SW3191101_Emails_20200325

Farkas, Jim J
From:Matthew Moore <[e-mail]>
Sent:Wednesday, March 25, 2020 8:18 AM
To:Farkas, Jim J
Cc:Steve Farmartino
Subject:RE: \[External\] RE: Cambridge Family - SW3191101
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]

Hey Jim – I think we might’ve missed a call from you yesterday. Can you please give me a call back at [phone].
Thanks!

From: Farkas, Jim J <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2020 9:09 AM
To: Matthew Moore <[e-mail]>
Cc: Steve Farmartino <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: \[External\] RE: Cambridge Family - SW3191101

EXTERNAL: Use caution with attachments and links.

Drainage area 3 would not have it’s own column (As you correctly stated) and would not, directly, be shown on the
forms. The information about the areas not draining to the wet ponds can be inferred by comparing the entire site
column to the on-site components of DA 1 & DA 2. For example, if the entire site column states that there is 100,000 sf
of on-site BUA, DA 1 states that there is 20,000 sf of on-site BUA, and DA 2 states that there is 30,000 sf of on-site BUA,
it can be inferred that there is 50,000 sf of on-site BUA that is not draining to a SCM (100,000 – 20,000 – 30,000 =
50,000).

Since, at the State level, there are no quantity requirements for this project, we don’t really care about POI’s.

Once we have a breakdown of the existing and proposed conditions, we can figure out how to best represent this
information on the forms.

-Jim

From: Matthew Moore <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2020 8:56 AM
To: Farkas, Jim J <[e-mail]>
Cc: Steve Farmartino <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: \[External\] RE: Cambridge Family - SW3191101

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]

Jim,

1

Thanks for the clarification. Going forward, my plan on addressing this will be to split up the BUA Tables by existing and
proposed conditions, as well as in the proposed conditions I plan on pulling out DA-3 from the combined DA-1 and DA-3
column. The only point in which I’m still slightly confused is on the Supplemental EZ Form and Application. Those
columns on those forms just pertain to the wet ponds, correct? If so, where would I show DA-3 as that is a bypass
drainage area and wont be conveyed to and detained at either of the wet ponds on those forms?

If you could let me know how best to proceed with that in mind ill make the adjustments and send over all the revised
files again.

Matt

From: Farkas, Jim J <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2020 8:50 AM
To: Matthew Moore <[e-mail]>
Cc: Steve Farmartino <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: \[External\] RE: Cambridge Family - SW3191101

EXTERNAL: Use caution with attachments and links.

Let me clarify, there should be two BUA tables, one for existing conditions, and one for proposed conditions. The
existing conditions table should be put on the existing drainage area sheet and the proposed conditions table should be
put on the proposed drainage area sheet. This will make it apparent what changed from existing conditions to proposed
conditions and where it changed (If you like, you may add a third column to the proposed table for drainage area 3, but
this is not required).

I agree with your concerns about lumping DA 3 in with the drainage area to the wet pond. It is not an accurate reflection
of the actual proposed drainage area to the wet pond

Also, for the time being, email will be the best way to reach me. Let me know if you have any further questions.

-Jim

From: Matthew Moore <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 3:22 PM
To: Farkas, Jim J <[e-mail]>
Cc: Steve Farmartino <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: \[External\] RE: Cambridge Family - SW3191101

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]

Hey Jim,

Please see the attached revised documents, including the requested BUA Table, for the Cambridge Crossing Multifamily
project.

I just left you a voicemail, but with everyone’s funky schedules I figured it might be easier to get an email chain going
instead. We’ve calculated out the BUA table and formatted as you have below, and in doing so made sure the rest of the
2

forms (Application/Supp EZ Form/Plans) all correlate to the provided BUA table. Can you please take a look at the
attached and let me know if that clears things up for you?

The only concern I have left now lies in how we are displaying the information on the tables and plans. We have Prop DA
1 and Prop DA 3 grouped together because they ultimately discharge to POI-1, but the purpose of creating DA-3 was
that those surface waters wont be routed through the proposed wet pond, but will bypass and be collected and
conveyed directly downstream of our project. Can you advise on how we should proceed, or if we are good showing it
the way we have?

Thank you as always for your time and I look forward to hearing from you.

Matthew Moore, EIT
Design Engineer
Bohler Engineering NC, PLLC
1927 South Tryon Street, Suite 310
Charlotte, NC 28203
o 980-272-3400 / [e-mail]
Check out our new website \[bohlerengineering.com\]

Confidentiality Note: This e-mail, and any attachment to it, contains confidential information intended only for the use of the designated recipients,
which information may also be privileged. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient, the document has been received in error and any
use, review, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
notify the sender via reply e-mail and immediately delete this e-mail from your system.

From: Farkas, Jim J <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 11:26:31 AM
To: Steve Farmartino <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cambridge Family - SW3191101

EXTERNAL: Use caution with attachments and links.

Steve,

I’m still working on the review comments. I should have them off to you fairly soon after receiving the below from you.

The impervious area accounting for this project is unclear:
 Section IV, 10, Drainage Area 2 – The on-site drainage area component of this drainage area (544,935 sf) is larger
than the total project area listed in Section IV, 7 (11.5 ac ≈ 500,940).
 The project percent impervious area is listed as 74.4% (Section IV, 8) and 41% (Supplement-EZ Form, Drainage
Area Sheet, Entire Site Column, Line 16).
 The information provided on plan sheet C-301 does not match the information provided in the
Application/Supplement-EZ Form (Site area, total impervious area, pavement/sidewalk).
3

Please do the following to remove any confusion:
 In order to expedite the review, please complete a table, like the one below, for both existing and proposed
conditions (These tables should be added to sheets C-601 & C-602 but this does not need to be done right this
moment). The project area column has all of the off-site components listed as N/a since there are no off-site
components to the project site.
 Based on how the table is filled out, there may need to be some needed changes to the plans, Application,
and/or the Supplement-EZ Form.

Project Area Ex/Prop DA 1 Ex/Prop DA 2
Total BUA (sf) A = B + F
On-site BUA (sf) B = C + D + E On-site BUA is BUA located within the project area
(and within the DA)
Buildings (sf) C
Parking (sf) D
Sidewalks (sf) E
Off-site BUA (sf) N/a F = G + H + I Off-site BUA is BUA located within the DA and outside
of the project area
Buildings (sf) N/a G
Parking (sf) N/a H
Sidewalks (sf) N/a I
Total Pervious (sf) J = K + L
On-site Pervious K
(sf)
Off-site Pervious N/a L
(sf)
Total Area (sf) M = A + J

Call me if you have any questions,

Jim Farkas
Environmental Engineer
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Energy, Mineral, & Land Resources – Stormwater Program

512 N. Salisbury Street
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1612

[phone]
[e-mail]

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

4

5