20010833 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_20010523

I
"! p THE PRESCOTT COMPANY LLC
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND SITE PLANNERS
16 Chancery Place • Durham North Carolina • 27707
Phone or Fax [phone] • Cellular 919.270.2814 • Email [e-mail]
August 31, 2001
Mr. John Dorney
NCDENR-DWQ
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
RE: Stonehaven Subdivision
COR # S-44-01
DWQ # 01-0833 Wake County
Dear Sir:
Regarding your letter dated August 28, 2001, please find the following supporting information and
revisions, as requested. As the areas of concern were reconsidered, more detailing is provided and
additional or revised measures are discussed where these seem to be pertinent:
1. Road Crossing #1. The stream bank stability shall be protected by means of using a retaining wall on the
north bank. The existing channel is wide and flat with vertical side slopes. The top bank that was indicated
would not support the fill slope shown without some measure of hard improvement. Therefore, a new wall
is shown at this point where fill was previously indicated as sloping into the "Top Bank," as noted in your
letter. To protect the stability of the road crossing and the stream bank against erosion or slump failure
during periods significant rainfall, the wall shall be used to carry the road crossing adjacent to the stream
which turns a right angle at this point. The south bank shall be lined to the top of bank with Class 1 rip-rap
to protect this bank against erosion during storm events. The stone erosion control measures that are
designated are not intended to realign the stream; therefore, the placement of stone has been more detailed
in a revised drawing to accomodate the existing stream bank location and is not to change the areas of
impact previously noted. The location of the proposed culvert is the result of alternative consideration in
coordination with DWQ to provide a more perpendicular crossing over the initially submitted design. The
resulting right angle discharge of water from culvert to existing stream channel was initially avoided by
means of longer pipes used at non-perpendicular angle, but the resulting overall impact to the bufffer is
reduced by the shorter pipe at its current location with the use of a retaining wall. The area required for
downstream velocity dissipation measures is provided on the property that is available for development and
the adjacent wall and slope lining noted above can transition the crossing fill section to the existing stream
stream banks within the area that is available.
2. Road Crossing #2. The stone erosion control measures that are designated were not intended to realign
the stream unless necessary; stone protection has therefore been more detailed in its placement to
accomodate the existing stream bank locations and does not need to change the areas of impact previously
noted. The area of stone is included in the buffer impact areas previously noted and we do not think it
needs to be increased. Therefore, the impact to the stream due to hard lining of rip-rap should be
understood to include the channel lining that is required to provide stability to the channel walls, to the top
of bank, in this case. In the event water should rise above the top of bank, a wide plain is available to
receive the discharge and additional erosion control measures are not warranted. No additional buffer
impact is proposed.
Page 1
i
?y THE PRESCOTT COMPANY EEC
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND SITE PLANNERS
16 Chancery Place • Durham North Carolina • 27707
Phone or Fax [phone] • Cellular 919.270.2814 • Email prescoadftmindspring. coin
3. The road crossing stormwater discharges that were shown as corning from catch basins and then piped to
the discharge point of the main crossing culverts have been moved to different locations. Refer to the
drawing for the newly proposed locations. The new locations for stormwater discharge were chosen locate
discharge points outside or above the riparian buffer.
Please consider this supporting information regarding these crossings. Thank you.
S' cereI
r? n R ff PE
Project Engineer
Enclosure
Page 2
THE PRI-SCOTT COMPANY H-C.
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND SITE PLANNERS
16 Chancery Place • Durham North Carolina • 27707
Phone or Pax 919.419.9370 • Cellular 919.270.2814 • Hmail prescouddemindspring.com
August 31, 2001
Mr. John Donley
NCDENR-DWQ
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
RE: Stonehaven Subdivision
CUR # S-44-01
DWQ # 01-0833 Wake County
Dear Sir:
Regarding your letter dated August 28, 2001, please find the following supporting information and
revisions, as requested. As the areas of concern were reconsidered, more detailing is provided and
additional or revised measures are discussed where these seem to be pertinent:
1. Road Crossing # 1. "file stream bank stability shall be protected by means of using it retaining wall on the
north bank. The existing channel is wide and flat with vertical side slopes. The top bank that was indicated
would not support the fill slope shown without some measure of hard improvement. Therefore, a new wall
is shown at this point where fill was previously indicated as sloping into the "Top Bank," as noted in your
letter. To protect the stability of the road crossing and the stream bank against erosion or slump failure
during periods significant rainfall, the wall shall be used to carry the road crossing adjacent to the stream
which turns a right angle at this point. The south bank shall be lined to the top of bank with Class 1 rip-rap
to protect this bank against erosion during storm events. The stone erosion control measures that are
designated are not intended to realign the stream; thereforc, the placement ofstone has been more detailed
in a revised drawing to accomodate the existing stream bank location and is not to change the areas of
impact previously noted. The location of the proposed culvert is the result of alternative consideration in
coordination with DWQ to provide a more perpendicular crossing over the initially submitted design. The
resulting right angle discharge of water from culvert to existing stream channel was initially avoided by
means of longer pipes used at non-perpendicular angle, but the resulting overall impact to the bufffcr is
reduced by the shorter pipe at its current location with the use of a retaining wall. The area required ror
downstream velocity dissipation measures is provided oil the property that is available for development and
the adjacent wall and slope lining noted above can transition the crossing fill section to the existing stream
stream banks within the area that is available.
2. Road Crossing 92. The stone erosion control measures that are designated were not intended to realign
the stream unless necessary; stone protection has therefore been more detailed in its placement to
accomodate the existing stream bank locations and does not need to change the areas of impact previously
noted. The area of stone is included in the buffer impact areas previously noted and we do not. think it
needs to be increased. Therefore, the impact to the stream due to hard lining of rip-rap should be
understood to include the channel lining that is required to provide stability to the channel walls, to the top
of bank, in this case. In the event water should rise above the top of bank, a wide plain is available to
receive the discharge and additional erosion control measures are not warranted. No additional buffer
impact is proposed.
P r??r I
COMPANY I W,
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND SITE PLANNERS
16 Chancery Place • Durham North Camlina • 27707
Phone or Fax [phone] • Cellular 919.270.2814 • Finail 1)rescottdd0min(lsl)ring.com
3. The road crossing stormwater discharges that were shown as coming from catch basins and then piped to
the discharge point of the main crossing culverts have been moved to different locations. Refer to the
drawing for the newly proposed locations. The new locations for stormwater discharge were chosen locate
discharge points outside or above the riparian buffer.
Please consider this supporting information regarding these crossings. Thank you.
Si 1ccrcly,
m Rt 1T PF
Project I?nginecr
F,nclosurc
Pagc 2

THE 11RFSCOTT COMPANY 1_1-C
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND SITE PLANNERS
16 Chancery Place • Durham North Carolina • 27707
Phnue m Fax [phone] • Ccllulm 919.270.2811 • Fumil hrescottr1d(c1)miudsliring.com
August 31, 2001
Mr..101111 Donley
NCI)I?NR-DWQ
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
RI?: Slonchaven Subdivision
COR 4 5-44-01
I)WQ It 01-0833 Wake County,
Dear Sir:

Regarding your Ictter dated August 28, 2001, please find file following supporting information and
revisions, as requested. As the areas of concern were reconsidered, more detailing is provided and
additional or revised measures are discussed where these seem to he pertinent:
1. Road Crossing # 1. The stream bank stability shall be protected by means of using a retaining wall on the
north bank. The existing channel is wide and flat with vertical side slopes. The top bank that was indicated
would not support the fill slope shown without Some measure of hard improvement. Therefore, a new wall
is shown at this point where 1111 was previously indicated as sloping into the "Top Bank," as noted in your
letter. To protect the stability of the road crossing and the stream bank against erosion or slump failure
during periods significant rainfall, the wall shall be used to carry the road crossing adjacent to the stream
which turns a right angle at this point. The south bank shall he lined to the top ofbank with Class 1 rip-rap
to protect this bank against erosion during storm events. The stone erosion control measures that arc
designated are not intended to realign the stream, therefore, the placement ol'stone has been more detailed
in a revised drawing to accomodale the existing stream hank location and is not to change the areas of'
impact previously noted. The location ofthe proposed culvert is the result ofalternative consideration in
coordination with DWQ to provide a more perpendicular crossing over the initially submitted design. The
resulting right angle discharge of water from culvert to existing stream channel was initially avoided by
means of'longer pipes used at non-perpendicular angle, but the resulting overall impact to the buffler is
reduced by the shorter pipe at its current location with the use of a retaining wall. The area required for
downstream velocity dissipation measures is provided on the property that is available for development and
the adjacent wall and slope lining noted above can transition the crossing 1111 section to the existing stream
stream banks within the area that is available.
2. Road (Tossing #2. The stone erosion control measures that arc designated were not intended to realign
the stream unless necessary; stone protection has therefore been more detailed in its placement to
accomodale the existing stream bank locations and does not need to change the areas of impact previously
noted. The area of'stone is included in the buffer impact areas previously noted and we do not think it
needs to be increased. Therefore, file impact to the stream due to hard lining of rip-rap should be
understood to include the channel lining that is required to provide stability to the channel walls, to the top
ofbank, in this case. In the event water should rise above the lop ol'bank, a wide plain is available to
receive the discharge and additional erosion control measures are not warranted. No additional buflcr
impact is proposed.

At W1,11- d -I-?-1( PKI-SIC0ICOMPANY ( LC
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND SITE PLANNERS
IG Chancery Place • Durham North Carolina • 27707
Phone or Pax 919.419.9370 • Cellular 919.270.2814 • Email prescottdd((-,Dmindspriiig.com
3. The road crossing stormwater discharges that were shown as coming from catch basins and then piped to
the discharge point of the main crossing culverts have been moved to different locations. Refer to the
drawing for the newly proposed locations. The new locations for stormwater discharge were chosen locate
discharge points outside or above the riparian butler.
Please consider this supporting information regarding these crossings. "Thank you.
Si,cercly, .
i ,n lirr PI?
Project I?ngincer
L nclosure
Pauc 2
Re: [Fwd: Stonehaven subdivision]

Subject: Re: [Fwd: Stonehaven subdivision]
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 11:15:03 -0400
From: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
To: Dennis Ramsey <[e-mail]>
CC: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>
just called them and left message requesting comments by 10/12/01. their concerns
seem to be turbidity/sedimentation downstream (their homes are downstream) as well
as increased flow that would destablize the streambank. they are also concerned
with downstream flooding.
cyndi - the file is in the To Regions drawwer.
dennis - craig called to see if i got his email (i said i did) and wanted to know
what we had decided. i (politely) refused to tell him anything other than we were
discussing and did NOT give him a time frame. thankx
Dennis Ramsey wrote:
> John
> I agree that we should give the public an opportunity to comment but I also
> understand the concern by the developer.
> When do you think the public will have their comments to us?
> Do we know what their concerns are with the proposed project?
> Thanks
> Dennis
> John Dorney wrote:
> > there is a provision in the 401 rules for public hearings (15A NCAC
> > 2H.0504) but there is nothing like it in the buffer rules. this project
> > requires a 401 certification. since we are a public agency and the
> > public has expressed their strong interest, i think it would be
> > irresponsible to act until they get their comments in. your thoughts?
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Subject: RE: Stonehaven subdivision
> > Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 16:01:13 -0400
> > From: "Bromby, Craig A." <[e-mail]>
> > To: "'John Dorney"I <[e-mail]>,
> > "Bromby, Craig A."
> > <[e-mail]>
> > CC: Dennis Ramsey <[e-mail]>,
> > "Steven R. Mitchell"
> > <[e-mail]>
> > The time line as I understand it is as follows:
> > May 19, 2001 -- preconstruction notification form ("PCN") for General
> > Certification 3289 (NWP 39)
> > July 10, 2001 -- ltr from John Dorney ("JD") to Stonehenge of Raleigh, LLC
> > ("SOR") notifying the applicant of the information required for DWQ
> > approval, presumably under the Neuse buffer rules and the 2H .0500 rules
> > July 11, 2001 -- ltr from Brian Ruff ("BR"), on behalf of SOR, to JD,
> > addressing the four items listed in the 7/10/01 ltr and providing drwgs.
> > CE-1 and CE-3.

I of 3 10/23/01 10:36 AN
,4007tonehaven subdivision]
V. C
> > July 31, 2001 -- pkg from BR including revised subdivision plan (drwg. CE-1)
> > and Minor Variance Request Form (the revised CE-1 addressed concerns
> > expressed by Bob Zarzecki and Steve Mitchell)
> > August 15, 2001 -- ltr from JD to SOR denying minor variance and requesting
> > additional information
> > August 22, 2001 -- ltr from BR to JD enclosing revised CE-1 (rev. 3),
> > eliminating lot #6 and providing information requested in 8115101 letter
> > August 28, 2001 -- ltr from JD to BR outlining deficiencies in "evidence"
> > supporting application for road crossings
> > August 31, 2001 -- ltr from BR to JD providing additional detail on
> > crossings and revised CE-1 (rev. 4)
> > September 27, 2001 -- e-mail from JD to Craig Bromby indicating that (1)
> > application became "complete" on 914101, (2) completed application was
> > forwarded to RRO, (3) two members of the public "plan" to comment and
> > "probably" will request public hearing. Conclusion is that "issuance would
> > be improper" until members of the public have a "sufficient opportunity to
> > comment."
> > I have the following comments:
> > There is no provision in the statute or the rules for a public hearing, or,
> > for that matter, receipt of public comment, on a Neuse Buffer Certification
> > or a 401 certification application. Indeed, since a general certification
> > is sought, as with general permits, public comment on the certification was
> > appropriate, to the extent such comment is appropriate at all, at the time
> > of issuance of the general certification and not at the time of an
> > application for coverage. It is hardly improper to proceed, notwithstanding
> > the indication of an intent to comment. In fact, it would be improper not
> > to proceed. We have no indication of the nature or substance of the
> > yet-to-be-formulated comments, nor of the identity of the commenters.
> > On the other hand, Stonehaven has promptly replied to every request made by
> > DWQ staff, since May 19, 2001. Yet, the project remains stalled, despite
> > the fact that it has been repeatedly revised to meet DWQ concerns. The
> > procedures set forth in the rules should be interpreted to protect the
> > applicants as well as members of the public. There is no denial of due
> > process for members of the public who may be aggrieved by the agency action,
> > because of the rights that accrue to them under the APA. There is no right
> > to provide comment except where provided by statute, and in this case, no
> > such right has been provided by the General Assembly. Certainly, members of
> > the public may submit to DWQ their concerns and under some circumstances, it
> > may be appropriate for DWQ to consider those concerns in their review of the
> > application. However, it is not appropriate to suspend processing an
> > application while soliciting public comment if such process is provided
> > either by statute or rule.
> > The July 10 letter asked for (1) written justification of nonperpendicular
> > crossings; (2) site plans; (3) maps depicting locations of zones 1 and 2;
> > and (4) an accounting of the areas of buffer and stream impact for each
> > crossing. Response was provided on July 11.
> > The August 15 letter referred to and denied a minor variance application
> > (for Neuse Buffer impact), and recommended combining lots 5 and 6. With
> > regard to 401 certification, the letter requested calculation of the entire
> > footprints of the construction corridors required for the road crossings.
> > Response was provided on August 22.
> > The August 28 letter preliminarily determined that the requisite showing of
c .,
2 of 3 10/23/01 10:36 An
Re: [Fwd: Stonehaven subdivision]
.
> > no practical alternatives was not made. Information was requested regarding
> > plans to diffuse stormwater flow and ensure stability on the stream channel
> > for Road Crossing #1 and regarding additional impact to the stream and
> > buffer attributable to the plan revision for Road Crossing #2. Response was
> > provided on August 31.
> > Ostensibly the last response to DWQ's request was received on September 4.
> > This project has been repeatedly reviewed and the revisions and additional
> > information or justification promptly provided. To restart a 60 day clock
> > as of the September 4 date or to further delay this approval while
> > soliciting public comment would be manifestly unfair, considering the
> > promptness of Stonehaven's responses and the compliance with and
> > accommodation to each DWQ request.
> > Please act on this application as soon as possible. It has been in the
> > queue for months and, considering the very modest scope of the project, it
> > is incomprehensible that there could be any further reason for delay. The
> > project has been repeatedly reviewed and the applicant has complied with
> > each DWQ request. DWQ staff have met with applicant's engineer and
> > expressed satisfaction with the project plan. There is no provision for
> > suspending action pending possible comments by members of the public whose
> > interest in the project is undefined. DWQ's acquiescence to such
> > indications opens them to the possibility of unwittingly (or worse)
> > collaborating in dubious or even coercive schemes by competitors or persons
> > seeking to extract concessions in contract negotiations with the applicant.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Dorney [mail to:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 7:32 PM
> > To: Bromby, Craig A.
> > Cc: Dennis Ramsey; Steven R. Mitchell
> > Subject: Re: Stonehaven subdivision
> > i have talked to brian at length today. the application was (finally)
> > complete
> > on september 4, 2001 (after our letters of July 10, August 15, and August
> > 28). It has been sent to the Raleigh Regional Office for review and
> > comment.
> > On September 21st two citizens visited the office and reviewed the file.
> > they
> > plan to comment on the file and (probably) request a public hearing. i
> > talked
> > to brian ruff at length about what a hearing would entail. Until we give
> > the
> > public sufficient opportunity to comment, I think issuance would be
> > improper.
> > please call me if you have any questions.
> > "Bromby, Craig A." wrote:
> > > John -- I have been asked by the developers of this project to investigate
> > > the hold up. I need to learn some more about it, but I am told that an
> > > application was originally filed in May and they have gone through several
> > > iterations with your staff, who were happy with where they wound up.
> > There
> > > was a Neuse Buffer issue and a 401 issue involved with two 60' stream
> > > crossings on separate streams in Wake County. It seemed very unremarkable
> > > to me. Any way to expedite? Any particular concerns you have with this
> > > project, or is it a matter of being caught up in the pile? Let me know
> > > asap. Thanks. The engineer is Brian Ruff and the developers are Bennett
> > > Keasler and Bill Trent.

3 of 3 10/23/01 10:36 An
Re: [Fwd: Stonehaven subdivision[
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Stonehaven subdivision]
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 200107:28:43 -0400
From: Dennis Ramsey <[e-mail]>
To: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
CC: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>

1..
.. , f r
John
I agree that we should give the public an opportunity to comment but I also(
understand the concern by the developer.
When do you think the public will have their comments to us?
Do we know what their concerns are with the proposed project?
Thanks ?.?
Dennis
John Dorney wrote:
> there is a provision in the 401 rules for public hearings (15A NCAC
> 2H.0504) but there is nothing like it in the buffer rules. this project
> requires a 401 certification. since we are a public agency and the
> public has expressed their strong interest, i think it would be
> irresponsible to act until they get their comments in. your thoughts?
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Subject: RE: Stonehaven subdivision
> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 16:01:13 -0400
> From: "Bromby, Craig A." <[e-mail]>
> To: "'John Dorney"I <[e-mail]>,
> "Bromby, Craig A."
> <[e-mail]>
> CC: Dennis Ramsey <dennis. ramsey@ncmail. net>,
> "Steven R. Mitchell"
> <[e-mail]>
> The time line as I understand it is as follows:
> May 19, 2001 -- preconstruction notification form ("PCN") for General
> Certification 3289 (NWP 39)
> July 10, 2001 -- ltr from John Dorney ("JD") to Stonehenge of Raleigh, LLC
> ("SOR") notifying the applicant of the information required for DWQ
> approval, presumably under the Neuse buffer rules and the 2H .0500 rules
> July 11, 2001 -- ltr from Brian Ruff ("BR"), on behalf of SOR, to JD,
> addressing the four items listed in the 7/10/01 ltr and providing drwgs.
> CE-1 and CE-3.
> July 31, 2001 -- pkg from BR including revised subdivision plan (drwg. CE-1)
> and Minor Variance Request Form (the revised CE-1 addressed concerns
> expressed by Bob Zarzecki and Steve Mitchell)
> August 15, 2001 -- ltr from JD to SOR denying minor variance and requesting
> additional information
> August 22, 2001 -- ltr from BR to JD enclosing revised CE-1 (rev. 3),
> eliminating lot #6 and providing information requested in 8115101 letter
> August 28, 2001 -- 1tr from JD to BR outlining deficiencies in "evidence"
I of 3 10/2/01 10:09 AN
Re: [Fwd: Stonehaven subdivision]
> supporting application for road crossings
> August 31, 2001 -- ltr from BR to JD providing additional detail on
> crossings and revised CE-1 (rev. 4)
> September 27, 2001 -- e-mail from JD to Craig Bromby indicating that (1)
> application became "complete" on 914101, (2) completed application was
> forwarded to RRO, (3) two members of the public "plan" to comment and
> "probably" will request public hearing. Conclusion is that "issuance would
> be improper" until members of the public have a "sufficient opportunity to
> comment . "
> I have the following comments:
> There is no provision in the statute or the rules for a public hearing, or,
> for that matter, receipt of public comment, on a Neuse Buffer Certification
> or a 401 certification application. Indeed, since a general certification
> is sought, as with general permits, public comment on the certification was
> appropriate, to the extent such comment is appropriate at all, at the time
> of issuance of the general certification and not at the time of an
> application for coverage. it is hardly improper to proceed, notwithstanding
> the indication of an intent to comment. In fact, it would be improper not
> to proceed. We have no indication of the nature or substance of the
> yet-to-be-formulated comments, nor of the identity of the commenters.
> On the other hand, Stonehaven has promptly replied to every request made by
> DWQ staff, since May 19, 2001. Yet, the project remains stalled, despite
> the fact that it has been repeatedly revised to meet DWQ concerns. The
> procedures set forth in the rules should be interpreted to protect the
> applicants as well as members of the public. There is no denial of due
> process for members of the public who may be aggrieved by the agency action,
> because of the rights that accrue to them under the APA. There is no right
> to provide comment except where provided by statute, and in this case, no
> such right has been provided by the General Assembly. Certainly, members of
> the public may submit to DWQ their concerns and under some circumstances, it
> may be appropriate for DWQ to consider those concerns in their review of the
> application. However, it is not appropriate to suspend processing an
> application while soliciting public comment if such process is provided
> either by statute or rule.
> The July 10 letter asked for (1) written justification of nonperpendicular
> crossings; (2) site plans; (3) maps depicting locations of zones 1 and 2;
> and (4) an accounting of the areas of buffer and stream impact for each
> crossing. Response was provided on July 11.
> The August 15 letter referred to and denied a minor variance application
> (for Neuse Buffer impact), and recommended combining lots 5 and 6. With
> regard to 401 certification, the letter requested calculation of the entire
> footprints of the construction corridors required for the road crossings.
> Response was provided on August 22.
> The August 28 letter preliminarily determined that the requisite showing of
> no practical alternatives was not made. Information was requested regarding
> plans to diffuse stormwater flow and ensure stability on the stream channel
> for Road Crossing #1 and regarding additional impact to the stream and
> buffer attributable to the plan revision for Road Crossing #2. Response was
> provided on August 31.
> Ostensibly the last response to DWQ's request was received on September 4.
> This project has been repeatedly reviewed and the revisions and additional
> information or justification promptly provided. To restart a 60 day clock
> as of the September 4 date or to further delay this approval while
> soliciting public comment would be manifestly unfair, considering the
2 of 3 10/2/01 10:09 AN
Re: [Fwd: Stonehaven subdivisions
> promptness of Stonehaven's responses and the compliance with and
> accommodation to each DWQ request.
> Please act on this application as soon as possible. It has been in the
> queue for months and, considering the very modest scope of the project, it
> is incomprehensible that there could be any further reason for delay. The
> project has been repeatedly reviewed and the applicant has complied with
> each DWQ request. DWQ staff have met with applicant's engineer and
> expressed satisfaction with the project plan. There is no provision for
> suspending action pending possible comments by members of the public whose
> interest in the project is undefined. DWQ's acquiescence to such
> indications opens them to the possibility of unwittingly (or worse)
> collaborating in dubious or even coercive schemes by competitors or persons
> seeking to extract concessions in contract negotiations with the applicant.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Dorney [mail to:[e-mail]: ]
> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 7:32 PM
> To: Bromby, Craig A.
> Cc: Dennis Ramsey; Steven R. Mitchell
> Subject: Re: Stonehaven subdivision
> i have talked to Brian at length today. the application was (finally)
> complete
> on September 4, 2001 (after our letters of July 10, August 15, and August
> 28). it has been sent to the Raleigh Regional Office for review and
> comment.
> On September 21st two citizens visited the office and reviewed the file.
> they
> plan to comment on the file and (probably) request a public hearing. i
> talked
> to brian ruff at length about what a hearing would entail. Until we give
> the
> public sufficient opportunity to comment, I think issuance would be
> improper.
> please call me if you have any questions.
> "Bromby, Craig A." wrote:
> > John -- I have been asked by the developers of this project to investigate
> > the hold up. I need to learn some more about it, but I am told that an
> > application was originally filed in May and they have gone through several
> > iterations with your staff, who were happy with where they wound up.
> There
> > was a Neuse Buffer issue and a 401 issue involved with two 60' stream
> > crossings on separate streams in Wake County. it seemed very unremarkable
> > to me. Any way to expedite? Any particular concerns you have with this
> > project, or is it a matter of being caught up in the pile? Let me know
> > asap. Thanks. The engineer is Brian Ruff and the developers are Bennett
> > Keasler and Bill Trent.
3 of 3 10/2/0110:09 AN
Triage Check List

To: hRRO Steve Mitchell Project Name
?FRO Ken Averitte DWQ Project Number
?WaRO Deborah Sawyer County ?!L <?
?WiRO Joanne Steenhuis
?WSRO Jennifer Frye
?ARO Mike Parker
?MRO Pete Colwell
From: I^f ?? `? Telephone [phone]-
The file attached is being forwarded to you for your evaluation. Please call if you need
assistance.
? Stream length impacted
? Stream determination
? Wetland determination and distance to blue-line surface waters on USGW topo maps
? Minimization/avoidance issues
;xuffer Rules (Neuse, Tar-Pamilco, Catawba, Randleman)
? Pond fill
? Mitigation Ratios
? Ditching
? Are the stream and or wetland mitigation sites available and viable?
? Check drawings for accuracy
? Is the application consistent with pre-application meetings?
? Cumulative impact concerns
n.n O.,izcLt ?t)cl r,n? 1
Comments V_ I
Draft - for Internal Review and Comments
Date:
To: R Steve Mitchell
?F O
?WaRO Ken Averitte
Deborah Sawyer
?WiRO Joanne Steenhuis
?WSRO Jennifer Frye
?ARO Mike Parker
Triage Check List
IL Er
Project Name ?'?c??l???--
DWQ Project Number
County- LA ?Ve-_
Comments due in Central Office by:
?MRO Pete Colwell
From: &?, -Telephone (919) 733- qqZ.Cc
The file attached is being forwarded to you for your evaluation. Please call if you need
assistance.
? Stream length impacted
? Stream determination
? Wetland determination and distance to blue-line surface waters on USGW topo maps
? Minimization/avoidance issues
? NW 14
Reuse Buffer Rules
? Pond fill (is the pond drained or holding water)
Mitigation fk*tiee
? Ditching
? Are the stream and or wetland mitigation sites available and acceptable?
? Check drawings for accuracy
? Is the application consistent with pre-application meetings?
? Cumulative impact concerns
Comments O l LO_?5? ,G c r-b0 " ?c?c.?ol L
)OeS N oOlc I1 k? Q
6

wl??t I ?fl?,? w f .
IVA, OC-CI'S
?32vr? LuIZ
?3p5 ?r u i cis (???
alei ?- iJ G oZ? (Q I -3
Luc?j ?- DR,-) ? l?
3zoa ar&
L Z? to l
C\Vc?
Lot Ce . ?-F ?-1??
Stonchaven subdivision
Subject: Stonehaven subdivision
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 18:52:11 -0400
From: "Bromby, Craig A." <[e-mail]>
To: "'[e-mail]"' <[e-mail]>
John -- I have been asked by the developers of this project to investigate
the hold up. I need to learn some more about it, but I am told that an
application was originally filed in May and they have gone through several
iterations with your staff, who were happy with where they wound up. There
was a Neuse Buffer issue and a 401 issue involved with two 60' stream
crossings on separate streams in Wake County. It seemed very unremarkable
to me. Any way to expedite? Any particular concerns you have with this
project, or is it a matter of being caught up in the pile? Let me know
asap. Thanks. The engineer is Brian Ruff and the developers are Bennett
Keasler and Bill Trent.
81?
,K",- ) . -)

V(

fi!
1 01 '1 9/27/01 7:32 Ph
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Dorney Regional Contact: Steve Mitchell
Non-Discharge Branch WO Supervisor: Ken Schuster
Date:
SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Facility Name Stonehaven Subdivision County Wake
Project Number 01 0833 County2
Recvd From APP Region Raleigh
Received Date 5/29/01 Recvd By Region 6/14/2001
Project Type road crossing
Certificates Stream Stream Impacts (ft.)
Permit Wetland Wetland Wetland Stream Class Acres Feet
Type Type Impact Score Index Prim. Supp. Basin Req. Req.
Stream PV O N ? 27-33-12 I C NSW 30,402. ? 100.00 F__ ?-
w
yJ 7:
Mitigation wetland
MitigationType Type Acres Feet

Is Wetland Rating Sheet Attached? O Y ON Did you request more Info? O Y ON
Have Project Changes/Conditions Been Discussed With Applicant? O Y O N
Is Mitigation required? O Y O N Recommendation: O Issue O Issue/Cond Deny,,"
Provided by Region: Latitude (ddmmss) Longitude (ddmmss) C ?14W
Comments:
Could he issued conditional on realionment of road crossing. NO where near minimized.
Cul de sac fill in at least zone 2. Buffer not shown as crossing the road. Stops at end of impact as if
it is not present on the side of the road.
cc: Regional Office
Central Office Page Number 1

Michael F. Easley - -
Governor
William G. Ross,Jr.Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Kerr T. Stevens
Division of Water Quality
Division of Water Quality
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
. Wetlands/401 Unit
O?0 WAT ?
r
o -c
NCDENR
Location: 2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250 Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Mailing Address: 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Contact Information: General 919-733-1786 Fax: [phone]
Fax To: Fax Number:
LI iG q 3+o
company: Date: _ 513o1o i
From: 1?ob 2arzec y-, Phone: _ qt4 -+ 3-3 9 -T-L
No. Of Pages including cover sheet
3
Notes or special instructions:
Division of Water Quality 2321 Crabtree Blvd, Ste 250 Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Wetlands/401 Unit: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Page 2of2
assume that you no longer want to pursue this project and we will consider the project as withdrawn. I can be reached at
919-733-9646 if you have any questions.
incerely,
VtDom'4,
1 Wetlands Unit, t or
Cc:
Steve Mitchell, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office'
Todd Tugwell, USACE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
File copy
Central Files
DWQ 010833
O?O? W A T f?RpG
r
O `C
Michael F. Easley
Govemor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
August 28, 2001
DWQ Project # 01-0833
Wake County
Page 1 of 2
CERTIFIED MAIL-RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
The Prescott Co., LLC
attn: Mr. Brian Ruff
16 Chancery Place
Durham, NC 27707
Re: Stonehaven Subdivision, 8200 Knebworth Drive, Raleigh, Wake County, NC
Hare Snipe Creek [03-04-02; 27-33-12; B & C NSW]
Dear Sir,
On August 23, 2001, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) received your request for a No Practical Alternatives and
revisions to your 5/19/011're-Construction Notification Application Form to impact 277 feet of stream channel and 16,801
ftz associated protected riparian buffers. Insufficient evidence is present in our files to conclude that your project must be
built as planned in waters and/or protected riparian buffers in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0506 and 2B .0233.
Therefore, unless modifications of the proposal are made as described below, we will have to move toward denial of your
401 Certification and Neuse River Buffer Authorization Certificate as required by 15A NCAC 2H.0507(e) and 15A NCAC
2B .0233(8) and will place this project on hold as incomplete until we receive this additional information. We are, . .
requesting (by copy of this letter) that the US Army Corps of Engineers place your project on administrative hold.' Please
provide us with information supporting your position that states your project must be constructed as planned and that you
have no practicable alternative to placing fill in these waters or protected riparian buffers. Specifically;
1. Road Crossing #1 on the 8/21/01 subdivision plan indicates the culvert and stone outlet protection directing stream flow
at a right angle against the southern stream bank. In addition, the fill slope extends into the "Fop Bank" along the
northern stream bank. Please provide information on how you intend to protect the stability of the stream and stream
bank south of this crossing. Specifically, will any additional stone or retaining walls be required for the cross' _s „r,., .
2. Road Crossing #2 on the 8/21/01 subdivision plan indicates the culvert and stone outlet protection over a slight meander
within the stream channel. It appears from the plans that some reconfiguring of the stream channel and its associated
riparian buffer will be required for this installation of this crossing and stone outlet protection. Please provide
_ information of the amount, if any, of additional impact to the stream and associated buffers that will be required.
3. Road Crossing #1 indicates stormwater directly discharging through the buffers and to the stream This is not allowed
under the riparian buffer protection rules [(15A NCAC 2B .0233)(5)]. Please provide information as to how you intend
to provide diffuse flow per 15A NCAC 2B .0233(5) of all new stormwater associated with both road crossings prior to
entering the protected buffers.
Any documentation such as details of pre- and post-construction conditions of the road crossings, streams and buffers
and a narrative that you can supply to address alternative designs for your project may be helpful in our review of your 401
Certification and Buffer Authorization Certificate.
Please respond in writing within three weeks of the date of this letter by sending a copy of this information to me and
to Mr. Steve Mitchell, Raleigh Regional Office at [phone]. If we do not hear from you in three weeks, we will
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/
Page -2 of
assume that you no longer want to pursue this project and we will consider the project as withdrawn. I can be reached at
919-733-9646 if you have any questions.
incerely,
J n Dorney,
4 1 Wetlands Unit, tervor
Cc: Steve Mitchell, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office'
Todd Tugwell, USACE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
File copy
Central Files
DWQ 010833
? '! P THE PKESCOTT COMPANY EEC
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND SITE PLANNERS
16 Chancery Place • Durham North Carolina • 27707
Phone or Fax [phone] • Cellular 919.270.2814 • Email [e-mail]
August 21, 2001
Mr. John Dorney
NCDENR-DWQ
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604

RE: Stonehaven Subdivision
COR # S-44-01
DWQ # 01-0833 Wake County
Dear Sir:
Regarding your letter dated August 15, 2001, please find the following responses and the attached seven copies of the
revised drawing CE-1:
1. The plan for the subdivision has been revised to eliminate Lot 46, as requested.
2. The attached drawing CF,-1 for the road crossings associated with the project have included areas of impact to the
protected buffers, including length of stream and area impacts for zones I and 2 of the buffer. This includes the length
of the streams as measured along the centerlines of the streams.
Please issue your approval of the project with the modifications requested. Thank you.
S cerely
.ff
anR PE
Br
Project Engineer
Enclosure
??!,d THE f'RE=SCC)T-I- C(?MI'ANY ELC:
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND SITE PLANNERS
16 Chancery Place • Durham North Carolina • 27707
Phonc or Fax [phone] • Cellular 919.270.2814 • Ismail prescolW(I dmindspring.con)
August 21, 2001
Mr. John Dorney
NCDENR-DWQ
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27601
RE: Stonehavcn Subdivision
COR 11 S-44-01
DWQ 11 01-0833 Wake County
Dear Sir:
Regarding your letter dated August 15, 2001, please find the following responses and the attached seven copies of the
revised drawing CFA:
1 . "fhe plan for the Subdivision has been revised to eliminate Lot 116, as requested.
2. The attached drawing CI-I for the road crossings associated with the project have included areas of impact to the
protected buffel'S, including length of stream and area impacts for zones I and 2 of the buffer. This includes the length
of the streams as measured along the centerf ines of the streams.
please issue your approval of the project with the modifications requested. Thank you
S *icerely
BProject Fngineer
I?nclosure
t! THE I KI-W-1 -F-I COMPANY I I
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND SITE PLANNERS
16 Chancery Place • Durham Ninth Carolina • 27707
Phone or lax 919.419.9370 • Cellular 919.270.2814 • limail prescoudd0( mindspring.com
August 21, 2001
Mr. John Dorney
NCDFNR-DWQ
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
RF.: Stonchaven Subdivision
COR it 5-44-01
DWQ It 01-0833 Wake County
Dear Sir:
Regarding your letter dated August 15, 2001, please find the following responses and the attached seven copies of the
revised drawing CF- I:
1. The plan for the subdivision has been revised to eliminate I,ot 116, as requested.
2. The attached drawing CF- I for the road crossings associated with the project have included areas of impact to the
protected buffers, including length ofstreatn and area impacts for zones I and 2 of the buffer. This includes the length
of the streams as measured along the centerlines of the streams.
Please issue your approval of the project with the modifications requested. 'T'hank you
S ?cercly
l3r an R? ff Pt?
Project Lngineer
I",nclostu-c
ALL,
t, MER7 6 THE COMPANY I I C
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND SITE PLANNERS
16 Chancery Place • Durham North Carolina • 27707
Phone or Fax [phone] • Cellular 919.270.2814 • I?meil hrescoudrl(&tnindsprinF.com
August 21, 2001
Mr. John Dorney
NCDI;NR-DWQ
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
RF,: Stonchaven Subdivision
COR 11 5-44-01
DWQ 1101-0833 Wake ('ounty
Dcar Sir:
Regarding your letter dated August 15, 2001, please find the following responses and the attached seven copies of the
revised drawing CF,- 1:
1. The plan for the subdivision has been revised to eliminate Lot N6, as requested.
2. The attached drawing CF- I for the road crossings associated with the project have included areas of impact to the
protected buffers, including length of stream and area impacts for zones I and 2 of the buffer. This includes the length
of the streams as measured along the centerlines of the streams.
Please issue your approval of the project with the modifications requested. Thank you
S W-
I- BProject Ft
igineer
Fnclosure
d THE PRESC.01-t COMPANY I 1 C
t
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND SITE PLANNERS
16 Chancery Place • Durham North Carolina • 27707
Phone or Pax 919.419.9370 • Cellular 919.270.2814 • Finail prescondd0( mindspring.com
August 21, 2001
Mr. John Donley
NCDENR-DWQ
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
RISlonehaven Subdivision
CUR It 5-44-01
DWQ N 01-0833 Wake County
Dear Sir:
Regarding your letter dated August 15, 2001, please find the Hollowing responses and the attached seven copies of the
revised drawing CF-l:
1. The plan tier the subdivision has been revised to eliminate Lot 116, as requested.
2. The attached drawing CF.- I fi>r the road crossings associated with the project have included areas of impact to the
protected buffers, including length of stream and area impacts for zones I and 2 of the buffer. This includes the length
of the streams as measured along the centerlines of the streams.
Please issue your approval otthe project with the modifications requested. ']'hank you
S W&r BPr
Enclosure
O?O? wAT ?RpG
C
> y
o ?
r
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
August 15, 2001
DWQ Project # 01-0833
Wake County
Page 1 of 2
CERTIFIED MAIL-RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Stonehaven of Raleigh, LLC
c/o: Mr. Bennet Keasler
7200 Stonehenge Drive #306
Raleigh, NC 27613
Cc: The Prescott Co., LLC
attn: Mr. Brian Ruff
16 Chancery Place
Durham, NC 27707
Re: Neuse River Riparian Buffer - Minor Variance Request
Stonehaven Subdivision, 8200 Knebworth Drive, Raleigh, Wake County, NC
Hare Snipe Creek [03-04-02; 27-33-12; B & C NSW]
Dear Sirs,
Your application for a Minor Variance from the Neuse River Riparian Area Protection Rules (15A NCAC 2R
.0233) was received by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) on August 1, 2001. The activity for which the Minor ;
Variance is sought is to construct a residential dwelling within each of two lots subdivided after the effective date of the
buffer rules in a manner that would require impacts to Zone 2 of the protective buffers. The two lots are part of a revised
subdivision plan dated July 25, 2001. A Minor Variance Approval is a determination by the DWQ that the activity for
which the approval is sought meets all of the requirements per 15A NCAC 2B .0233(9)(a).
After a thorough review of your proposed activity, DWQ staff have determined that you have not demonstrated
that your proposed activity meets all of the requirements per 15A NCAC 2B .0233(9)(a). Specifically, the DWQ staff
believe that you could combine the two lots to form a single lot. This would eliminate the need for impacting Zone 2 of
the protected buffers. Therefore I am hereby informing you that this project does not meet the requirements per 15A
NCAC 2B .0233(9)(a). Therefore, in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B .0233(9), the Minor Variance Approval for this
project is hereby not approved.
Also, please note that the DWQ will continue to keep your May 19, 2001 Pre-Construction Notification
Application Form requesting the use of DWQ General Certification 3289 (Nationwide Permit 39) on hold for an
additional three weeks. If you choose to pursue this project further, the DWQ recommends that you revise your plans to
limit impacts to the protected riparian buffers to those required for road and utility crossings. Please note that the design
plans for the road crossings associated with the project do not indicate the area of impact to the protected buffers. When
calculating this area of impact you should account for the entire footprint (in square feet) of the construction corridor
required for the road crossing including but not limited to the fill slopes. Also, please note that when calculating the linear
feet of both stream and buffer impact you should measure the actual, existing stream length along the centerline of the
stream (not the length of the proposed culvert and riprap). If we do not here from you in writing within three (3) weeks of
the receipt of this letter, we will assume that you no longer want to pursue this project and will consider it withdrawn.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/
Page 2 of 2
If this decision is unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within
sixty (60) days following receipt of this denial. This request must be in written petition conforming torhaptel 150B of
the North Carolina General Statures and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699-6714. Unless such demands are made, this denial shall be final and binding. Finally, at your request
the DWQ will present your proposed plans to the Water Quality Committee of the N.C. Environmental Management
Commission for their determination of whether the project meets the conditions set forth in 15A NCAC 213 .0233(9)(a)
and is eligible for a variance.
If you have any questions concerning this denial, please contact Mr. John Dorney in the Water Quality Non-
Discharge Branch of the DWQ at 919-733-9646.
Cc: Steve Mitchell, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
Todd Tugwell, USACE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
File copy
Central Files
DWQ 010833
Sincerely,
Q?OF W AT
r
O 'C
Division of Water Quality
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
Wetlands/401 Unit
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross,Jr.Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Kerr T. Stevens
Division of Water Quality
Location: 2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250 Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Mailing Address: 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Contact Information: General 919-733-1786 Fax: [phone]
Fax To:
(C
Fax Number: (41,c - 9 3-70
Company:7i;- C Date:
From: Phone:
No. Of Pages including cover sheet: 3
Notes or special instructions:
NCDENR
Division of Water Quality 2321 Crabtree Blvd, Ste 250 Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Wetlands/401 Unit: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Page 2 of 2

if this dreision is unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within
sixty (60) days following receipt of this denial. This request must be in written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of
the North Carolina General Statures and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699-6714. Unless such demands are made, this denial shall be final and binding. Finally, at your request
the DWQ will present your proposed plans to the Water Quality Committee of the N.C. Environmental Management
Commission for their determination of whether the project meets the conditions set forth in 15A NCAC 2B .0233(9)(a)
and is eligible for a variance.
If you have any questions concerning this denial, please contact Mr. John Dorney in the Water Quality Non-
Discharge Branch of the DWQ at 919-733-9646.
Cc: Steve Mitchell, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
Todd Tugwell, USACE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
File copy
Central Files
DWQ 010833
Sincerely,
Stonehaven
Subject: Stonehaven
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 13:31:52 -0400
From: Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>
Organization: Division of Water Quality; 401 Certification Unit
To: Steve Mitchell <[e-mail]>, John Dorney <[e-mail]>
Steve,
I think they need to combined the two lots located between the two
creeks into one lot and keep the house outside of the buffer. They did
not depict driveways or yards. I think the impacts are going to be too
great and I don't see the hardship for needing a minor variance. Also,
they need to shift the road slightly near the culdesac to move the
parallel impacts out of Zone 2. I'm putting their plans in John's box
to get his opinion. Bennett has called me three times in the last two
days. I'm going to call him back and let him know that we are reviewing
his project.
- Bob
Bob Zarzecki
NC DENR/DWQ 401 Wetlands Certification Unit
919-733-9726

I AVO ?

U?zf Y,
IPV-7? (
r
1

w?
Al
l
pill- I
1 of 1 8/3/01 1:32 Ph

Iota Z'
i THE PRESCOTT COMPANY LLC AUG
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND SITE PLANNERS
16 Chancery Place • Durham, North Carolina • 27707
Phone or Fax [phone] • Cellular 919.270.2814 • Email [e-mail]
TRANSMITTAL
DATE: July 31, 2001
TO: Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, North Car lina 27604
FROM: Brian P. R
Project Englnee
RE: Stonehaven Subdivision
COR # S-44-01
DWQ # 01-0833
ATTACHMENTS:
COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION
7 07-30-01 Minor Variance Request Form
7 07-25-01 CE-1 Subdivision Plan
7 07-11-01 The Prescott Company Response Letter
7 07-10-01 DWQ Letter
REMARKS:
s T ..G?'.?j... ........ L .................G?...... `f .? ?. ....... .
.........................................................................................................................................................
7-'?-v ....... 0."1"
....................................................................
pia : D.
OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Received Request #
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Variance Request Form - for Minor Variances
Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rules
NOTE This form may be photocopied for use as an original.
Please identify which Riparian Area Protection Rule applies.
a Neuse River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy
Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rule (15A NCAC.0233)
a Tar-Pamlico River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management
Strategy Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rule (15A
NCAC.0259)
Part 1: General Information
(Please include attachments if the room provided is insufficient)
1. Applicant's name (the corporation, individual, etc. who owns the property):
eTc7l-JEE? N,,•/5-? N CF 9,6, U-El ccH L C-
2. Print Owner/Signing Official (person legally r
Name: ?JE ?I Q. 5I- V- l??
Title: f`-t M t;?;7eq2l
Street address: 0 ?QK
City, State, Zip: P2N,::% I... E? I r 4
Telephone: (°! 1411 ) x'70 - 2CP'
for the property and its compliance)
G7 CO
Fax:
3.
Contact person who can answer questions about the proposed project:
Name: I2 I a +.I J IF
Telephone: k!! 't) :zc
Fax: L_)
Email: t,- re-C &4 0, m i v e- v-
GD
4. Project Name (Subdivision, facility, or establishment name - consistent with project name on
plans, specifications, letters, operation and maintenance agreements, etc.):
5. Project Location:
Street address:
City, State, Zip:
County:
Latitude/longitude:

!'I16- kIE?
6. Directions to site from nearest major intersection (Also, attach an 8 %: x 11 copy of the USGS
topographic map indicating the location of the site):
7
8. Which of the following permits/approvals will be required or have been received already for
this project?
Required: Received

X
Date received:
Permit Type:
CAMA Major
CAMA Minor
401 Certification/404 Permit
On-site Wastewater Permit
NPDES Permit (including stormwater)
Non-discharge Permit
Water Supply Watershed Variance
Others (specify)
Part 2: Proposed Activity
(Please include attachments if the room provided is insufficient.)
1. Description of proposed activity [Also, please attach a map of sufficient detail (such as a plat
map or site plan) to accurately delineate the boundaries of the land to be utilized in carrying
out the activity, the location and dimension of any disturbance in the riparian buffers
associated with the activity, and the extent of riparian buffers on the land]:
i 1Gt,, LF-? J P_t rsc t G?10 Cr'IT;AC_ GLfk'> 12DAIQHA-? "/A -Iir?
-T?!e L..I0IT?> of !? IC GIT?( OF FA LE IAN 0'U- CS-
_T?4 Ir (.A7_c 'f -O ? -I': t !c r= ?,rz ?t--1
2. State reasons why this plan for the proposed activity cannot be practically accomplished,
reduced or reconfigured to better minimize or eliminate disturbance to the riparian buffers:
r.
v I OVAL
- fJ44_0 `;1 U r? el?
Gi 10_v I. ?QT J r4 FL_'r"!
4. Please provide an explanation of the
LJ__
wing:
rn/t bc_o 1`0 2
Z5 Tn
LG'T?0 fZV?D?°
Gam- I .
Vnrinnro Romjncf Fnf nnno 9
Stream to be impacted by the proposed activity:
Stream name (for unnamed streams label as "UT" to the nearest named stream):
Stream classification [as identified within the Schedule of Classifications 15A NCAC 2B.0315
(Neuse) or .0316 (Tar-Pamlico)):
Description of any best management practices to be used to control impacts associated with
the proposed activity (i.e., control of runoff from impervious surfaces to provide diffuse flow,
re-planting vegetation or enhancement of existing vegetation, etc.):
GaQT12vL. ©F' C?JI'GE t= 00 If?FQZQ '7tous
(1) The practical difficulties or, hardships that would result from the strict application of this
Rule.
(2) How these difficulties or hardships result from conditions that are unique to the property
involved. r
LUF- n.1=15 ?3 S,o

bO Ll C? 76-7,& U-1 r (7) 1°? ??'t p a o • tom, r] 0 n ,I- A ? Zp0r o ov ? ?
15
Part 3: Deed Restrictions-rte, io4, -r
By your signature in Part 5 of this application, you certify that all structural stormwater best
management practices required by this variance shall be located in recorded stormwater
easements, that the easements will run with the land, that the easements cannot be changed or
deleted without concurrence from the State, and that the easements will be recorded prior to the
sale of any lot.
Part 4: Agent Authorization
If you wish to designate submittal authority to another individual or firm so that they may provide
information on your behalf, please complete this section:
Designated agent (in
Mailing address:
City, State, Zip:
Telephone:
Fax:
Email:
Part 5: Applicant's Certification
t, I -T E-A ?J-- (print or type name of person
listed in Part I, Item ), certify that the information included on this permit application form is
correct, that the project will be constructed in conformance with the approved plans and that the
deed restrictions in accordance with Part 5 of this form will be recorded with all required permit
conditions.
Signature:
Date:
Title:
Variance Request Form, page 3

(3) If economic hardship is the major consideration, then include a specific explanation of the
economic hardships and the proportion of the hardship to the entire value of the project.
f T ,
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
lrtichacl F Easley
Govemor
William G. Ross, Jr. Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Kerr T. Stevens
Division of Water Quality
July 10, 2001
DWQ N 01-0833
Wake County
Stonehaven of Raleigh, LLC
7200 Stonhhenge Drive
Suite 306
Raleigh, NC 27613
Dear Sirs
On May 29, 2001, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) was notified by receipt of your applications regarding your
plans to impact 100 feet of two streams for the purpose of constructing road crossings for the Stonehaven subdivision at
Ray Road and Howard Road in Raleigh in Wake County. Approval from DWQ is required to impact these streams.
Please provide seven copies of the following information and refer to the DWQ number listed above in your reply.
1. Provide a written justification for the non-perpendicular road crossing.
2. Provide a site plan which depicts the lots so we can determine if they are buildable without impacting the
protected stream buffers.
3. Provide maps which depict Zone 1 and Zone 2 of the protected stream buffers so we can determine if this
impact is allowable.
4. Provide an accounting of the area of buffer impact and stream impact for each road crossing.
Also please be aware that a new Preconstruction Notification Form (PCN) should be used for all future applications for
wetland, stream and buffer impacts. This PCN form is available on our web site at h2o.enr.st2te.nc.us/ncwetlands.
Please call me at 733-9646 if you have any questions or would require copies of our rules or procedural materials.
This project will remain on hold as incomplete in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0505(c). The processing time for this
application will begin when this information is received. If we do not hear from you within three (3) weeks of the receipt of
this letter, we will assume that you no longer want to pursue this project and will consider it withdrawn.
s,
A ?,
Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
Raleigh Field Office Corps of Engineers
File copy
Central files
Brian Ruff, The Prescott Co., 16 Chancery Place, Durham, NC 27707
GT =.z
NCDE
ustorner Service
800 623-7745
Divisicn of Water Quality 1650 taa!l Ser ice Center Raleieh, NC 27699-1650 (919) 733-17c=
i
THE PRESCOTT COMPANY EEC
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND SITE PLANNERS
16 Chancery Place • Durham North Carolina • 27707
Phone or Fax [phone] • Cellular 919.270.2814 • Email [e-mail]
July 11, 2001
Mr. John Dorney
NCDENR-DWQ
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
RE: Stonehaven Subdivision
COR # S-44-01
DWQ # 01-0833 Wake County
Dear Sir:
Regarding your letter dated July 10, 2001, please find the following responses:
1. Provide a written justification for the non-perpendicular road crossing:
The road is classified by the Raleigh development ordinance as a minor subdivision road and the proposed
subdivision is approved by the Raleigh planning department for the proposed density and layout. For this reason, the
sole function of the road is to provide local residential service to adjacent residential dwellings.
The alignment of the road is established according to the location of suitable residential plots and not for
reasons of thoroughfare or transitory traffic of any kind. To provide service to nine of sixteen residential dwellings,
over half of the project, a non perpendicular crossing of one stream is required. No other possible access to the land
in question is available due to completely developed surrounding land. Refer to Dwg. No. CE-1 for a depiction of the
existing. surrounding land configuration.
One, single, non perpendicular crossing minimizes the impact to the stream in question because it provides
access to the nine residential plots instead of using nine single-family driveway crossings that would otherwise be
necessary to access the homes. Additionally, the volume of flood water passing through this location is most safely
avoided by means of a single public crossing rather than the alternative use ofprivate entrances for these nine homes.
In fact, for reasons of safety including the adequate provision of fire suppression services and proper methods of
santitation, the Raleigh planning department prefers the use ofpublic street service to these homes rather than the
alternative use of multiple driveway entrances. Therefore, the single public crossing point is selected
2. Provide a site plan which depicts the lots so we can determine if they are buildable without impacting the protected
stream buffers.
A site plan is attached as Dwg. No. CE-1.
3. Provide maps which depict Zone 1 and Zone 2 of the protected stream buffers so we can determine if this impact is
allowable.
Zone I and Zone 2 are indicated on the attached engineering plan as Dwg. No. CE-2.
4. Provide an accounting of the area of buffer impact and stream impact for each road crossing.
An accounting is indicated on the attached engineering plan (Dwg. No. CE-2).
Please approve the non-perpendicular crossing that is proposed for this project due to the benefit it provides over
alternative multiple private drive crossings. Thank you for your review of this project; please contact me to discuss any
concern you have as soon as possible.
Sin erely,
Brian Ruf PE
Pro ect Engineer
Enclosure
.I
THE PRESCOTT COMPANY LLC AUU
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND SITE PLANNERS
16 Chancery Place • Durham, North Carolina • 27707
Phone or Fax [phone] • Cellular 919.270.2814 • Email [e-mail]
TRANSMITTAL
DATE: July 31, 2001
TO: Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, North Car lina 27604
FROM: Brian P. R 15
Project Englnee
RE: Stonehaven Subdivision
COR # S-44-01
DWQ # 01-0833
ATTACHMENTS:
COPIES DATE NO DESCRIPTION
7 07-30-01 Minor Variance Request Form
7 07-25-01 CE-1 Subdivision Plan
7 07-11-01 The Prescott Company Response Letter
7 07-10-01 DWQ Letter
REMARKS:
......................TTA..........C'...............?.??......f?.I??.......
...................
.?.
C . .. . . ...... 4r .. . ::
............................................................................................................................................
M.?.... u. ..............?:::::::..:
...........................................................................................................................................................
...................................
............. 1.#x . . ...........
............................................................................................................................-----
OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Received Request #
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Variance Request Form - for Minor Variances
Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rules
NOTE.• This form may be photocopied for use as an original.
Please identify which Riparian Area Protection Rule applies.
o Neuse River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy
Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rule (15A NCAC.0233)
o Tar-Pamlico River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management
Strategy Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rule (15A
NCAC.0259)
Part 1: General Information
(Please include attachments if the room provided is insufficient.)
1. Applicant's name (the corporation, individual, etc. who owns the property):
2. Print Owner/Signing Official (person legally r
Name: 182e . Q ?5T Y-i?11"
Title: P is M4
Street address: ;7_?l
City, State, Zip: L_.t' I -11 ?.
Telephone: I,Of)
Fax: ( 1
3.

0
GD
4. Project Name (Subdivision, facility, or establishment name - consistent with project name on
plans, specifications, letters, operation and maintenance agreements, etc.):
5. Project Location:
Street address:
City, State, Zip:
County:
Latitude/longitude:
Contact person who can answer questions about the proposed project:
Name: r{ i c2,U `? F:7- P ?_=
Telephone: :ZC2
Fax:
Email: t?re? ?-e ?, h1 i
iLa H AEG
for the property and its compliance)
LP
u
i,_,q k'_
6. Directions to site from nearest major intersection (Also, attach an 8 A x 11 copy of the USGS
topographic map indicating the location of the site):
Y L--f ,J 1 Ahl D F- '" A y ; 1J o F-TP a f-J
7.
8. Which of the following permits/approvals will be required or have been received already for
this project?
Required: Received: Date received:

Permit Type:
CAMA Major
CAMA Minor
401 Certification/404 Permit
On-site Wastewater Permit
NPDES Permit (including stormwater)
Non-discharge Permit
Water Supply Watershed Variance
Others (specify)
Part 2: Proposed Activity
(Please include attachments if the room provided is insufficient.)
Description of proposed activity [Also, please attach a map of sufficient detail (such as a plat
map or site plan) to accurately delineate the boundaries of the land to be utilized in carrying
out the activity, the location and dimension of any disturbance in the riparian buffers
associated with the activity, and the extent of riparian buffers on the land]:
U J{ h-'.r}c ! C? 1??Cr!?t, (? G?-P?t? 1??/Vli`??y ?A)T I
1t?f11 CF !?-!r LIT ( OF R/4, Ll= le- C,2 r-
-ri 1 ??? c?< "r X21 L1 . T. Tv L ?' =mar ! f !p ! r ?2 F?c j 1
2. State reasons why this plan for the proposed activity cannot be practically accomplished,
reduced or reconfigured to better minimize or eliminate disturbance to the riparian buffers:
3.
1't?-i `f i-1 ? t-'f2 ?? ?'of,F?:? v-?i ?_-Cl-o,?...G H-1?1?1?IT"? ?-I-A l? 1? I?
NO I v I Q\JA. L 60v Il
1?>J 1? o t?l !?70 ?I 1/'( +? t?1.o c 1 T I?? `'% ) t4 1- F/LAr1
4. Please provide an explanation of the following:
G. I;:;-
2
\/orinnen Pmn.-f t:- ?n 9
Stream to be impacted by the proposed activity:
Stream name (for unnamed streams label as "UT" to the nearest named stream):
Stream classification [as identified within the Schedule of Classifications 15A NCAC 26 .0315
(Neuse) or.0316 (Tar-Pamlico)]:
Description of any best management practices to be used to control impacts associated with
the proposed activity (i.e., control of runoff from impervious surfaces to provide diffuse flow,
re-planting vegetation or enhancement of existing vegetation, etc.):
Go±JTI?aL a?_ ?J+?'o?:? ?=2oM Ih?C??????to?1S ?,J(?FAcE> /s,??JOG?,AT?t?
(1) The practical difficulties or hardships that would result from the strict application of this
Rule.
of= f41-? PJ(A? To PF,14!t3jZ I`7
'???' C loo N T o 'TN C i=' ' o ?a ?? C ?l y ±?t 13 L?1G o 1~ LvTC.7 tr ; I CA--
?tN Je6 T-kt GoST 6 DIi~??lcP f-I??'(' To tZxG. --0 744V
U ?/- e? Ld? -r-J y ? J Fq-O ?A SA I. i U ?oTy
(2) How these difficulties or hardships result from conditions that are unique to the property
involved. r
L
0

?Y Nl1G ' `oT,L (?1.1! ) 1 Cei,0aQ - l? r??J C???T I Zo0io0v
(zUgU V
Part 3: %eed Restriction
By your signature in Part 5 of this application, you certify that all structural stormwater best
management practices required by this variance shall be located in recorded stormwater
easements, that the easements will run with the land, that the easements cannot be changed or
deleted without concurrence from the State, and that the easements will be recorded prior to the
sale of any lot.
Part 4: Agent Authorization
if you wish to designate submittal authority to another individual or firm so that they may provide
information on your behalf, please complete this section:
Designated agent (i
Mailing address:
City, State, Zip:
Telephone:
Fax:
Email:
Part 5: Applicant's Certification
c.o
I, I -7- E A ?,L- (print or type name of person
listed in Part I, Item ), certify that the information included on this permit application form is
correct, that the project will be constructed in conformance with the approved plans and that the
deed restrictions in accordance with Part 5 of this form will be recorded with all required permit
conditions.
Signature:
Date:
Title:
Variance Request Form, page 3
(3) If economic hardship is the major consideration, then include a specific explanation of the
economic hardships and the proportion of the hardship to the entire value of the project.
10,
r';; Lft z!;r
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Michael F Easley
Govemor
William G Ross, Jr. Secretary
.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Kerr T. Stevens
Division of Water Quality
July 10, 2001
DWQ # 01-0833
Wake County
Stonehaven of Raleigh, LLC
7200 Stonhhenge Drive
Suite 306
Raleigh, NC 27613
Dear Sirs
On May 29, 2001, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) was notified by receipt of your applications regarding your
plans to impact 100 feet of two streams for the purpose of constructing road crossings for the Stonehaven subdivision at
Ray Road and Howard Road in Raleigh in Wake County. Approval from DWQ is required to impact these streams.
Please provide seven copies of the following information and refer to the DWQ number listed above in your reply.
1. Provide a written justification for the non-perpendicular road crossing.
2. Provide a site plan which depicts the lots so we can determine if they are buildable without impacting the
protected stream buffers.
3. Provide maps which depict Zone 1 and Zone 2 of the protected stream buffers so we can determine if this
impact is allowable.
4. Provide an accounting of the area of buffer impact and stream impact for each road crossing.
Also please be aware that a new Preconstruction Notification Form (PCN) should be used for all future applications for
wetland, stream and buffer impacts. This PCN form is available on our web site at h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands.
Please call me at 733-9646 if you have any questions or would require copies of our rules or procedural materials.
This project will remain on hold as incomplete in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0505(c). The processing time for this
application will begin when this information is received. If we do not hear from you within three (3) weeks of the receipt of
this letter, we will assume that you no longer want to pursue this project and will consider it withdrawn.

bl
Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
Raleigh Field Office Corps of Engineers
File copy
Central files
Brian Ruff, The Prescott Co., 16 Chancery Place, Durham, NC 27707
QT ?T
?a i•'Cl
usterner Serr'ce
E00 623-7745
Division of Water Quality 1650 f.ia!I Semite Cenler Raleiah, NC 27699-1650 (S' 19) 733-17E-_
.I
THE PKESCOTT COMPANY LLC
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND SITE PLANNERS
16 Chancery Place • Durham North Carolina • 27707
Phone or Fax [phone] • Cellular 919.270.2814 • Email [e-mail]
July 11, 2001
Mr. John Dorney
NCDENR-DWQ
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
RE: Stonehaven Subdivision
COR # S-44-01
DWQ # 01-0833 Wake County
Dear Sir:
Regarding your letter dated July 10, 2001, please find the following responses:
1. Provide a written justification for the non-perpendicular road crossing:
The road is classified by the Raleigh development ordinance as a minor subdivision road and the proposed
subdivision is approved by the Raleigh planning department for the proposed density and layout. For this reason, the
sole function of the road is to provide local residential service to adjacent residential dwellings.
The alignment of the road is established according to the location of suitable residential plots and not for
reasons of thoroughfare or transitory traffic of any kind. To provide service to nine of sixteen residential dwellings,
over half of the project, a non perpendicular crossing of one stream is required. No other possible access to the land
in question is available due to completely developed surrounding land. Refer to Dwg. No. CE-I for a depiction of the
existing. surrounding land configuration.
One, single, non perpendicular crossing minimizes the impact to the stream in question because it provides
access to the nine residential plots instead of using nine single-family driveway crossings that would otherwise be
.necessary to access the homes. Additionally, the volume of floodwater passing through this location is most safely
avoided by means of a single public crossing rather than the alternative use of private entrances for these nine homes.
In fact, for reasons of safety including the adequate provision of fire suppression services and proper methods of
santitation, the Raleigh planning department prefers the use ofpublic street service to these homes rather than the
alternative use of multiple driveway entrances. Therefore, the single public crossing point is selected.
2. Provide a site plan which depicts the lots so we can determine if they are buildable without impacting the protected
stream buffers.
A site plan is attached as Dwg. No. CE-1.
3. Provide maps which depict Zone 1 and Zone 2 of the protected stream buffers so we can determine if this impact is
allowable.
Zone I and Zone 2 are indicated on the attached engineering plan as Dwg. No. CE-2.
4. Provide an accounting of the area of buffer impact and stream impact for each road crossing.
An accounting is indicated on the attached engineering plan (Dwg. No. CE-2).
Please approve the non-perpendicular crossing that is proposed for this project due to the benefit it provides over
alternative multiple private drive crossings. Thank you for your review of this project; please contact me to discuss any
concern you have as soon as possible.
Sin erely,
Brian Ruf PE
Pro ect Engineer
Enclosure

'I
am, THE PRESCOTT COMPANY LLC
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND SITE PLANNERS
16 Chancery Place • Durham, North Carolina • 27707
Phone or Fax [phone] • Cellular 919.270.2814 • Email [e-mail]
TRANSMITTAL
DATE: July 31, 2001
TO: Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, North Car lina 27604
FROM: Brian P. R
Project Englnee
RE: Stonehaven Subdivision
COR # S-44-01
DWQ # 01-0833
ATTACHMENTS:
COPIES DATE NO DESCRIPTION
7 07-30-01 Minor Variance Request Form
7 07-25-01 CE-1 Subdivision Plan
7 07-11-01 The Prescott Company Response Letter
7. 07-10-01 DWQ Letter
REMARKS:
...................... Ids T?f'?..? .....?f.. .............C' ...... ..G'...... ......?.. ....
.........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
Jr.-. ': - ?..*-; :: ::::::::.......: : N:. ......:?u....... -...... ................................
........................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Received Request #
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Variance Request Form - for Minor Variances
Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rules
NOTE.• This form may be photocopied for use as an original.
Please Identify which Riparian Area Protection Rule applies.
o Neuse River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy
Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rule (15A NCAC.0233)
o Tar-Pamlico River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management
Strategy Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rule (15A
NCAC.0259)
Part 1: General Information
(Please include attachments if the room provided is insufficient.)
1. Applicant's name (the corporation, individual, etc. who owns the property):
?'To?, N d,•??N CF: UE71 ?c N LAG
2. Print Owner/Signing Official (person legally r
Name:
Title: M M'q_-"e4c",
Street address: 0
City, State, Zip: 1IE? i 6
Telephone: (°?1 ?() z 7? - 2CP'
Fax:
3.

Go
4. Project Name (Subdivision, facility, or establishment name - consistent with project name on
plans, specifications, letters, operation and maintenance agreements, etc.):
'J ?, 4:1 10 NJ
5. Project Location:
Street address:
City, State, Zip:
County:
Latitude/longitude:
-W 72;'c?7CO
Contact person who can answer questions about the proposed project:
Name: lt??r_i b .I 1:11, J F?_ P V
Telephone:) =1 ?1- ` ?? "TCJ
Fax:
Email: o v i ? y
G
for the property and its compliance)
LP

I, '1 ,A. k 1_
6. Directions to site from nearest major intersection (Also, attach an 8 %: x 11 copy of the USGS
topographic map indicating the location of the site):
7
Stream classification [as identified within the Schedule of Classifications 15A NCAC 213.0315
(Neese) or.0316 (Tar-Pamlico)]:
8. Which of the following permits/approvals will be required or have been received already for
this project?
Required: Received: Date received:
X
Permit Type:
CAMA Major
CAMA Minor
401 Certification/404 Permit
On-site Wastewater Permit
NPDES Permit (including stormwater)
Non-discharge Permit
Water Supply Watershed Variance
Others (specify)
Part 2: Proposed Activity
(Please include attachments if the room provided is insufficient.)
Description of proposed activity [Also, please attach a map of sufficient detail (such as a plat
map or site plan) to accurately delineate the boundaries of the land to be utilized in carrying
out the activity, the location and dimension of any disturbance in the riparian buffers
associated with the activity, and the extent of riparian buffers on the land]:
1 tx? L;~ J h x i r ir; C 1 ti?Cr?T. L 04o HA-ir )A 1-T1-4 i r.?
-` 144 r. 1--I F-A I T5 n F 1 LI r=-_ GI T? D F- R A 1 ( [ ,,? U r' t= -o, ! ! r) r_?-G
-TAA F- ({f -c t-J 71 n) F: <2 ) a, T. To State reasons why this plan for the proposed activity cannot be practically accomplished,
reduced or reconfigured to better minimize or eliminate disturbance to the riparian buffers:
3.
V
U,
fi? I r ..? I. CATHY 1 PLC` rl. ?
4. Please provide an explanation of the fol owing:
Varinnro Ronuocf Gnr none 9
rZ

Stream to be impacted by the proposed activity:
Stream name (for unnamed streams label as "UT" to the nearest named stream):
Description of any best management practices to be used to control impacts associated with
the proposed activity (i.e., control of runoff from impervious surfaces to provide diffuse flow,
re-planting vegetation or enhancement of existing vegetation, etc.):
Co+.lT?zoL OF- CJt.!oF? ?IZoM Ih?tFor/ /Io0 G?J(LFAc?; A-TCC
(1) The practical difficulties or hardships that would result from the strict application of this
Rule.
A Mo U o = 1-A:.r-.1 V) f ? ? p (fL r3 Y
~
(3) If economic hardship is the major consideration, then include a specific explanation of the
economic hardships and the proportion of the hardship to the entire value of the project.
7M I--- IZ F U E ST- 2 I ~>? . L "moo P C,- V i "7
.? DU 1 T t o I? i l-o`TT 4k (_a 1 OF K p) W i TN Ai-
1ZnX_ ALl1P- nV 4 S,D6r-) P; ? (q-? T U AT7-L,- C i-
'/- VF V, R o
?Cv?NrlG ^f"?T,? U.iri1 1Cc^,opo , 1?,?IY?? ?0?,7` 1-5'Zov,?cv A? V-040
n

%
no , r" f. r
Part 3:
eed Restriction 1????
By your signature in Part 5 of this application, you certify that all structural stormwater best
management practices required by this variance shall be located in recorded stormwater
easements, that the easements will run with the land, that the easements cannot be changed or
deleted without concurrence from the State, and that the easements will be recorded prior to the
sale of any lot.
Part 4: Agent Authorization
If you wish to designate submittal authority to another individual or firm so that they may provide
information on your behalf, please complete this section:
Designated agent (i
Mailing address:
City, State, Zip:
Telephone:
Fax:
Email:
Part 5: Applicant's Certification
I, I '-r ?J-- (print or type name of person
listed in Part 1, Item ), certify that the information included on this permit application form is
correct, that the project will be constructed in conformance with the approved plans and that the
deed restrictions in accordance with Part 5 of this form will be recorded with all required permit
conditions.
Signature:
Date:
Title:
Variance Request Form, page 3
(2) How these difficulties or hardships result from conditions that are unique to the property
involved. r
f a'"
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Michael F Easley
Governor
Willlam G Ross, Jr. Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Kerr T. Stevens
Division or Water Quality
July 10, 2001
DWQ # 01-0833
Wake County
Stonehaven of Raleigh, LLC
7200 Stonhhenge Drive
Suite 306
Raleigh, NC 27613
Dear Sirs
On May 29, 2001, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) was notified by receipt of your applications regarding your
plans to impact 100 feet of two streams for the purpose of constructing road crossings for the Stonehaven subdivision at
Ray Road and Howard Road in Raleigh in Wake County. Approval from DWQ is required to impact these streams.
Please provide seven copies of the following information and refer to the DWQ number listed above in your reply.
1. Provide a written justification for the non-perpendicular road crossing.
2. Provide a site plan which depicts the lots so we can determine if they are buildable without impacting the
protected stream buffers.
3. Provide maps which depict Zone 1 and Zone 2 of the protected stream buffers so we can determine if this
impact is allowable,
4. Provide an accounting of the area of buffer impact and stream impact for each road crossing.
Also please be aware that a new Preconstruction Notification Form (PCN) should be used for all future applications for
wetland, stream and buffer impacts. This PCN form is available on our web site at h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands.
Please call me at 733-9646 if you have any questions or would require copies of our rules or procedural materials.
This project will remain on hold as incomplete in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0505(c). The processing time for this
application will begin when this information is received. If we do not. hear from you within three (3) weeks of the receipt of
this letter, we will assume that you no longer want to pursue this project and will consider it withdrawn.
S,
A b'
Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
Raleigh Field Office Corps of Engineers
File copy
Central files
Brian Ruff, The Prescott Co., 16 Chancery Place, Durham, NC 27707
a?=T
ustorner Service
E00 623-7745
Divisicn of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (919) 733.17c-_
THE PRESCOTT COMPANY LLC
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND SITE PLANNERS
16 Chancery Place • Durham North Carolina • 27707
Phone or Fax [phone] • Cellular 919.270.2814 • Email [e-mail]
July 11, 2001
Mr. John Domey
NCDENR-DWQ
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
RE: Stonehaven Subdivision
COR # S-44-01
DWQ # 01-0833 Wake County
Dear Sir:
Regarding your letter dated July 10, 2001, please find the following responses:
1. Provide a written justification for the non-perpendicular road crossing:
The road is classified by the Raleigh development ordinance as a minor subdivision road and the proposed
subdivision is approved by the Raleigh planning department for the proposed density and layout. For this reason, the
sole function of the road is to provide local residential service to adjacent residential dwellings.
The alignment of the road is established according to the location of suitable residential plots and not for
reasons of thoroughfare or transitory traffic of any kind. To provide service to nine of sixteen residential dwellings,
over half of the project, a non perpendicular crossing of one stream is required. No other possible access to the land
in question is available due to completely developed surrounding land. Refer to Dwg. No. CE-1 for a depiction of the
existing. surrounding land configuration.
One, single, non perpendicular crossing minimizes the impact to the stream in question because it provides
access to the nine residential plots instead of using nine single-family driveway crossings that would otherwise be
necessary to access the homes. Additionally, the volume of flood water passing through this location is most safely
avoided by means of a single public crossing rather than the alternative use of private entrances for these nine homes.
In fact, for reasons of safety including the adequate provision of fire suppression services and proper methods of
santitation, the Raleigh planning department prefers the use of public street service to these homes rather than the
alternative use of multiple driveway entrances. Therefore, the single public crossing point is selected.
2. Provide a site plan which depicts the lots so we can determine if they are buildable without impacting the protected
stream buffers.
A site plan is attached as Dwg. No. CE-1.
3. Provide maps which depict Zone 1 and Zone 2 of the protected stream buffers so we can determine if this impact is
allowable.
Zone I and Zone 2 are indicated on the attached engineering plan as Dwg. No. CE-2.
4. Provide an accounting of the area of buffer impact and stream impact for each road crossing.
An accounting is indicated on the attached engineering plan (Dwg. No. CE-2).
Please approve the non-perpendicular crossing that is proposed for this project due to the benefit it provides over
alternative multiple private drive crossings. Thank you for your review of this project; please contact me to discuss any
concern you have as soon as possible.
Sin erely,
Brian Ruf PE
Pro ect Engineer
Enclosure

I
W THE PRESCOTT COMPANY LLC cta
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND SITE PLANNERS
16 Chancery Place • Durham, North Carolina • 27707
Phone or Fax [phone] • Cellular 919.270.2814 • Email [e-mail]
TRANSMITTAL
DATE: July 31, 2001
TO: Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, North Car lina 27604
FROM: Brian P. R
Project Englnee
RE: Stonehaven Subdivision
COR # S-44-01
DWQ # 01-0833
ATTACHMENTS:
COPIES DATE NO DESCRIPTION
7 07-30-01 Minor Variance Request Form
7 07-25-01 CE-1 Subdivision Plan
7 07-11-01 The Prescott Company Response Letter
7 07-10-01 DWQ Letter
REMARKS: 'INr .................... ..:?TTA..6?-.15 0........ ?' ? ....:.......... !.G?........??......?
.........................................................................................................................................................
IvI:I: ::::u t: '::::: :!. (. ::::: . 1 '..: ?YJ
10
................................................................................................................................
:'::::::::::c1::::::::::::TT:
................................................................................................. .. . .
ef'
OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Received Request #t
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Variance Request Form - for Minor Variances
Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rules
NOTE. This form may be photocopied for use as an original.
Please identify which Riparian Area Protection Rule applies.
o Neuse River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy
Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rule (15A NCAC .0233)
o Tar-Pamlico River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management
Strategy Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rule (15A
NCAC.0259)
Part 1: General Information
(Please include attachments if the room provided is insufficient)
1. Applicant's name (the corporation, individual, etc. who owns the property):
45?T42JQ'E? NA,\/ 1:-:: N ol: ALE l cc H l A- G
2. Print Owner/Signing Official (person legally r
Name: Eta Q1 51- V_ l?A,
Title: [`.t M' V2e4:2,
Street address: CJ ?st"o i N
City, State, Zip: 4 1_r5:I }
Telephone: (? la() J70 - f 4e
le for the property and its compliance)
oco
Fax: (__)
3.
Contact person who can answer questions about the
Name: lt?>r_i /4--41,1 r21 J `F F?l P
Telephone: (al 1 c) C-H 19 "zc
Fax: L_)
Email: tom, c-e & 0, M i
4. Project Name (Subdivision, facility, or establishment name - consistent with project name on
plans, specifications, letters, operation and maintenance agreements, etc.):
5. Project Location:
Street address:
City, State, Zip:
County:
Latitude/longitude:

H -,JG

6. Directions to site from nearest major intersection (Also, attach an 8 %Z x 11 copy of the USGS
topographic map indicating the location of the site):
o!2 L,'-r?,J,l AslD F--"r r`- AL i f,?012-T-P 6f-J 1ZA`1 ED
E C •, -Y'? L i n/,I .G. P ? ?? tom! D ,Y-' .4-Y ?, [? • Iel T f= f =? f? G T I o hl
i?..

7. Stream to be impacted by the proposed activity:
Stream name (for unnamed streams label as "UT" to the nearest named stream):
(ti) J T -rte
Stream classification [as identified within the Schedule of Classifications 15A NCAC 2B.0315
(Neuse) or.0316 (Tar-Pamlico)]:
8. Which of the following permits/approvals will be required or have been received already for
this project?
Required: Received: Date received: Permit Type:
CAMA Major
CAMA Minor
401 Certification/404 Permit
On-site Wastewater Permit
NPDES Permit (including stormwater)
Non-discharge Permit
Water Supply Watershed Variance
Others (specify)
Part 2: Proposed Activity
(Please include attachments if the room provided is insufficient.)
1. Description of proposed activity [Also, please attach a map of sufficient detail (such as a plat
map or site plan) to accurately delineate the boundaries of the land to be utilized in carrying
out the activity, the location and dimension of any disturbance in the riparian buffers
associated with the activity, and the extent of riparian buffers on the land]:
? 1 Gt7 ?-F ,? ? h-? ? r, i c ? . rH• ? ?? 1 +? G r ? ?-+, ? (.? G L,?-?> 120,4 ? 1???-( ?? J 1 TF{ i t??
GI G A L E; I 0 ao ? C
-r E C ?? r lr 077
C? E.(? f
2. State reasons why this plan for the proposed activity cannot be practically accomplished,
reduced or reconfigured to better minimize or eliminate disturbance to the riparian buffers:
fi? 10..E I_ GATZ0 I PLP rl a •' # ! Cr C?'r??? Gtr - I .
4. Please provide an explanation of the following:
II-A.,...... o......,.. c..,..- ....., n
3. Description of any best management practices to be used to control impacts associated with
the proposed activity (i.e., control of runoff from impervious surfaces to provide diffuse flow,
re-planting vegetation or enhancement of existing vegetation, etc.):
?1T12oL. op-
'/0T)4- oM If?t???I?lo?ls G?J(UFA? ???oGrA'(-t?
T4 Ro ?'o ?? o .G? ?t?1 ITS IAI ? 01? Fpo-/(qeo f0ra
13`t' f?l t??t-! 5 O ?r01 y 1 Ca?/A L l.?'( (? ?r2 I GTI V G?/ q*) r ?!'(? Ti?J
(2) How these difficulties or hardships result from conditions that are unique to the property
involved. r
LUF- n1?4 '-3 5,o6
OF
A S z t ?G o o LG
? NLlC ToT.? LLlt f? } ( DAo '1"2 -TZ001"0 v) V-0A1Y3
4s3?.
Part 3: heed Restriction x 1 {? r TT?a 61r,= -r - i --{ FA-TI) ?Ip c-, F-I -r.
By your signature in Part 5 of this application, you certify that all structural stormwater best
management practices required by this variance shall be located in recorded stormwater
easements, that the easements will run with the land, that the easements cannot be changed or
deleted without concurrence from the State, and that the easements will be recorded prior to the
sale of any lot.
Part 4: Agent Authorization
If you wish to designate submittal authority to another individual or firm so that they may provide
information on your behalf, please complete this section:
Designated agent (ind
Mailing address:
City, State, Zip:
Telephone:
Fax:
Email:
Part 5: Applicant's Certification
G.?
I, 2ZrQ 'J e- F ?E- "N G LJQ (print or type name of person
listed in Part I, Item ), certify that the information included on this permit application form is
correct, that the project will be constructed in conformance with the approved plans and that the
deed restrictions in accordance with Part 5 of this form will be recorded with all required permit
conditions.
Signature:
Date:
Title:
Variance Request Form, page 3
(1) The practical difficulties or, hardships that would result from the strict application of this
Rule.
T?rzlcT ?,j='p Lac: rn 1 0 'I-I--?? PJl.45? 10 P F- b Hlt3) 2: 1149
(3) If economic hardship is the major consideration, then include a specific explanation of the
economic hardships and the proportion of the hardship to the entire value of the project.
JT+1 _: CZCO U p-S?r IS !rc, fz ?rJ ? #- Z- I +/I pAc-r r ?? U-? --r-?, Pr-ca v I n

CERTIFIED MAIL- RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
?Archael F Easley
C?vemor
Willlam G. Ross, Jr. Secretary
.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Kerr T. Stevens
Division of Water Quality
July 10, 2001
DWQ # 01-0833
Wake County
Stonehaven of Raleigh, LLC
7200 Stonhhenge Drive
Suite 306
Raleigh, NC 27613
Dear Sirs
On May 29, 2001, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) was notified by receipt of your applications reaardino your
plans to impact 100 feet of two streams for the purpose of constructing road crossings for the Stonehaven subdivision at
Ray Road and Howard Road in Raleigh in Wake County. Approval from DWQ is required to impact these streams.
Please provide seven copies of the following information and refer to the DWQ number listed above in your reply.
1. Provide a written justification for the non-perpendicular road crossing.
2. Provide a site plan which depicts the lots so we can determine if they are buildable without impacting the
protected stream buffers.
3. Provide maps which depict Zone 1 and Zone 2 of the protected stream buffers so we can determine if this
impact is allowable.
4. Provide an accounting of the area of buffer impact and stream impact for each road crossing.
Also please be aware that a new Preconstruction Notification Form (PCN) should be used for all future applications for
wetland, stream and buffer impacts. This PCN form is available on our web site at h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands.
Please Call me at 733-9646 if you have any questions or would require copies of our rules or procedural materials.
This project will remain on hold as incomplete in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0505(c). The processing time for this
application will begin when this information is received. If we do not hear from you within three (3) weeks of the receipt of
this letter, we will assume That you no longer want to pursue this project and will consider it withdrawn.
5,
Cc
A"
Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
Raleigh Field Office Corps of Engineers
File copy
Central files
Brian Ruff, The Prescott Co., 16 Chancery Place, Durham, NC 27707
usterner Se^rce
600 623-7748
Divisicn of Water Quality 1650 f.?a!I Semite Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (919) 733 17c
THE PRESCOTT COMPANY EEC
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND SITE PLANNERS
16 Chancery Place • Durham North Carolina • 27707
Phone or Fax [phone] • Cellular 919.270.2814 • Email [e-mail]
July 11, 2001
Mr. John Dorney
NCDENR-DWQ
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
RE: Stonehaven Subdivision
COR # S-44-01
DWQ # 01-0833 Wake County
Dear Sir:
Regarding your letter dated July 10, 2001, please find the following responses:
1. Provide a written justification for the non-perpendicular road crossing:
The road is classified by the Raleigh development ordinance as a minor subdivision road and the proposed
subdivision is approved by the Raleigh planning department for the proposed density and layout. For this reason, the
sole function of the road is to provide local residential service to adjacent residential dwellings.
The alignment of the road is established according to the location of suitable residential plots and not for
reasons of thoroughfare or transitory traffic of any kind. To provide service to nine of sixteen residential dwellings,
over half of the project, a non perpendicular crossing of one stream is required. No other possible access to the land
in question is available due to completely developed surrounding land. Refer to Dwg. No. CE-I for a depiction of the
existing. surrounding land configuration.
One, single, non perpendicular crossing minimizes the impact to the stream in question because it provides
access to the nine residential plots instead of using nine single-family driveway crossings that would otherwise be
necessary to access the homes. Additionally, the volume of floodwater passing through this location is most safely
avoided by means of a single public crossing rather than the alternative use of private entrances for these nine homes.
In fact, for reasons of safety including the adequate provision of fire suppression services and proper methods of
santitation, the Raleigh planning department prefers the use ofpublic street service to these homes rather than the
alternative use of multiple driveway entrances. Therefore, the single public crossing point is selected.
2. Provide a site plan which depicts the lots so we can determine if they are buildable without impacting the protected
stream buffers.
A site plan is attached as Dwg. No. CE-1.
3. Provide maps which depict Zone 1 and Zone 2 of the protected stream buffers so we can determine if this impact is
allowable.
Zone 1 and Zone 2 are indicated on the attached engineering plan as Dwg. No. CE-2.
4. Provide an accounting of the area of buffer impact and stream impact for each road crossing.
An accounting is indicated on the attached engineering plan (Dwg. No. CE-2).
Please approve the non-perpendicular crossing that is proposed for this project due to the benefit it provides over
alternative multiple private drive crossings. Thank you for your review of this project; please contact me to discuss any
concern you have as soon as possible.
Sin erely,
Bri n Ru PE
Pro ect Engineer
Enclosure
e
Via
a THE PRESCOTT COMPANY LLC AU ?
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND SITE PLANNERS
16 Chancery Place • Durham, North Carolina • 27707
Phone or Fax [phone] • Cellular 919.270.2814 • Email prescottddamindspring.com
TRANSMITTAL
DATE: July 31, 2001
TO: Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, North Car lina 227,600,44
FROM: Brian P. R
Project Englnee
RE: Stonehaven Subdivision
COR # S-44-01
DWQ # 01-0833
ATTACHMENTS:
COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION
7 07-30-01 Minor Variance Request Form
7 07-25-01 CE-1 Subdivision Plan
7 07-11-01 The Prescott Company Response Letter
7 07-10-01 DWQ Letter
REMARKS:
T?fA..?:.-1...?. ?........t? .....4 .........!.`?......` W.I ??. ...... .
...........................................................................................................................................................
.........................................
:::::::::
..... ?:.......:?`U........ ......................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................--------
4
c
OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Received Request #
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Variance Request Form - for Minor Variances
Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rules
NOTE. This form may be photocopied for use as an original.
Please Identify which Riparian Area Protection Rule applies.
a Neuse River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy
Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rule (15A NCAC .0233)
a Tar-Pamlico River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management
Strategy Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rule (15A
NCAC.0259)
Part 1: General Information
(Please include attachments if the room provided is insufficient.)
1. Applicant's name (the corporation, individual, etc. who owns the property):
2. Print Owner/Signing Official (person legally res
Name:
E? t`I t.l T ??
Title: ??.I MI t?>E
Street address:
City, State, Zip: L -E-: I 6-r t.1 }J C
Telephone: >`70 - ?2fP2.
Fax:
3.

GD
4. Project Name (Subdivision, facility, or establishment name - consistent with project name on
plans, specifications, letters, operation and maintenance agreements, etc.):
5. Project Location:
Street address:
City, State, Zip:
County:
Latitude/longitude:
Contact person who can answer questions about the proposed project:
Name: f { a ?,1 i2 j `_ F= P ?
Telephone: (ol ! '1) kE ?1-' ?? ?a
Fax:
Email: t?reG, M i t i
ICa'r-1 ?-c
for the property and its compliance)
c>CO
I'l
1??k1
6. Directions to site from nearest major intersection (Also, attach an 8 %Z x 11 copy of the USGS
topographic map indicating the location of the site):
r i-, L r ?? 1 At-, p `T !z,?)A- v ?j o r-T'P 42,© •
?jT r:::F- ? E T I (- t-.l
17 i 5 pN R 14 HT F ^,: a,7 t3FRQ r) k t-. 4-= t 5 W o re-r -!
7. Stream to be impacted by the proposed activity:
Stream name (for unnamed streams label as "UT" to the nearest named stream):
Stream classification (as identified within the Schedule of Classifications 15A NCAC 2B.0315
(Neuse) or .0316 (Tar-Pamlico)]:
8. Which of the following permits/approvals will be required or have been received already for
this project?
Required: Received: Date received: Permit Type:
CAMA Major
CAMA Minor
401 Certification/404 Permit
On-site Wastewater Permit
NPDES Permit (including stormwater)
X Non-discharge Permit
Water Supply Watershed Variance
Others (specify)
Part 2: Proposed Activity
(Please include attachments if the room provided is insufficient.)
1. Description of proposed activity [Also, please attach a map of sufficient detail (such as a plat
map or site plan) to accurately delineate the boundaries of the land to be utilized in carrying
out the activity, the location and dimension of any disturbance in the riparian buffers
associated with the activity, and the extent of riparian buffers on the land]:
1 F 11 r i r! 1,410li` A-'r `i?l 1 TN i r

2. State reasons why this plan for the proposed activity cannot be practically accomplished,
reduced or reconfigured to better minimize or eliminate disturbance to the riparian buffers:
3.
I NoIV I f)vA_L
4. Please provide an explanation of the

wing:
2
rtJ?? Td
kFf ?GT?iO IZV ?ol'?'
\L.ri.?nns ?si...ec? C....w ......e 7
Description of any best management practices to be used to control impacts associated with
the proposed activity (i.e., control of runoff from impervious surfaces to provide diffuse flow,
re-planting vegetation or enhancement of existing vegetation, etc.):
GoQTgoL O 2J?' G?" ?o M If????71 •?10?5 G?J(LFAG r? /?GG,DG?,A`j l'?
I 1T)A_T?d £?o ?'o` ? -? Ro?.?}?t?1 ITS SID Li, ?31; 'Pl-au('OW rn
(1) The practical difficulties or, hardships that would result from the strict application of this
Rule.
''5TFIG"? r? j'p 1,1C_;? j iJ o1= (? IS ?J 1 ? I'?f?>l? 1??
V ?V I,o ' T2- o (?c tJ ?1 y M 1 LsC?
(2) How these difficulties or hardships result from conditions that are unique to the property
L
d
D? '?Q o
?Y?Ni1 -r''-?4 U.1 r4 r) 1j p00 lam, Irl 6G),->T l l'Zooio?? Aer4 V) ii?-OAO
God
56
n T?w?
`
Part 3:
eed Restrictio I," r%= -1`r
By your signature in Part 5 of this application, you certify that all structural stonmwater best
management practices required by this variance shall be located in recorded stormwater
easements, that the easements will run with the land, that the easements cannot be changed or
deleted without concurrence from the State, and that the easements will be recorded prior to the
sale of any lot.
Part 4: Agent Authorization
If you wish to designate submittal authority to another individual or firm so that they may provide
information on your behalf, please complete this section:
Designated agent
Mailing address:
City, State, Zip:
Telephone:
Fax:
Email:
Part 5: Applicant's Certification
<:::c
I, I fi' ?'6 (print or type name of person
listed in Part I, Item ), certify that the information included on this permit application form is
correct, that the project will be constructed in conformance with the approved plans and that the
deed restrictions in accordance with Part 5 of this form will be recorded with all required permit
conditions.
Signature:
Date:
Title:
Variance Request Form, page 3
(3) If economic hardship is the major consideration, then include a specific explanation of the
economic hardships and the proportion of the hardship to the entire value of the project.
"(?+I E [Z FGA U ST I S ? 2 Zv rJ $ _ I ?/I 1?A?T ~ Q G? ( o f V= o 'v 1 0
` "S1F
C,
_?` 4 3? • J
ttr ?S t1 L!?. f
CERTIFIED MAIL- RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
?AchadF Essley
Govemor
William G. Ross, Jr. Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Kerr T. Stevens
Division of Water Quality
July 10, 2001
DWQ m 01-0833
Wake County
Stonehaven of Raleigh, LLC
7200 Stonhhenge Drive
Suite 306
Raleigh, NC 27613
Dear Sirs
On May 29, 2001, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) was notified by receipt of your applications regarding your
plans to impact 100 feet of two streams for the purpose of constructing road crossings forthe Stonehaven subdivision at
Ray Road and Howard Road in Raleigh in Wake County. Approval from DWQ is required to impact these streams.
Please provide seven copies of the following information and refer to the DWQ number listed above in your reply.
1. Provide a written justification for the non-perpendicular road crossing.
2. Provide a site plan which depicts the lots so we can determine if they are buildable without impacting the
protected stream buffers.
3. Provide maps which depict Zone 1 and Zone 2 of the protected stream buffers so we can determine if this
impact is allowable.
4. Provide an accounting of the area of buffer impact and stream impact for each road crossing.
Also please be aware that a new Preconstruction Notification Form (PCN) should be used for all future applications for
wetland, stream and buffer impacts. This PCN form is available on our web site at h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands.
Please call me at 733-9646 if you have any questions or would require copies of our rules or procedural materials.
This project will remain on hold as incomplete in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0505(c). The processing time for this
application will begin when this information is received. If we do not hear from you within three (3) weeks of the receipt of
this letter, we will assume that you no longer want to pursue this project and will consider it withdrawn.
s,
Cc
U u ?l
Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
Raleigh Field Office Corps of Engineers
File copy
Central files
Brian Ruff, The Prescott Co., 16 Chancery Place, Durham, NC 27707
?i•?l
ustorner Service
8C0 623-7745
Division of Water Quality 1650 1.1a!I Service center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (919) 733-17c=
ALI
W' ? THE PRESCOTT COMPANY EEC
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND SITE PLANNERS
16 Chancery Place • Durham North Carolina • 27707
Phone or Fax [phone] • Cellular 919.270.2814 • Email [e-mail]
July 11, 2001
Mr. John Dorney
NCDENR-DWQ
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
RE: Stonehaven Subdivision
COR # S-44-01
DWQ # 01-0833 Wake County
Dear Sir:
Regarding your letter dated July 10, 2001, please find the following responses:
1. Provide a written justification for the non-perpendicular road crossing:
The road is classified by the Raleigh development ordinance as a minor subdivision road and the proposed
subdivision is approved by the Raleigh planning department for the proposed density and layout. For this reason, the
sole function of the road is to provide local residential service to adjacent residential dwellings.
The alignment of the road is established according to the location of suitable residential plots and not for
reasons of thoroughfare or transitory traffic of any kind. To provide service to nine of sixteen residential dwellings,
over half of the project, a non perpendicular crossing of one stream is required. No other possible access to the land
in question is available due to completely developed surrounding land. Refer to Dwg. No. CE-1 for a depiction of the
existing. surrounding land configuration.
One, single, non perpendicular crossing minimizes the impact to the stream in question because it provides
access to the nine residential plots instead of using nine single-family driveway crossings that would otherwise be
necessary to access the homes. Additionally, the volume of floodwater passing through this location is most safely
avoided by means of a single public crossing rather than the alternative use of private entrances for these nine homes.
In fact, for reasons of safety including the adequate provision of fire suppression services and proper methods of
santitation, the Raleigh planning department prefers the use of public street service to these homes rather than the
alternative use of multiple driveway entrances. Therefore, the single public crossing point is selected.
2. Provide a site plan which depicts the lots so we can determine if they are buildable without impacting the protected
stream buffers.
A site plan is attached as Dwg. No. CE-1.
3. Provide maps which depict Zone 1 and Zone 2 of the protected stream buffers so we can determine if this impact is
allowable.
Zone 1 and Zone 2 are indicated on the attached engineering plan as Dwg. No. CE-2.
4. Provide an accounting of the area of buffer impact and stream impact for each road crossing.
An accounting is indicated on the attached engineering plan (Dwg. No. CE-2).
Please approve the non-perpendicular crossing that is proposed for this project due to the benefit it provides over
alternative multiple private drive crossings. Thank you for your review of this project; please contact me to discuss any
concern you have as soon as possible.
Sin erely,
Bri n Ruf PE
Pro ect Engineer
Enclosure
?N

C Colo 1:0

MOJ'

?a
3
0

y /?' 'P a,lna" ?p ?pkf?,l.trda+"v? s??us r,? 6 (k u QI,«,"av?W '?'IdaHlalg- to
$ .>fa r 6 1d,
kA
` SNOOtlB
09
Z MZ
M? " !
1ao v a 3a $' ?? ° q?i1 ,d u q 6 s s
3 $ - "' g ?`3 ..r e last ?_
al A tl, lV1S -- 'g .
j9'; _ q ,.7 711` D
31
-ld
dke u f" ¦?N nVN fHU u 5
\ } N *40
a ?yb &f c U a 0?)
b eugj ' Rya g !a`"d)„ 5 .a ?. .y,? G ? ,,:?+' Way , _ .cl:\ lrrd, ? v w
_'t., t y 1 / l? 9oa Y ",0" l ,1
O iii o!b .?BVe ?
"",0" 'M
s1 `` 1 16 a ??° OL LlM s
AOONBIIIW s . a Q? uoa c 011VIs
r n' F f wed 3tl1
I`r Uw! ( ' galls. a ul
5' I eMw Yb\He ??_
i10sN3uNV8 "°"d' lpt O" c Vie.- Y lU a ul IPOSoM,ewwb %
°i?,?? ?
a
1 3I
l ?_ .
a 7?
` o oipj
? rpp O q16 ! (7 X. .0
IS fW
g \ ,Y*'(` `e?"? Y X0.18 ??756d I `iD ue? ery Id
.nob ?&,o?Ab'JOpp'W??1 "-?. 47 a n
'..,... v ? /?-k?/" ? ? Y ? _?a+?ob l? e ? ld 74?i,Atpe` (q ? I?.MVI ,eneag et1' ?\?. ttt555
4epu.,M Y ? a =wi , ?a `` -,b ."gyp j o•
l? x ,rv
4 ?Iddo
j? ._„ a°i 3 ?.. ,a"l ?. ,..,s? `?•. "?A f d $ wll
e4S •- \?.
d
{n 2 1 if J 13 9.^16 to I 17 9115 ` ?..... Ue 1SOd?
y?d ! ?VPF'
b eMe? I a'i^ \ ?NQrIS FrQ M C In Jli? r? 1 J ¢H fC 37 j? lu.c
S ?O
,t) U J ?polw,e < tind?PH H f
. 1 J S lePI40
/ ?. C .. Y
Nu uVIs
MOVW. ed.p ?a'P .141 eXa '- ;..I? - iaMlaReO uan - iy - \
111J J ? ? I
a1? ? ? m b 6 _. - ?fill $
3 I i NNA 1 C m .U,I,? KPH 15, Puy 49 t 1 0p` /qf. ?? 1-' a, pd yk..
y l ?• o ?i Se 4 ,Q S£ u.e {,
6 U?y ?'D a`? ! ?` 15 -WIH ls"I's pOpC PN9ml6, 1:1 0 a ---
p,P itp eroM o, g UU';c ,enitl'e q en6.epnWry? x,
? `ry S ! ,?.? o /8 a NNAI *P .lul ?O Id tills 'S 43
f X58 ? ?., o O 4 ,e ?N Y od y a `A < ? py ? ? q wayBuppu. o ? Q
yr '#e? I ?q? ' ? Y 1 ,O ?sbe47` a?0 p ?•1 _n ? ? Q? 6
vi ? Py N Byu UU47 e ? Pn1IG4pooM??p a '_POP", ", Ilk ?r pglyM?ll lS s 8
n 134n?YIW .. b -%h
Q Q oNen ° - t ! l?. LL ?Ow o l-1 2 ~? nJ
F" na a
n d ? ?? ?i ? Id MwW.y y ld ?b' r uwa .noiOl? " ?i',H -, sell , O
nO .a -Q U-1
`O er0o ?` ptl uej A-i v p'S--I M, uelfl ?
aSa N l e'6Dny O?\\Jeuol-?, MIS el%S \, Yu1a ?b?alulal uWIoBO 1b0?? ql l h^ \57O? ed Q + _....
-10 anrr. 9 ?" ! eM a7 „peg S
.68 "
F rq? u (j'?glyyeN I r A, (1g pb
.L Q a 7, `n d 4 l 4' 11311' F _ 1 6-- ` r /Q q 3 W AS33 OVOH
$ - as a ?aa IAS 4 C
slid
s bb ° - Ewa N 1 1 ppp 'all
Y OAS r at
., .I 9 bye 3llA
25 0 3
r.:n:u;r IO µuolw 1_F ' ??d rd elioi.l. I?. 1 •
m le r . •M uyl ,?? W?p"6 3 a? ?.M "a. ? ... ' D ?
1(Q,?{'i -F-???S-Sb • M ?
S:i OVOH C Y 'Ay...,.,ta owl 96 Pb
4' yAaM.wg _..VS s ,a..
_??
\747"
\ HI d 4
N`aala1S
AI ,_ 5 C 3tl ? ??Yu a 4 p a a
C 1H 0.",
'? H
`' ,, o Q S e I? ??
l'!' s w?nS IS 1 iFi' +SLe
Id _ b Q a
,., w e,o59a ooo? v=. fi`
Ob OpS6 Y Id POW ,l O u s 0050! Q M Son us)l H G
,.3 wpu- Ile
4iuY ,! 9 "o u.19 s p sMop..Vi 1 rc IS j I ?a I $ \: .;? lr?rs` ` 70 1 < J
°M_
P to "•d auy?oeei 4 s " io' lsG 6
umae' Q -?IwMU, -- °°pwpws
e
?U ?l n p, ,?1 T , { iF; 4 57 p 11
53
ap.,,,aS
- - . ?. _ g D i 8 S I I > r p $yg? -0b G e l
pll + ¢ P F
41 y I.. p? IS
U
L9 0
r 7 44
µl _ o
\ ? . ? <. ? r r ?' r s •, W ? ?7GH` a. euu € I ? ?' b be,lpunoy
?? r r r r a 6TH `? I ,.,r'til 1. O; ' l pps6 Meep NM .
` r '. r o. r r r r r r e. r ?oF9-`X311v6 `.. -p -`\ to
fey` 'b • ,y
? ? CIO tiM^tl _ ?}^ ? «r ?yrrrr ? rr¦
?u? -?.geyl 5J'S ?.. `?• rrrrrrr rrarrr r+ie"r?
(Ad;; 3HYM NH31U ON 03Sodoud) ! Alr.u
0)
o ?
,p

r' ? c I
CREEOMOOR x ,
Yn
?D
r?
ops J Py

s,qd

aD
>
(.mf.
7
WJ THE PRESCOTT COMPANY LLC
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND SITE PLANNERS
16 Chancery Place • Durham North Carolina • 27707
Phone or Pax 919.419.9370 • Cellular 919.270.2814 • Email [e-mail]
July 11, 2001
Mr. John Dorney
NCDENR-DWQ
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250 ((?'
Raleigh, NC 27604
RE: Stonehaven Subdivision
COR # S-44-01
DWQ # 01-0833 Wake County
Dear Sir: Regarding your letter dated July 10, 2001, please find the following responses:
1. Provide a written justification for the non-perpendicular road crossing:
The road is classified by the Raleigh development ordinance as a minor subdivision road and the proposed
subdivision is approved by the Raleigh planning departnrent_for the proposed density and layout. For this reason, the
sole function of the road is to provide local residential service to adjacent residential dwellings.
The alignment of the road is established according to the location of suitable residential plots and not.for
reasons of thoroughfare or transitory traffic of any kind. To provide service to nine of sixteen residential divellings,
over half of the project, a non-perpendicular crossing ol'one stream is required. No other possible access to the land
in question is available due to completely developed surrounding land. Refer to Divg. No. CE-I for a depiction of the
existing. surrounding land configuration.
One, single, non-perpendicular crossing minimizes the impact to the stream in question because it provides
access to the nine residential plots instead of using nine single-family driveway crossings that would otherwise be
necessary to access the homes. Additionally, the volume of food water passing through this location is most safely
avoided by means of a single public crossing rather than the alternative use of private entrances for these nine homes.
in fact, for reasons ofsafety including the adequate provision of .fire suppression services and proper methods oj'
santitation, the Raleigh planning department prefers the use of public street service to these homes rather than the
alternative use of multiple driveway entrances. There1bre, the single public crossing point is selected.
2. Provide a site plan which depicts the lots so we can determine if they are buildable without impacting the protected
stream buffers.
A site plan is attached as Dwg. No. CE-l.
3. Provide maps which depict Zone I and Zone 2 of the protected stream buffers so we can determine if this impact is
allowable.
Zone I and Zone 2 are indicated on the attached engineering plan as Dwg. No. CE-2.
4. Provide an accounting of the area of buffer impact and stream impact for each road crossing.
An accounting is indicated on the attached engineering plan (Dwg. No. CE-2).
Please approve the non-perpendicular crossing that is proposed for this project due to the benefit it provides over
alternative multiple private drive crossings. Thank you for your review of this project; please contact me to discuss any
concern you have as soon as possible.
Sin erely,
Brian Ruf PE
Pro ect Engineer
Enclosure
se"'
M chael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr. Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Kerr T. Stevens
Division of water Quality
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
July 10, 2001
DWQ ;` 01 -OE 33
Wake County
Stonehaven of Raleigh, LLC
7200 Stonhhenae Drive
Suite 306
Raleigh, NC 27613
Dear Sirs
On May 29, 2001, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) was notified by receipt of your applications regarding your
plGns to impact 100 feet of two streams for the purpose of constructing road crossings for the Stonehaven subdivision at
Ray Road and Howard Road in Raleigh in Wake County. Approval from DWQ is required to impact these streams.
Fiease provide seven copies of the following information and refer to the DWQ number listed above in your reply.
i . Provide a written justification for the non-perpendicular road crossing.
2. Provide a site plan which depicts the lots so we can determine if they are buildable without impacting the
protected stream buffers.
3. Provide maps which depict Zone 1 and Zone 2 of the protected stream buffers so we can determine if this
impact is allowable.
4. Provide an accounting of the area of buffer impact and stream impact for each road crossing.
Also please be aware that a new Preconstruction Notification Form, (PCN) should be used for all future applications fer
wetland, stream and buffer impacts. This PCN form is available on our web site at h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands.
Please call me at 733-9646 if you have any questions or v ould require copies of our rules or procedural rrate,ia!s.
--his project will remain on hold as incomplete in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0505(c). The processing time for this
application will begin when this information is received. If we do not hear from you within three (3) weeks of the receipt cf
this letter, v"e v:i!I assume that you r.o longer want to pursue this project and will consider it withdrawn.
Cc
?r
Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
Raleigh Field Office Corps of Engineers
File copy
Central files
Brian Ruff, The Prescott Co., 16 Chancery Place, Durham, NC 27707
?F:y1
Custcrne- F r icc
1 FCO 623-77
Divisicn or Water Quality 1E`0..^..:I S,rrice Cer.tcr Ral ich, NC 27699-16-50 (0; 9) 7 -17:'°
OR1. W A T FRpG
r
O ?
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
August 28, 2001
DWQ Project # 01-0833
Wake County
CERTIFIED MAIL-RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Page 1 of 2
The Prescott Co., LLC
attn: Mr. Brian Ruff
16 Chancery Place
Durham, NC 27707
Re: Stonehaven Subdivision, 8200 Knebworth Drive, Raleigh, Wake County, NC
Hare Snipe Creek [03-04-02; 27-33-12; B & C NSW]
Dear Sir,
On August 23, 2001, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) received your request for a No Practical Alternatives and
revisions to your 5/19/011?re-Construction Notification Application Form to impact 277 feet of stream channel and 16,801
ft2 associated protected riparian buffers. Insufficient evidence is present in our files to conclude that your project must be
built as planned in waters and/or protected riparian buffers in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0506 and 2B .0233.
Therefore, unless modifications of the proposal are made as described below, we will have to move toward denial of your
401 Certification and Neuse River Buffer Authorization Certificate as required by 15A NCAC 2H.0507(e) and 15A NCAC
2B .0233(8) and will place this project on hold as incomplete until we receive this additional information. We are. .
requesting (by copy of this letter) that the US Army Corps of Engineers place your project on administrative hold. " Please
provide us with information supporting your position that states your project must be constructed as planned and that you
have no practicable alternative to placing fill in these waters or protected riparian buffers. Specifically;
1. Road Crossing #1 on the 8/21/01 subdivision plan indicates the culvert and stone outlet protection directing stream flow
at a right angle against the southern stream bank. In addition, the fill slope extends into the "Top Bank" along the
northern stream bank. Please provide information on how you intend to protect the stability of the stream and stream
bank south of this crossing. Specifically, will any additional stone or retaining walls be required for the cross
2. Road Crossing #2 on the 8/21/01 subdivision plan indicates the culvert and stone outlet protection over a slight meander
within the stream channel. It appears from the plans that some reconfiguring of the stream channel and its associated
riparian buffer will be required for this installation of this crossing and stone outlet protection. Please provide
_ information of the amount, if any, of additional impact to the stream and associated buffers that will be required. _
3. Road Crossing #1 indicates stormwater directly discharging through the buffers and to the stream This is not allowed
under the riparian buffer protection rules [(15A NCAC 2B .0233)(5)]. Please provide information as to how you intend
to provide diffuse flow per 15A NCAC 2B .0233(5) of all new stormwater associated with both road crossings prior to
entering the protected buffers.
Any documentation such as details of pre- and post-construction conditions of the road crossings, streams and buffers
and a narrative that you can supply to address alternative designs for your project may be helpful in our review of your 401
Certification and Buffer Authorization Certificate.
Please respond in writing within three weeks of the date of this letter by sending a copy of this information to me and
to Mr. Steve Mitchell, Raleigh Regional Office at [phone]. If we do not hear from you in three weeks, we will
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mlchaol F Eailey
Governor
William G Ross, Jr. Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Kerr T. Stevens
Division of Water Quality
July 10, 2001
DWQ # 01-0833
Wake County
Stonehaven of Raleigh, LLC
7200 Stonhhenge Drive
Suite 306
Raleigh, NC 27613
Dear Sirs:
On May 29, 2001, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) was notified by receipt of your applications regarding your
plans to impact 100 feet of two streams for the purpose of constructing road crossings for the Stonehaven subdivision at
Ray Road and Howard Road in Raleigh in Wake County. Approval from DWQ is required to impact these streams.
Please provide seven copies of the following information and refer to the DWQ number listed above in your reply.
1. Provide a written justification for the non-perpendicular road crossing.
2. Provide a site plan which depicts the lots so we can determine if they are buildable without impacting the
protected stream buffers.
3. Provide maps which depict Zone 1 and Zone 2 of the protected stream buffers so we can determine if this
impact is allowable.
4. Provide an accounting of the area of buffer impact and stream impact for each road crossing.
Also please be aware that a new Preconstruction Notification Form (PCN) should be used for all future applications for
wetland, stream and buffer impacts. This PCN form is available on our web site at h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands.
Please call me at 733-9646 if you have any questions or would require copies of our rules or procedural materials.
This project will remain on hold as incomplete in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0505(c). The processing time for this
application will begin when this information is received. If we do not hear from you within three (3) weeks of the receipt of
this letter, we will assume that you no longer want to pursue this project and will consider it withdrawn.
Cc:
bi
Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
Raleigh Field Office Corps of Engineers
File copy
Central files
Brian Ruff, The Prescott Co., 16 Chancery Place, Durham, NC 27707
LA
,,- _
--DE.IR
Customer Service
1 800 623-7748
Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 [phone]
kh-
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Dorney Regional Contact: Steve Mitchell
Non-Discharge Branch WO Supervisor: Ken Schuster
Date:
SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Facility Name Stonehaven Subdivision
Project Number 01 0833
Recvd From APP
Received Date 5/29/01 Recvd By Region 6/14/2001
Project Type road crossing
Certificates Stream
Permit Wetland Wetland Wetland Stream Class
Type Type Impact Score Index Prim. Supp.
County Wake
County2
Region Raleigh
Iii
Stream Impacts (ft.)
Acres Feet
Basin Req. Req.
F Stream 16-77 -@)N F--F27 33 12 B Fc NNs 30,402. F 100.00 F-
Y =N 1
Mitigation Wetland
MitigationType Type Acres Feet
Is Wetland Rating Sheet Attached? Q Y O N Did you request more info? Q Y Q N
Have Project Changes/Conditions Been Discussed With Applicant? Q Y O N
Is Mitigation required? p Y 0 N Recommendation: Q Issue O Issue/fond 4 Deny
Provided by Region: Latitude (ddmmss) Longitude (ddmmss)
Comments:
Could he issued conditional on realignment of roars crossing, NO where near minimized.
C ul de sac fill in at least zone 2. BuOer not shown as crossing the road. Stops at end of impact as if
it is not present on the side of the road.
CC' Regional Office
Central Office Page Number 1
. 3
THE PKESCOTT COMPANY LLC
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND SITE PLANNERS
16 Chancery Place • Durham North Carolina • 27707
Phone or Fax [phone] • Cellular 919.270.2814 • Email [e-mail]
May 19, 2001
Mr. Todd Tugwell, Regulatory Specialist
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
Mr. John Dorney
NCDENR-DWQ
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
RE: Stonehaven Subdivision
NCDENR Pre-construction Notification Application
COR # S-44-01
DWQ ID: NBRRO #1.017
Dear Sir:
J 08341
Please process the attached application form for Section 401 Certification of stream crossings. Thank YOU.
Please contact me with any questions you may have about the construction plan. Thank You.
Sincerely,
Bri n Ruff PE
Project Engineer
Enclosure
P6Yilll N (-
REINED
Parrs 1
010833
DWQ ID: NBRRO 1.017 CORPS ACTION ID: FOR 401 CERTIFICATION
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #) 12, 25, 39
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1. NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2. APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3. COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE FIELD
OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). SEVEN (7)
COPIES MUST BE SENT TO THE NC DIVISION OF WATER OUALITY
ATTN: JOHN DORNEY, 4401 REEDY CREEK ROAD, RALEIGH, NC
27607. PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE.
1. OWNER'S NAME: STONEHAVEN OF RALEIGH, LLC
2. MAILING ADDRESS: 7200 STONEHENGE DRIVE #306, RALEIGH NC, 27613
SUBDIVISION NAME STONEHAVEN SUBDIVISION
CITY: RALEIGH STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 27613
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
ON KNEBWORTH DR. NEAR INTERSECTION OF HOWARD RD. AND RAY RD. IN RALEIGH
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER: (HOME) (WORK) [phone] ?
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL, ADDRESS, C n
PHONE NUMBER: m
Brian Ruff, P.E., The Prescott Company, 16 Chancery Place Durham NC 27707, 419-9370 CD - I
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Wake - NEAREST TOWN: Raleigh
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.) NEAR INTERSECTION
OF HOWARD ROAD AND RAY ROAD IN NORTH RALEIGH NC.
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Hare Snipe Creek RIVER BASIN: Neuse
7. (a) IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER, (SA),
I IIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW), WATER
SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)? NO IF YES, EXPLAIN: NA
(b) IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AI:C)? NO
(c) IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITT IIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR LIST OF
COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION? NO
8. (a) HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON THIS
PROJECT? NO It-, YES, PROVIDE' ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PI IOTOCOPY OF 401 CER"I-IFI('ATION): NA
(b) ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE FUTURE?
YES NO IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK: NO
9. (a) ES'I'IMA'1T:D "fOT'AL NUMBC:RS OI ACRES IN I'1ZACT OI LAND: 6.39
(b) ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT SITE:
NONE
10. (a) NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: 0 acres EXCAVATION: 0 acres
FLOODING: 0 acres OTHER: 0 acres
DRAINAGE: 0 acres TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: 0 acres
(b) (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF RELOCATED,
PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION:
LENGTH BEFORE: 100 FT AFTER: 92 FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): 9.2 FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: 2.3 FT AFTER: 2.3 FT
(b) (2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: YES PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL: YES
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER:
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE WATERSHED
DRAINING TO THE POND? NA WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA? NA
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT TO BE USED? (ATTACH PLANS; 81/2 BY I 1 DRAWINGS ONLY)
A single residential street is proposed to cross two unnamed stream features indicated on both the Wake
county Soil Survey and the USGS Bayleaf Quadrangle (topographic). Both crossings consist of a roadway
section in fill to a maximum depth of approximately six feet with twin 60" rcp culverts installed with headwall
and tailwall. In addition, a sanitary sewer service crossing of one stream feature is proposed to cross the
stream well below the stream bed.
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Construction of roadway and utility service
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED OUT IN
WETLANDS (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND IMPACTS)
Crossing of two stream features is necessary.
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND/OR
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY
LISTED OR PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL
HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
DATE CONTACTED: Concurrent.
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHPO) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA
WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED: Concurrent.
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OT THE USE OF PUBLIC
(STATE) LAND? NO (IF NO, GO TO 16)
(a) IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT? YES NO
(b) IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH -1'I IE NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE YES NO
IF ANSWER l7b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF PROPOSED
ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OF FILL MATERIAL INTO
WETLANDS:
(a) WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES, AND
PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21, 26, 29, AND 38).
ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE PROPERTY MUST BE SHOWN
ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS 50 FEET OF 1 INCH EQUALS 100
FEET OF THEIR EQUIVALENT.
(b) IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE IMPACTED BY
PRODUCT.
(c) IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA SHEETS
RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
(d) ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
(e) WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Single Family Residential
(f) IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL? Public sewage
system
SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE US MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1. ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2. EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
CERTIFICATION, AND
3. (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE NORTH
CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM,
o5/191
ER' GEN MATURE ATE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED).

w Z
z a
m
cr
0 ?
O w ml:
o? Of
J 7
d W
0 D
O O D
O .? U wZ
.-

1
z
?z
sow
t€ } a !

z i
1
I \ -
I
c?