HomeMy WebLinkAbout20190459 Ver 2_More Info Requested_20210908
September 8, 2021
Certified Mail 7018 0360 0002 2099 8825
Return Receipt Requested
Tracy White
McDonald Development Company
525 N. Tryon Street, Ste 1600
Charlotte, NC 28202
Subjects: Patterson Road Site, DWR 19-0459
Incomplete Application
Request for More Information
Mecklenburg County
Mr. White:
On July 28, 2021, the Division of Water Resources (DWR) received your application for
the subject site. Additional information was requested regarding avoidance and minimization of
impacts as related to Stream A at the site. Similar concerns were expressed when the application
was initially submitted/received on April 10, 2019, and a waiver was requested from the Individual
Permit Process. With a minor adjustment to some parking, the project appears to be the same,
with the exception of additional acreage and building added to the project. Five hundred (500)
linear feet of stream impact is proposed.
Numerous emails have been exchanged (initial email sent on June 17, 2021, regarding the
current application) with your consultant, Ms. Aliisa Harjuniemi regarding the development.
Issues of avoidance and minimization must be clarified, including but not limited to:
Various buildings sizes/configurations are proposed. Other than allowing for the maximum
use of property, explain why the size of Building 200, which is responsible for the impact
to Stream A, is required.
Explain why Building 200 can’t be relocated across Patterson Road and a smaller building
(as currently included in the site plan) be built instead.
It was acknowledged that the stream was located on the property, yet was avoidance taken
into account in the proposed plan? If not, please explain. Other than the maximum use of
property, please explain why a different configuration of the building(s), size/location is
not possible.
Are any buildings proposed for segmentation to allow for multiple tenants? If so, please
identify.
Previous comments stated the common need for buildings of this type is between 10,000-
100,000 sq. ft. Three buildings, including Building A are approximately 200,000 sq. ft.,
twice the common needs. Why is the smaller size not sufficient for the project? In addition,
previously the army corps of engineers questioned the density/acre for the site. Your
response stated that the difference was due to site configuration. One should consider a
stream a boundary (avoidance/minimization) to site development as one does property
boundary. Was this taken into account when planning for the site? Please explain.
Are tenants currently lined up for any of the proposed buildings or is the development
speculative?
The use of underground stormwater BMPs should allow the extension of other building
and additional flexibility at the site. Was this considered? If rejected, explain why?
It may be prudent/helpful to provide a site diagram with Building 200 removed/reduced
to avoid impact to Stream A that may clarify the issue. This was the major concern for
the initial application that was subsequently withdrawn by the applicant.
It is requested that within 30 days of receipt of this letter, that the information requested
above be submitted to this office. Failure to provide the necessary additional information to
complete the application may result in the denial of the application per 15A NCAC 02H .0507.
Should you have any questions regarding these matters, contact Mr. Alan Johnson at
alan.johnson@ncdenr.gov or (704) 663-1699.
Sincerely,
W. Corey Basinger, Regional Supervisor
Water Quality Regional Operations Section, MRO
Division of Water Resources, NCDEQ
cc: Paul Wojoski, Wetland Unit, email
Aliisa Harjuniemi, CWS, email
Bryan Rhoden Reynolds, Army Corps Engineers, email
for