NC Home Builders Assoc_20210408

2021 NCHBA OFFICERS
President
MICHAEL ENSCORE
Kernersville, [phone]
[e-mail]
President -Elect
WES CARROLL
Cary, [phone]
[e-mail]
First Vice President
BRANDON BRYANT
Asheville, [phone]
[e-mail]
Vice President, Region I
CRAIG JOHNSON
Wrightsville Beach, [phone]
[e-mail]
Vice President, Region II
FRANK McLAWHORN
Chocowinity, [phone]
[e-mail]
Vice President, Region III
WARREN SMITH
Raleigh, [phone]
[e-mail]
Vice President, Region IV
TOM HALL
Greensboro, [phone]
[e-mail]
Vice President, Region V
DANIEL BUREAU
West End, [phone]
[e-mail]
Vice President, Region VI
JAMIE WIGHTMAN
Concord, [phone]
[e-mail]
Vice President, Region VII
JONATHAN LEE
Clemmons, [phone]
[e-mail]
Vice President, Region VIII
JAMES PRESSLY
Statesville, [phone]
[e-mail]
Vice President, Region IX
CODY BYRD
Lenoir, [phone]
[e-mail]
Vice President, Region X
GUS ADAMS
Asheville, [phone]
[e-mail]
Secretary/Treasurer
KATHY CRAVEN SNODGRASS
Winston-Salem, [phone]
[e-mail]
Immediate Past President & NAHB
Executive Committee State Rep.
MARK MARTIN
Kitty Hawk, [phone]
[e-mail]
Executive Vice President
TIM MINTON
Raleigh, [phone]
[e-mail]
*EUGENE A. GULLEDGE (1964)
C. PHIL ROBINSON, JR. (1965-66)
*CARL W. JOHNSON (1967)
*JOHN CROSLAND, JR. (1968)
*J.M. DAUGHTRIDGE (1969)
*HOMER BARRETT (1970)
"JAMES W. LESTER (1971)
CHARLES C. McLAURIN (1972)
*J. VAUGHN KLUTTS (1973)
*C. L. REAVIS (1974)
*Deceased
NORTH CAROLINA HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION
P.O. BOX 99090 • RALEIGH, N.C. 27624-9090
PHONE [phone] • TOLL FREE 1-800-662-7129 • FAX [phone]
www.nchba.org • www.2lbuildingexpo.com
April 8, 2021
Department of Environmental Quality
217 W Jones St.
Raleigh, NC 27603
RE: NCHBA Comments on the Draft 15A NCAC 02H .1401
To whom it may concern:
Thank you for taking our comments into consideration. As you are aware,
we have nearly 14,000 members across the state that are associated with
the home building industry. Recently, a member of the association
reached out to me to supply additional comments to supplement
previously submitted commentary on the proposed rules. The following
comments reflect those concerns:
Page 1, Line 10
.1300 also includes areas not under jurisdiction of Corps too. Need to state
that areas regulated under .1300 are not regulated under this rule, and
maybe more importantly, vice versa.
Page 1, Line 13
Need clarification that non -classified surface waters are not subject to this
rule.
Page 1, Line 17
Need to clarify situations where manual procedures define a location as a
"wetland" but that does not meet definition of "wetland" at 02B .0202(61)
are not subject to this rule.
Also need to clarify that ephemeral conditions, and locations of
discontinuity, are not subject to this rule.
Page 1, Line 18
Delineation appeals? Needs to be a "final agency action" that can be
appealed through the EMC? to the Corps (DWR needs to work this out with
the Corps since there are different practical definitions of jurisdictional
areas)? Or through APA?
*JOHN T. BELL (1975)
*WILLIAMT. BOYD (1976)
LaRUE HAMBRICK (1977)
*J. RAY SPARROW (1978)
SHERRILL FAW (1979)
MARK E. TIPTON (1980)
M. DURWOOD STEPHENSON (1981)
J. WATTS ROBERSON (1982)
"NELSON CALLAHAN (1983)
"PAUL D. TROLLINGER (1984)
RICK BATCHELOR (1985)
BURL LANCE (1986)
LARRY SUMMER (1987)
HERSCHEL REDDING (1988)
JAMES FORD (1989)
*STEVE NASH (1990)
HARRIS B. GUPTON (1991)
RUSS DAVIS (1992)
CHUCK MILLER (1993)
CHARLES MULLEN (1994)
ROBERT INGRAHAM (1995)
DAVID PRESSLY, JR. (1996)
DONALD W. BETSWORTH (1997)
GEORGE HENSON (1998)
ROBERT YATKO (1999)
DANNY ADAMS (2000)
JONATHAN ELLIOT (2001)
DON GROOM (2002)
GREG ISENHOUR (2003)
RICK JUDSON (2004)
BUDDY HUGHES (2005)
DAVE STORMONT (2006)
PAUL MULLIGAN (2007)
RAY RHODES (2008)
FRANK WIESNER (2009)
LYLE GARDNER (2010)
BILL DALEURE (2011)
ERIK ANDERSON (2012)
J. GARY HILL (2013-14)
SEAN SULLIVAN (2015)
BRIAN PACE (2016)
GARY EMBLER (2017)
ALAN BANKS (2018)
PHIL WARRICK (2019)
MARK MARTIN (2020)

Page 3, Line 25
For impacts made between when the November "prohibition" was issued and the effective date of this rule,
no penalty if deemed permitted or if permit authorization is given. Division shall not withhold an "after -
the -fact" permit authorization merely on the basis of impacts occurring prior to the date of this rule.
Page 3, Line 29
Delete. No fee.
Page 4, Line 5
30 days, or application deemed complete.
Page 4, Line 15
With proper notification by staff to the applicant of not less than three days
Page 5, Line 3
Minimum 90-day process for all applications, can be over 150. Need clarity on the specific criteria for PN and
PH --not all GPs or IPs require this delay --likely an acreage threshold issue 99% of the time, so why not minimize
this ADDITIONAL Public process (might have to do it again for 404/401) and achieve goas through simple
mitigation for example.
Page 6, Line 4
Shall? We don't want this rule to have a separate Public Notice/Public Hearing process. Problem is that a
project could get through 404 process including a public hearing and the limits of jurisdiction --let alone an
application --may not yet be in process on the areas governed by this rule. Two bites at apple for NIMBYs
is what we don't want.
Page 7, Line 7
Permit issued, denied or request for more info within 60 days of receipt of an application.
60-day Restart at zero: Only if the minimum information in .1402(a) of this rule is at issue... If for any other
reason, the clock stops on date of receipt of request by applicant, and restarts cumulative to prior elapsed
time upon submittal of requested information.
Page 7, Line 36
"...or a statement by the applicant that all plans, terms, conditions, etc. of original CoC remain intent"
Needs to include IP, not just CoC for GPs
Page 9, Line 7
Add: "not including wetlands"
Need to define this- For example, each crossing of a stream is considered a separate linear transportation
project under 404.
Page 9, Line 19

Should be .1405 (a)(4)?
Page 10, Line 9
Delete reference to "compliance with ALL specifications... whose specifications? NCDOT? Other? What if
there are multiple accepted design specs for a given BMP? Also, SPCA plans do not require an engineer's
or architect's seal --but both those licensing boards regulate "design" activities as requiring license. Use of
the word "design" may be in conflict with the SPCA and associated rules.
Page 10, Line 17
Revise to release of "all specific areas which drain to" in order to not remove prematurely and create risk to
developer of a QW violation.
Page 10, Line 24
The word "hydrology" too nebulous. Needs to be worded as "the specific hydrologic functions listed in
02B .0231(b)(3)"
Page 10, Line 26
Adversely
Page 10, Line 34
Needs to state that deference is given to applicant/proponent to determine economic viability, otherwise
there needs to be a process in these rules for how the Division is going to determine economic viability of
the business proposition. What if there is no economic consideration at all?
Page 11, Line 2
Not all, since 404 permitting process already requires an evaluation of cumulative and secondary. Clarify
by inserting: federally non jurisdictional
Page 11, Line 24
should be per stream crossing --that's how the Corps handled it when these were in 404.
Page 11, Line 36
If preservation of uses is a goal, why limit preservation?
Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to submit input into this rule process.
Sincerely,
Webb
NCHBA Legislative Lobbyist