WSMU_MRSV_Ltr_19971105 (2)

•
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 4617752FA
Division of Water Quality
I r
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary IN
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
November 5, 1997
Mr. N. Erskine Smith, Jr.
Planning Director DRAFT
Town of Mooresville
P. O. Box 878
Mooresville, NC 28 1 1 5-0878
RE: Shoe Enterprises Major Variance Request, Town of Mooresville(Iredell County)
Dear Mr. Smith,
This letter is in response to the additional information submitted by Glenn Dunn of
Poyner & Sprull, L.L.P. and Dick Brolin of B.K. Barringer & Associates, P.A. pertaining
to the major variance request by Shoe Enterprises for the property located in the Town of
Mooresville within the Lake Norman WS-IV watershed protected area. In order for the
major variance request to proceed to the Environmental Management Commission(EMC),
State rules require that the request be routed through the local Watershed Review Board
(i.e.: the Mooresville Town Board) which shall prepare a preliminary record to be
submitted to the Commission for review [15A NCAC .0104(r)]. With additional material
being presented by the applicant, it is important that the local Watershed Review Board
meet again to consider this new information and make findings of fact as required in the
Administrative Code.
After considering the discussion which took place at the September 10, 1997 Water
Quality Committee (WQC)meeting and perusing the additional information submitted by
Poyner& Sprull and B.K. Barringer on behalf of Shoe Enterprises, Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) staff would ask that the following issues be evaluated by the Mooresville
Town Board when considering the revised variance request.
1. DWQ staff received a letter from the Ford Motor Company suggesting that the
Mooresville Motor Company needs 5 1/2 acres of usable site for a new facility. Is
this figure a recommendation or a requirement? If the landowner provided the full
100 foot buffers as required in the ordinance, 3.8 acres or 42 percent of the site
could be covered by impervious surfaces. A minor variance of the buffer width to
95 feet would yield approximately 4.2 acres of built-upon area. Are these amounts
of land insufficient for the proposed use? During the September meeting, the WQC
appeared to be very interested in data supporting the number of acres required(e.g.,
projected sales planning volume figures). How did the Ford Motor Company
generate its 5 1/2 acre number? h�,
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

4

Mr. N. Erskine Smith, Jr.
November 5, 1997 ) FT
Page Two Licr`'
2. The applicant has indicated that a 50 percent reduction of the required 100 foot
buffer widths would enable the development of 5.8 acres or 64 percent of the site.
What is the minimum buffer reduction necessary to obtain the minimum acreage
recommended by the Ford Motor Company? Would Shoe Enterprises and/or the
Mooresville Motor Company be amenable to a redesign to meet this figure?
-.i-3 .z R
When did Shoe Enterprises purchase the property? Was Mr. Shoe a
Mooresville Town Board member at the time of purchase?\\Was Mr. Shoe aware of
he Town's local ordinance and the impervious cover limitat• ns upon the property
4,
t y
at the time of purchase?``h n (p* *) i e s
�:il DWQ staff is interested in findings by the Town of Mooresville pertaining to the
sue of practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship to Shoe Enterprises when
carrying out the strict letter of the local ordinance. In particular, the findings should
at least address the question of, due to full compliance with the provisions of the
ordinance, the property owner can secure no reasonable return from or make no
reasonable use of his property; and whether or not the hardship is the result of the
applicant's own actions.
V/ 5. On behalf of Shoe Enterprises, B.K. Barringer& Associates has submitted
information indicating that oversizing the wet detention pond by 33 percent to
capture increased runoff from the site serves to mitigate the effects of the reduced
buffer width. DWQ staff is interested in specifics regarding the detention pond
design. Is there a difference in the physical size of the pond when it is "oversized?"
DWQ staff has not been presented with any plans or drawings showing the
configuration for the wet detention pond. How many more square feet of pond are
required to control the increased runoff? Is the pond required to be deeper to handle
the increased volume? What is the effect of oversizing on the percentage of total
suspended solids (%TSS) removed?
ti 4
6. DWQ staff is interested in �te additional stormwater management measures
proposed to be taken by the property owner in order to'mitigate the effects of +etc—
.
- ill the Lund arkin �z,��'
sheet drainage systems? Will the development use sand filters, �/�
`'' nches, grassed r o er non-struc r measures to filter water-
,borne-pollutants foam the sits? —
7/ DWQ staff is uncertain that they have the most recent version of the Town of
4 Mooresville's water supply watershed protection ordinance. Please submit to
Y-GGt'' DWQ, from the most recent version(s)of the local Town of Mooresville
`�1q ordinance(s),copies of all sections which pertain to variances. According to staff
i i I files, the variance information is located in Section 14.11 and Article 10 of the local
zoning ordinance.

Mr. N. Erskine Smith, Jr. DRAFT
November 5, 1997
Page Three
1-./ .Al),'ill.1_s
t/ XPlease submit verification that a description of the v riance request was sent to
ocal governments having jurisdiction within the e WS-IV watershed
t and to any major consumer of water whose point of intake lies within the same
watershed. Please submit any comments received from these notified local
governments pertaining to this variance request.
The Water Supply Watershed Protection Rules [15A NCAC .0104(r)] require that local
Watershed Review Boards make the following findings of fact in granting variances.
1. There are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships that prevent
compliance with the strict letter of the ordinance;
2. the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the local
watershed protection ordinance and preserves its spirit; and
3. in granting the variance,the public safety and welfare have been assured
and substantial justice has been done.
Prior to submitting the variance request to the EMC for review, the N.C. Administrative
Code requires that the Town of Mooresville examine the variance request considering any
additional information provided by the applicant. If you have any questions regarding
DWQ's recommendations or if you need further assistance,please contact Brent McDonald
of my staff at(919) 733-5083,extension 508. Thank you in advance for your cooperation
and support of the Water Supply Watershed Protection Program.
Sincerely,
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
✓ c lee'
cc: ✓Brent C. McDonald,DWQ--WSWP
d Bradley Bennett,DWQ--Stormwater
Rex Gleason,DWQ--MRO
Jim Dunn,DCA--MRO
Kathy Cooper, N.C. Attorney General's Office
H. Glenn Dunn, Poyner & Sprull, L.L.P.
Dick Brolin, B.K. Barringer& Associates
DWQ--Central Files