20091346 Ver 3_General Correspondence_20101019

t
Mcmillan, Ian
From: Manuele, Jean B SAW [[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 1:37 PM
To: Mike Hunter; Wakild, Chuck; Karoly, Cyndi; Mcmillan, Ian
Cc: Kyle Ward; David George; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Actions Items
Mike,
Thanks for the directions and I want to clarify a few of the action items.
1. Specific site alternatives analysis-when looking at other sites not
presently owned by the applicant, one must look at those sites which were available for
purchase at the time of market entry, not closing. There is actually a court case on this
issue where a Department of the Army (DA) permit was denied based upon other less
environmentally damaging alternatives that were practically available to the applicant at the
time. I can get you this case if you need it.
2. Alternative site layouts- We acknowledge that you have shifted the
road, have a minimal number of parking spaces (which you will provide justification);
however, you still need to seriously consider and thoroughly examine other site layouts on
the property, with respect to the retail building layouts. As I mentioned in the meeting,
while I realize that your prospective clients may desire to be located in a manner which
faces the road, you are seeking the permit and have to document your efforts to minimize
impacts to jurisdictional waters of the US to our satisfaction.
There are plenty of cases where applicants have contended that site layout needed to be a
certain way, but when faced with the potential denial of a DA permit due to an inability to
fully demonstrate avoidance and minimization measures, have been able to redesign with
considerably less impacts and were either able to reduce impacts to a number which could be
authorized by nationwide permit or proceeded with standard permit authorization. Remember, I
mentioned several cases of where this has occurred throughout the state.
In this regard, it concerns me greatly that your building configuration remains essentially
the same since your initial submittal in 2008, with minimal efforts seen to redesign the
building configuration. We treat all customers seeking DA permit authorization the same and
like others, you need to thoroughly demonstrate that you have avoided jurisdictional impacts,
minimized to the maximum extent practicable and only once you have satisfactorily
demonstrated that you have met those measures do we proceed to discussing compensatory
mitigation for unavoidable impacts. We can only issue a DA permit if the applicant has
demonstrated that the alternative is the least environmentally damaging alternative that is
reasonably and practicably available (LEDPA); otherwise, we have no other option than to deny
the DA permit request as the request does not meet the 404(b)(1) guidelines.
3. With regard to the thoroughfare, you need to provide the traffic
justification for the four lane divided median. We have worked with the Town of Holly
Springs in the past and with the development from and industrial site and proposed
subdivision, the data was not available to support that proposal. You will have to have the
traffic justification or reduce the roads to what you can justify over the jurisdictional
crossings to what the traffic data can support; otherwise, we would have to lean towards
denial of the project based upon lack of justification.
I hope this provides you more clarity on what is expected not only of you for this project,
but all applicants in the DA permitting arena. Should you have further questions or need
further clarification, we can discuss it at tomorrow's meeting.
Thanks so much,
Jean B. Gibby
Chief, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington District
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
office: 919.554.4884 ext. 24
fax: [phone]
web: http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/wetlands/
<https://webmail2.usace.army.mil/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.saw.usa
ce.army.mil/wetlands/>
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public.
To help us ensure we continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey
located at our website at http://Per2.nwp.usace.army.mil/survey.html
> to complete the survey online.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Hunter rmailto:MHunter(@wardson.coml
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 9:45 AM
To: Manuele, Jean B SAW; Chuck.Wakild(@NCDENR.gov
Cc: Kyle Ward; David George; agoodrich(@abgoodrichcontracting.com
Subject: Actions Items
Jean and Chuck,
Attached is a summation of the requests that were made to us at our meeting.
Please review and let us now if we might have missed anything. We will be working diligently
to prepare/provide this information in the format you are looking for. Please feel free to
call me at 417-1955 if you have any items you want to discuss.
Thank you,
Mike Hunter
Chase Properties, Inc./W&W Partners, Inc.
2
Mcmillan, Ian
From: Wakild, Chuck
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 4:10 PM
To: Wilder, Manly
Cc: Sullins, Coleen; Smith, Robin; Matthews, Matt; Karoly, Cyndi; Mcmillan, Ian
Subject: New Hill Place Project Status
Manly,
This is the project Senator Stevens has asked about. This is a proposed multi-use development
project (residential/commercial/retail). The developers have made application for a 401
Certification from DWQ and a 404 permit from the Corps of Engineers but have not yet been
able to satisfy the need to avoid and minimize the impacts to wetlands and streams. A review
meeting was held today and while substantial progress has been made, staff believe further
avoidance and minimization can be accomplished. The developer intends to submit revised
applications soon.
Please note my new email address: chuck.wakildkncdenr.gov
E-mail is a public record and e-mail messages are subject to public review and may be disclosed to third parties. E- mail is subject to the Public Records Law and
applicable records retention schedule.