19890127 Ver 3_Add Info Letter_20200522

From:
Scarbrauah. Anthony
To:
Clay Barber
Cc:
Spivey. Kelly; Pullinaer, Robert C
Subject:
RE: [External]
Date:
Friday, May 22, 2020 3:55:00 PM
Mr. Barber,
I would recommend moving the impacts outside of the Zone 2. The problem with applying for the Minor Variance is
meeting the practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships that prevent compliance with the strict letter of the Tar -Pamlico
Riparian Buffer Protection Requirements. Practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships shall be evaluated in accordance
with the following:
(A) If the applicant complies with the provisions of this Rule, he/she can secure no reasonable return from, nor
make reasonable use of, his/her property. Merely proving that the variance would permit a greater profit
from the property shall not be considered adequate justification for a variance. Moreover, the Division or
delegated local authority shall consider whether the variance is the minimum possible deviation from the
terms of this Rule that shall make reasonable use of the property possible.
(B) The hardship results from application of this Rule to the property rather than from other factors such as
deed restrictions or other hardship.
(C) The hardship is due to the physical nature of the applicant's property, such as its size, shape, or
topography, which is different from that of neighboring property.
(D) The applicant did not cause the hardship by knowingly or unknowingly violating this Rule.
(E) The applicant did not purchase the property after the effective date of this Rule, and then request an
appeal.
(F) The hardship is unique to the applicant's property, rather than the result of conditions that are
widespread. If other properties are equally subject to the hardship created in the restriction, then granting
a variance would be a special privilege denied to others, and would not promote equal justice;
(ii) The variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the State's riparian buffer protection
requirements and preserves its spirit; and
(iii) In granting the variance, the public safety and welfare have been assured, water quality has been protected, and
substantial justice has been done.
Basically, the project would have to satisfy the requirements as outlined above or the minor variance would be denied. In
addition, you would still have to demonstrate stormwater treatment and offset the impacts to Zone 2 by purchasing
mitigation at a rate of 1.5:1.
If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me.
Regards,
Anthony Scarbraugh
Anthony Scarbraugh
Environmental Specialist H Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Envunnmentd Quality
er,--D_EQ5 252-9483924 (Office)
114wr� Anthony. Scarbraugh' qpcdar gaFv
bnaiccreWmtfexv foa kcrrr Vis addreot &Abp d da Ye AkWh Gm*u PLdAc PbCoUS Lawarxt
may be dsaoseY ro 1W prtin
From: Clay Barber [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2020 11:54 AM
To: Scarbraugh, Anthony <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External]

Hi Anthony,
Hope you're doing well.
We're working to build an accessible dock and kayak launch down at Haven's Garden in Washington. We're just
noticing the design for a concrete pick up/drop off area dips into Zone 2 (see attachment).
We are hoping we can alter the pad layout to be outside the zone and still meet our accessibility needs. But if we
can't alter the layout, what does the process and timeline for developing in Zone 2 look like?
Thanks!
01 gI
1 �
r
'STING BOAT RA1 P #
M y
EXISFINO-
BULKHEAD
WETLAND
'ROUND "
�r r
Clay Barber
Environmental Projects Coordinator
Sound Rivers
[phone]
www. soundrivers. org[soun drivers. org]
PREVIOUS
KAYAK LAU,
PERMIT /A
FLOATING El DO
10 ic25' FLOATIA
24.5' ADA BENQ
AND 12.3' JAUJJ