20071302 Ver 1_Vested Rights Determination_20070730

BRL ENGINEERING
7046 6tt BfonMr 8trM
Four O~k~, NC 27624
~sts~9s~-zsos
d 7-136
® Brian R Leonard, PE, PLS
April 25, 2007

~5 .,...,..~ ...... :.1 i.,. ~`71
~~
Ms. Amy Chapman `f l ` ~' ~~ Z U U
Buffer Coordinator ,~- ~.,.
NC Division of Water Qual' Central Office ~~~' : = ~~ ~ ' , .
2321 Crabtree Boulevard -Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
Re: Vested Rights Request For Lot 23 in Carriage Hills Subdivision, In City of Raleigh
Dear Ms. Chapman:
On behalf of the current Owners of Lot 23 in Carriage Hills Subdivision, 1 am hereby submitting to
NCDWQ their request for Vested Rights of the above-stated property, specifically pertaining to the
current Neuse River Riparian Buffer Rules. The premise for this request is based on the significant
and extraordinary restrictions, and finandal loss that would be realized on this lot due only to the fad
that the Neuse River Riparian Buffer rules were evaded in 1997, which ocxurred welt after the
current Owners had already purchased the property for investment reasons. This request is not
entirely unrelated to recent submittals by the same Owners to NCDWQ requesting minor buffer
variances for Lots 17, 18, 8~ 31 within the same subdivision. To date, variance approval has been
obtained for Lots 17 Z~ 18; and approval is still pending for Lot 31. These previous n~quests for minor
variances were submitted because of different, and slightly less significant, restrictions created by the
buffer rules. These previous variance requests also demonstrate the Owner's willingness to expend
design & survey fees, mitigation fees, and additional construction costs in order to develop within the
current regulatory framework. However, Lot 23 presents its own uniqueness due to the location of
the existing "buffered" stream within and adjacent to the property (see Exhibit A). It has been
determined that to develop this lot using a minimal house footprint would place a proposed home too
far within the current buffer zones to apply for a minor variance (as was done for the previous lots as
mentioned). Therefore, in orcier to protect their investment and prevent what could effectively be a
condemnation of their property, the Owners hereby request that Lot 23 be granted vested rights from
the current Neuse River Riparian Buffer Rules.
In our previous discussions on this matter, and according to an NCDWQ document titled "Vested
Rights and Development...° dated 6/25/03, the vested rights request is a process that must initially
meet certain criteria orfindings-of--fact. Acxording to the stated document, we shalt attempt to pursue
the criteria as stated in the "common law" category of vested rights (as opposed to the "statutory IavW'
category). Also, !et it be known that I am not an attorney and am not declaring to be an expert of the
law, although I am familiar with the Neuse River Riparian Buffer Rules. However, being a licensed
engineer, I am knowledgeable of the impacts and restrictions that the buffer rules appear to have
created on the stated lots. Should an attorney be required at some point in the future, the Owners
are prepared to pursue that avenue if necessary. Regarcfing the "common law" category of vested
rights, the above-mentioned NCDWQ document describes four criteria or findings that must be
proven: i) Substantial expenditures; 2) Good Faith; 3) Governmental Pemlit(s) as applicable; and 4)
A Detriment if the project would be changed to meet the rules. The following represents the Owners
position regarding each of these criteria:
Y~

Page 2 of 4
April 25, 2007
Ms. Amy Chapman
1. Substantial Expenditures: Ac•.cording to the NCDWQ document on vested rights, °substantial
expenditures" pertain to money spent or obligated to be spent on a speafic project Typically,
this excludes the purchase price of land because purchase price may not necessarily prove a
specific intent or proposed use for the land. The Owners have indeed spent monies, or made
other real expenditures, swaps and/or agreements related to this property (and other properties
in this subdivision) in addition to the initial purchase price. However, before specifically
mentioning these additional expenditures, we feel that in this particular case the Owners'
purchase price does prove a specific intent and proposed use or plan. Let me explain. This
property is recorded as part of a subdivision plat that was approved by the governing bodies at
. •. the time and placed on public record in 1965. The subdivision was required to adhere to all
approvals and permits at that time. The only use allowed for these lots within the recorded
subdivision would be for individual residences. Therefore, the Owners' direct purchase of these
lots would imply that their only intent would be for some future residential use ('re. some type of
single-family residence either as their own residence, or for future residential development).
Additionally, and probably most importantly, the Owners purchased approximately half of the
lots in Carriage Hills from the original developer, due to a foreclosure on the development
shortly after it had been approved, accepted, and recorded. Therefore, the Owners essentially
assumed the original rights of the approved development, and made clear their intentions of
developing these Tots, just the same as the original developer and according to the
development plan and plat approved at the time. Of course, at the time of this purchase, no
riparian buffer rules existed and no prior knowledge of the impending impact to their property
could have Been predicted. Therefore, by virtue of approval of the original development and
platting of Carriage Hills Subdivision; and, the Owners' purchase of approximately half of the
lots from the initial developer, and, according to the applicable laws and regulations at the time
the subdivision was approved and recorded, the intent to develop these lots (including Lot 23)
for future n~sidential use was set forth. Of course, any purchase atterthe 1997 adoption of the
buffer rules and with fuA disclosure and knowledge of the rules would negate any applicability of
vested rights. However, in this case the Owners did acquire the properties well before the
buffer rules were enacted. And it was only by the adoption of the rules that their plans and
intentions for several of these properties (including Lot 23) were threatened.
Furthermore, as stated above, the Owners have also made expenditures, real estate
exchanges, and financlal agreements in addition to purchase price that are worth noting. The
following describes and documents the Owners' efforts and intentions to develop Lot 23 and
other lots within this subdivision. The Owners initially acquired Lot 23, and other lots in the
subdivision bade in circa 1967. Their intentions of developing the lots for residential purposes
are well documented (as I will soon give evidence). But their history of trying to develop some
of the lots has been met with various obstacles, particularly involving a dispute wrth the local
homeowner's Water Assodation and their control of the old community water system. The
detailed history of this dispute is not practical, and much too involved for a detailed discussion
here. But in short, the Owners themselves once operated this system and, by agreement,
exchanged their operation rights of the water system to the homeowner's assoclation in
exchange for being able to develop their remaining lots and for the water association to provide
water to the lots that they owned. This history is best documented in a letter from the Owners'
attorney to the water associated, dated 3/2289 (see EXHIBIT B). From that point and on into
the late `80's the Owners and the Water Association had several disputes regarding their initial
agreement, which essentia8y left the Owners with several lots that were never developed
(including Lot 23). However, the Owners were aware of the future possibility of City water and
sewer being brought to the subdivision, which left them an opportunity to develop these
residual lots. It wasn't until n~centiy, with the final installation of City water and sewer within the
subdivision, that the Owners have been able to re-pursue their interests in ~hese lots. Through
the course of these historical endeavors to develop these properties, and m their agreements
with the Water Association, the Owners freely deeded 2 of their lots and granted easements on

Page 3 of 4
April 25, 2007
Ms. Amy Chapman
3 other lots to the Water Association. More recently the Owners have had to buy back some of
these easements (that they initially granted to the Water Association) from the City of Raleigh.
This should demonstrate that additional expenditures in the form of property exchanges,
agreemer>ts, and other monies have indeed been incur-ed by the Owners in order to develop
their properties in this subdivision. Additionally, because of having to wait so long to develop
these properties, the Owners have incurred a signficant amount of costs in the form of property
taxes for approximately the last 40 years. (Any additional documentation may be provided
upon request).
2. Good Faith: According to the NCDWQ document on vested rights, "good faith" implies that the
above expenditures were made without knowledge of the impending change in rules. In the
previous section above it is stated that the Owners have been pursuing the development of
their investment for many years now since the late 1960's. This alone meets the evidence of
good faith, since the Neuse River Riparian Buffer Rules were not adopted until 1997 and the
Owners could not possibly have been aware of such rules during their prior attempts at
developing these lots.
Furtherrore, despite a private dispute over control of water supply to some lots, it has always
been the Owners intent to develop their remaining lots when utilities could be made available.
This is why they have • retained ownership of their investment for so long. Residential
development was already "permitked" in this subdivision prior to the buffdr rules, due to the
original approvals of the development. It was only by the enactrnent of the buffer rules that the
development of these lots was threatened. As further evidence of good faith, it was described
in the introductory paragraphs of this letter that the Owners have tried to develop other lots in
this subdivision more recently and still comply with the current buffer rules. This has involved
expenditures for designing speaal stormwater devices that comply with standard buffer rules
through the buffer variance process. However, specifically for Lot 23, the standard buffer rules
and the variance process appear to be too restrictive to facilitate a feasible residence with
similar stormwater plans to these other lots. Therefore, the only alternative to this lot would be
the Vested Rights process.
3. Prior Governmental Permits: According to the NCDWQ document on vested rights, prior
"govemmental permits" implies that the above expenditures were made, in good faith, on an
appropriate approval received from a public entity. In both the preceding sections it has been
eluded to that the Owners assumed the rights of the initial, approved development plan of this
subdivision when they purchased Lot 23 and other lots in the foreclosure of the original
developer. This original development plan and subdivision was required to meet the local
zoning regulations of the time, as well as the City or State street standards that were required,
among any other types of permitting required at the time in order to be recorded as a plat This
alone implies that prior govemmental permits were obtained. Furthermore, the NCDWQ
document on vested rights states, "...case law also establishes that if a project was exempt
from a govemmental permit, the lack of a permit will not prohibit a vested right." While certainly
there would be stringent environmental and water quality permitting today for this subdivision
based on can-ent regulations, just because no environmental or water quality permits were
required at the time does not imply that the Owners' plan for Lot 23 is not vested.
4. Detriment: According to the NCDWQ document on vested rights, a "detriment" implies that
the rules will prevent a project from being completed or impose an unreasonable burden. As
stated previously, the Owner has already made good faith efforts on other lots to comply with
the current rules through the variance process. However, Lot 23 does not present any
apparent plan or solution (that would be similar to those other lots), even if the variance process
is utilized. Therefore, the detriment is obvious: If the current buffer rules are applied to Lot 23,

Page4of4
April 25, 2007
Ms. Amy Chapman
then the Owner will not be able to sell or develop this lot for residential purposes, as was their
original intent
On behalf of the Owners, I would appreaate your review of this request for Vested Rights, in
accordance with NCDWQ policy. Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
BRL ENGINEERING
Brian R. Leonard, PE, PLS
BRV~
Cc:. Ross Lampe
Attachments: E~dtibit A -Site Plan for Lot 23
E~ibit B -Letter Dated 3/22lT9 Summarizing and Documenting Owners History to that Point in Time

cy N cRePHIC scAta
~
,~ a o ~a a o0

C Rb,~ ~fo ,~
~

(D1 lRbT
g ~ ~ - ,o n ---_~-

~; ~
P
s~rE v -~
~~ ~ \X
b \\~~ GARR/AGF Dlq/I~E

tAt;71MIY INP E \\~ .
MLr A .~Y! a \ \
~r
IlI I I
I
I I I~
I~ I
I ~ I
I I
I / I
2~1 ~ ~
I /
Ex~sr zo' sEwt:'R I I I '
I ~ I I
I ~.,~
I ~. i / ~
_--- -------~I/ I/
I
` LOT BOVNODARY\~ \
(ApPROX)
30' FRONT ~~~
(CITY
a~- ~ SO' FRONT Y ~, I
ARD
~ f ~ (I+a~IEOw~ ~ i-- a
~~
~~/~ ~ ~ ~
b I I~ / / ~ I o
ff~~~ ~ ~ I
~~ ~
~' I ~n I ' n ~ I
~~ ~ ~ I I
r I ~' / 2b' I I
Q1fE'
~ U 30'~Y~ I '
/ ~ Q' (CITII ZONNIC) (J
~ o l I
'' ll' ~l
/;~ i I
l ~ Ili 1 ~
~l~'I 1
ll~ 1
I
~ ~' ~ 1
,' , ~ ~ ~ ~
~2)
DATE. APRIL 2~, Z°°' BRL ENGtNEERIHG
SCALE: ~- _ ~~
T04-B East Stanley Street
DRAWN 8Y: BRL Four Oaks, NC 27524
CHECKED BY: BRL Qf f jCe: (919) 963-26~$
PROJECT Na Tosots.os ° Fax: [phone]
LOT 23 /N CARR/ASE H/LLS SUBD/V/S/ON ExH IBi T
SITE INFORMATION OWNER INFORMATION
CITY OR TOWN, COUNTY 8 STATE: RALEIGH, WAKE CO., NC OWNER: R05S W. LAMPS, ET. AL
aDDRESS CONTACT: ROSS LAMPS TELerI~NE
TOWNSHIP, COUNTY, 8 STATE: - 2351AARKET STREET 811}9346195
ZONING: R-0 SMRHFtE1.D,NC77577 818834'1552

~ i81 r 'B,
x~.
D~2
Vickie Moiz
Charles Morris
22 March 1979
Carriage Sills Water Systaa~
..~
7~
First. Dull a storssze file in the name of "Carriasta Hills Water System"..
This file should contain all the data that you find necessary for the matter
I am about to place upon you. •
We represent J. Graves Vann and xoss Lampe.
First, some background infornoatioa: In 1967. Carriage Hills Subdivision,
comprising approximately SO lots was foreclosed as a result of tie developer
becoming bankrupt. Mr. Vann and Mr. ~;ampe; as a partnership, Purchased approx-
imately 25 of those lots. One of the lots which they purchased had the eater
system well and pump house on it. As a convenience to the neighborhood, they
operated the water system which serviced the then existing houses, approximately
18 is number. Later, because of legal requirements, they qualified themselves
as a'water system befoze the North .Carolina IItilities Commission in order to
charge rates for supplying valet to tba customers in the subdivision. The 25
lots which they owned did not have dwellings on them. They were unable to
build on the lots because of the water system. They made substantial improve-
ments in the water system. Approximately 3 years ago, with approval of the
N. C. U. C., Vaan and Lampe conveyed the lot with the well and pub, along with
another lot on which a subsequent well was located, along with all rights in
the water system, to a Healy formed hvmeawnars association entitled "Carriage
Hills Water System, Inc." Part of the agreement allowed Vann and Lampe to have
houses constructed on their lots and to add houses to the system so long as the
system produced specified quantities of water. This has progressed nicely in
the last several months with them building approximately 10 houses.
However, construction has coma to a halt. The State of North Carolina
has asked the Carriage Hills Water System to provide an engineering drawing of
the system by a Professional Engineer and to beet minimum storage requirements
as established by the State. The report ie suppossd to indicate storage, vol-
ume, pumping and an outline of all the pipes, connections, etc. The State h8s
stopped any Haw co~ections for several months. The Carriage Hills Water System
has not provided this data. Thus, they are unable to sell their lots and to
build additional hooves. _

~XH1~1T• 'g-
2•fZ
The one who has been imrolved in this is a Mr. Don Williams from
FayettaviLla w3.th the North Carolina Health Services Division.
Yowc task -which you shall accept - is to review the file, which in-
cludes the contracts and the by-laws of the system and to determine what has
bees promised La~rpa sad Vann with respect to adding sew lots and houses to
the system and what enforcement authority Lampe and Vann has against the water
system or the homsswaera to require them to meet State requirements.
I'll b• glad to talk with you about it and discuss it in more detail
and probably can direct you to provisions in the documents; however, I xould
like to have a preliadnary opinion at the first of next weak.
.~
,~.
~=*~''
TO ~ ~O
TIME
DATE
THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE WAS LEFT BY
M
OF
PHONE
PLEASE CALL RETURNED YOUR CALL _,
-- WILL CALL AGAIN
URGENT

~..
P. O. BOX 2209 ~ RALEIGH, N• C~~~_~ ~ P NONC AR ~E 55-7300
LONG DISTANCE 1800
.~

,_.`.
ROSS W. IJ+MPE
President
GUY LEE LAMPE
Vice-President Guy C. Lee Mfg. Company
THOMAS A. STEPHENSON
Treasurer P.O. Box 1457, SMITHFIELD, NORTH CAROLINA 27577
JOHN H. LAMPE, II
Secretary
ANN P. PARRISH
Asst. Secretary
June 25, 2007
Mr. Brian Leonard
BRL Engineering
704-B East Stanley St.
Four Oaks, NC 27524
RE: LOT 23
Dear Brian:
Telephone r~
919-934-6195 D ~- /~ ~56~
FAX [phone] ((( //
235 Market Street
Service Agent For:
GUY C. LEE BUILDING MATERIALS
Apex, Kitty Hawk, Morehead City,
Mt. Pleasant, Shallotte, Sneads Ferry,
Independent Millwork &
Hardware Distributors
GUY C. LEE BUILDING MATERIALS
OF SMITHFIELD, INC.
LAMPE AND MALPHRUS
LUMBER COMPANY, INC.
Enclosed is a copy of the City of Raleigh's assessment on Lot 23. This may help in
getting the release from the N. C. Division of Water Quality.
Please let me know of our progress.
Sincer y yours,
Ross W. Lampe
RWL:app
~~rDGM
,~D,~r'~X p~M~~T~R~~''.
°~ ~ 3,
~ot2- Z.~7' Z ~~ ~.Itl
J^',~A? r'~A'
Cs; ^~C'

JF RALEIGH `~
ENUe sues-`2s
~ I30X 590
:ALEIGH NC 27602-0590
919) 890-3200
June 16, 2007
A13S 20564
LAMPS, ROSS W & FAYL-' L
VANN, J GRAVES JR TRUSTEE
C/O J G VANN JR
71 1 S CRESCENT DR
SMITHFIELD NC 27577-3841
~. ~ 3
y~ ~~p
r~v~--~=
4t,--~1. ~ ,t
Statement of Assessment
April 3, 2007, the Raleigh City Council confirmed Water Assessment Roll Number 1309. According to city records, you own the
perty located ai 3605 CARR[AGE DR known as Assessment Lot No. 084 . 1'o~tr assessment cost is $2,260.00. This assessment
situtes a lien against the property until the total assessment amount plus interest is paid.
YMENT OPTIONS:
r'ou may pay this assessment in full at any time. To avoid interest on your principal balance, please pay in full 131FOR1; August 6,
)7. Payments received after this date will be subject to interest calculated at a rate of six percent (6%) per annum ti-om the
:firniation date.
You may pay this assessment in no more than ten annual installments. If you choose. this method of payment your annual
aliment will be $226.00 plus interest and is due September 1st each year. You may pay your account in full at any time by paying
tr principal balance plus interest.
he assessment amount is not paid in full prior to August 6, 2007 it will be assumed that you wish to pay your assessment to
tual installments. Annual installment plus interst is due September 1st of each year.
crest will accrue at a rate of six percent (6%) per annum of the unpaid principal balance, and is calculated from the date of the last
m~ent to the date the next payment is paid. Interest is prorated for the first year from the date of confirmation to the date the first
,mlent is received.
u may make extra payments at any time as long as the account has not been turned over for collection. Please be aware that extra
rments do not reduce the annual installment arrrount unless the remaining balance is less than the annual installment amount.
r information and payment options regarding this assessment, please call Revenue Services at [phone].
Detach and retain this portion for your records
... ., ~ .~ _~_____ _._._____. _.:.~ ......_ _ ............. nn wln-r Cr_>,In rncu _ [)Prnrn ('hPrl~ Prnaliv Mavimnm allnweri unricr state law
w
Account Number
Assessment for Property Located at
Real Estate ID ~
NC YIN
Date Mailed
Interest Begins
20564 3605 CARRIAGE DR 0040276 0785874809000 Jun 16, 2007 Aug 6, 2007
T e Roll # Lot # Assessment Amount
Water 1309 084 $ 2,260.00
Total Due by August 6, 2007 to avoid interest charges $2,260.00
>,1\4PE, ROSS W & FAYE L
ANN, J GRAVES JR TRUSTEE
O J G VANN JR
1 S CRESCENT DR
~i1THF[ELD NC 27577-3841
CI'hY OF RALEIGH
REVENUE SVCS - 25
PO BOX 590
RALEIGH NC 27602-0590
If you elect to r~nake installment payments, the following will be due on
September 1 2007 ,based on 151 days of interest.
Property Located at:
3605 CARRIAGE DR
Account Number 20564
Real estate [D #: 0040276
NC PIN 0785874809000
Principal $226.00
Interest $56.10
Total Payment Due on Sep 1, 2007
Amount Paid
$282.10