WSMU_MRSV_Ltr_19930708

402 00\-- GV05
oe r.0.,
TELEPHONE
J � Ton'n of JV1oores 'ille [phone]
• sviso POST OFFICE 5CpC878 1M
NORTH CAROLINA °'.
MOORESVILLE, NORTH ?L NA 28115 1ka}4
July 8, 1993 az)
JUL 15 199
Mr. Preston Howard, P. E. Director " "• '
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resou ,
Division of Environmental Management S
P. O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
mot• ' ' 1993
Dear Mr. Howard, DIV. OF F ' 'r1Hl MGMNT.
%.-„ • ds. riCE
I am writing in response to a memorandum, dated June 6,
1993 to Jim Phillips. According to the memo, you stated that
in the Town's position paper submitted October 16, 1991 that
"the Town indicated that their planned residential growth was
expected to be one dwelling unit per acre which is consistent
with the WS-II classification. " This statement is incorrect.
According to the Town's position paper, the Town asked
the EMC to allow densities ranging from 2 to 7 units per acre
in areas where municipal water and sewer service is
available. The restriction of 2 dwelling units per acre
within the corporate limits of Mooresville, virtually
eliminates any affordable housing opportunities for the
citizens of Mooresville. The Town asks that the EMC review
the extent of the WS-II Back Creek classification boundaries
within the corporate limits of Mooresville.
In addition, please send a copy of the questionnaire
completed by the Town in March 1991 for our records.
If you need further information or clarification, please
contact me at your earliest convenience.
Sincerel yours,
N. Erskine Smith, Jr. "fr
Planning Director
cc: Jim Phillips, Legislative Council for Governor Jim Hunt
The Honorable Robert Brawley, 43rd NC House District
Mayor Joe V. Knox, Mooresville
City Manager, Richard A. McLean, Mooresville

•
at'ethhed 1assxf .catio i Gr erx
;. Name of Watershed: Yadkin — Back Creek
2. Name and address of Jurisdiction: Town of Mooresville
P. 0. Box 878
Mooresville, North Carolina 28115
3. Contact person and phone number: Richard A. McLean, Manager
[phone]
4. Total acreage of the watershed in your jurisdiction(ETJ included): 2,180
5. Total acreage of the watershed in the Critical Area that is residential: N/A
6. Total acreage of the watershed outside of the Critical Area that is residential:
870
7. Total acreage of the watershed in the Critical Area that is non-residential:
8 Total acreage of the watershed outside of the Critical Area that is non-residential: 1,310 •
9. Does your jurisdiction currently have Stormwater Control Devices in use within
residential watershed areas? _ - No
10. Does your jurisdiction currently have Stormwater Control Devices in use within
non-residential watershed areas? No
11. Existing residential density in the Critical Area: N/A
12. Local government intent for future residential development in the Critical Area: N/A
13. Existing residential density outside of the Critical Area: (1
14. Local government intent for future residential development outside of
• the Critical Area: 1/Ac
15. Local Government intent for future non-residential development in the N/A
Critical Area: —
16. Local government intent for future non-residential development outside of the
Critical Area: - 10
17. Total acreage of farmland within your portion of the watershed: 550
18. Percentage of the total watershed located within a state park or national park/forest: N/A
19. In your opinion,what watershed classification would the watershed qualify for
under the adopted Rule? WS IV
20. What classification would your local government prefer for the watershed? Explain.
The Town of Mooresville would prefer a WS IV Classification. This
classification would permit our planned growth of residential areas.
•
•
Submitted/'
03167s�
ut tonzurg rgnaturc � ,� Date
1/91