20060507 Ver 1_Emails_20060404

Re: Buffer Variance Applications
Subject: Re: Buffer Variance Applications
From: "Chris Hopper" <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 16:19:36 -0400
To: "Amy Chapman" <[e-mail]>
Hey Amy, thanks for the communication. The EEP acceptance letter addresses mitigation for both the
Minor and Major variances (breakdown below). If any lots are not approved by either DWQ or the EMC,
the mitigation paid will be prorated based on whatever ratios are specified by DWQ .(although the EEP guy
said 1:1 was expected, and that maybe only impacts to Zone I would be requested - I prepared the owners
for the worst case of (3.5:1 for Zone I, and 1.5:1 for Zone II).
I cannot speak to how built out the subdivision as a whole is, but none of the lots between Lot 20 and
Beechridge Road to the north are developed on the south side of the creek (see minor app, Figure
5). They're being used as lawn /garden areas, and some is maintained in hardwood forest. Lot 25 is not
developed. Lot 25 is actually the same lot as 24, just on the north side of the creek (only depicted that way
because it's how the City platted it).
For Clarification:
Minor Variance
Lot 20 requests 641 sq ft variance for impacts to Zone II only.
Lot 2 requests 514 sq ft variance for impacts to Zone II only.
Major Variance
Lot 24 requests 1,431.1 sq ft variance for impacts to Zone I, and 1,103.9 sq ft variance for impacts to Zone
II.
All together, (641 + 514 + 1,103.9) = 2258.9 sq ft impact to Zone II, and 1,431.1 sq ft of impact to Zone I.
Please let me know if you need more info, or If I need to provide anything else.
Thanks again,
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: Amy Chapman
To: Chris Hopper
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: Buffer Variance Applications
Chris,
I wanted to get some clarification on this variance...
1.Are all the other lots (besides the 3 Mary Manasse owns) built upon at this time?
2.On figures 2 and 3 it shows a Zone 2 impact of 1,103.9 square feet, but on the EEP letter and your
cover letter it shows an impact of 2,259 square feet of zone 2. Why is the square footage different on
figures 2 &3?
Thanks.
-Amy
Chris Hopper wrote:
1 of 3 4/4/2006 4:28 PM

Re: Buffer Variance Applications
Subject: Re: Buffer Variance Applications
From: Amy Chapman <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 15:59:16 -0400
To: Chris Hopper <[e-mail]>
Chris,
I wanted to get some clarification on this variance...
1.Are all the other lots (besides the 3 Mary Manasse owns) built upon at this time?
2.On figures 2 and 3 it shows a Zone 2 impact of 1,103.9 square feet, but on the EEP letter and your
cover letter it shows an impact of 2,259 square feet of zone 2. Why is the square footage different on
figures 2 &3?
Thanks.
-Amy
Chris Hopper wrote:
Hey Amy -
RE: Oxford Road (D.L. Johnson Subdivision, lots 2 and 20 (minor variance application) and 24 (major
variance application).
I'm just touching base to see how your review of the buffer variance applications is going. My clients
are hopeful their major variance request will be reviewed during the July 12 and 13 EMC meeting.
Any word?
Thanks,
Chris
Christopher D. Hopper, Biologist
Robert J. Goldstein & Associates, Inc.
1221 Corporation Parkway, Suite 100
Raleigh, North Carolina 27610
[phone]; fax [phone]
URL: www.rjgaCarolina.com
email: chopper(a)rigaCarolina.com
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.4/299 - Release Date: 3/31/2006
Amy Chapman
Environmental Specialist III
NC Division of Water Quality
401/Wetlands Unit
1 of 2 4/4/2006 3:59 PM