"
determination for a proposed road crossing associated with the Summer Meadows Development. The proposed road
crossing involves impacts to both protected buffers and streams. The most commonly used Nationwide Permits for this
type of activity are NW 14 and NW39. The accompanying 401 Water Quality General Certifications for these permits are
GC3289 and GC3287 respectively. Both of these certifications require written concurrence from the DWQ if the
proposed road crossing exceeds 40 feet of impacts (measured parallel to the stream) to the protected buffers. A no
practical alternatives determination and minimization review will be required to receive this written concurrence. The no
practical alternatives determination for the buffer rules will occur at this time. To submit for these no practical
alternatives determinations to receive written concurrence from the DWQ the owner or authorized agent will need to
submit a complete Pre-construction Notification (PCN) Application Form with the appropriate fee to this office. More
information regarding the General Certifications and PCN submittal can be found at our web site
(http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands[basic4Ol.html) or by calling 919-733-1786.
Please respond in writing within three weeks of the date of this letter by sending a copy of this information to this
office. If we do not hear from you in three weeks, we will assume that you no longer want to pursue this project and we will
consider the project as withdrawn. This letter does not authorize any impact to the protected riparian buffers or
jurisdictional waters. Any impacts to these areas most likely will require submittal of a PCN to and written authorization
from the DWQ. If you have any questions concerning this determination, please contact me at 919-733-9646.
Sincerely,
ffin ney, Supi or,
ands Un Q
Cc: Steve Mitchell, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
Nazeeh Z. Abdul-Hakeem, Durham City/County Planning Department, 101 City Hall Plaza, Durham, NC 27701
File copy
Central Files
DWQ 011495
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/
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road • Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
www.SandEC.com 1 Q ^ I?
Note: This is not a 401 Application and therefore does not
require an application fee. - y
MEMORANDUM U
9n
TO: John Dorney, DWQ Wetlands Group $ ,,,r;, AUnO „1,,,1
FROM: Todd Preuninger - Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
RE: Summer Meadow, Durham, NC
S&EC Job #6517
The purpose of this memo is to request your office's opinion regarding
"practical alternatives" for a road crossing of a stream that is subject to the
Neuse Basin Buffer Rules.
On September 6, 2001, Mr. Charles Brown, of the NC-DWQ, conducted a site
visit and determined that feature `B' is subject to The Neuse Basin Rules
between flags 18 and 53 and below flag 123. The feature is depicted on the
USGS Quad map as an intermittent channel and as perennial stream on the
Soil Survey (See attached). We believe the stream is actually an intermittent
channel.
We are not submitting a request for a wetland permit for the subject road
crossing at this time because we believe the crossing violates the Neuse Buffer
Rules. Specifically there is a practical alternative: Do not build the extension;
use an alternate entrance into the subdivision. The Durham Planning
Department has recommended a connection between the proposed subdivision
and the existing neighborhood to the east via Felicia Street in the northeastern
corner of the property. (See attached Development Planning Comments).
The Residential Project will have adequate site access via two proposed
subdivision entrances, one off of Hebron Road and another entrance connected
to Denfield Street in the west. Durham has suggested a connection between
Felicia Street and the proposed subdivision, possibly to provide `connectivity'
with the adjoining neighborhood (See attached 12/16/99 Development
Charlotte Office:
PMB 291, 3020-I Prosperity Church Road
Charlotte, NC 28269-7197
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Greensboro Office:
3817-E Lawndale Drive
Greensboro, NC 27455
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Hickory Office:
910 Boston Road
Taylorsville, NC 28681
Phone [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Comments). In reviewing the Development Plan Comments, it appears that
"Transportation" has requested, not required, roadway connections between
Summer Meadow subdivision and Felicia Street. Therefore, the residential
developer believes the connection is optional and thus cannot comply with the
buffer rules.
Please advise us in writing that you concur that construction of this road
would violate the current Neuse Basin Buffer Rules since a practical alternative
to its construction exists (i.e. do not build). Since the proposed infrastructure
will support 280 of the proposed homes and townhomes on the residential
project, it seems that the proposed roads are adequate and an additional
connection is unnecessary.
Other attachments:
Existing Subdivision Plan
Map indicating impacts required to complete extension
USGS Location Map
? ?
?
? o
C
$ ? M )). '
•? ? ? `> ? / ° ice,` -- Ifs
38J ?\
0

Aolt H."? •? ??? ?/ ,r CJ?•
1MaT9n? ,??/_ . r J
-)
J/1 L
,
?? ?1
??, ?s??? -1? z??
5'0 1
44
3/3
c,
50,- I
300
A Ilk
14
Project 0: Scale:
01-8517 1" =2000'
Project Date: Figure 1- USGS Quad
Mgr.: J8 8124101 Summer Meadow
Homes by Huff
Durham, Durham County, NC
NORTHWEST DURHAM, N. C.
SW/4 DURHAM NORTH 15' OUADRANOLE
36078-A8-TF-024
1973
PHOTOREVISED 1987
DMA 5236 III SW-SERIES V842
Soil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.
11010 Raven Ridge Rd.- Raleigh, NC 27614
[phone] • [phone]
Web Page: www.SandEC.com
09/27/2001 12:02 9194848881 TMT LANDSCAPE ARCHIT PAGE 04
%MVV&
X2•,`16/99 THU 17:39 FAX [phone] DURHAM PLANNING

December 16, 1999
Mr. Tony M. Tate
1912 E- NC Hwy 54
Durham, NC 27713
Re: Comments on Revised Summer Meadows Development Flan, Rezoning Case P99-37.
Dear Mr. Tate:
There are too many outstanding issues preventing the case from moving forward to Zoning Committee
in January. Therefore, my efforts arc aimed at getting the case ready for the February 8, 2000 meeting.
The development plan must comply with the zoning ordinance and staff comments listed below must be
addressed satisfactorily. Also, the determination of whether or not the stream running through the middle
of the site is an intermittent stream as dcsigt?ated on the USCS map or a perennial stream as designated
on the Soil Survey map. This determines the size of the required stream buffer and must be carried to
DRB for a decision prior to Zoning Committee. Indeed, the matter should be resolved before a final
development plan is submitted for staff review and comment. That way staff does not have to review
another revised development plan in the event the ORB's decision sloes not favor the current
development plan, which shows the smallest stn=. buffer. For the DRIB decision, you should have all
necessary calculation of other information to support your contention. You should contact Steve Medlin
at extension 223 and get on the schedule at the earliest possible date. 'rho last meeting this year is on
Wednesday, December 29, 1999. The first matting next year is January T `_
As far as submitting the revised development plan, my draft staff report is due January 24, 2000.
Working backwards, staff will need time to review the revised plan and get comments to you. The latest
we will need to have the plan is January 10*.
As for the companion rezonizg, F99-66, I have a meeting on Monday to go over staff comments. There
appears to be some complications with the development plan and the applicant might need to drop the
(D) from the district altogether, rather than taking out the, part necessary for the proposed Summer
meadows development. More on this after the meeting.
Application Comments,
1_ The application indicatcs a total of 457 units. The development plan indicates 455 lots. Correct the
discrepancy.
2. The R-10 portion along Denfleld was suppose to be removed because it would require the applicant
to either annex the whole site before the rezoning, or to tak-c the case to both the City Council and
09/27/2001 12:02 9194848881
'111/1609 THU 27:39 FAX 919 Soo 4641
TMT LANDSCAPE ARCHIT PAGE 02
DtMRM PLANNING
Hoard of County Commissioners. When it was part of the project, total acres was 40. Nowthat,$
removed, total $Gre:s is 91! Alao make sure the new metes and bounds are on the deveslopmmt plan
Ed this Part is clearly remove from the site.
3. Provide a now Ordinance Form and attach a revised metes & bounds description For the entire area, to
be rerrvucd as one property. Description of the 3 tracts of land is not adequate, The description
gizould exclude the R-10 area as well.
Development Plan comments.
1. The unit information needs to be better displayed for clarity. Indicate the total number, of units and
give; the breakdown as in the application. This is probably better than indicating Total Lots.
2, The minimum lot size for single fakrWly is too dense for the area. Perimeter lots are to be comparable
to adjacent single family. If a connection is made to Felicia Street, which has 20,000 s.f lots, we
would expect lots to be substantially larger than the minimum. This needs to be indicated on the
development plan.
3. Regarding 42 in Application Comments, will the proposed zoning still include R- 10 as indicated on
the development plW! For the area zoned R-10, the development plan shows a transitional nos area-
None is required.
4- the buffer width between the single family and multi-family is 20 feet not 15 feet.
5. The print for the number of units and lot size for the multi-family needs to be enlarged so it can be
read. Also indicate the maximum number of buildings on the multi-family sites. A, description or
elevation is still required.
6, Tax records and field survey indicate them are buildings on lot-, adjacent to the sits on Felicia Street.
Please show them on the development plan.
Transportation has request roadway connections to both Communications Drive and Felicia Street
(misspelled on plan).
S. The cul-de-sac in the northeast corner of the site near Felicia Slxeet is too long.
9. Identify the buffer around the pond and along the stream.
10. Parking information for multi-family and attached single, family is incorreet, The ordinance requires
2 space per unit for each type.
11. Extensive off site water and sewer extensions is required with this site.
12. No grading/planting er building in casement of dross country water mains (min. 50 feet easement).
'11is'will limit road alignments, The plan cannot be forwarded to Zoning Committee until this is
:addressed on the plaits. Contact Jeff Lecky in the Engineering Envision at 560-4326.
13. Add note to plan that a &W waterline, feed is required when development excmds 100 lots.
14. Conform to City street design standards.
15. Label streets public or private.
16. Label all new property lines. What is the line south of cul-de-sac near the Street "N' label? If it is a
new property, please label it, What is the dashed litre running around the area in the southeast corner
of the site, east of Street "A"?
17. Complete property lines around structures on adjacent parcels.
18. Label Melanie Street, which intersects with West Avcm c near the Open Space and Tree Save area in
the northeast corner of the site below Felicia Street.
19. Use tax map references to identify adjacent property instead deed inibrmation.
20. For specimen tree survey, show trees for the multi-family and daycare parcels.
Q403
09/27/2001 12:02 9194848881 TMT LANDSCAPE ARCHIT PAGE 03
lg?lg/g8 '1K 17:40 FAX [phone] DUKHM rLAS%;'% %P
21. ImIude stream buffer areas into tree save areas and calculations.
You am contact me at 560-4137, ext. 255 or [e-mail]-us.
Si v=rely,
? cf /,;; _
NazeV.AbdLd-IIakecm,
Senior Piauner
CC: Mary Wallace
3
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE J s Mait°- -
PQStage & Fees Pak,
pShS-No. G-10
• Sender: Please print your, name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box •
NC DENR DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS/401 UNIT
1621 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1621
:t?:?larr?ai?aair?a:?alsa::r??:?t:ra=#a!?ar??i:?:a?a}arirlaa?
¦ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
¦ Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
¦ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
1. Art' Ie Addressed to:
L??Zii tivrM
QQ? 1 1 G 76,
A.
X
? Agent
B. Recqed by (Print!#?Vame Date of Delii er
U °?ehV? , / ivl'o
D. Is delivery address different from item 1? ? Yes
If YES, enter delivery address below: V No
3. Ei Type
ified Mail ? Express Mail
istered ? Return Receipt for Merchandis(
? Insured Mail ? C.O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ? Yes
2. Article Number C /
(Transfer from service label)? / 615
to l - l7
?S Form 3811, August 2001 Domestic Return Receipt 10259