19990838 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19990730

?OF VP! ATF9Q
ID G
co
r_
1
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
March 8. 2002
Wake County
DWQ No. 990838
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice
Attn: Mr. John C. Cooke
PO Box 831
Raleigh, NC 27602
Subject Property: Strafford-Land Investments, Inc.. 10 Lots on ACC Boulevard, Raleigh, NC
WCSR Project No. 40025.0001.4
UT to Little Brier Creek [03-04-02: 27-33-4-1; C NSW]
Dear Mr. Cooke:
In response to your letter dated July 28. 1999, the Wetlands/401 Unit of the N.C. Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) received this letter on July 30, 1999. You requested that the DWQ concur with your determination that a "vested
right to complete development of the Development exists and the Development is not subject to the Neuse Buffer Rule".
A property or development is only exempt or "grandfathered" when it can establish in court that it has acquired a "vested
right" to continue development as planned. Although this determination can only be made by the Courts, the DWQ can
inform you of its position with respect to the question of "jested rights" for a project. In most cases, the DWQ requests a
review and advisory letter from the Attorney General's Office. After receiving this advisory letter, the DWQ typically
sends the applicant a decision letter on whether or not the DWQ will enforce the Buffer Rules on the project. Although it
is obvious that correspondence has taken place between you. Mr. Pete Colwell and the Attorney General's Office, this
office has no record in our file of a decision regarding your -,emption request. Therefore, the DWQ has decided that this
project is not exempt and must comply with the Neuse Riper Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0233). If you so choose, you
may send any additional correspondence regarding this matter to me at the address below.
This letter only addresses the applicability of 15A NCAC 2B .0233 and does not authorize any activity within the
protected buffers. 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 me at [phone].
Sipcerely,
tVeands/401 ey, Su rvi r
U it
Cc: Steve Mitchell, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
File copy
Central Files
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
16,50 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:iih2o-enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/
Re: Strafford Land Investments,lnc.
:s
Subject: Re: Strafford Land Investments,Inc.
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 10:40:01 -0500
From: Bob Zarzecki <bob.zarzecki @ncmail.net>
Organization: Division of Water Quality; 401 Certification Unit
To: "Cooke, John" <[e-mail]>
BCC: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
John,
I understand, sorry to hear about your relative. I hope it's nothing serious. There's no rush on this. We
currently don't have any follow up correspondence in our file and given that it's two years old we wanted to
make sure that we got you at least some type of follow up letter. We'll go ahead and send it out today. If
you find any additional correspondence on this project please pass it on. Thanks for all the help. I hope
things slow down a bit for you.
- Bob
"Cooke, John" wrote:
Bob, I have had two day long depositions, a hearing and a relative in the hospital this week. I have not had a chance to get to
it.
Sorry,
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Zarzecki [mailto:bob.zarzecki @ncmail.net]
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 9:25 AM
To: John Cooke (Lawyer, WombleCarlyle)
Cc: John Dorsey
Subject: Strafford Land Investments,Inc.
John C.:
I would like to get this project off my desk. Have you found any
information in your files as to the exemption, grandfathering or vested
right determination for this project. We currently do not have a DWQ
decision letter in our file. If I don't hear back from you by this
afternoon, I'll go ahead and recommend to John Dorsey to send out a
letter regarding this issue. If you find something after receiving this
letter, please send us a response to that effect. Thanks for all your
help.
Bob
Bob Zarzecki
NC DENR/DWQ 401 Wetlands Certification Unit
919-733-9726
1 of 2 3/8/02 10:40 AN
OTC, W A T ?RS?G
4 -C
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Dena.rmont of Environment and Natural Resources
( Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Acting Director
Division of Water Quality

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT F
Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice
P.O. Box 831
Raleigh, NC 27602
Re: Request for vestec
Strafford Land Inve
10 Lots between US 70 and ACC Boulevard
DWQ #990838
Wake County yv
Dear Sirs:`
On July 30,1999, the Division of Water Quality wrote to you concerning your plans to fill an unreported amount of
acres of wetlands and/or linear feet of streams in regards to the request for Vested rights dealing with 10 Lots between
US 70 and ACC Boulevard in Raleigh in Wake County. This letter informed you that the project was incomplete and was
being placed on hold until the additional information outlined in the letter was supplied. To date, we have not received this
additional information. Unless we hear from you in writing within 3 weeks of the receipt of this letter, we will consider that
you no longer want to pursue this project and we will retire the file and consider the application as withdrawn. Please be
aware that reapplication for this project will require a Certification fee and new applications. ,
Please call Mr. Mike Horan of my staff at 919-733-3574 if you would like to discuss this matter.
Sincerely yours,
John Dorney
Wetlands/401 Unit Supervisor
Cc: File copy
Central files
Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office US Army Corps of Engineers

21 WA
NMENR
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 [phone] Customer Service
1 800 623-7748
OF WATF9
Ca 'C
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
February 28, 2002
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice
P.O. Box 831
Raleigh, NC 27602
Re: Request for vested decision- Neuse buffer rules
Strafford Land Investments, Inc.
10 Lots between US 70 and ACC Boulevard
DWQ #990838
Wake County
Dear Sirs:
313 ??
On July 30,1999, the Division of Water Quality wrote to you concerning your plans to fill an unreported amount of
wetlands and/or linear feet of streams in regards to the request for Vested rights dealing with 10 Lots between US 70 and
ACC Boulevard in Raleigh in Wake County. This letter informed you that the project was incomplete and was being
placed on hold until the additional information outlined in the letter was supplied. To date, we have not received this
additional information. Unless we hear from you in writing within 3 weeks of the receipt of this letter, we will consider that
you no longer want to pursue this project and we will retire the file and consider the application as withdrawn. Please be
aware that reapplication for this project will require a Certification fee and new applications.
Please call Mr. Mike Horan of my staff at 919-733-3574 if you would like to discuss this matter.
Sincerely yours,
John Dorney
Wetlands/401 Unit Supervisor
Cc: File copy
Central files
Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office US Army Corps of Engineers

v _c J
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 [phone]
NCCENR-
Customer Service
1 800 623-7748
State of North Carolina
/ Department.of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
V
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
July 30, 1999
MEMO
TO: Jill Hickey
Attorney General's Office
FROM: Pete Colwell (/A---
c,vd rw4 on hAw,
6-We Y 17ap e c+ -Nr
lvhlf
RE: Request for Vested Rights decision regarding the
Neuse River Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0233)
Strafford Land Investments, Inc.
10 Lots between US 70 and ACC Boulevard
Wake County
Attached for your review is a request for a decision regarding the vested rights of 10 Lots on ACC
Boulevard in Wake County. We do not find any record of a 401 Certification being issued for the
property. The applicant has requested a decision by August 17, 1999. Please review the request and
provide us with a determination.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.-Please call me at 733-9721 if you have any questions.
Cc: Dennis Ramsey, DWQ
Raleigh Regional Office
John Dorney
John C. Cooke, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice
File
Wetlands / 401 Unit 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
• f - ?
WOMBLE Pir
CARLYLE
SANDRIDGE
& RICE
A PROFESSIONAL LIMITED
LIABILITY COMPANY
150 Fayetteville Street Mall, Suite 2100
Raleigh, NC 27601
Mailing Address
Post Office Box 831
Raleigh, NC 27602
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
July 28, 1999
Pete Colwell
Division of Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
John C. Cooke
Direct Dial: [phone]
Direct Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Via Hand Delivery
Re: 10 Lots on ACC Boulevard, City of Raleigh, North Carolina -
Vested Right to Complete the Development
Our File No. 40025.0001.4
DWQ # 92038
Dear Pete:
We represent Strafford Land Investments, Inc., the purchaser of a tract of property of
approximately 300 acres adjacent to US 70 between Raleigh and Durham (the "Entire Tract").
From 1984 to 1986, the current owners of the Entire Tract assembled the Entire Tract for
development. A copy of a plat showing the Entire Tract is attached to our letter as Exhibit 1. In
the Fall of 1990, the City approved the subdivision of the Entire Tract into eleven lots. Ten of
the eleven lots subdivided were located between US 70 and the proposed location of ACC
Boulevard (the "Development")
The government issued (1) conditional use zoning for commercial development of the
Entire Tract in 1988, (2) flood study approval for the Development in 1989, (3) subdivision
approval of the Development in 1990, and (4) a 401 certification and 404 permit in 1992 for the
construction of ACC Boulevard.
In reliance upon the conditional zoning, the approved subdivision of the Development,
the joint planning and design of ACC Boulevard between the current owners and NCDOT, and
the 401 certification and the 404 permit issued for ACC Boulevard, the current owners have
spent substantial sums of money and invested significant time for many years prior to adoption
of the Neuse Buffer Rule. Under the facts in this case, the owners could not have foreseen the
adoption of the Neuse Buffer Rule or any other similar rule or regulation at the time they made
their expenditures.
ATLANTA / CHARLOTTE / RALEIGH / RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK / WINSTON-SALEM
WOMBLE
CARLYLE
SANDRIDGE
& RICE
PLLC
Pete Colwell
July 28, 1999
Page 2
The owners have a contract to sell the Development. Based upon a review of the
Development by Soil & Environmental Consultants, the Development will be substantially and
adversely impacted by the application of the Neuse Buffer Rule to the Development.
Because of the urgency of this matter and the substantial impact of the Neuse Buffer Rule
on the Development, the purchaser has requested that we undertake a thorough factual
investigation of the history of the Entire Tract and the Development. Further, the purchaser has
asked us to render advice/opinion regarding the vested right to complete development without
being subject to the Neuse Buffer Rule. Based upon our investigation of the history of Entire
Tract and the Development, relevant North Carolina statutory law and North Carolina's common
law of vested rights, we believe that a vested right to complete development of the Development
exists and the Development is not subject to the Neuse Buffer Rule. Accordingly, we are
requesting the Division of Water Quality ("DWQ") to concur with our determination. Unless
DWQ indicates that it disagrees with our determination by August 17, 1999, we will assume that
DWQ concurs with our determination that the Development is not subject to the Neuse Buffer
Rule.
Please note that we have limited our opinion to the 10 lots located between U.S. Highway
70 and ACC Boulevard. This is approximately 1/3 of the Entire Tract.
Exhibit 2 of this letter provides the results of our factual investigation into the lawful
development of the Development and our analysis of the vested right to complete the
Development.
Upon your receipt of this package, we request that you sign the confirmation of
receipt on page three of this letter in duplicate and return one copy to us for our files.
I trust that if you have any questions you will contact me.
Very truly yours,
WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE
A Professional Limited Liability Company
ohn C. Cooke
Enclosures
cc: John Dorney (w/o enclosures)
WOMBLE Pr
CARLYLE
SANDRIDGE
& RICE
PLLC
CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT
Pete Colwell
July 28, 1999
Page 3
I received, on behalf of Division of Water Quality, the letter to Pete Colwell, dated July
28, 1999, regarding vested right to complete development on 10 Lots on ACC Boulevard,
Raleigh, North Carolina, consisting of a letter and two exhibits with attachments.
This the day of July, 1999.
By:

ra`_
I
I
r
I:
Y
1

PLOW PLAN
E•• FA, LOA
.. .a tl:? f ?- tae
NOTES:
- DASHED LINES REPRESENT PROPERTY
LINES FROM MAPS k DEEDS L19TED
UNDER MAP REFERENCE. THESE
LINES HAVE NOT BEEN SURVEYED.
- B.O.M. 1988, PG. 1026 BEARINGS HAVE
BEEN ROTATED TO N.C. GRID SYSTEM
FOR CONTINUITY,
(1011018M» r to '
Z1101AIrM
A
"
C
-- - - - -
AINLI
AM
I
GO
NIF
CS`. I TIMOTHY J. W
BLACKWELL nl' ,
D. B. 7450, ol.
U?? G. 31 o m
-....- tarot M4ae1e1 Mom. "W7. IM
? I
am --- Erre,ctew.reernggl
IINWdwit" a ,
I
..
N87'45'27 'E
BP
33
519
am --- slow iwg Pipe WtW d %oft \
.
NN --- PKIM Y \
OW 148411441 IegYw oYrnr 'n OR .1
KM --, rAlars
A,---- Dead ReW THIS PIAT pQL,TO SE
Wixom

NOt'44'43'E

E r

?•?
? ---- Dmwwtlwn4ma
9u..._ IIrR,I.0 1w AFTER DAY OF
II COPY TO IE IIETAINED Iko THE
256.93
EIP

CITY. /
` II
•14
434 At
Ap1yM CAROLINA THIS L AT.I CON OF THE \
BP .
N p° ,
"
Sally. r
-Cow \.

- EIP S
ck
?i
??
4z?.M,r w. auK-e. AwghefifelbMrarAwe w
S8e?i06
byyA
me. Inr y.vlf- (-4 fm MMf ,. -dw or owwwaw mod 52.24 ?? yy
Iklrf/diM waMMaoel_,aM ?.•U fawd, prterwoh of
\
ancAM.wwRMYWMYYMrwANw.kl/rnrCm •' ,4yI• \ N
w I41v i r nM elnlrel re -Iegn M 41144141 INw ?loM1 AM AMr.11- N26'58'06'W EIP
head, is r«L_,A.._:+r<.r'?YygMMwMMrewMM 4M 404.88 \
0.49 11Mm04nlwA MwwwWMAF,wdn.w»waw•wr
\
•RJ*_.rsti2?eniamM,A0., I1 0T
fen H
erM -
MAP REFERENCE
N/F
RONNIE L. FIELDS
NDO'01'50'E
297.34.
S89'19'30'E
1431,29 - -
t 100 1
RAOD t0

I
N/F
HARVEY COOLEY
N/F • I D.B. 913,• PC. 317
WILLIAM L. FIELDS
O.B. 2537, PG. 297 I N87'05'27'E
---t01 57s
17'10'02"E S8I2'42`E
- -
2.56 765.81
64 -? N0226'27'E
157.94
/
NOt'04'71"E ? '
-144.32 n00IMr'
1EN1 f '
Ati MP (o O
<.
211,tuR,yc. ,
d
10.006 AC.
5 yy ? MPhr ,
???8 F 3 \
3
10.001 AC. 71?
NI ty'yw ?. ?., ,
10.009 AG •. IFL
? 66 +314 ?`. I t
10.003 AC. ?„1•. ` `?. .I
R/W MOWN
R?+ 7 -D.B.' 3409,.PG, 215 (SEE INSET "A') \ Og ?
-B10.M. 1988, PG. 1026 \ NIP
-MAP ENTITLED "BROADREACH
INVESTMENTS": SURVEYED BY ,
MURPHY YELLE ASSOCIATES; \ \
NORr DATED NOV. 18, 1986.
)dftdAL_ cogwyy N.C.G.S. MONUMENT
• 'OVERNIGHT" -
l.. ffary Pdl4 of 00 Ce-wr w 84140 0.4144. Irdb Mef' COOROINATEa
rwglem Iw -rnorw, Pe ea 4AMgr lAb corollas that the unM sio"d to (we) the eomw(o) N We N787,028.07
bMM mr eMdiwwmtndweaSod tee.+w4(MO/p1/ property In-n4 a wo mob NeAp -e4WN RI41 MoMo by doodle)
f.mp.wMdi l- Mw. "Cabe in tna office of Rpis),M of Deets of "a CI-1X E2,064,517.84
waoaa.r lwifwprfMW lama"Me. vajo_dwo40o?deme ... Rate CwoMa w ethw.loe, m at- be$" w Rwt'oy W-laalon (NAD 1927)
QMlmrhdRt
IIEM ?? 3,2?.ge
H•
?w
eodgrr
,?16lIILT??
n»e-wprA41ernfA4111u ?WCH. I{(pgC, ,wwwraadeR,
k owdlW nMwrnff. /oi Awpwn-r +4494-441A-vokmtf-P?r?waweM
M Per Met l7ae... R4pr?• i/ru XeyawJMnayi4QM
a Wh plot or -00 N eppwd 441) w 1r011-aU to the City of
noise or wA. goo oI ob ote. ae-ts, dints at my at
Mvelo er eta tM 1.741 to be good and MM occoPlMn InMMf N
aewd at 4R dly pokjM wMmmem w wPAollons or
conditions of We City of 0didi/4 Air the --1pt of No.pullc. law
d-N-Ike tee1 of troigetal c provided, My bdicello- of the "-
- 1. for 4141- gN11o we net -oft b the City of Roldiph Wt
we k -ably --M to 00 1uNoMen1 --wo Of MY 4N -s
peopertlet MeM hereon IN Mol• use -d omen 4AFet to -dl-
lion of wemctlene (o) (C) (d) MI If) of SaOM food SectlM 4
at tee'pty Stwm Or4Nepo Pdkj (rseowtbn 1110-742 - the m-e
--y be R4n tM- to tYno 4--111)
f!OIA d OplKlt(3)
11001( OQ PACE NO.
1. a DWy full1c of t" Cower W state efwemld, artlfy tAot C A01 wN /hbl¢nQ
V p. 9rtraaeAl 9rM p-rwe-lI,.0pewae.1f-w an tell
1II w: - 111.1 for. -6 r trMIM.
W Wo r M-Bees aflolot store or WI, tAlo y 1y M
Mawr c
pV.VV
NI t t' 0? 7
\ 10.00: Ac.
S5236'5ST
/ 1933.78 .
•a HORt1. GRD. Ro / /
Al n , x7ow'tMw \ wj }5 7
, /10.03 \ IP
EN R/w MON.
4191 (SEE INSET 'A") .p <
N!T 'A'
MINIIRMCIIUAIM f h? .•. rorrr.swlm sF-93 RfV/S/aYS
R414MwNDowO ANw-IR,..of DwA NO?^A ° •t •' •,
T' li¦ 3
` ?rCPAiIn1TY.??
Recorded in Book oT Alape r? n_VOL P11 JJZ SCALE_

1
. I t
I
I I
I
. 007
NC GRID NORTy
I SCALE: 1'.14.. y ;
too
11000 000NDN"
N
I j.D
. PAGE
T.M. 276, PAR. 3
! D.B. 0047, PC. E .
I3 .
I

I; N87'05'26."W
180.67
Y

0
tn

e
BP N/F
ESSIE A. THOMPSON
3 HEIRS
nl? T.M. 276, PAR. 6
NW h o
WE / `. of
r
01 514'42"E NIP
636.14 DP 174.99

O EXI - -
AXLE
..
NBB70'46'W
E v
s43 Ac. 140.27

5
WOODLAWN MEMORIAL GARDENS
D.B . 1988• PG. 259
._CONTROL CORNER
\
N785853.94
054
37
EZW
.
, Z)
Aown" CW TIC }uw??w?.?• r n. r IQIMT=
PROPERTY OF I.IrIIt..?.491¦.. /
CARLTON . MIDYETTE It L STEPHEN STROUD
MMwl HP..'. t.C'JU f, • COuNrr: k OA>?: b-II.Ob sFYEYEO Or:J A FIE'
STArF: NORTH CAROLINA SCALE ?F.4,W AWN BY:LK- A
HONE: TAX MAP: W°5 PARCEL: 21 C/L?CXfO E CLOSURE or:
Pvjr2
e _- . -? 19 gd?1?7?
'VICINITY MAP 13.T5?.
EXHIBIT 2
VESTED RIGHTS MEMORANDUM
July 27, 1999
1. The Facts
Assembly of the Property and Steps Undertaken to Develop the Property
From 1984 to 1986, two of the principals of Carolantic Realty Inc., Steve Stroud and Carlton
Midyette (the "Owners") assembled a tract of property of approximately 300 acres adjacent to US
70 between Raleigh and Durham (the "Entire Tract") (Attachments 1-4). The Entire Tract was split
zoned at the time the Owners assembled the Entire Tract. At that time, the portion of the Entire
Tract along US 70 was zoned Highway District, a district which permitted commercial development.
The portion of the Entire Tract behind and further away from US 70 was zoned Residential-30. The
Owners purchased the Entire Tract to develop it.
After assembling the Entire Tract, the Owners promptly sought to rezone the Property to a
conditional use commercial district, Thoroughfare Conditional Use District, in the Summer of 1986
(Attachment 5). On November 18, 1986, the City Council decided to hold the pending zoning
request until the City finalized the Umstead District Plan, a specific City Council adopted plan for
the development of property located generally along US 70 west of the Crabtree Valley Mall
(Attachments 6-8). One of the central issues which arose while the City developed the Umstead
District Plan was the road system, in particular the location of major roads which would reduce the
traffic along US 70.
In 1987, the City adopted the Umstead District Plan. Thereafter, the City begun its
evaluation of the Owners' rezoning request (Attachment 8). During this process, the City and the
Owners agreed that a master plan of the Entire Tract was appropriate; however, preparing a master
plan at that point was premature because the major roadway system had not been located, designed
or built (Attachment 9). On November 1, 1988, approximately nine (9) years prior to the adoption
of the Neuse Buffer Rule, the City Council of the City of Raleigh rezoned the Property, at the
Owners' request, to Thoroughfare Conditional Use District (Attachments 10 & 11).
After the Entire Tract was rezoned by the City, the Owners engaged an environmental
consulting firm to undertake a flood study of the Entire Tract (Attachment 12). On January 18, 1989,
the Owners' consultants submitted to the City the study undertaken on behalf of the Owners
(Attachmentl2). The City reviewed and approved the study on September 13, 1989 and incorporated
the study into the City's official flood hazard maps (Attachment 12).
R#306776.1
Vested Rights Memorandum
July 28, 1999
Page 2
2. The Highway 70 Corridor Study Committee and Subdivision of the Entire Tract.
After the Entire Tract was rezoned, the Owners continued their efforts to develop the Entire
Tract. Almost immediately after the rezoning, the City led the formation of a joint public-private
study committee to study and establish the location of roads along US 70. This study committee was
The US 70 Corridor Study Steering Committee (the "Committee")(Attachment 13).
The Committee was an innovative stakeholders group composed of the City, the North
Carolina Department of Transportation ("NCDOT") and various owners of property along US 70
in western Wake County (Attachment 13). The Owners were one of the owners on the Committee
(Attachment 13). The Committee's goal was to formulate an agreed traffic plan for US 70 and for
the development of improvements to and construction of a collector road system to provide
circulation and access to areas adjacent to US 70 (the "Traffic Plan")(Attachment 13). The strategy
for the creation of the Traffic Plan was to jointly fund a single, comprehensive traffic study. The
Committee employed BAKK Engineers, a traffic engineering consulting firm (`BAKK"), to solicit
comments and ideas from the Committee and to advise the Committee as to possible approaches and
solutions to the traffic issues along US 70 (Attachment 13). Under the Committee's funding
arrangement, the City, NCDOT and the property owners each paid one third of the costs of the study
(Attachment 13).
From early summer 1990 to March 1992, the Committee met approximately monthly,
discussed the traffic issues and problems and analyzed various possible approaches or solutions
proposed by BAKK (Attachment 16 & 17). In September 1990, a compromise was reached in which
ACC Boulevard would be built as a road parallel to US 70 (Attachment 14). The purpose of ACC
Boulevard was to relieve usage of US 70 and to provide road access for the Entire Tract in place of
direct access to US 70 (Attachment 14).
In the Fall of 1990, the Owners submitted to the City a subdivision plat for the City's
approval of the subdivision of the Entire Tract into eleven lots. Ten of the eleven lots proposed to
be subdivided were located between US 70 and the proposed ACC Boulevard (the "Development").
On November 13, 1990, the City approved the creation of the Development and the approved
subdivision plat was recorded in the Wake County Registry of Deeds on November 15, 1990
(Attachment 15).
From the Fall of 1990 to March 1992, the Committee and BAKK continued to work on the
Traffic Plan. In March of 1992, BAKK published the Traffic Plan and stated:
The alignment of ACC Boulevard is proposed to be shifted from the location
indicated on the Thoroughfare Plan. NCDOT and the property owner in the area
west of the Northern Wake Freeway are jointly working on the plan to locate ACC
R#306776.1
Vested Rights Memorandum
July 28, 1999
Page 5
vested rights which were recognized and established under the common law before November 5,
1998.
Therefore, the Neuse Buffer Rule does not apply to the Development.
2. Common Law Vested Right to Complete the Development.
Under North Carolina law, "the common law vested rights doctrine is rooted in the `due
process of law' and the `law of the land' clauses of the federal and state constitutions" and "has
evolved as a constitutional limitation on the state's exercise of its police power[s]." Godfrey v.
Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 317 N.C. 51, 62,344 S.E.2d 272,279 (1986). Accordingly, issuance of
a permit by another jurisdiction vests a property right in the property owner to develop his property
in accordance with the permit. Browning-Ferris Indus. v. Wake County, 905 F. Supp. 312, 318-319
(E.D.N.C. 1995) (holding that site plan approval along with issuance of a building permit by the
Town of Morrisville vests a property right under "North Carolina common law" which Wake County
could not arbitrarily or capriciously deny by refusing to allow the developer to connect to the
County's sewer line, even though the developer had not obtained NPDES land disturbing or
operating permits for a solid waste facility). Accordingly, if a private property owner has relied in
good faith on a permit validly issued by a government having jurisdiction to issue the permit, the
property owner acquires the right to complete his project and is protected from governmental
interference by the due process and the law of the land clauses of the Federal and State Constitutions.
A common law vested right or the right to complete a project arises when four elements are
present. Browning-Ferris Indus. v. Tucker, 126 N.C. App. 168, 484 S.E.2d 411 (1997). First,
substantial expenditures of money, time or effort in reliance on a governmental approval to develop
a project. While a generalized plan, idea, or concept to develop property is inadequate to establish
a common law vested right, the expenditure of money for equipment and the establishment of
contractual obligations after an approval satisfies this element. Town of Hillsborough v. Smith, 276
N.C. 48, 55, 170 S.E.2d 904 (1969). Substantial expenditures of time, labor and energy, as well as
expenditures of money and/or actual construction, may be considered in establishing a vested right.
Randolph County v. Coen, 99 N.C. App. 746, 749, 394 S.E.2d 256 (1990).
The second element is that the substantial expenditures must have been made in good faith.
A person acting with undue haste in a deliberate attempt to avoid compliance with a newly adopted
zoning provision generally secures no vested rights. Warner v. W & O, Inc., 263 N.C. 37, 41, 138
S.E.2d 782 (1964); Stowe v. Burke, 255 N.C. 527,122 S.E.2d 374 (1961). See also Keiger v. Board
of Adjustment, 281 N.C. 715, 719,190 S.E.2d 175 (1972). However, actual knowledge of a possible
zoning change, in and of itself, does not prevent a person from making expenditures in good faith.
In re Campsites Unltd., Inc., 287 N.C. 493, 504, 215 S.E.2d 73 (1975); Thomasville v. City of
Thomasville, 17 N.C. App. 483, 485, 195 S.E.2d 79 (1973).
R#306776.1
Vested Rights Memorandum
July 28, 1999
Page 6
The third element is issuance of a building permit or "where multiple permits are required
preliminary to the issuance of the building permit," issuance of one of those "preliminary permit(s)."
Browning-Ferris Indus., 126 N.C. App. at 169. Approving the subdivision of property is one of the
preliminary permits which establishes vested rights under North Carolina law. River Birch
Associates v. City of Raleigh, 326 N.C.100, 111-112, 388 S.E. 2d 538, 544 (1990) (construing the
City of Raleigh's subdivision ordinance).
The fourth element of the common law vested rights analysis is that conformance with the
new requirements be a detriment to the landowner. If the owners can comply with the changed
requirements without harm, there is no reason to treat them any differently than other citizens.
Russell v. Guilford County, 100 N.C. App. 541, 397 S.E.2d 335 (1990).
3. Application of Common Law Vested Rights to the Development.
Under the facts in this case, the Owners have common law vested rights to continue
developing the Development without being subject to the Neuse Buffer Rule.
The government had (1) issued conditional use zoning of the Entire Tract in 1988, (2)
approved the flood study approval for the Development in 1989, (3) approved subdivision of the
Development in 1990, and (4) issued a 401 certification and 404 permit in 1992. Therefore, the
Development had site specific permits and approvals before July 22, 1997, the date of the adoption
of the first version of the Neuse Buffer Rule. Based upon these approvals and entirely consistent
with local, state and federal law, the Owners continued the development of the Development after
each one of these approvals had been granted. These permits and approvals satisfy the third element
of common law vested rights.
In reliance upon the conditional zoning, the approved subdivision, the joint location of the
State's road at the Development, ACC Boulevard, and the State's various designs and permits
produced and issued in connection with ACC Boulevard, the Owners have spent substantial sums
of money and invested significant time more than nine (9) years prior to adoption of the Neuse
Buffer Rule. The Owners' good faith expenditures satisfy the first and second elements of common
law vested rights.
The Neuse Buffer Rule will be detrimental to the Development because the Owners
understand from their environmental consultant that several areas will be rendered undevelopable
because of their location on the Development and because several undevelopable remnants outside
riparian areas will be created as a result of the application of the Neuse Buffer Rule. Therefore, the
fourth element of vested rights is satisfied.
R#306776.1
Vested Rights Memorandum
July 28, 1999
Page 7
III. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the Owners have a vested right to complete the Development without
being subject to the Neuse Buffer Rule.
R#306776.1
ATTACHMENT 1
STATE OF R231 CS1nlt-
OpTH
Yax
Excis(
?: CPR 4 i?2 0 I. 0 0!:
er.urr:
EON 3299 PACE 615
PRESENTED
F0IR
RE
Ju;? 13 9 5 7„a'8?
he t,1vS
rl?_-aS
_Y
1
hM_ q'.Y _'l 1'.1 J.
Recording Time. Book and Prte
1
Tax Lot No. ............... Parcel Identifier No. ....0036946...................................................
Verified by ...... ........ County on the ................ day of ............. ........'......... ........ ....... .., 19............
by ..............................................................................................................................................................................................
P. o.s t...Of.f i.ce..B.ax..1,1,50 .................................................................
Mail after recording to ...MA>3ti1NG...I?ULTOIi..?..S1CZ1iNER....
..........................................................................
...Jtals? gt?,...21atcth ..Garay ilma........276.0 ..............................
.................................................
............................................
........................
This instrument was prepared by .... Samuel..T..0f..l ahUNG...F.ULTON-A..SKINN ................
Brief description for the lndex ?g Side of U.S. Hi hwa 70
NORTH CAROLINA NON-WARRANTY DEED
THIS DEED made this ... .? day of ............ .1.!tt1a......................................... 19......4., by and between
GRANTOR GRANTEE
E. STEPHEN STROUD
HARTFORD HILLS LTD., a Texas general
partnership Post Office Box 1150
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
glatar N we+t+i+k Weds ter 0•ek t•rtY: ••ie• addreee. ad, !t •vPr+P?k, eh•r•etu •t enulY, •f grperatl•n eS,p?rtaetila
The designation Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties, their heirs, succeaso7:s. `load assigns, and
shall include singular, plural, toaseullue, feminine or neuter as required by context
WITNESSETH, that the Grantor, for a valuable cunsiderstion paid by the Grantee, the receipt of whiqh 4a'*e;eb`
acknowledged, has and by these presents does grant. bargain, sell and convey unto the Grantee in fee simple., a4.;V
ar.,Forka,,,,,,,,, ToWa711rip,
West of .................... ......... .. 994
certain lot or parcel of land situated m the City of ............P.14& ..} AP..........••••......... County, North Carolina and more particularly described as follows:
As described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
I
1
i
?i

N.C. W Aa,4e. r.f. N.. 1 i 1677 ..
4
1W
BOOK 3299 PAGE 616
The property hereinabove described was acquired by Grantor by instrument recorded in ..............................................................
A reap showing the above described property Is recorded in Plat Book ........................ paps .........................
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the aforesaid lot or parcel of land and all privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging to the
Grantee in fee simple.
The Grantor makes no warranty. expresr or implied, as to title to the property hereinatwve described.
IN wrrxzss wusaaor, the orastor haa heteaaw act Isla hand and teal, or N corporate, has caused this Isatrumat to be alrael IN Its
eoryerau mane by IY day aWorked ottkon and Its 6W in be beraaatO Ltt/ned by anthOrltr of ks lord of Dlretters, tae day and year gist
aNeo wfUMIL
............................................... ra-----------------
-
a

ay: ..........................................................

................................ Pro"""
U
ASYael:

..a
. ............................................................... pq
W
. HART ?FORD HILLS_ LTD:_t_ a_ Texas_____________tssAr )
......
gene 1 partner
.(aswL)
Charles G. Childers, Managing General
Partner
........................................................(etAL)
.................................................. (22")
&*AL tlAri ? NOalM CAiOLINA. _°_.Y`:% ae....................Corat,.
d
Oa r, a Notary rabae of tae Coomy a" ttato afereaald, earthy that .& ES,Gt_ CHILD1 RS managing
'' en ra artne £ Hartford Hill Ltd a Texas eneral artnerahi
z„ g---g --- -P---•---->:..4------------------------ ----- =s--------------P'--•----...P..----------.. Porawr.
M Pen'sK&W apPsared ba"s tae this day yd aekaewleds the ea.ertW of the foretetad WteruaL limn" q
i hand and orfkfal stand of seal, this -S 6lday et --._.. j.(.cM_:: _...j.?... n... to(-84.
w f? . . l/_ 113[ 1? 7 '?fetar7
My eemalOulOn sapless:: ? ?- ----•-------------- ruble
onon
......__.°-_-..-._... _seesetur (Corporate seal) W
85"-alAldr NOallt CAIOLANA ...................................Contr.
r. a Notary PuNfe Of the Corny Lad auto Wereaald.;•eertlfy that ..........................................
peraeaaur eanO b"Oes aN this day and ackaowredted that .._. be k ........................... secretary Od
- ..-...• ................................................ a Netth Caterlaa eotporLLOs, and that by authority day
A
A given and as the art of the eorpentlaa, tko fetegola[ laatrameat was drned Is ka same by Ita ...............
P tnsldost. eaaled with lea corporate so" sad nitrated by ----------- as its ...........................bOenLry.
wumm gay hand and efflew stamp Or seal, this ----- day of ...........................I1......
My esesataeloa expltea:------------------------------- ......................................Notary public
rbe foreaotaf Certtaeaieb) Of .......... .......... ...............
--------------------------------------- /?- - ---`
30/an Vestiges to be earreet. !bb Instrument gad this eortiaeate aro duly reelatered at the data gad Nee and In the Hoek and Pass ahowa on the
ant Pats henOf.
Wake ____ couNSlr
...... ------------- aYCItT[a 0/ 0 LxD6 roe ..............................
my ------------ Deputy/ AOe4tOvt•Aetleter of Deeds.
N.C. Sal Assoc. tarn No. 1 0 il11

EXHIBIT "A" 800K3299 PAGE617
BEGINNING at a stake in the northeastern line of the right of
way of U. S. Highway 170, said stake marking the southeastern
corner of the property conveyed to R. W. Winston and wife, Helyn
Winston, by James Nordan and wife by deed recorded in Book 1126,
at Page 415, Wake County Registry, said stake also being in
the line of the'property known as Rest Lawn Cemetery; runs thence
along the northeastern line of said Highway North 48 degrees
52 minutes West 498.5 feet to a stake; continuing thence along
the northeastern line of said Highway North 49 degrees 10.5
minutes West 2996 feet to a stake; thence leaving said Highway
North 26 degrees 15.5 minutes West 406.5 feet to a stake; runs
thence South 89 degrees 2B.5 minutes West 133.25 feet to a stake,
the southwestern corner of the property conveyed to R. W. Winston,
Jr. by C. E. McGhee and wife by deed recorded in Book 6.67 at
page 445, Wake County Registry; runs thence along the western
line of said property conveyed by said McGhee North 2 degrees
29.5 minutes East 257.7 feet to a stake, the southwestern corner
of the property conveyed to R. W. Winston, Jr., by Fred W. Pollard
and wife by deed recorded in Book 553, Page 550, Wake County
Registry; runs thence along the western line of said property
conveyed by said Pollard North 2 degrees 29.5 minutes East 458.65
feet to a stake; runs thence South 89 degrees 24 minutes East
519.6 feet to a stake.; runs thence North 4 degrees 33 minutes
East 819 feet to a stake; runs thence South 85 degrees 51 minutes
East 1434.2 feet to a stake; runs thence North 3 degrees 26
minutes East 288.8 feet to a stake; runs thence South 84 degrees
29 minutes East 643.16 feet to a stake; runs thence South 5
degrees 26 minutes West 1618 feet to a stake; runs thence North
84 degrees 10 minutes West 243 feet to a stake; runs thence
South 3 degrees 10 minutes West 1121 feet to a stake; runs thence
South 83 degrees 45 minutes East 1656.1 feet to a stake; runs
thence South 4 degrees 15 minutes West 765.2 feet to a stake;
runs thence North 86.degrees 7 minutes West 140.6 feet to a
stake, said stake marking the northeastern corner of the aforesaid
property conveyed to R. W. Winston and wife by James Nordan
and wife; runs thence along the southeastern line of said last
mentioned property South 51 degrees 36 minutes West 1239.4 feet
i , to the point of BEGINNING, and containing an area of 179.56
acres, all in accordance with a survey by John W. Collier, R.S.,
entitled 'Property of R. W. Winston, Cedar Fork Township, Wake
i County, N. C.," dated January 1964.

ATTACHMENT 2
;Tt.TE or I a- I,-. t
y: It ??t?`. X1,1 .: t ?'1
PRESENTED
U a` OtC]I'at ?? L 4. 1)I_ FOR
REGISTRATION
• Dec 1 4 37 N'84
KE` K: , ii i:._ MLKINS
FcF? i I; 0 DEEDS
1':i.4E %GUNTY
Excise Tax Da4 . S J I Recording Time. Book and Page
•

Tax Lot No. ....... ............................................. ....... Parcel Identifier No. 0062890, and,. 003684,6._
.......................
Verified by ............................................................... County on the . _.._.... day of ....... .. .. .......... , 19............
by ......................... ......................... ............. .............. _ _. ... ..... ..................... .............. ........ .......... _ ........................................
Mail after recording to ....Manning, Ful;,?t..6 Skinner.,., Post Office„Box.,il.SO,..,Raleigh. ..........................
North Carolina 27602
................................................................................. ...... ............... ......................... ............ .....................
This instrument was prepared by Samuel. T...Oliver, . Jr o£. Manning,- Fulton 6 Skinner •• ... .. . ••.•.••••.••• ...••••
Brief description for the Index
179.56 acres N/S US 70 and 21.28 acres W/S Pinecrest Road
NORTH CAROLINA SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED
THIS DEED made this ... Z2,....... day of . ,...November ............................... . 29 84 by and between
GRANTOR
E. STEPHEN STROUD
and wife, GRACE RAMSEY STROUD
GRANTEE
CARLTON MIDYETTE, a one-half (1/2)
undivided interest.
Post Office Box 1550
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Enter in appropriate block for rach party: name. Addrraa. and, if appropriate, character of entity, e.q. eorpomilon or partoership.
The designation Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties, their heirs, successors, and assigns, and
shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine or neuter as required by context.
WITNESSETH, that the Grantor, for a valuable consideration paid by the Grantee. the receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged has a+f??d by these presents does grant, bargain, sell and convey unto the Grantee in fee simple, s)*-that
a one halls (1/2) undivided interest in all that
certain lot or parcel of land situated in the City of .. ... Township,
'Wake •• County, North Carolina and more particularly described as follows;
Being all of Tracts 1 and 2 as set forth and described in Exhibit A
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
N.C. aar A.K. rot. No. o e terl
F- a A,ns 1 w,a 1M Y C 4r Auq - 1%.
-.31109 ?,•E21G
The property hereinabove described was acquired by Grantor by instrument recorded in Book 32.99, ..page • 615............•
(Tract 1) and Book 3299, page 618 (Tract 2), Wake County Registry.
A map showing the above described property is recorded in Plat Cook .'--? page ---
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD theAforesaid lot or parcel of land and adnall pr vile es and app
Grantee in fee simple. P g urtenances thereto belonging to the
And the Grantor covenants with the Grantee, that Grantor has done nothing to impair such title as Grantor received, and
Grantor will warrant and defend the title against the lawful claims of all persons claiming by, under or through Grantor,
except for the exceptions hereinafter stated.
Title to the property hereinabove described is subject to the following exceptions.
(1) Easements of record; (2) Deed of Trust from Hartford Hills, Ltd. to Clyde A.
Douglass, II, Trustee for Earl T. Jones and Sam Ruby dated 12 June 1984, recorded
13 June 1984 in Book 3299, page 605, Wake County Registry, securing the original
principal amount of $1,326,260.00; (3) Deed of Trust from Hartford Hills, Ltd. to
William P. Skinner, Jr., Trustee for Howard E. Manning, Sr. dated 12 June 1984 and
recorded 13 June 1984 in Book 3299, page 610, Wake County Registry, securing the
original principal amount of $459,533.26.
IN wtTNESt wNEREOr, the Glaaut has hereunto set his hand and seat at it curperatt. has caused this Instrument to ?e slf nod V Its
terpsfau acme ?y tit duly •uthoelatd Officers and Its $ea) to be betevate afflaed by authenty of ICs Board oYDiractors. the day and ?da, 12M
abovewntua. ..
. ........................................ -,' t•?--?.??
tCer?erate Name) .^.l 'E•" \ -•--••-•••-v •-??+•-?.?.
.. '.---ISEAL)
z Stroud
my: .......................................................... C
x (sr.AL)
...........President z Gr a Ramsey S ou
ATT't3T: U
6 . ........................................................(S CAL)
.3
l,,.F?e.. !tr SeereurY (Corporate Seal)
.........................................................
t 1r?V?. aftA
?O ?t4l?LOST ? iY ••, y i Z NORTH CAROLINA. ......... 74ka .................. County.
a
• _ ? D 1. a Notary Pubi)e of the County and State afortuld. eeltlp• that .
E• Stephen Stroud
+e*s t ? z ..;i?id_H#•lea..?Xa4e.?mS€X.SCroud ...
....................................................
of
PUoL?? cmat ,
Y
'.C• . Y ptsorullY appeared before roe this day and acknowledged the execution of the tufegoug Imuument. wlI'" fay
'•a?••••,••••f ?•,?` hand and official stamp at feel, this .4 day of
a,oil MY t.nmistien expires: . ..... ff?•!•11J7
.............. .........l?GL>Xqi .,L,..ty_J.crsc?,..NOUry Pa?tlc
SEAL-STAMP NORTII CAROLINA......... ._....--.._.County, ill...
1. a SAUCY Public of the COCIMY add slate aforesaid. Certify that .........
peno"Isr came uoo,e me Chic day and acknowledged that .... he is ........ secretary of
"•--"""'---"'•-^••^-•--••----••••• .............. S Nenh Carolina t.r?Onti*A, and that by authority duly
.
C :Ivan and as the act of the corporation. the feregaing instrument was signed In Its same by Us _..........
Q President, sealed with its Corporate seal and attested by ........... as Its ...... Stcreury.
Witness my band and efflcial sump of 2041• Chi$ ..... day of it......
My commission eapl.es :............................... ........................................
OSary Publl
The 7-1.9.1.9 Certlacat.<s) of
.............................. /__!fJ :Y..`!c.. .........
` ... .._.............._......................•..............--..........
. .. ..........................................
lafare Certmed to be tenets. This tdalfument and %his ctrlidcatf are duly regislered at the dale sad llmt and In the Book and page show. on the
Seat rage aereof. KENNETH C; WIMNS
N.C. sat Assoc. rO1AI Me. s % 7377
f"Med b. 4at•.lml .na lk N.C eY A.wmrar _. 1941
REGISTER or DeeDs rod ......... cocYTr
(li ...............
Deputy. Aesawewl•Ittg$$ter of DOeb.
POOL, none,. CO. -NC Po so, ovs Aa tlon. 4C 1,410
EXHIBIT A 6vu'.J'iV? fAll?? 1
Tract 1
BEGINNING at a stake in the northeastern line of the right of
way of U. S. Highway #70, said stake marking the southeastern
corner of the property conveyed to R. W. Winston and wife, Helyn
Winston, by James Nordan and wife by deed recorded in Book 1126,
at Page 415, Wake County Registry,. said stake also being in
the line of the property known as Rest Lawn Cemetery; runs thence
along the northeastern line of said Highway North 48 degrees
52 minutes West 498.5 feet to a stake; continuing thence along
the northeastern line of said Highway North 49 degrees 10.5
minutes West 2996 feet to a stake; thence leaving said Highway
North 26 degrees 15.5 minutes West 406.5 feet to a stake; runs
thence South 89 degrees 28.5 minutes West 133.25 feet to a stake,
the southwestern corner of the property conveyed to R. W. Winston,
Jr. by C. E. McGhee and wife by deed recorded in Book 687 at
page 445, Wake County Registry; runs thence along the western
line of said property conveyed by said McGhee North 2 degrees
29.5 minutes East 257.7 feet to a stake, the southwestern corner
of the property conveyed to R. W. Winston, Jr., by Fred W. Pollard
and wife by deed recorded in Book 553, Page 550, Wake County
Registry; runs thence along the western line of said property
conveyed by said Pollard North 2 degrees 29.5 minutes East 458.65
feet to a stake; runs thence South 89 degrees 24 minutes East
519.6 feet to a stake; runs thence North 4 degrees 33 minutes
East 819 feet to a stake; runs thence South 85 degrees 51 minutes
East 1434.2 feet to a stake; runs thence North 3 degrees 28
minutes East 288.8 feet to a stake; runs thence South 84 degrees
29 minutes East 643.16 feet to a stake; runs thence South 5
degrees 26 minutes West 1618 feet to a stake; runs thence North
84 degrees 10 minutes West 243 feet to a stake; runs thence
South 3 degrees 30 minutes West 1121 feet to a stake; runs thence
O South 83 degrees 45 minutes East 1856.1 feet to a stake; runs
thence South 4 degrees 15 minutes West 765.2 feet to a stake;
runs thence North 86 degrees 7 minutes West 140.6 feet to a
stake, said stake marking the northeastern corner of the aforesaid
property conveyed to R. W. Winston and wife by James Nordan
and wife; runs thence along the southeastern line of said last
-•-` mentioned property South 51 degrees 36 minutes West 1239.4 feet
to the point of BEGINNING, and containing an area of 179.56
acres, all in accordance with a survey by John W. Collier, R.S.,
entitled "Property of R. W. Winston, Cedar Fork Township, Wake
County, N. C.," dated January 1964.
Tract 2
BEGINNING at an iron stake in the western line of Pinecrest Road (SR 1835),
said stake marking the northeast corner of property of Pines of Carolina Girl
Scout Council, Inc. (See Deed Book 1800, page 441, Wake Registry); runs thence
with the line of said Girl Scout Council the following courses and distances:
North 86° 28' 28" West 383.96 feet to a new iron pipe. South 02° 54' 32" West
40.40 feet to a new iron pipe and North 86° 28' 28" West 68.95 feet to a new
iron pipe in the northeast right of way line of U. S. Highway 70 (westbound
lane); runs thence with said right of way line of U. S. Highway 70 North 38' r
43' 00" West 44.46 feet to a monument, 1307.51 feet to a monument and 22.71
feet to a new iron pipe; runs thence (along the southerly line of property now
or formerly of Ralph C. Price) South 84° 52' 28" East 1459.14 feet to a new
iron pipe in the western right of way line of Pinecrest Road; runs thence with
said line of Pinecrest Road South 08° 31' 33" West 940.13 feet to the point
and place of BECINNINC, and containing 21.286 acres, all according to a survey
by John A. Edwards & Company dated April 28, 1982 (File 82-33).

ATTACHMENT 3

JAN 28 l 38 gM t$?
RMCi
8.50 (Durham) ]
Excise TAX 438.50 (Wake) Rerordine Tune• nook and nn
i
Tax Lot No ....................... .........
.................................................
_..... ... Parcel Identifier No. 0072504 T
• Verified by .............................................. _........
j ...... ........... »................. _................................ County on the day of y _ .............................._............_......, 19....... -...
by .......... ........................................... ....................................................................................._..................................._.........................._..
i
iYiail alter recording to _... FULTON ti: SKINNER. Post Office Box 1150,
................MANNING..................................
............................................._....t?i gkt...R ?.Kh...Ga ro ). ?a.......2 7602...
This instrument was prepared by
Samuel T. Oliver Jr. of :FANNING, FULTON 6 SKIN...N....
ER
.................................
.4 Brief description for the Index .... _ ...
X1.492 sores
.i
NORTH CAROLINA SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED
THIS DEED made this ..a3 .... day of ............ 4ti 19 86 by and between
d GRANTOR GRANTEE
WILLIAM J. EDWARDS, III, unmarried and CARLTON MIDYETTE [a fifty percent (50z)
WIDGEON ASSOCIATES, a North Carolina undivided interest] and
} general partnership E. STEPHEN STROUD
(a nine and thirty-three
hundredttts percent (9.33X) undivided
r
interest)
POSC•Office Box 1550
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
:.4 -
'• Enter In appropriate black for each party: name, address, and. U appropriate, chancier or entity. e.q. corponlian of partnership.
The designation Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties, their heirs, successors, and assigns, and
shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine or neuter as required by context.
1t'1TNESSETH, that the Crantor, for a valuable consideration paid by the Grantee, the receipt of which is hereby nts does undividegde interest astset forth ab vegrant. bargain. sell and convey unto the Cratttee in tee simple, aq that
-
certain lot or parcel of land situated in the ne of that Carr and Cedar Fork
1 ............................................................ ... Township.
„Durham and Wake .. County. North Carolina and more particularly described as follows:
Being all of that 121.492 acre tract set forth and described on that
plat entitled "Survey for: Duke University" Prepared by James R.
Wilson, Registered Land Surveyor, .cared P•ecember 1, 1980, which
plat is recorded in Book of Maps 1980, Paite 1026. Wake County Registry
and in Plat Book 101, Page 168, Durham County Registry.
-
PRESENTED
FOR
REGISTR. TiGN

•

I C M.I A.- , -- ?? 4 1 19 ::.

•i
:''a
,:H
a

eoo? 3646 P=529
The property hereinabove described was acquired by Grantor by instrument recorded in ...............
....................................................................................................................................................................
A map showing the above described property is recorded in Plat Book ........................ page
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the aforesaid lot or parcel of land and all privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging to the
Grantee in fee simple.
And the Grantor covenants with the Grantee, that Grantor hat done nothing to impair such tide as Grantor received, and
Grantor will warrant and defend the title against the lawful claims of :.11 persons claiming by, under or through Grantor,
except for the exceptions hereinafter stated.
Title to the property hereinabove described is subject to the following exceptions;
1986 ad valorem taxes.
'.,i r!! WITNESS WHEREO/, the Ctantor has hereunto act his hand aoA seal, •r If <rrperate, ha¦ aweJ leis Imltumf nt to he tleaea fa ICt
..?? rorpetate name Yy )ts auy autheriaea efts<ers aoa its seal to ?e hereunto affiaea by auMerity et fu nears or Ulretters, the day and fear heta
a?eat Written.
?••. ............................_.._.._.__._....._......-•-_...($CAL) y. t/_:• :` _ .CJ ?C/"C/::74... ._..
r7 William J (•EwL>
. ?:.:. s, III, .....
;;•: dward unmarried
O
j ...-___._...•----------•--_...-_----•--....-°•..._-- _(stwa) KIRcEON.! ,S 4?IhT ?,..f1.N4.'.Ch_&aF.4J.tna.......tst.tra
8ener
a
CJ
L
;:;;(_?? It. -Prince, Ceheral Far[ner .(s )
?'.;i ..-•-_-•------------- •.---•---- ---•--------(SEAL) a By: ?,??n? Q AL
-Richard Eiibbiss, Genera Partner
.5 -•••-•-........ B t
i' ake Williamson, General Partner
:.:.:.;
O
`y AUCi1NAN P
Y? B ROPER
:. .? .? ..__••--• .....................-------•--------•°-------..._.(scwL) X TIES, an Idaho
--•_ Pace .....yip ..................................•..t:CAL)
....... •---•---••----•--........- - .....tscwta s - --- By.u GfG{t
:%.T a n Bauchman, Authorized
=j enera Partner
w 1
fn
_.... ..._.. .......................................................(SEAL) a ........_(SEA1J
!1??FA't'Y nultrn cnnuL).In........W.a?G ......--•....--•---Cnunty.
1 . . * ? + c t, a \wary Put-fir of (he County and State aforesald. rerl,fy that ...........................................
WILLIAH J. ...... S, III unmarried
t
?U BI`?! •i ......... ........ _ ... t.. ......_.........__......._......._.._ Grantor
'.. ... ......................................... ...(SEAL)
;rj ,,pttartttrr,,,.,r
• ?, •.• ,: ?, Peneaafly app,afrd b,(- - u.l. hay ana a<anorlydeed the rartrbrn of the forrru,nC .nttruinfat. Wilne.t 1n)
,,'? ??? i'.JU1``?Itt??• Land and .9!1.1,1 "amp ur .f al. In,, .:4Q.&day .1f .... Jonuorl.. . it.86..
!!l4rln/utl,l
)n r.nlnll..,.•n r.pn..: .... ).L w1.L?P7 ................ ?.. • .( .oxel ........N?ta,) ruble
,,,1p 1U blpr.w __.
• ?•?`.:
ll:.0 .c'
.................................._......._................_.(SEAL)
Nu11T11 rnl(Ili.i\.\, .....:.1,7.(`,`( ............ ..... C-lily.
1 ? \.dar. 1•ula". of it". 1 .•ul,l) and "air ,.1 ••l r.a1J, 19111/. Ihal
,IOHN R: PRINCE, Jc., a Gen.gray JPar.rPCr..of:,111i)GEON.ASSO.CLAILS..... Lr.ntor,
Yet..11a 11, alil•ra leA br fur. rue in'. dal d at a,.u+Ie JC rd lnr turf .Ilvn ..f IL• fu rrC UlnC lnutlumen/ IC ltnrll nL7
`? ,µI )
nand and elhual .tamp s .C,I. u,(rlG`,.1 .1.gd.?1.Y ul .:?jt?.N.IU .r.Y(.1....... .n.8..(f2-.-?
.1. ?,.n.,,1,..,,?1? ..1,,.. /rlr?rC i?l ',. ! (J .?...... ?c..C/C.cLt.... ?flc.?•C.r1S:.`?. ....a.r, rrbLr
s .. .-

. n
t
i
/ i
SUKTiS CAaOLINA. .. 4)Arz ..... Corwty.
Y I. a r: NWafy rurf
l.C of the coubly and %ute aroresaid, certify uut ...........................................
as
JAKE WILLIAIiSON, a General Partner of WIDGEON ASSOCIATES_
.......-°-° ....................
S
e pefsobany aypeafed OCfot• nee this day and ackoewoedgM tae extYrtiou of Ike feregoibt Instrument. tVitnets city
w ??aa??,,OO?I
hand aka official stamp m seal, obis OUday of "•;y ............. if1.8.6..
31y rummi.J+b -spires:. ................. .. ..... .,{ ... Net.cy rvblk
aTARr c)
?IPU 8 L1G b
0,15
_ ?r?ftkuetyh~::tt•
j *o.kP
SCAL - STA)Ir NORTH CAROLINA.......... .........................County.
1. a Notary Public of the County and State areresald, Pettily -bat ...........................................
a
o . ................................................................................... ................ Granter,
Personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the enecutiov of the tefeCoibg IwsttYawenL WKke,s my
w
hand and oltklal stator or seat. this ...... day of ............................. is......
NV remrai.sww expires: ............................... ........................................ votary rublk
SCAL - STA)Ir NOKTIC CAKOLINA. ..................................County. •• '
1. it Notary r6alir of the County and Stak aforesaid. Certify that ..........................................
X I.ertionally Cabot beiece me this da and atknon•leu Ca Ihal be Is
r e .... ........................... sfetetary of
-
? •••••• ...............-------- *** ....................... 'a .vurth Carolina eotperatlon. 2.4 that by Iuchbot.ty duty

d given and as the set of the turpora(wn. the forte.mc imtfYU.enl was ,ienrd in it, name by its ...............

1'resldent. Stated with {t, corrsrale seal and atteueu by ........... as Its ........................... SeefttacY.
N•tlnefa my hand and offletal Amp or teal. this ...... day of ..........................Is......
• My'olmonea,l.ln exi.area: ............................... ........................................vYtat)'Public
SEAL-STAMP NOILTit CAILOUNA . ..................................Contr.
1. a %otary 1•ublk of the County and State aluretald, certify that ...........................................
e pefwnally came lielore me tibia day and acklwwlydted that .... he I . ........................... Nferetary of
-
a \.Itth Cafwtlna rnrY•.fal.wn, and (h.lt by AYtlwflty duly
r
G tlrcn and » the let sal it.r x691 rAil.n. the Ntbo,g lnc Imo.....rent vas Mg-1 fu its nanR by its ...............
e
•a 1•er,ident....IW will, ill torpelate seal ..-l alle•I r.l by ........... al. its , serrelary..
..........................
Ir{tneas my hand abbe otllelal flame or seal, This ...... day of .......................... IS......
nw
.
.
.
slw
.
.
...
)
ly
.
..................... ........................................ K-12ty 1.601.
n -pleot:.....
I..
Ibe r6frt61f1g (•erllhcatrlal ?
,
w
?
?
\\
.
.
?
I.
?
?
?p
N l..
of
\
l ?:
iY
.
..
..
.
- r
................................. .......................................................
...........................
-Aft frftll.rd 11. be .w- ...................................................................................................................
%. 1'1.s In.IrY....l.t and 11.0t lr.1.111 +IY •Irr d..ly trCi,le-.l .11 Inc .lelr .Ibld lobs And ... Isle 11..1.k and 1•atr JI•.w tl blow the
r.l yatr brrcof.
NOR= CAKOLlNA- ----------- y(,dt ............... C...ty.
f. a .votary roelic of the County and state aforesaid, certify that JOFtN BAUCHKa ANr the authorized
general partner of Bauchlnan Properties, an Idaho partnership, .. grants.
dr ny peagd ?e sate one { d eknswne ted6Y `ffi§xefS tl jarte If
r auc -'Ps g4 l8nt tCHbeff my
`y`?1°itn io?llnan ?Qdp? lri?s?, oir§
?
sand and otfktal scamp of teat, this ..2A5. 1 z &eon Associate(
y « .------..7.staKVr.Y........, iso`a
sty tewlwitsitn expires: ....... 144"A7 ----------- ........ Af td ...J r.. ? ..... v.tu7 Pvant
NU.
t.
Q ... .... .... ....... ....... .. 10'.1111A Ill 1.1.11.? I lilt. .. ...... .. ..loll . f\
...................... ... ' AK
all ....`,(:?,.'?.A..J... I:tr..L?\ y' .. ....... ..... PG;ie.a. \....1..... r..el•Lr ..1 nerd.
i
J
.4
NC O+r A.wl r.•.1.,... 14 Is:• (':::I:C; ht !d•adrl!. tlnlth;t•. 1•:. ('an•Iu1.1 J
,,-, Fpfy-"
s^qt =s?• •? ?\y.? NuKTe a\KULI.vA........... La7k-t'---------------•t•or.ty.
1111 P 1\y
.4 1 1. a \Maly rrldrr of 1k, t'..nly and -late al..feva.d.
?:• V1131
. erlity 1Mat ...........................................
= R HIBBITS a General Partner of WIDGEON ASSOCIATES
Plll]L1C ; per-ally appeared Wo,e Mo, this day ad ukwewledted the rerrvtww of tht fat•••wC urtuemewL w"ne.s tby
'?? :•'? •., fs ?ard and olfwtat vt.mp or seal. took .e?. 4 y of .
C yt` o ..............lp 84 ..
1 ?.f
,rrtraru olfls\lsNy e«m.wi„i+w ..Mrrs:.... 111o; I J.i I.....:
....?0+1P1n!._tt..LTft?K!f.....N.4.ey rant
ATTACHMENT 4

° S;At£ or -?al Cr-*ata
N R?C)LINQ • '• Ex?i? Tax
361
_
130 S. 50
$6 99 (Purhem+
Eaeese T= 9300.50- (Weke,
800! 3676 rnE 380
ME E TED
"OR
RECIsym 1611
KU 13 1211 fll %
Y.ENHETH C. WILKINS
PWAKE COUNTY. KCS
Recerdeas TLot Book and race
Tax Lot No .......................... ........... ................. ........ . ......
Parcel Identifier No. 0.5? 1S J.......
Verified by ._........... _.......... ____. ..... County oa the ................ day of .
by _-....... ................. ._ .................................................................................... ..................... __._..........................._...._.._......
Mail after recording to ... ANrII2ira,... Sn•TQH..iti...$KINI ................................
_ . _... _.... _...».
......... .......... _ ...................._.Rleig#i,.?totc.t:h .Caroliaaa...Z.7.602.......
This instrument was prepared by ..Suau?l...f.•.Qliger,.,,.J,r.,,•.cf...MANNING,. FULTON...6-SrrNx>•rr
Brief description for the Index
121.492 acres
NORTH CAROLINA SPECIAL WARRAIINTY DEED
i
.y
.T
J
i
i
THIS DEED made this ...4. %k ...... daffy of ........... ..Jaauary........ ............... ..... 19..86... by and between
GRANTOR I GRANTEE
SCHURGIN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
E. STEPHEN STROUD (a 40.67% undivided
interest)
Post Office Box 1550
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Eater sa &MVPriate b,tsek Lr eath pelf: same. adds/, and, tr strarepriate, rharaeter u esutr, e.{. e+rpnsW* er prtners&* ..
The desigaation Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties, their heirs, successori, and assigns. and
shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine or neuter as required by context
WITNESSETH. that the Grantor, for a valuable consideration paid by the Grantee, the receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged. has and by these presents does grant. bargain, sell and convey unto the Grantee in fee simple, all 9M
Of Grjantor's un?lvlded ter&stnnd co that
certain of or pareel o an attua to a t
...................
C y o .................. ...... , Cart:.. and.. Cedar. Fork Township,
Durham and Slake County. North Carolina and more particularly described as follows:
Being all of that 121.492 acre tract set forth and described on that
plat entitled "Survey for: Duke University" prepared by James R.
Wilson, Registered Land Surveyor, dated December 1, 1980, which
plat is recorded in Book of Maps 1980, Page 1026, Wake County
Registry and in Plat Book 101, Page 168, Durham County Registry.
N.C. s,r A,r?e. Fora So. a O 1177
h.11M ,7 Afmw -0- W N C SW Aiwa, - . 1"I

• BOOK 3676 ?Act 38
toe property hereieabove described was acquired by Grantor by instrument recorded in ......
....................... .
..................................................
A map showing the above described ` z 1980 1026, Flake Co
GrantotQ s?ttnydiviCte?etlde}i in Plat Book .101,......., tY Registry
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD/the aforesaid lot or interest pate J9..... Duxham County Registrv
Grantee is fee simple. lel of land sad all privileges and appnrtenapca thereto bekntiag to the
Aad the Grantor covenants with the Grantee, that Grantor has done nothing to impair such title 43 Grantor rectived. and
Grantor will warrant and defend the title
except for the exceptions hereinafter statedatnst the lawful claims of all persons claiming by. under or through Craator.
Title to the property hereinabove described is subject to the fullowing exceptions;
1986 ad valorem taxes for Wake and Durham Counties, easements, covenants and restrictions
of record, and that certain purchase money deed of trust to John 0. Beard, Trustee for
DIP Associates in the original amount of $1,376,110.00 recorded on January Z$ ,
in the Wake and Durham County Registries. 1986

b
L`f trrrxLS wtld ad tae or ="a" ?erteNe ttt wet tu• sad teal we u terperate. W tatr,rd Vs ew+ett b M aktw.d in as
ettt+utate want •7 W duty ay anyh ab.ee tenet tts seat is be geretOle sense! by t.U.,,, H Us Heart et DWtteR, e. Me day I W Tear AM
SQiURGI EFiELOR?? ORATION
x
1 ..............
w ....__.. _- --'+..t+m ............................ _----------- -taw
_ a ..........................................
------------ ._....................
..tfCa,
04
•--•---- •---------set"tary (Ctt,.tatt 3-0
a xotttx cwaoltt, "_...._..---°•--°-_.tscAt,t
Oo t, a N-17 hktk of tae C-.Wl aat a4te ateresatt. etewy uses ..--..
I -•-_---------- ---_----- -------------------
0
STATE OF CAU
C0JNTY OF i S.S.
on Otis ttta? _
J
day
19 wkxe me.
Ott w deralgrted a Hoar ie in ant for Cotnty and sestet,
. D?sawily apvearsd _?
b Of proved to me an Rts b d satista Osrsonsiy
AeeidNtt, and •n?!7 b be
pw3wwwy
°Mm me Or Mired to m• on ft basis of sod
aot9ry evidertoe jobs
htstrWWR On be off ow oapotation Oterein nan+ed and &Ckr e.
lodged to me Miaf such oorporaeoo exectalod Ott wit in klistylameint
C?purs+ar4.b tf •( Ora Ofifs dtiretyors.
i
cUWECO b
TITLE iNSUR,ANCB
FOR WtAitY SEAL OR STAMP
A
to
O •
tW
Lt.
01 ?
OFF'' ICIAL SEAL
KAREN M RENZA
koSw KWUC - CN IFORNA
106 MGEM CO(Mi1Y
My caem a*ss MAY 5, 1989
NORTH CAROUNA - MAKE COUNTY
1h• Jentoint etrtil eat• Of
Qn
(sell eenditd to be torr•tt. This inslrurnent and this certdioate are duty re rfter?aar(f1(it» FuDtie is
and in the book and R at the dale and I,"
Pat* Shown on the first pate he.ea.

y at
tar7.
eWk
eeaet
KENNETH C WILX114S• Aetitier a Deeds
' .. A•ta.?Depuq Retitlet a Deed
EXCERPTS FROM THE MINUTES OF THE ZONING MEETING HELD 9/16/86 ATTACHMENT 5
REZONING Z-90-86 - U.S. 70 WEST - HEARING - CONTINUED UNTIL THE
NOVEMBER ZONING HEARING
This application calls for Parcel 21, Tax Map 275, and Parcel 2,
Tax Map 276 to be rezoned from Wake County Highway District and
Residential-30 to Raleigh Thoroughfare District Conditional Use.
The proposed condition is that no building will be constructed to a
height greater than 20 stories. The property is located on U.S. 70
West, north side, between Mount Herman Church Road and the Durham
County line. The application covers approximately 300 acres and
the request was made by Carlton Midyette.
PROPONENTS
Carlton Midyette indicated the Umstead Planning Process is ongoing
and he agrees that it is crucial and should be completed before
zoning is applied on the area. He pointed out they requested
condition use zoning really to get their foot in the door and to
put the City on notice that they do not feel Residential-4 is
appropriate for this area. He stated the conditional use zoning
application was filed as a holding pattern pointing out he would be
happy to participate in the Umstead Planning process. He stated he
would request that the City Council keep the public hearing open on
this matter while they are working with the Umstead Planning
Process. He indicated in his opinion this corridor is Raleigh's
future bread basket so we must plan good, correctly and proper.
Ms. Burns indicated the Council does have a concern that thorough-
fare district has no site plan approval with Mr. Midyette indicat-
ing he understands.
Sharon Massey representing the Northwest CAC indicated this is
another petition they questioned as to whether the owner had signed
the conditional condition. She stated they voted 5-0 to ask for a
deferral until the Comprehensive Plan is complete.
r
I Mr. Midyette indicated his conditional use request is vague and the
reason is he to feel the Umstead Planning process must be complet-
ed.
No one else asked to be heard. Mr. Campbell moved that rezoning
application Z-90-86 be continued until the November zoning hear-
ings. His motion was seconded--by Mr. Meeker and put to a vote
which passed unanimously.
EXCERPTS FROM THE MINUTES OF THE ZONING MEETING HELD 11/18/86 ATTACHMENT 6
ftEZONING Z-90-86 - HELD PENDING UMSTEAD DISTRICT PLAN
(The same explanation as contained in minutes relating to Z-86-86
also apply to this case.) Without additional discussion relating
to this particular case Mr. Meeker moved that the item continue to
`be held pending A-.he Umstead.District Plan. His motion was seconded
by Ms. Cates, unanimously passed.
ATTACHMENT 7
EXCERPTS FROM THE MINUTES OF THE ZONING MEETING HELD 1/20/87
.REZONING CASES Z-86-86, -90-86 AND Z-91-86 - EXTRATERRITORIAL
JURISDICTION - HELD PENDIN EAD DISTRICT PLAN
Mr. Chapman indicated hearings have been held previously relating
to the newly added extraterritorial jurisdiction areas as contained
in cases Z-86-86, Z-90-86, and Z-91-86. He recommended that this
be continued to be held as the Council should receive the recommen-
dation from Umstead district plan shortly. Without objection, the
items were held.

ATTACHMENT 8
EXCERPT FROM ?ZMINUTES OF THE ZONING HEARING HELD 3/17/87
REZONING Z-86-86, Z-90-86 AND Z-91-86 - ETJ AREAS - REFERRED TO
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Mr. Benton indicated there are three conditional use cases which
were filed for the September 16, 1986 hearings (Z-86-86, Z-90-86
and Z-91-86). They have been held at the public hearing stage
pending the outcome of the Umstead District Plan. Because that
plan should be reported to Council from the Task Force in the next
30 days and because TC-6-87 which is on this agenda allows Council
more flexibility in considering amendments to conditions, the
Council should report these items out to Planning Commission at
this time. Mr. Meeker moved that the items be reported to the
Planning Commission as recommended. His motion was seconded by Ms.
Burns and unanimously passed. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted.
a a _7 XA11i L' 1
EXCERPT FRCS! MINUTES OF CCMPREH NSIVE PLANNING CCWITIEE HELD 9/27/88
Carlton Midyette expressed appreciation to the Committee for
moving expeditiously on this item pointing out there is only one
more City Council meeting prior to the expiration of the 40 day
period in which additional conditions could be added. He pointed

Planning Director Chapman indicated _ oning- cases were
discussed at the last meeting and,the Committee suggested a se-
ries of areas to be addressed bj, the applicant in the form of
revised conditions. These items include transportation improve-
ment, limitations on retail use, considerations for greenway or
park land reservation or dedication, the preparation of an over-
all master plan, tree protection measures, building height or
setback limitations, and treatment of natural systems. Planning
Director Chapman briefly explained the locations of the two zon-
ing cases and indicated staff does not have a presentation that
the Committee should hear from the applicant.
'\
s
out he had sent Committee Members a letter which generally out-
s lines what they are proposing. He indicated what appears to be
potentially controversial would be the land uses and briefly went
over the letter he had presented. Mr. Midyette indicated he has
concern over the request for a master plan as to this point he
does not know what a master plan is. He pointed out siting spe-
cific buildings would be difficult on a 10 year plan. He indicat-
ed if a master plan addresses only infrastructual items then he
does not have a problem but if the Committee is looking for a
master plan that sites buildings on specific sites, etc. then he
does have a problem. He indicated a concern with a master plan
that came about as a result of Z-91 causes him concern as no one
really knows when property is actually zoned if a master plan is
involved. He indicated he does not know what specific things he
needs to talk about but pointed out a need to have something in
place that can be depended upon. He explained the concept for a
business park in this area pointing out he doesn't have any prob-
lems with the Umstead Plan but to call this area Office isn't
appropriate. He indicated he feels we need light distribution
companies, offices, etc. He used the example of Highwoods Park
or development which includes a hotel, restaurants, daycare cen-
ters, etc. He indicated that is what is going now in real es-
tate. He stated he would like to get as many uses as possible on
one location. He stated he feels the industrial zoning is what
allowed the Highwoods development to have the layering affect it
has. He pointed out people respond well to the Highwoods Develop-
ment concept. He indicated that is not what he is proposing in
this location but he does want to have as many uses as possible.
The concept of a development similar to Highwoods was discussed
and the dependency of these various uses on each other were dis-
cussed. The location of the uses within the property and the
importance of location and whether the different type businesses
depend only on traffic from within the development was dis-
cussed.
Mr. Midyette presented a map showing proposed land uses and a
second map would show the neighborhood focuses, hotels, service
center and hotel retail site. He indicated these are not specif-
ic uses just examples. He went over the various maps and point-
ed out the road network would be the same. He pointed out this
involves over 300 acres of land. He stated they have not includ-
ed any high density residential as most of their discussions with
airport officials indicated that th airport does not want high
density residential in this location. He indicated the site
along the floodway in his opinion would be idea for multi-family
Residential but because of the proximity to the airport maybe
that would not be a good idea at this point. Mr. Midyette indi-
cated what he is looking for today is for the Committee to tell
him if they are on the right track or not. He stated if they are
on the right they will come back with specific conditions.
Ms. Cates indicated in her opinion the thoroughfare district is
sort of a misnomer. She indicated she is concerned about the
amount of retail. She indicated she expects retail in this vicin-

ity and light manufacturing and we need that. She indicated she
J( would agree we do not need residential in this area and she will
P not be expecting to see any residential. She indicated the loca-
tion of the neighborhood focus area is something she feels the
City will have to deal with pointing out she thinks it is obvious
that it will not be a neighborhood facility. She questioned what
size and what neighborhood the focus area would be serving as she
does not see the focus area serving a neighborhood. She stated
she likes the idea of putting the service centers internally as
that is what she least likes to see along the roadway. She indi-
cated she is sure that Mr. Midyette and Mr. Bryan are going to
pay close attention to the trees. She stated her concerns have
been met and she could not think of any additional conditions
that need to be added.
Mr. Franklin questioned the missing link in the Southern Park-
way. Mr. Bryan indicated what they hope to fine tune is what the
interchange will look like. He indicated they felt they needed
to get the road to ACC Boulevard and that is the first step. He
pointed out there seems to be some questions about the priorities
of having this parallel huge road network; therefore, they just
brought Southern Parkway to ACC Boulevard. He talked about the
road network and the wetland crossings. He pointed out the natu-
ral system shown on the maps were derived at by using topo maps,
soils, etc. Planning Director Chapman explained the traffic
circulation plan in the area and what area the roads will serve.
Ms. Franklin indicated she can't determine to what extent people
will need to move through this area and how they will behave in
this area. She indicated she needs to have an understanding of
how the area functions both as a place to pass through and as a
designation point. This area was again compared to the Highwoods
Development and Highwoods Boulevard. Ms. Franklin expressed
concerns about the cul-de-sacs in the road network pointing out
she doesn't feel they fit the long term proposed density. She
indicated people should be allowed to make a variety of local
decisions and the cul-de-sacs do not allow that. She indicated
in addition there is no sponge like capacity of the road net-
work. Circulation was discussed at length with it being pointed
out that the road network could be decided at the master plan
level. Mr. Midyette indicated he felt that was correct. He
indicated at this point we know where it will connect into 70 and
they have and they will provide for the Parkway to go to ACC
Boulevard and after that there are no plans at this point. He
indicated he felt the road network is more of a master plan issue
than a zoning issue.
Lengthy discussion followed on the process. Planning Director
Chapman explained the process and pointed out now he does not
feel that we are on track with the process. He stated what we
are getting now at rezoning is the idea of a master plan and then
trying to use that as a conditional use case. He indicated if
the Committee or the Council is going to do that then we should
have a master plan to deal with but at this point we are getting
master plan in part and fitting in conditions and the staff does

r
noL nave Lime or an opportunity to make comment. How the process
should work was discussed at length. Mr. Burns indicated perhaps
because she is 'in the business of having to deal with land use
and master plan decisions daily she doesn't have any difficulties
accepting something like is being presented as a skeleton with
limits knowing that the next level of a master plan will allow
time for detailing, etc. She indicated that is the normal way to
do things. She stated she doesn't have any problem with that but
she does have difficulty wanting the master plan at the zoning
level as the conditions can be placed at the master plan level.
Planning Director Chapman indicated the decision the Committee or
Council must make is whether to rezone with understanding a mas-
ter plan will come forward or require a master plan at the zoning
level. He indicated what the Council is getting now is fragments
of a plan that addresses issues that the Council has identified
and then in two weeks decide on the zoning. Planning Director
Chapman indicated in particular road systems, airport noise,
whether Residential should be an allowed use, extension of the
z?ouunern earxway, reservation of land, access constrains,
stormwater management, etc. all of these things could be ad-
dressed at the site plan level. He stated the Committee must
make a decision as to whether they want a master plan before or
after the rezoning. He indicated the Committee could go ahead
with a rezoning action with the single condition of master plan
approval and list several key points. Mr. Burns indicated it is
difficult to ask for a master plan prior to the rezoning as many
of the financial commitments that are needed to pay for the devel-
opment and the master plan haven't been put in place and will not
be in place until the rezoning is in hand. Mr. Franklin pointed
out, however, the City has endorsed a plan for higher density in
the area and she feels that calls for the City to assure that
occurs. Mr. Midyette indicated they are willing to do that but
the procedure here is the problem. He indicated he agrees with
Mr. Chapman's comment that we seem to be off track with the pro-
cess in that a master plan is being required before the zoning
takes place. Ms. Franklin pointed out, however, the leverage in
her opinion is at the zoning level not the master plan approval
level. Ms. Burns pointed out if we have certain commitments at
the zoning level then they can be used at the master plan level.
Discussion took place and the multiple hoops scenario we are
following now was discussed. Ms. Burns pointed out Attorney
Clyde Holt recently stated at a public hearing that as soon as he
requested a conditional use in thoroughfare zoning he was relin-
quishing his expectation for any given amount of certain uses and
putting the prerogative in the hands of the Council. Other dis-
cussion followed as whether the leverage to make sure a plan is
followed is at zoning or master plan approval level. Planning
Director Chapman indicated he feels the leverage is at zoning
level but once a property is rezoned without any limits placed on
the zoning then the Council cannot deny a master plan just be-
cause it looks as if there is too much retail or whatever. He
pointed out the conditions should be placed on the zoning and
then all of details worked out at master plan.
Ms. Franklin was excused from the meeting.
Ms. Cates questioned if the applicant will be bringing back new
conditions with Mr. Bryan indicating maybe they will put some
restrictions in, in terms of percentages or acreages on certain
uses. Ms. Cates suggested that there should be some comment
concerning adequate thoroughfares or traffic circulation with
Planning Director Chapman indicating that can be handled at the
master plan approval level. Mr. Midyette indicated Ms. Franklin
wants what all planners want, that is, what the area will look
like once it's developed. He pointed out if the rezoning is
approval with certain limits then the Council would have the
prerogative to deny the master plan if the road network is not
there. He indicated he feels commitments in land use decision
should be made at the zoning level and we should stay out of the
detail master planning at zoning level. Ms. Cates indicated she
is very concerned about the amount of time we spend on zoning
cases as she feels we get into too much detail. Ms. Cates sug-
gested that the staff think about developing a set of guidelines
that will help the Council deal with thoroughfare zoning, that
is, under what conditions they need to ask for a master plan at
zoning level or when items can be addressed at master plan approv-
al level. She indicated she would like to see the process in
writing. Ms. Burns suggested that this the type of conditions
that could be asked for during zoning that could be built upon at
the master plan approval level such as limits, locational crite-
ria, etc. so that we can get in the position of not having to ask
for detail at the zoning level but at the same time not lose
leverage. Mr. Midyette suggested he feels the Council should
deal with details at the master plan level.
Mr. Bryan indicated he understands that the Committee wants the
applicant to limit the residential in this area. Ms. Burns indi-
cated she feels that the Planning Director is a little skeptical
of doing away with residential at this point as may be residen-
tial could be put in with a special use permit. Mr. Chapman
indicated he is concerned about boring residential development
whether it is most needed.
ATTACHMENT 10
EXCERPTS FROM THE MINUTES Ur' THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD 11/01/88
FgZONING Z-90-86 - US 70 WEST CONDITIONAL USE - APPROVED - ORDI-
' - I'liANCE ADOPTED
Chairperson Burns reported the Comprehensive Planning Committee
recommends that the property covered by this application be re-
zoned to Thoroughfare Conditional Use with conditions dated
10/17/88 which are included in Council Members' agenda packet.
On behalf of the Committee she moved the recommendation be up-
held. Her motion was seconded by Ms. Franklin and put to a vote
which passed unanimously. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted.
See Ordinance 267ZC241.

ATTACHMENT 11
ORDINANCE NO. (1988) 267 ZC 241
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RALEIGH WHICH
INCLUDES THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RALEIGH:
Section 1. That Section 10 of the City of Raleigh Code, which
includes the Zoning District Map, be and the same is hereby amended as
follows:
(a) A 1.45 acre parcel located east of Lake Wheeler Road,
south of Old Tryon Road, being Parcel 46, Tax Map 630,
rezoned to Rural Residential. (Z-3-88 - Section 5)
(b) Approximately 363 acres located on Lake Wheeler Road,
east side, south of Old Tryon Road, being Parcels 28
and 41, Tax Map 630 and a portion of Parcel 1, Tax
Map 654 rezoned to Rural Residential, according to map
on file in the Planning Department. (Z-3-88 - Sec. 6)
(c) Approximately 285 acres located on Lake Wheeler Road,
west side, north of Yates Mill Pond, being a portion
of Parcel 1, Tax Map 654 rezoned to Rural Residential,
according to map on file in the Planning Department.
(Z-3-88 - Section 7)
(d) A 0.38 acre parcel located adjacent to the Norfolk
Southern Railroad, west side, south of Old Tryon Road,
being Parcel 25, Tax Map 655, rezoned to Rural Residential.
(Z-3-88 - Section 9)
(e) U. S. 70 West, north side, between Airport Road and
the Durham County line, being Parcel 9, Tax Map 275,
rezoned to Thoroughfare Conditional Use District.
(Z-86-86)
Conditions: See Attachment dated 10/14/88
(f) U. S. 70 West, north side, between Mount Herman Church
Road and the Durham County Line, being Parcel 21, Tax
Map 275, and Parcel 2, Tax M p 276, rezoned to
Thoroughfare Conditional Use District. Z-90-86)
Conditions: See Attachment dated 10/17/88
Section 2. That all laws and clauses of laws in conflict herewith are _
hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.
Section 3. That this ordinance shall become effective upon the date
of adoption.
Adopted: 11/01/88
Effective: 11/01/88
Distribution:
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
Planning (4)
Inspections (6)
Planner Hicks
Applicant

r .
ATTACHMENT 12
HEC-2 WATER SURFACE PROFILES MODEL
HYDROGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
for
RUBY/JONES TRACT
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
January 18, 1989
by
BARRETT KAYS & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
RALEIGH, NC
919-828-1903
IN CONJUNCTION WITH FRANK COLEMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
.RALEIGH, NC
1 r?!?rn n? n r?! n ?rwe A i:l??.

ABSTRACT
This flood study was conducted to delineate floodway and floodway
fringe boundaries along four streams (A, B, C and D) passing
through the Ruby Jones tract north of U.S_ 70 in western Wake
County. The majority of the tract is in the jurisdiction of the
City of Raleigh with a small northern corner in the
jurisdictional area of Durham County- The existing FEMA study
ends with a cross-section located at the extreme southern
boundary of the property on Stream A (cross-section C on the FEMA
study). The four streams investigated exhibit flood hazard soil
characteristics according to existing soil maps and applicable
regulations-
Stream profiles were simulated using the USACOE HEC-2 Water
Surface Profile Model. Field survey data was compiled with
appropriate hydraulic engineering computations and
determinations. This enabled the production of precise flood
boundaries and elevations to replace the existing flood soil
mapping for planning and regulatory purposes on this tract. The
results'of these analyses are shown on the attached maps, graphs
and printouts.
\.1
V/
W. HENR WELLS, JR., P.E.
?
%0,111111911",
.,?N• CARU
.?Q .
?'p pEES?I?? •. ?iti
='•?Q SEAL ?? • ?
'''• F?cr.?E ` = 4?.
y '••......•• '
FiyRY WEt`S
I I L ?? ) k?

VICINITY MAP
N.T.S
3

IT OF DETAILED STUDY
o? n
ELEVATION REFERENCE MARKS
-I-- /
LIMIT OF
DETAILED
?, STUDY
M 139
REFERENCE ELEVATION
MARK (FT. NGVDI DESCRIPTION OF LOCATION
RM139 327.05 A bolt, painted yellow, on the Iult downstream corner of the bridKe
crossing Unnamed Stream•Basm IS, Strum 16 on State Road 164 S.
RM140 350.44 A chiseled square on the left doM nstream corner of the headwall of
she culvert crossing on Unnamed Stream-flaun 18, Stream 16 on
US 70, 1.0 mile west along US 70 Trom the mlersection of US 70
and State Road 1002 (Airport Road).
RM141 342.26 A chiseled square on the left downstream corner of the headwall
of the culvert crossing Little Brier Creek-Basin 18, Stream 15 on
US 70, 0.2 mile east along US 70 from the entrance to Hennis
Freight Lines, 2 miles west along US 70 from the intersection of US
70 and State Road 1002 (Airport Road).
o??P
/RM138
l
,,( LIMITOF
/___
0
`LIMIT OF DET
LIMIT OF
DETAILED
STUDY
1137 RM13
G
KEY TO MAP
500-Year Flood Boundary
100-Year Flood Boundary -
FLOODWAY FRINGE ---? FLOUDWAY
100-Year flood Boundary _
500•Ycar Flood Boundary
Approximate I00•Ycar
Flood Boundary
Cross Section Line q A
Elevation Relerence Mark RM7
X
Riser Mile • M 1.5
NOTES TO USER
Boundaries of the floodways were computed at cross sections
an/ interpolated between cross sections. The floodways were
bard on hydraulic considerations with regard to requirements
of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
This map was prepared to facilitate flood plain management
activities only; it may not show all special flood hazard areas
In the community or all planimetric features outside of the flood
plain. Refer to the latest official Flood Insurance Rate Map for
UBY/JONES
TRACT

LIMIT OF
DETAILED
STUDY
1401 N?N'
iimr?
APPROXIMATE SCALE
2000 0 2000 FEET
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
FLOODWAY
FLOOD BOUNDARY AND
FLOODWAY MAP
WAKE
COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
(UNINCORPORATED AREAS)
PANEL 75 OF 275
PANEL 100 OF 275
COMMUNITY-PANEL NUMBER
370368 0075
370368 0100
MAP REVISED:
FEBRUARY 1, 1985
Federal Emergency Management Agency
ATTACHMENT 13
US 70 CORRIDOR STUDY
US 70 FROM THE DURHAM COUNTY LINE
TO DURALEIGH ROAD
WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared for
THE US 70 CORRIDOR STUDY
STEERING COMMITTEE
(Consisting of representatives from the
North Carolina Department of Transportation,
City of Raleigh, Property Owners
and Owners' Representatives)
March, 1992
US 70 CORRIDOR STUDY
US 70 FROM THE DURHAM COUNTY LINE
TO DURALEIGH ROAD
WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared by
BAKK ENGINEERS
BURTON, ADAMS, KEMP & KING, INC.
224 Fayetteville Street Mall
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-0311
ROGER . LEWIS, P.E.
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT
g/5//QZ_
SE AL
14666 f _
'•• •Fh'Gl NEE,
D"
March, 1992
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION ................................................... 1
Purpose of Study ............................................... 1
Steering Committee ............................................. 1
EXISTING ROADWAY INVENTORY .................................... 3
CURRENT TRANSPORTATION PLANS .................................. 6
Greater Raleigh Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan ....................... 6
US 70 Corridor Plan ............................................ 6
Transit Planning ................................................ 7
LAND USE ........................................................ 8
Existing ...................................................... 8
Projected ..................................................... 8
TRAFFIC VOLUMES .............................................. 10
Existing ..................................................... 10
Projected .................................................... 10
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS .......................................... 11
Capacity Analysis - Base Condition ................................. 11
Analysis of Alternatives ......................................... 13
Capacity Analysis - Concept A .................................... 15
RECONMENDED IMPROVEMENTS ................................... 18
Recommended Alternative ....................................... 18
Collector Roads ............................................... 20
Paired Intersections ............................................ 20
Intersection Treatment .......................................... 22
Interchanges ................................................. 22
Access Control ................................................ 23
Lane Configurations at Intersections ................................ 23
Pedestrian Facilities ............................................. 26
Cost Estimates ................................................ 26
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
PAGE
PHASING AND FINANCING ......................................... 29
Phasing of Improvements ........................................ 29
Funding Sources .............................................. 30
GREENWAYS AND VISUAL RESOURCES ............................... 32
FUTURE S'T'UDIES ................................................. 34
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
INTRODUCTION
Purpose of the Study
The US 70 Corridor Study summarizes the results of a planning and engineering study
of US 70 in Wake County, North Carolina, from the Durham County line to Duraleigh Road
(see Figure 1). The total length studied is approximately 7 miles. The route is classified as
a minor arterial in the Statewide Functional Classification System.
The primary function of this study is to develop an engineering and operations plan
for improvements to the existing facility in order to maintain high quality service. This study
includes capacity analysis, functional designs, access control recommendations, cost estimates,
and phasing for improvements within the designated US 70 Study Corridor. The width of
the area along the study corridor is generally 1,500 feet on the south side and 2,000 feet on
the north side of US 70 for a total width of 3,500 feet.
The study focuses on measures of controlling access and optimizing intersection
efficiency along the corridor to protect the traffic-carrying capacity of the roadway, with
particular emphasis on minimizing stops and delays for through traffic on US 70.
Steering Committee
In order to ensure cooperation and coordination during the study process, a Steering
Committee under the leadership of the City of Raleigh Department of Transportation was
formed at the study's initiation. The committee consisted of three representatives each from
the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), City of Raleigh, and private
developers. Committee members provided assistance, comment, information, and review to
ensure compatibility with local, state, and federal planning projects and policies.
The following is a list of the agencies and their representatives who participated in
the Steering Committee meetings:
City of Raleigh
* Edison Johnson, Jr., P.E., Department of Transportation - Study Administrator
Burt Tasaico, P.E., Department of Transportation
* R.F. Mosher, Department of Planning
Watson Brown, Department of Planning
Marion Clark, Department of Planning
* Carl R. Dawson, Jr., P.E., Department of Transportation
North Carolina Department of Transportation
* Dave Cochran, P.E., Roadway Design
* Gary Faullmer, Traffic Engineering
* Debi Hutchings, P.E., Statewide Planning
John Gerber, Statewide Planning
RDU Airport Authori
Cal Edmondson
Property Owners and Owners' Representatives
* Hal McNeely, Owner's Group
* Thomas Worth, Jr., Owner's Group
Judy Pearse, Owner's Group
George Wyman, Parsons/Price
Dick Bell, Water Garden
* Carlton Midyette, Owner's Group
Whit Powell, Parsons/Price
John Kricensky, Hawthorne Association
Toby Daley, Hawthorne Association
Mark Youngquist, Owner's Group
Steve Stroud, Carolantic Realty
N. Allen Taylor, Hawthorne Association
Julian Bryan, Landevco
Steve Mason, Almo Properties
Arlene Tobias, Pine of Carolina Girl Scouts
Luther Bunch, Property Owner
Jim Wright, Bunch & Wooten
BAKK Engineers
* Roger D. Lewis, P.E.
* Terry M. Snow, E.I.T.
* Indicates member of Steering Committee
2
ATTACHMENT 14
US 70 CORRIDOR STUDY COMMITTEE
MINUTES - Sep ember 6, 1990
The third meeting of the US 70 Corridor Study Committee was held on
Thursday, September 6, 1990 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 112, Municipal
Building, Raleigh, North Carolina. Attached is a list of the persons
who attended this meeting.
Bert Tasaico opened the meeting by stating that the purpose is to
discuss recently received input and new ideas and concepts of BAKK. He
turned the meeting over to Roger Lewis of BAKK who said he had five
areas about which he received the most comments and would discuss them
each in detail today. Those five areas are:
1. Eliminate Skyland interchange
2. Interchange at Ebenezer Church Road
3. Interchange between Ebenezer Church and Pinecrest
4. Questions about paired intersections
5. Questions about loss of access to common properties
Item 1: Elimination of Skyland interchange:
Concept A has frontage roads taking traffic north to Alexander or
south to outerloop.
Concept B has loop ramps at Skyland, eliminates frontage roads
between Skyland and Loop; with weaving movements, this concept will work
(weaving distance of 1200 - 1400 feet); BAKK used
collection/distribution road charts and not freeway standards
By putting in interchange, gives you ability to control access
between Loop and Alexander. Feasible because low development now and
less disruptive. By eliminating Skyland. Alexander would have to be six
lanes to handle traffic. Speed limit on US 70 would be 45 mph in
keeping with urban arterial. At the Loop, US 70 would be six lanes to
expand into eight lanes through Skyland to Alexander. Dave Cochran
expressed concern about adequate weaving coming off Loop.
Recommendation made for recovery lane north past Skyland. Faulkner
requested more data to show workable. Steve Stroud stated plan has to
be safe but also usable to attract users which will help pay for all of
this. Per Roger Lewis, Skyland interchange makes surrounding land uses
more desirable. Ed Johnson stated that this concept is in keeping with
vision for continuous flow with merge access. Per Roger Lewis, we are
restricted by cemetery and Loop plans which are pretty much set.
Johnson suggested proposal of building ACC Boulevard as alternative to
frontage roads. Per Hal McNeely, Mt. Herman Church Road is a real
problem. The State is working on that problem but they still have to
provide access to cemetery. Suggestion made that our consultant (BAKK)
get with State's consultant concerning ACC Boulevard. Suggestion by
Gary Faulkner to study loops at Alexander.`
Item 2: Ebenezer Church Road Interchanee vs. Paired Intersections:
BARK looked at tight diamond interchange, with lower profile on US
70 for several feet; Ebenezer Church Road would cross over US 70; would
have considerable affect on adjacent development; considerable right of
way would have to be purchased adjacent to ramps; would be very
expensive solution including retaining walls; disadvantage that Ebenezer
Church Road is a "sensitive thoroughfare" and an interchange at this
location would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Dave Cochran suggested that Durham Loop pass over US 70 and be
connected to Ebenezer Church Road. Johnson stated problem with denying
property owners access. Lewis is reluctant to deal with a change in
the thoroughfare plan and going beyond original scope of the study.
Item 3: Interchange Between Ebenezer Church Road and Pinecrest:
This is a difficult topographical location for interchange; several
creeks and ponds, severe grades on US 70; BAKK looked at diamond
interchange with road going over US 70 extending north to collector
street; necessary to control access along US 70; environmental problems;
very close to Pinecrest intersection. Even with interchange at this
location, signals will be needed at Ebenezer and Pinecrest and
recommends 40 mph because of intense levels. Faulkner resists solutions
that require lowering mph as it reduces capacity (efficiency).
Tom Worth stated this would have dramatic affect upon adjacent
properties, concerned about proximity to dam. Problem with Lake Ann
having only right-in, right-out access. Dick Bell stated that
interchange at this location would need to consider uses of land.
Faulkner stated that objective is to come up with a plan to assist flow
of traffic on US 70.
Item 4: Paired Intersections:
BAKK looked at Ebenezer Church/Water Garden and proposed
restricting left turns from Ebenezer onto US 70; this makes Ebenezer
work at grade intersection; no signal at Collector/US 70 intersection;
no left turns allowed from Water Garden onto US 70.
Faulkner thinks public will recognize interchange concept better
than paired intersections.
BAKK looked at Pinecrest and proposed no left turns from Pinecrest
onto US 70; no signal at Collector/US 70 intersection.
Roger Lewis asked that decision be made as to paired intersections
vs. interchanges before they can proceed. Options are to 1) build more
interchanges, 2) have paired intersections with restricted left movement
or 3) accept lower level of service with left turns allowed. To achieve
a higher level of service will be more expensive. He stated that
corridor will work with paired intersections.
Item 5: Lynn Road Interchange:
BARK recommends full interchange located east of creek: extend Lynn
Road south to collector street.
Ed Johnson stated that we need to study this very closely.
especially the option of locating on western side of creek needs to be
reviewed.
Per Johnson, Council has expressed desire to limit traffic south on
Ebenezer. Hal McNeely stated that we must consider how important
Ebenezer is and the relief it would bring to the area. There is no
replacement available for south flow of traffic and we need to quantify
problems Ebenezer creates.
Tom Worth commented that BAKK job description does not include
political matters; but we cannot pretend that property to south of US 70
is not available-for development.
Per Ed Johnson, he sees us having three options:
1. Signaled, slow moving US 70
2. High level interchanges
3. Paired intersections that severs Ebenezer
Proposed that Gary Faulkner and Dave Cochran address Ebenezer and
Skyland as interchange and Ed Johnson to work on those areas as paired
intersections. Both to work on estimate of cost and environmental
impact and compare results at next meeting.
Dick Bell and Price interests to review lake area interchange.
Roger Lewis to look at Lynn interchange on west side of creek.
Bob Mosher requested that we look at impact on natural resources as
Council will want protection of critical areas, trees, etc.
Copies of maps discussed today are to be distributed.
Next meeting scheduled for-October 4, 1990 at 9:00 a.m.
Meeting adjourned at 11:25.
Respectfully submitted,
Judv Pearse
FLOW PL M
alollw?a
• - d?? - • - / ? ATTACHMENT 15
1 a owlP?AO?o •
NOTES N/f
- DASHED LINES REPRESENT PROPERTY ( HARVEY COOLEY I I
LINES FROM MAPS k DEEDS LISTED N/F ' D.B. 913,•15C. 317
UNDER MAP REFERENCE. THESE WILLIAM L. FIELDS I I'
LINES HAVE NOT BEEN SURVEYED. N/F O.B. 2537, PG. 297 ) I
- B.O.M. 1988, PG. 1026 BEARINGS HAVE RONNIE L. FIELDS _ N87b527"E'
574-0
BEEN ROTATED TO N.C. GRID SYSTEM' NDO'01'50"E S87'10'
FOR CONTINUITY. 10CONTINUITY. 297.31 611.56 •- S8Z,52'42'E
lol?fl'#ClrrrrwlrwRlD 1 765.81N0226'2)"E NC GRID NORTH'
9411i6 AMM091r11>If?' I 157.94
N AMNWAwa - _ _ _ - - S89'19'37E_ I SCALE:
I - - - 1431,29 I
R.
N/r
TIMOTHY J. W d too 1GI1 TA0 wm !
'VICINITY MAP a.r5 BLACKWELL FqIm n AdMY / f1000 sdMM1
uoeNO I O.B. 3450. r
PC. 31 oln
m
------ Ltoo, rw f1AT"aM(MOW I o
- Lbw a" *-.,.d PAN =Zw Z_
:w oq
ley _ I n .
El 1487'45'27"E
ow KWW d Fled l i NOtT14'71'E n n
N
nIm r t yr 519. -144.32
am ErYJbyl. OYy.r D I N/f
a _-__ 1?.dO.1 THIS PUtT T10 n n i I J.D. PAGE
4'Y ---- Mr.. Ww.l.. AFTER .?, LY OF • 1401'14'43"E o v lI I - , T.M. 276„ PAR. 3
D.B. 0047, PG. E .
/
o-=-- alrwLw...dw.. 1 CO" TO LIE RfTMNW MR THE 256.93 Z
CITY. EIP
1 , I
JE4
THIS PLAT IS ON OF THE \ 14•434 Ac..1y4y11 1
4gtrN u4ayu CITY L.Ilff& .
1?IL_0oarrl• \ \ UP D?04iSj4LAU \ \ \ ,
IL-Z4 30-0 I.Mtr.lyrldxw?wr S88'40'06'W WP ?a O ` I Y
r.r rr .r.nww A.. A
w r.N o+'•9 p.?.ww rv .wwww AI.d •133.33 • , ty ???
I r.Mwr.wwwhN_.w._..un.W..wN.w.N \ 52.24?? oy O , ' ?? f 3u,n9 ;,c 1
t..awarwlM,rI MAW?r w+ww.ruJC?,JYfn •' ,wr \ 10.00640. ?\ fZ4i
w ...rl..r l.nrw n N.... dwlw dt.. dM .I A.r.If...dr N26'58'06"w EIP h , by iA(f yl ". - - - -
fiwl.bN.__,w._:.w,urytr.t«1lwMMaw.wa. N,a 404.88
ta4rn.wwr.d ""..r.MwNA?.nwn+..+rrwww ?* 0' O ?: N87'05'26'W
MJQ-?rw ,A.A.fdpy \ 3 3 I80.67
t Y
"1? a?Z 1= ? 10.001 .c.
NI lpq
I
MAP REFERENCE yt9 73 0 4 \ / to
L? fsa R/w MON. \'70
L -D.B: 3409, PG. 215 (SEE INSET 'A') \ 09.
,0.009. / .
-810.M. 1988. PG. 1026 ?.? /
-MAP ENTITLED "BROADREACH \ POP bh 90 / / OP NIFHOMPSON
INVESTMENTS': SURVEYED .... .
MURPHY YELLE ASSOCIATES:Y ? J0? 9 J =ROy?6 ESSIE A. 1
CAN A
- .4. D. DATED NOV. 18, 1986. \ 9t ^3 3 HEIRS
lAmlkE_cvcwrY 10.003 4G y M1 . I( nin T.M. 276. PAR. 6
N.C.G.S. MONUMENT 0.00 y? • ?( °O
1.. lwwr Iwda of w e...,r w xa .b,om,y. 001% wr• .. 'OVERNIGHT" M 7 E'I
rY rmd w .r•+n. dr«.rM a4dyw 11y „ Mw I.N M andrdyw 4 (r.) 1M .wr(,) N W COORDINATE;: \ ? MP o
4+k••yN4badww4/tdrMww.a..Nati r•a.dr t/w. w yy 11..41 1478),028,0) tQoo3 AG 'S y 56456'17"E to
.004 oft th"o co by d..d(al \ '.
4•w4+lwrnar. •6 0.
4r.wrr^wwN/w...n..rme. ?? a,1- _ ncrMd 1 46 M 1 N ?.dMr . of 0.00 N 90.. CMnIX E2.064,517.81 ?O py' O i '
of L .
Imo.. , .1 Q w d. 6.4. w YM'w of n
N 16" Oct MN r • Id for N ,?pwd («) w ddeab to t.. city e4r of (NAD 1927)
5'14'42"E .
4~ a 4.1k w so aM1. ,a.w.ntt Ad.y N "If w ?. 13.723 / S 636.14 UP 174.99
d.,eb w aw w ea -v to be wood w .d...ecgt..t. Iwrrol h ?Y / y1{I _ _
.c,rd..w N a4 dtr d.414.. wla.wa ..d IadrNMe, or .
?ir Nr.rrM,w c..d41a. f we pr of 9dNt. M w 6-0 N t...duN., wr \,D P ?, O AXLE .
d.Ac.tlam " w lwd.ca4 M.Ad.L wr d.halb. N to* goo- S52'36'53cE
Stu* .,,w,, 3 - 2.E. qe .r to dr .taw d My, w .N ..w 1. W. ntr N *~ bw
060 r...«.wwr.w. to of wb.r,..t a..r. N ar a .0 1933 78 949'27• E 13,5115 AC. N88'30'46"W
Ma.rlN. ttw. 4raa fff t4,.- ad 1.+0. MIM 1. cash HORIZ. GRD. \ R / 747.98 140.27
JWLIK ow. N wlwd".. (b) (c) (4) wd (t) N sects" r rnd sw - d Ss • .. \ONj 5 7 1h` "4
I' N 0Y'dtr sta. 010M." Poky (r.11N . 1910.313 w ,M .r.. Y J
..r a 4r. a.. to 11.. rnaM). • 31. 4/300. 3 4 \ `1? •?
' ? BOOK *4 PAM y0• L 91A a 0.119(5) ` P 1196
I *9j y WOODLAWN MEMORIAL GARDENS
` x0e??e5??4adu - 0.011 Lp R/w MON. * 'd D.B. 1988. PG'. 259
. 4Sd4LA_Lrolwrr (SEE INSET 'A") I ?y
40. /!Y"lar .l r3rllled/t II•RTLbe . No POW4,' 1..awg 0.11, ft t0. frtr W Stat. afr id. w.l/ry Ero CONTROL CORNER .
d1-.14114 M I. w..ft f0...... tw1P..r.l.d41 e?_?tlNelil 9lnYd *-Il/.00-06. ore q„
.r, N 14 f ,.111 tw.wt. N7856'6853.94
r«rr wN 14ffi.n.ltc74.na-?(Q)lllmlL?ti?N wc.rI.I,w.•.«t."a"I'i'wN
' 4Q2Q& aa E2,01054,37 ' 127- q
fowlT11c1k4UIM n "? nA. Q.iJ ++ .• ??''''. -01„1:.,,7« x,93 REws/OMS A'gYg1pN Of TM
-
4WrNarO aatrlARNOwr ..MOytA' ° PROPERTY OF ? "VII t ameacu"m
' +?'• 1 CARLTON.MIDYETTE A E. STEPHEN STROUD
f 1
AWOL
n7wNSNa•:. LE6yJIU E couNrr: k&W DATE: b-11•do sra/Rverro er:J A fiECO soar
,. Prnrsl.
I
L
R•aonldd /n Back of Aldpd N90 Val.. ly. _jL

STATE: N OR7'N CAROLINA I
SCALE I ,
{c>7
QPANTY Bf : LY{,
AWING 0.7,
ZONE: TAX MAP: y PARCEL: yl checKEO E CLOSURE 8r: nj

iggo(lz-7(
ATTACHMENT 16
US 70 CORRIDOR STUDY
US 70 FROM THE DURHAM COUNTY LINE
TO DURALEIGH ROAD
WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared for
THE US 70 CORRIDOR STUDY
STEERING COMMITTEE
(Consisting of representatives from the
North Carolina Department of Transportation,
City of Raleigh, Property Owners
and Owners' Representatives)
March, 1992
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Recommended Alternative
The recommended alternative for the US 70 improvements on the west segment is
a six-lane freeway. Included in this segment are the five interchanges as shown on the
approved Thoroughfare Plan. It would be necessary to improve the profile gradeline of US
70 on the west segment in order to upgrade the roadway to freeway standards. On the east
segment, an urban arterial type facility with a basic eight-lane section is recommended. In
addition, this section would require additional storage and turn lanes on US 70, paired
intersections at some locations, and interchanges at Ebenezer Church Road Connector and
Lynn Road. Typical sections illustrating these improvements are shown on Figure 8.
The profile gradeline on the east segment will not meet a 40 mph design speed in
many cases. Lengthening of vertical curves will be necessary in some areas to achieve 40
mph design speed. Complete reworking of the existing grades is not considered to be a cost-
effective solution; however, minor improvements to the profile such as lengthening of vertical
curves should be studied during the preliminary design phase of project implementation.
Other roads within the US 70 Corridor Plan area were studied for compatibility with
the proposed improvements on US 70. This corridor study was performed in general
conformance with the Greater Raleigh Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan and the US 70
Corridor Plan. Minor changes were made to road alignments within the Corridor Plan area.
The horizontal alignments of proposed roadways such as relocated Aviation Parkway were
adjusted to conform to the topography in the area. T.W. Alexander Drive was extended
northward across US 70. The alignment of ACC Boulevard is proposed to be shifted from
the location indicated on the Thoroughfare Plan. NCDOT and the property owner in the
area west of the Northern Wake Freeway are jointly working on the plan to locate ACC
Boulevard near US 70 to both serve as a east-west collector road and a service road
replacement for Mount Herman Church Road. ACC Boulevard is proposed to terminate at
the T.W. Alexander Drive interchange. Skyland Drive was also realigned in a northwesterly
direction to follow the old ACC Boulevard alignment. Lynn Road was proposed to extend
southward across US 70 in order to provide a full interchange. Additional studies should be
performed to determine if Lynn Road should be extended southward beyond the interchange
limits. Other connector roads and parallel collector roads are proposed, as described in the
section on Collector Roads, and are illustrated on the functional plans.
Preliminary functional design plans have been prepared for the entire length of the
corridor. Figure 9 shows these plans on a reduced scale. These plans illustrate proposed
improvements, typical right of way requirements, proposed greenway study corridors, and
floodway crossings. The plans are available at 1"=200' as an addendum to this report.
18
1 ? r ? it •1ti.. ?? ? ??. ? ? ?
N. Oj
C, C
tzt=
- •o?,
I ?.f dg-a??aa - wE1 •ar?, - 'frt?r" -:. - ,.. •?-s•s???`l?,a? •, o:o :i?.
r?l Vim.' /11? •." - '1 ;` r r \' ? ? +.?_ ? / ?M r '' _,.•
US 70 CORRIDOR PLAN
US 70 Corridor Study
Durham County Line
To Duraleigh Road
BAKK 12/91 No Scale Figure 3a
[I.6Mfl11f _.
t
i
I
J'
? r
rr
rr
rr
rr
rr
rr
rr
/ rr
r
r
' rr
rr
c? 0
•' i
' r?uursrr ? _

BAKK
McxE(-
15"J10-
r
0
r
I
r
r
i

I

^ v
? r
.
r
( LEGEND
- _ - - EXISTING PAVEMENT
PROPOSED PAVEMENT
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY ,
r
---®-- CONTROLLED ACCESS 1
1 - -- - CREEK, POND, LAKE i
TREE LINE
r
APPROXIMATE GREENWAY r
CORRIDOR STUDY AREA
• . • • • FLOOD PLAIN
MEDIAN
-4
_ I
r
r
? r
r
r
o
n?
rr
NOTE: THE INFORMATION 'CONTA1NE6 ON THESE FUNCTIONAL. PLAN
\SHEETS WAS DIGITIZED OR TAKEN FROM TAX MAPS, I
UNCONTROLLED AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY, AND PROPOSED
PLANS. NONE OF THE INFORMATION IS BASED ON ANY
X CURRENT SURVEY DATA PRIOR TO ANY RIGHT OF WAY r
RESERVATION OR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, DETAILED rr
GROUND SURVEYS AND PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF PROPOSED
ROADWAYS WILL BE NECESSARY TO LOCATE CONSTRUCTION
LIMITS.

-4 A,
'J
FUNCTIONAL DESIGNS
US 70 Corridor Study
Durham County Line
To Duraleigh Road
12191 0 FT. 400 Figure 9b

I
I ?
? .. II
t ..
I , v ?I
11 ! f y? ' f
o '
II II o ?

CD
0
NOTE: THE INFORMATION CONTAINED ON THESE FUNCTIONAL PLAN
SHEETS WAS DIGITIZED OR TAKEN FROM TAX MAPS,
E UNCONTROLLED AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY, AND PROPOSED
E PLANS. NONE OF THE INFORMATION IS BASED ON ANY
CURRENT SURVEY DATA. PRIOR TO ANY RIGHT OF WAY
RESERVATION OR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, DETAILED
GROUND SURVEYS AND PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF PROPOSED
ROADWAYS WILL BE NECESSARY TO LOCATE CONSTRUCTION
. LIMITS.
BAKK
EMWMEEIU
' I IND r
q
1l "
1
.

1 ?

I
I
1 I ??
LEGEND
- - -- EXISTING PAVEMENT
PROPOSED PAVEMENT
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
- ?- CONTROLLED ACCESS
--- - CREEK. POND. LAKE
TREE LINE
•?••? APPROXIMATE GREENWAY
CORRIDOR STUDY AREA
. • • . • FLOOD PLAIN
MEMEM MEDIAN
I
1 1
r
I
I

a
r a

I
Ui
I ?
I/

0
4
FUNCTIONAL DESIGNS
US 70 Corridor Study
Durham County Line
To Duraleigh Road
12/91 I FT 4001Figure 9c9c

n ? Coo
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources ATTACHMENT 17
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobcy, Jr., Seaemry
July 21, 1992
Mr. Barney 01 Quinn
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Dear Mr. O'Quinn:
GeorSc T. Everett, Ph.D.
Director
Subject: Certification Pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal
Clean Water Act,
Proposed Northern Wake Expressway
Segments BA, BB and BC 166
Project #92038. COE # 199200990
Wake County
Attached hereto is a copy of Certification No. 2752 issued
to N.C. Department of Transportation dated jul,y 21, 1991.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to
contact us.
Sincerely,
Preston Howard, Jr. P.E_
ting Director
Attachments v
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Regional Office
Raleigh DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Mr. John Parker
Central Files REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville F61119h. Washini;con wilmilvon
7u WI.6208 919148!>1541 704/663.1619q 9191V1470D 919/946•6481 919/395-3900
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.Q. lioa 29535, R:,Icigh. North Cavolim 27Q6-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Fnwl C xuu v iltirm?vc ACIM. EmjJkwa
Winston-Salem
9191896-7007

.ORTH CAROLINA
Wake County
ERTZFICATIQN
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the
requirements of Section 401 Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the
United States and subject-to the.Rorth Carolina Division of
Environmental Management Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500
to N.C. Department of Transportation pursuant to an application
filed on the J2th day of June, 1992-to construct a portion of the
Northern Wake'Expressway from SR 1641 and US 70, Segments BA, BB
and BC.
The Application provides adequate assurance that the
discharge of fill material into the waters of Stirrup Iron and
Little'Brier Creeks and their wetlands in conjunction with the
proposed Northern Wake Expressway in Wake County will not result
in a violation of applicable Water Quality Standards and
discharge guidelines. Therefore, the State of North Carolina
certifies that this activity will not violate Sections 301, 302,
303, 306, 307 of PL 92-500 and.PL 95-217 if conducted in
accordance with the application and conditions hereinafter set
forth.
Condition(s) of Certification:
1_ That the activity be conducted in such a manner as
to prevent significant increase in turbidity
outside the area of construction or construction
related discharge (increases such that the
turbidity in the Stream is 25 NTU's or less are not
considered significant).
2. Mitigation shall be conducted as outlined in the
submittal package to.'DEM and the COE. DEM shall be
sent three copies of all mitigation monitoring
plans.
3. At the mitigation site adjacent to Stirrup Iron
Creek, the existing forested wetland adjacent to
the creek and floodplain shall not be disturbed.
Violations of any condition herein set forth shall result in
revocation of this Certification.
This Certification shall become null and void unless the
above conditions are made conditions of the Federal Permit.
This the 21 day of July, 1992.
DIVISION OF ENVY MANAGEMENT
reston Howard, Jr. P.E.
WQC# 2752
SFWT 8Y:Wi1millg;,,011 ulslricz : z- J--a'1
ATTACHMENT 18
RECEIVen
D ARTMENT OF THE 7?RMY PERMIT vEP V 2 We
27G timparLmeat of aeeportation
L. Jack Yard, P.k Manager REGULATORY BRAS
Perntitt«
Action ID. 1992M?
l'ertnit No.
lsuWS oiCioe
NOTZ- IU term "you" and he deti , as used to this permit. means the permitted or any suture tsatudeme. The term
-thb office" refeev to the appropriate at or division office of the Corps of Enpneem having juri.dictlon over the permitted
dativity or the apysopriate o nd.l of that o acting under Cite authartty of the ootnmandina officer.
You are authorized to perlorw work to dance with the tomm sad conditions specified below.
Project Dwdption
TO discharges fill Material tai
tri.thio the stirrup Iron Creek
WrhaA Counties, Borth Garolll
Upr"swY, SegDeats led, as w
according to the artschad Dlat
Project T.oo"ioa:
Little Brifi Creek B"I ns,
rondt Oondidom:
Odnenl Conditieeu:
waters of the Unitsd Ststos em d watlaad•
ad Little Brier ' C=e»k basins, in Watts and
, for the cOA10truct:ioa of the Northern Wake
BC, iueludluS appropriates interchanges
sad Durham Oooatl."
L The time Ilaslt for coatpictlad the work uthmiaed ,ads ou December 31, 1995 ?„ • It ton find that you need
,tote time to complete the authorised etotlvf . subwAt your repaeet far a time oxwnslaa to this offce for ewasideratfon at Out
one ,tooth bafare the abode dW N faaebad-
L Tau tnuet ladntahi the activity autbol
down of this peradt. You are not nUeved
a good faith tsan0or to a third party ht
the authodised activity or should you eM
the persist tLom this offloe, which maw rue
8. U you db*ovw ary prevfoudy 8oi?ao
this permit. "m nuot tmmedistely notify
tioa nqufnd to doumnise tf the romelm
of Klstork !'fees,.
!"a Fow "21, "".so
I by this p.nnlt to dnod eoatditlon and in eoathrmazwe with the testae and ooadl-
thfs oagtadaueaeat It YOU abeedoa the pgmftted wdv[ty..ld oush you may make
UPUW40 with Gen" Condition a below. Should you wilt to mom to mahaaln
to ohandoa ft without a pod faith transfer. you must obtain a a4o090aUM Of
e rook"ation of the suns,
histarl of arch aefggicaf rurudw while soooarpliddat the sotivhy auawntsed by
e atffes of what "01 haw found We wilt lW&b to the lfederat anA state eoeedfii -
rhat A eeoowry effort or it the site la e110b4 for Hotin in the; National aagfd
COITION of sef a: ea oeaOLeTE. (P8 CPR $20 (Appendix A)i
1
200-d 6SS0# 09:80 6661.90'xVi
o, Daaute claims wsoclated W'* any fu
lteUance on APpUCOrrt's Data. The detp
interest wag made in ratiance ou site infos:aa
b .teWuatioa of Penalt DacWxm This
warrant. Circumstances that could require a
e modification. suapaWoo, or revocation of this permit.
duation of this office that twuance of this permit le cot contrary to the public
A you provided.
face may reevaluate Its decision on fiefs permit at any flags the eircumstanoes
4valuatioa include. but are not limited to, the following:
tiont at this Permit.
a You to to oott?plY with the tsrtps an
b. The taformstioa provided by you .pport of your pariah application prove to have been fate, incomplete, or
inaccurate (Bee 4 above).
c. significant new infor"ution surfaces eh this office did not condder In rsachlns the original public interest decision.
that it is approprl? to ua the su.p.nsion, modification. "d revocation
a rwvaluatlon may result In • data floc ip Ds CFR >l96.i and 8s8.b. Tho
such
procedures cont0ed in 88 CF$ 916.7 or nfordmerit procedures such as those contained n you to oopy with the ter'm'
referenced enforcement procedural provt or the iasuanoe of an adpslnistratl.e ordoiate. You e will be required to pay for SAY
and oouditio" of your petaait and for initiation of legal action where appr'opr this oftift May 18 Certain aitaations
corrective Measures ordered by Lida oMce, d If You Ian to 00YAPly with such dire cw o and bill you for the
(such as than speoMcd In 88 C rR 249.17 ) aceolr?pltsh the cornOtlve Yneastrres by
cost.
s. utendons. Cianerd condition 1 astabl et a time 11mit for the eorrrple' tion of the activity autIsor(sed by t4ds p?t• tJnlase
than err Oireurostaneas reQuiring elt 0 a mpt completion of the authariasd activity or a reeves tilt of the pubUC interest
decision, the Corps Wal normally give tavo a coasldoratlon to a request for an extaadac of this
aids. the fora,: and condhtloas of that por?:t•
as lttee, lodies that you accept and OF** to comply
Your signature below, 1?
K&* L Ak:D nt
?)
(D 4 4
(PBRmrn )
?- of 0. Army, bag Signed below.
Thla permit becomes afteetive wh a a1 owelal, d gnated to act for the Bscrot"I
Y M Tic)
T ICT ZN(71NZER)
1ch $• Tk11.l=s CO L
area
L are ttitl In existence at the ttae tb• p voperty is is t169 Lr tsu?srerridjd, thofe tListsans s a and
When the tttuctutw or work auWotl,,, to btodirt: ?? on the neM+ oWMar{s) et the property'.
conditions of this permit vr1U oontious and date below.
'pee Wt* its farina and oooditivaa. Iraw the trenafereo sign
and the awodafod liabilities associated wi p11
(TRANSPERRE)
(DATE)
.u.a.'ovrseamw FRWWA OFFICE: 1W - s'r`s[S
tOO'd 6SS0# OS:80 666L,90'-kv-:

SPECIAL CONDITIONS
a. The "Wetlands, Flood and Sediment Storage Mitigation Plan" (Revised
June 8, 1992), and cha "Guidelines for Watland Monitoring Program" (Revised
June 8, 1992) (copies enclosed), will be implemented in their entirety. The
following conditions and/or clarifications shall also be implemented as part
of the mitigation plan:
1. In the event that the hydrological success criteria (saturated
within 12 inches of the surface, ponded or flooded for at least 26 consecutive
days [12.5X] of the growing season) is not met during the first year, well
monitoring will continue in successive years until the success criteria has
been met and documented.
2. All disturbed areas adjacent to the mitigation sites will be
stabilized to prevent sedimentation into the mitigation sites.
3. Construction of the mitigation sites will be initiated at such
time to provide for planting of seedlings the first suitable plantingrperiod
(December 1 through March 15) following commencement of project
4. No more than 20% of any one species shall be planted in the
initial planting.
5. The "as built" plan drawing of the mitigation area shall be
submitted to the Wilmington District within 30 days of the mitigation site
construction.
6. Annual monitoring reports shall be submitted within 30 days of
site monitoring.
7. Three (3) copies of each annual monitoring report shall be
submitted to the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management.
b. The fill material will be clean and free of any pollutants
except in trace quantities. Metal products. organic materials, unsightly
debris will not be used.
c. The permittee will maintain the authorized work in good
condition and in conformance with the terms and conditions of this permit. permitted
The permittee is not relieved of this requirement if he abandons the p
activity without having it transferred to a third party.
time in
placed
d. No excavated or. fiermittediroadwwill be ay fill alignment.
permitted
waters or wetlands outside the
900'd 6550# T9:80 6661.90'zVK
-4-
e. The activity will be conducted in such a manner as to prevent a
significant increase in turbidity outside the area of construction or
construction-related discharge. Increases such that the turbidity in the
waterbody is 25 NTU's or less are not considered significant.
f. If the permittee discovers any previously unknown historic or
archeological remains while accomplishing the authorized work, be will
immediately notify the Wilmington District Engineer who will initiate the
required State/Federal coordination.
g. Appropriate sedimentation and erosion control measures shall be
implemented to minimize siltation and turbidity impacts from the project.
h. At the mitigation site adjacent to Stirrup Iron Creek, the
existing forested wetland adjacent to the creek and floodplain should not be
disturbed.
9C0'd 6990#

i
i
r

t
S4..cA Av "f r
NCDOT PROJECT R-2000 BC
LOCATION MAP SHOWING SITES OF WETLANDS
AND/OR SURFACE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
mAP SOURCE: PROJECT LOCATION HAP
SCALE AS SHOWN
L00'd 69S0#
H.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HimmAYS
DURHAM / HAKE COUNTIES
PROJECT R-2000 BC
PROPOSED RALEIGR OUTER LOOP
JUNE. 1992 SHEET 1- O? 4 1
TS=80 666T.90'7VN
the roperw arodated w
s Ca p,, of the permit to this
S..ditlosed water quality OW00
action to Sptotal Owdittow
act d# WW-
IF-.d, Ir'V must 1UgW repraotrtgum &am
410it L b.toi or has bra aooaauplishad
ppead Ceesdttioas:
Jr SDCLoesd *beet*
this pertdt. 7ou must obtain the airn.twe of tha oew owaer It? the space provided
lot to validate the btanafor of this eudunisadom
on has been honed fox your pm) 94. you mint o amply vlth the eaaditlons sped8/d
tbia patent. For your eou"Wam, a go" of the oertifieation is attached it it ooo-
ofllco b Inaped the autborisad aCtivtty at Say lima deemed nocetsory to ewuro
sosdabot with the tairme-twd conditions of your permit. .
lrurt1w Uttorawtion:
1. Coagr lo" Authoritiot: You hove bay
O Bection 10 of the Rimy and Harbor
80otion 404 of the (lean Water A t
() Iaetten 10s of the Marine protactia
2. Liatits of this authodsattoa.
a. This permit does not obaitda tha
b. 'his posmit does trot grant achy PM
e. Tbts paeatit do" not satbottae Say
d. Thds permit doeo net outbod" tab
I nuthoaised to undertake the activity described above pursuant to:
?ct of I8ii9 (33 U.B.C. 40a).
i U.S.C. 1344).
y
.MOeccb and 8aaotuari4W Act of 1971(88 U.B.C. 1419).
obtain other Federal, atste, or loud authorisations required by law.
tt3hts or aaciusive wtvil".
F to tse property or rights of othem
aarertth any eat or proposed Ftdatai pmkct,
C01ti the pedeaa -Ooraraccceat door not Staattna Stay liawI tyr for the telwwbws
as ttterW Y a await of 4oU w permitted or unpormitted ae"tias a lrom ss taral
-i. IAft to of F.deMI Vabwty. in l.saiar W
v. A. DamSgea b tbo ponnitood pro0at or
aauet.
U- DSWA#W to the peesltted PndOct a
d! the Uslted States is the public interest.
IV. Daaaages to p?s.oes, propeRp, err f
sudwrisod by.thb Para dt.
d. Design or eoostme loe d.Gasnolts N
t
low
£00'd 6990#
thenof as a rwlt of ourrsat or future actidties undestdwu by or en behalf
vttstc permitted of u"casitted activities or struaturw caused by t" aollvity
with the pamWAd Wori:.
3
09:80 6661.40';NX