20210773 Ver 1_More Info Received_20220330

Strickland, Bev
From: David Michaels <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2022 6:10 PM
To: [e-mail]; Homewood, Sue
Cc: Michael Brame; Hugh Creed Associates Inc, P.A.
Subject: RE: [External] Request for Additional Information: SAW-2021-00814 (Flemingfield
Road tract / McLeansville / Guilford County / residential)
Attachments: Flemingfield PCN Rev 2022-03-25.pdf; FLEMINGFIELD RESERVE PRELIMINARY
2-16-2022.pdf; Flemingfield Road Sketch 2021-02-17.pdf; FR COE DEQ response
2.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
David and Sue,
Please find attached our response to your comments as set forth in prior emails dated March 2 and March 4, 2022. Our
response includes:
• Written answers to questions posed by each of you,
• Attached drawings as set forth in the written response.
Please advise if you have other questions at this time. There are additional reports forthcoming that will be forwarded
to you as received. Also, please confirm receipt of this response.
Yours truly,
WINDSOR
HOMES
David B. Michaels
Manager, Land Acquisition and Development
Windsor Homes
5603 New Garden Village Dr.
Greensboro, NC 27410
M: 336-207-8003
0: 336.282.3535 Ext. 239
From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 7:49 AM
To: David Michaels <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] Request for Additional Information: SAW-2021-00814 (Flemingfield Road tract / McLeansville /
Guilford County/ residential)
i

CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL
That sounds good, Mr. Michaels. Thanks.
-Dave Bailey
David E. Bailey, PWS
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
CE-SAW-RG-R
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Office: [phone], Ext. 30.
Mobile: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is
located at: https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/
Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey.
From: David Michaels <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2022 3:19 PM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)<[e-mail]>
Cc: Michael Brame <[e-mail]>; Hugh Creed Associates Inc, P.A. <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] RE: [External] Request for Additional Information: SAW-2021-00814
(Flemingfield Road tract / McLeansville / Guilford County / residential)
Thanks Dave — we will proceed with the assessment. I have prepared a partial response to some of your concerns and
am waiting on my consultants to provide the additional data. We anticipate resubmittal by the end of next week — I will
keep you informed if it looks like it will extend beyond that time frame.
WINDSOR
HOMES
David B. Michaels
Manager, Land Acquisition and Development
Windsor Homes
5603 New Garden Village Dr.
Greensboro, NC 27410
M: 336-207-8003
0: 336.282.3535 Ext. 239
From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)<[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2022 3:07 PM
To: David Michaels <[e-mail]>
Cc: Michael Brame <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] Request for Additional Information: SAW-2021-00814 (Flemingfield Road tract / McLeansville /
Guilford County/ residential)
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL
2

Hi Mr. Michaels, and thanks for your email. Yes, a site assessment to determine if suitable habitat exists onsite is an
appropriate course of action; such an assessment can be your response to item #6. Once that information is received I
can begin informal consultation with the USFWS. Hopefully that helps.
-Dave Bailey
David E. Bailey, PWS
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
CE-SAW-RG-R
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Office: [phone], Ext. 30.
Mobile: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is
located at: https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/
Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey.
From: David Michaels <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 9:40 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)<[e-mail]>
Cc: Michael Brame <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] RE: [External] Request for Additional Information: SAW-2021-00814
(Flemingfield Road tract / McLeansville / Guilford County / residential)
David,
Regarding item 6, it is my understanding that the window for observation of these species will not open until late
summer or early fall of this year. Consequently, the only timely response I can provide is a site assessment to determine
if suitable habitat exists onsite or not. I just want to confirm that this method of assessment will be acceptable at this
time. Pilot has referred us to a botanist that can cruise the site within the week or so if I give them the authorization.
Please reply at your earliest opportunity.
WINDSOR
HOMES�
David B. Michaels
Manager, Land Acquisition and Development
Windsor Homes
5603 New Garden Village Dr.
Greensboro, NC 27410
M: 336-207-8003
0: 336.282.3535 Ext. 239
From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)<[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, March 7, 2022 7:15 AM
3

To: David Michaels <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] Request for Additional Information: SAW-2021-00814 (Flemingfield Road tract / McLeansville /
Guilford County/ residential)
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL
Sounds good. Thanks David.
-Dave Bailey
David E. Bailey, PWS
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
CE-SAW-RG-R
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Office: [phone], Ext. 30.
Mobile: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is
located at: https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/
Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey.
From: David Michaels <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, March 4, 2022 4:15 PM
To: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>; Michael Brame <[e-mail]>
Cc: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Teresa Andrews
<[e-mail]>; Munzer, Olivia <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] RE: [External] Request for Additional Information: SAW-2021-00814
(Flemingfield Road tract / McLeansville / Guilford County / residential)
Sue and David,
I will have formal answers back to each of you hopefully by the end of next week. I need to discuss a couple of these
concerns with Mike Brame and I've already spoken with the design engineer to provide answers as well. Have a nice
weekend and look forward to corresponding with you soon.
David Michaels
From: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, March 4, 2022 10:54 AM
To: Michael Brame <[e-mail]>; David Michaels <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; Teresa Andrews <[e-mail]>; Munzer, Olivia
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] Request for Additional Information: SAW-2021-00814 (Flemingfield Road tract / McLeansville /
Guilford County/ residential)
All,
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL
4

The Division has the same questions and comments as the USACE, therefore please copy me on your response to David's
email. In addition, I have the following comments and questions:
1. In order to determine the applicability of the state isolated permitting rules 15A NCAC 02H .1300, please provide
the wetland classification using the NCWAM dichotomous key.
2. Please clarify the stormwater requirements for this project. The PCN indicates that the site is Low Density but
also that a Stormwater Management Plan will be reviewed by the County.
3. As the stormwater control measures are located within confined areas adjacent to jurisdictional features, please
provide information regarding the status of the review of the stormwater management plan. Modifications to
the stormwater management plan could require additional impacts to jurisdictional features.
4. The plans propose 110 linear feet of culvert installation for the stream impact and 50 foot riprap apron. While
the agencies acknowledge that properly installed riprap aprons are not considered a loss of stream, it is the
Division's opinion that there is a loss of stream function and aquatic passage with longer riprap aprons,
especially when they are combined with the culvert length. Please confirm that the riprap apron is designed for
the minimum length allowed by regulations.
5. The Jordan Lake Buffer Rules are implemented by Guilford County, however the PCN notes that buffer
mitigation is not proposed. Please note that the Jordan Buffer Rules state that road crossings that impact
greater than 150 linear feet or 1/3 acre of buffer require mitigation. The total stream impacts at this location
are listed as 160 linear feet.
The Division will consider this application on hold until receipt of complete responses to all items. Please be aware that
additional questions or comments may be necessary upon review of your response.
Sue Homewood
Division of Water Resources, Winston Salem Regional Office
Department of Environmental Quality
336 776 9693 office
336 813 1863 mobile
[e-mail]
450 W. Hanes Mill Rd, Suite 300
Winston Salem NC 27105
From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 2:33 PM
To: Michael Brame <[e-mail]>; David Michaels <[e-mail]>
Cc: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Request for Additional Information: SAW-2021-00814 (Flemingfield Road tract / McLeansville /
Guilford County/ residential)
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
All,
Thank you for your PCN, dated 2/1/2022, for the above referenced project. I have reviewed the information and need
clarification before proceeding with verifying the use of Nationwide Permit (NWP) 29 (https://saw-
5

reg.usace.army.mil/NWP2021/NWP29.pdf). Please submit the requested information below (via e-mail is fine) within 30
days of receipt of this Notification, otherwise we may deny verification of the use of the Nationwide Permit or consider
your application withdrawn and close the file:
1) NWP 29 General Condition 23(a) requires that the activity be designed and constructed to avoid and minimize
adverse effects, both temporary and permanent, to waters of the US to the maximum extent practicable
(available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in
light of overall project purposes). It is not clear that the design of the proposed development meets this
requirement. Namely:
a. Slate Ridge Trail, including proposed Impacts 1 and 2, is routed to cross Stream SA at a tangent at the
widest portion of Wetland WD, and directly through a disjunct section of Wetland WC 12-58. Additional
avoidance and minimization would be shown by adjusting the route to follow closer to the existing
driveway of the site across Stream SA, and or re -aligning this road to the north of Wetland WC 21-58;
b. Longfield Drive is routed through the upper -most portion of Wetland WE (Impact 5). Retaining walls and
other slope -steepening techniques are often used to eliminate or limit fill slope footprints in wetlands;
c. Elk Horn Drive, is routed through one of the wider sections of Wetland WE 1-58 (Impact 7). Additional
avoidance and minimization would be shown by adjusting the route to cross this wetland closer to the
existing dirt path crossing to the north, or re -aligning this road to cross this wetland slightly to the south;
d. Wetland impacts are proposed for Lot fill at Lots 16, 17, 48, 62, and 63 (Impacts 3, 4, 6, and 8). It is not
clear that project viability is dependent on the inclusion of these 5 Lots, when the overall development
proposes 99. Further, retaining walls and other slope -steepening techniques are often used to eliminate
or limit fill slope footprints in wetlands;
Please re -design the project accordingly, or provide documentation that such avoidance and minimization
measures are not practicable.
2) Item la above notwithstanding, revisions are required on Sheets 2 and 3 of the plans provided with the PCN:
a. The culvert pipe footprint is not visible on Sheet 2. This information is needed to show the pipe
alignment vs. the location of the stream, the culvert width vs. the width of the stream, etc., to ensure
that the project meets NWP 29 Regional Condition B.9c;
b. Sheet 2 does not clearly indicate the footprint of stream impacts for each of the 110 If of stream impact,
50 If of embedded rip rap, and 10 additional If of temporary impacts;
c. Sheet 3 indicates that two 60" culvert pipes are proposed at Impact 1. In order to comply with NWP 29
Regional Condition B.9b, one pipe should act as the low flow pipe (inverts buried 1' below the stream
bed), and the other pipe should act as the high flow culvert (only to receiving bank -full flows). High flow
culverts are typically designed by placing its invert at bankfull level, or at least a foot or two above the
existing stream bed. Another way to comply with this condition it to design sills at the inlet and outlet of
the high flow culvert to only allow flow in the high flow culvert at the above referenced flow level;
d. The top and bottom of the culvert is not visible on the profile view; this information is needed to ensure
that the culvert meets NWP 29 Regional Condition B.9 pertaining to culvert burial. Ensure that this
drawing clearly labels the top and bottom of the high and low flow culverts;
e. Items la and 2a above notwithstanding, Sheet 2 indicates that the culverts would be oriented such that
the stream exits the culverts aimed directly at the stream bank. Furthermore, the stream alignment
would then run parallel to the proposed fill slope only a few feet to the south for approximately 37
linear feet. This information indicates that maintaining a functioning stream channel in its current
location under these conditions is extremely unlikely. How would the design minimize the risk of indirect
impacts to this portion of the stream channel? Based on the current proposal the Corps would consider
this portion of stream as an indirect reduction of stream function, potentially calculated cumulatively
with the proposed direct permanent stream impacts when considering compensatory mitigation
thresholds, per NWP General Conditions "District Engineers Decision;"
f. Items la above notwithstanding, the portion of unimpacted Wetland WD between the south side of the
proposed fill slope and Stream SA includes a remanent fringe of wetland too small (-0.016 acre) and
narrow to be expected to retain its previous function. As such, and the fact that grading for the adjacent
direct impact would eliminate any upslope drainage to this area, the Corps would consider the
6

remainder of the south side of this wetland as a reasonably foreseeable indirect impact. This area would
be added to the required compensatory mitigation amount.
3) Please provide zoomed -in details, including a plan and profile view, for Impact 7. Ensure that these details
clearly show the size and number of culvert pipes (placed at -grade rather than buried), head walls, rip rap, etc.
4) Items 1 a-c above notwithstanding, how would the project maintain appropriate hydrology to the remainders of
Wetlands WC 21-58 and WE 1-58. The Corps is concerned that upland grading in these areas would re-route
overland flow away from these areas and into downslope stormwater basins. If onsite hydrology is expected to
be maintained via culverts under roadways, swales, or other methods, please include plan detail sheets to
demonstrate. Note that, in addition to compensatory mitigation requirements for direct, the Corps would
consider requiring compensatory mitigation reasonably foreseeable indirect impacts resulting in a loss of
hydrology and therefore aquatic function, per NWP General Conditions "District Engineers Decision;"
5) For proposed Impact 9, sanitary sewer crossing of Stream SD and Wetland WC 21-58:
a. Per NWP 29 General Condition 10.c., please provide a plan to restore and re -vegetate wetland areas
within the utility corridor;
b. Given that the project exceeds the compensatory mitigation ratio for wetland impacts, the Corps will
also require compensatory mitigation for the permanently maintained sewer corridor through forested
wetlands. Compensatory mitigation for permanent conversion of forested to herbaceous wetlands is
typically required at a 1:1 ratio unless otherwise justified based on resource quality (NCWAM/NCSAM).
6) We acknowledge the statement in the PCN pertaining to endangered species (Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act), that "Potential habitat for these species is not located within the proposed project areas."
However, given the general nature of potentially suitable habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower and small whorled
pogonia, the existence of both open and forested areas within the project area, and given recent USFWS
concerns regarding these species, the Corps cannot currently reach a No Effect determination for these species
within the Section 7 Action Area based on the information provided. Note that, given the distribution of
proposed impacts throughout the property, the entire proposed Flemingfield Reserve development would be
considered the Action Area for Section 7 purposes. As such:
a. If you do not believe that any suitable habitat exists in the Action area for these species, please provide
a more thorough justification so that the Corps could evaluate the potential for a No Effect
determination;
b. If suitable habitat for either of these species does exist in the Action Area, please complete a pedestrian
survey for these species within the appropriate survey window. Following the survey, please provide the
survey report to the Corps (copy also the USFWS) for review;
Please note that, per NWP 29 General Condition 18, the Corps cannot verify the use of a NWP until Section 7
consultation is complete.
7) Items la and c notwithstanding, to demonstrate further avoidance and minimization, would it be possible to
remove the existing driveway crossing of Stream SA or dirt road crossing of Wetland WE 1-58 and stabilize with
appropriate sloping and matting?
8) Please note that responses to the questions above may prompt additional information requests to allow full
evaluation of the proposed project.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Dave Bailey
David E. Bailey, PWS
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
CE-SAW-RG-R
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
7

Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Office: [phone], Ext. 30.
Mobile: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is
located at: https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/
Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey.
From: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 2, 2022 10:41 AM
To: Michael Brame <[e-mail]>
Cc: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)<[e-mail]>
Subject: SAW-2021-00814 (Flemingfield Road tract / McLeansville / Guilford County / residential)
Good Morning
We have received your Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) NWP request for the above project.
Dave- docs forwarded in your folder
Thank you,
Josephine Schaffer
From: Michael Brame <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 1:23 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Cc: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Homewood, Sue
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Unknown][Non-DoD Source] SAW 2021-00814 - Pilot Project 6663.1 - Flemingfield Road - PCN
Application
Find attached a PCN Application for a site in Greensboro. Please let me know if you need additional information in order
to process the PCN. Thank -you.
Sincerely,
PILDT J�
DFLOT E N Y I i 0 M w 1 P. 1 X L. i M{
Michael T. Brame
336.708-4620 (c)
336.310.4527 (o)
PO Box 128
Kernersville, NC 27285
www.pilotenvirc.com
8

[e-mail]
9

Flemingfield Reserve Subdivision, Flemingfield Road, Greensboro, NC
Response to COE/DEQ— Dated March 30, 2022
DEQ Questions
• In order to determine the applicability of the state isolated permitting rules 15A NCAC 02H
.1300, please provide the wetland classification using the NCWAM dichotomous key.
Response: The isolated wetland on the site is a basin wetland.
Please clarify the stormwater requirements for this project. The PCN indicates that the site is
Low Density but also that a Stormwater Management Plan will be reviewed by the County.
• As the stormwater control measures are located within confined areas adjacent to jurisdictional
features, please provide information regarding the status of the review of the stormwater
management plan. Modifications to the stormwater management plan could require additional
impacts to jurisdictional features.
Response: The site plan (attached), including all SCM, has been submitted to the City of Greensboro for
staff review. It is not a Low -Density site — corrected PCN is attached. We have received preliminary
comments regarding storm water management and will address with the city, but I do not foresee
additional impacts to jurisdictional features because of their comments so far. We can provide
preliminary comments now or wait until all issues have been addressed to their satisfaction, whatever
you prefer.
The plans propose 110 linear feet of culvert installation for the stream impact and 50-foot riprap
apron. While the agencies acknowledge that properly installed riprap aprons are not considered
a loss of stream, it is the Division's opinion that there is a loss of stream function and aquatic
passage with longer riprap aprons, especially when they are combined with the culvert
length. Please confirm that the riprap apron is designed for the minimum length allowed by
regulations.
Response: The original design had two 60" pipes. The plan has been revised to use one 72" pipe and
one 54" pipe. With this combination, the 72" pipe has a rip -rap pad that is 8'x the diameter of the pipe,
which = 48 feet. The 54" pipe has a rip -rap pad that is 8'x the diameter pipe, which = 36'. The 54" pipe is
designed so that it is not in the stream channel and will act as a "high flow" culvert being ±1.5 feet
above the stream channel. The 54" pipe cannot be raised any higher because of the sanitary sewer
crossing over the pipes in the street.
Page 1 of 7

The Jordan Lake Buffer Rules are implemented by Guilford County, however the PCN notes that
buffer mitigation is not proposed. Please note that the Jordan Buffer Rules state that road
crossings that impact greater than 150 linear feet or 1/3 acre of buffer require mitigation. The
total stream impacts at this location are listed as 160 linear feet.
Response: The total revised stream impact 158 linear feet including 48 linear feet of rip -rap in the
stream by design criteria. This will be embedded within the stream banks and will not disturb the buffer
in the rip rap area. Our permanent buffer impacts due to the street crossing is 0.222 acres in Zone 1 and
0.051 acres in Zone 2. The total buffer impact is 0.273 acres, less than 1/3 acre.
COE Questions:
1) NWP 29 General Condition 23(a) requires that the activity be designed and constructed to avoid
and minimize adverse effects, both temporary and permanent, to waters of the US to the
maximum extent practicable (available and capable of being done after taking into
consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes). It is not
clear that the design of the proposed development meets this requirement. Namely:
a. Slate Ridge Trail, including proposed Impacts 1 and 2, is routed to cross Stream SA at a
tangent at the widest portion of Wetland WD, and directly through a disjunct section of
Wetland WC 12-58. Additional avoidance and minimization would be shown by
adjusting the route to follow closer to the existing driveway of the site across Stream SA,
and or re -aligning this road to the north of Wetland WC 21-58;
Response: Our planning for this site has undergone numerous iterations. As originally conceived, we
showed 115 dwelling units (see attached sketch dated 2/17/21). We did not expect most of the area of
WE 1-58 to be considered a wetland because it was on higher elevations than most of the site. However,
once Pilot Environmental delineated the wetlands in this area, we adjusted our layout and are currently
proposing 99 units, a loss of 16 homesites (13.9%). All this loss is due to the presence of what I am
calling the "upland" wetlands in the center of the site. While onsite during the final verification, I
specifically questioned these areas with Mr. Bailey because it seemed like the further away from the
obvious wetlands around the creek we moved, the wetland area only increased. He assured me they
were in fact jurisdictional features.
Slate Ridge Trail was positioned to cross stream SA (impact 1) to allow efficient lot placement on both
the north and south sides of this road. Unfortunately, that location does happen to be the widest
portion of WD 1-13, but any crossing in this area is going to impact WD 1-13 so it is an incremental
impact as shown. The current "farm road" is located very close to the southern property line and does
not allow for lot placement on both sides of the road therefore resulting in an inefficient and more
costly layout. Because we will need to collect stormwater runoff in this area of the site, the road is
positioned to allow placement of the SCM south (low side) of the road. Shifting the road to the south
Page 2 of 7

would result in the loss of at least one lot west of stream SA and leave no space for the SCM and
additional loss of lots east of stream SA.
The disjunct section of WC 21-58 was impacted (impact 2) due to lot spacing considerations as well.
Moving this section of Slate Ridge Trail south would impact the connected portion of WC 21-58 which
was less desirable; moving Slate Ridge Trail further north would have reduced lot yield to the north and
created unusually deep and inefficient lots south of Slate Ridge Trail. In my opinion, the disconnected
section of WC 21-58 exists because the drainage pipe under the farm road is blocked in this area which
has caused water to back up north of the farm road. This seems to be a man-made problem. When the
pipe is unclogged or removed (as you suggest), then the disconnected area may likely be drained and
lose its' effectiveness as a wetland anyway.
b. Longfield Drive is routed through the upper -most portion of Wetland WE (Impact 5).
Retaining walls and other slope -steepening techniques are often used to eliminate or
limit fill slope footprints in wetlands;
Response: The lots to the north of Longfield drive are at their minimum size to comply with the zoning
so this road cannot be shifted to the north without further loss of lots. This is an incremental impact of
895 SF at the very edge of the "upland" wetland. The road is proposed in this location to create
desirable connectivity across the neighborhood and to provide safe fire access to all portions of the site.
The slope is set at a 3:1 for ease of maintenance. The proposed improvements are contained in the
public right-of-way and will be conveyed to the City of Greensboro. They will likely not take over
maintenance of a retaining wall.
c. Elk Horn Drive, is routed through one of the wider sections of Wetland WE 1-58 (Impact
7). Additional avoidance and minimization would be shown by adjusting the route to
cross this wetland closer to the existing dirt path crossing to the north, or re -aligning
this road to cross this wetland slightly to the south;
Response: This road is also positioned to allow efficient lot placement on both sides. It has been
centered between the eastern property line and the central wetland area WE 1-58. Moving the road
crossing to the north or the south of its current location is still going to impact wetlands up to 50' wide
so again this is an incremental impact and shifting will result in the loss of additional lots. The road
provides desired connectivity and safe fire access as per the previous comment. SCM placement must be
considered in this area as well. To collect runoff in the most effective portion of this area of the site, the
SCM is placed to the east and in the rear of lots 24-27 which forces Elk Horn Drive to the west as shown.
The current dirt path crossing (another man-made choke point) can be removed as you later suggest
which will replace a small portion of the impacted wetlands.
d. Wetland impacts are proposed for Lot fill at Lots 16, 17, 48, 62, and 63 (Impacts 3, 4, 6,
and 8). It is not clear that project viability is dependent on the inclusion of these 5 Lots,
Page 3 of 7

when the overall development proposes 99. Further, retaining walls and other slope -
steepening techniques are often used to eliminate or limit fill slope footprints in
wetlands;
Response: As previously stated, we have lost 16 lots (13.9%) of our original yield due to unexpected
wetlands. Losing 5 more lots would put the loss percentage at 18.3%. Viability is a subjective term, but
we would consider the incremental loss in these areas as unreasonable considering that the overall site
contains 4.761 acres of wetlands, we are proposing to impact only 0.485 acres (10.2% of the total
wetlands) and we are still within the nationwide permit threshold of 0.5 acres.
Impacts 3,4 and 6 total 392 SF (less than 0.2% of the total wetland area) and based on the number of
lots already yielded to wetland preservation we feel this to be a minor incremental request. Long-term
maintenance of retaining walls or slope steepening techniques is usually not desirable by future
property owners so we try to avoid such improvements when possible. We could place deed restrictions
on these lots, but deed restrictions are difficult to enforce in the long run. We felt impacting the
wetlands and not having wetlands encroach on these lots was more desirable than setting them aside
under a deed restriction.
Impact 8 can't be avoided without further loss of lots or setting these areas aside under a deed
restriction. I feel certain that future owners will complain about the presence of these wetlands on their
lot if left under a deed restriction.
The following items 2) and 3) are addressed per the attached plan revisions and comments below.
2) Item 1a above notwithstanding, revisions are required on Sheets 2 and 3 of the plans provided
with the PCN:
The culvert pipe footprint is not visible on Sheet 2. This information is needed to show
the pipe alignment vs. the location of the stream, the culvert width vs. the width of the
stream, etc., to ensure that the project meets NWP 29 Regional Condition B.9c;
Sheet 2 does not clearly indicate the footprint of stream impacts for each of the 110 If of
stream impact, 50 If of embedded rip rap, and 10 additional If of temporary impacts;
Sheet 3 indicates that two 60" culvert pipes are proposed at Impact 1. In order to
comply with NWP 29 Regional Condition B.9b, one pipe should act as the low flow pipe
(inverts buried V below the stream bed), and the other pipe should act as the high flow
culvert (only to receiving bank -full flows). High flow culverts are typically designed by
placing its invert at bankfull level, or at least a foot or two above the existing stream
bed. Another way to comply with this condition it to design sills at the inlet and outlet of
the high flow culvert to only allow flow in the high flow culvert at the above referenced
flow level;
d. The top and bottom of the culvert is not visible on the profile view; this information is
needed to ensure that the culvert meets NWP 29 Regional Condition B.9 pertaining to
culvert burial. Ensure that this drawing clearly labels the top and bottom of the high and
low flow culverts;
e. Items 1a and 2a above notwithstanding, Sheet 2 indicates that the culverts would be
oriented such that the stream exits the culverts aimed directly at the stream bank.
Furthermore, the stream alignment would then run parallel to the proposed fill slope
Page 4 of 7

only a few feet to the south for approximately 37 linear feet. This information indicates
that maintaining a functioning stream channel in its current location under these
conditions is extremely unlikely. How would the design minimize the risk of indirect
impacts to this portion of the stream channel? Based on the current proposal the Corps
would consider this portion of stream as an indirect reduction of stream function,
potentially calculated cumulatively with the proposed direct permanent stream impacts
when considering compensatory mitigation thresholds, per NWP General Conditions
"District Engineers Decision;"
f. Items 1a above notwithstanding, the portion of unimpacted Wetland WD between the
south side of the proposed fill slope and Stream SA includes a remanent fringe of
wetland too small (-0.016 acre) and narrow to be expected to retain its previous
function. As such, and the fact that grading for the adjacent direct impact would
eliminate any upslope drainage to this area, the Corps would consider the remainder of
the south side of this wetland as a reasonably foreseeable indirect impact. This area
would be added to the required compensatory mitigation amount.
3) Please provide zoomed -in details, including a plan and profile view, for Impact 7. Ensure that
these details clearly show the size and number of culvert pipes (placed at -grade rather than
buried), head walls, rip rap, etc.
Response:
2)a: Shown on plans
2)b: Shown on plans
2)c: The plan has been revised to use one 72" pipe and one 54" pipe. The 54" pipe is designed so that it
is not in the stream channel and will act as a "high flow" culvert being ±1.5 feet above the stream
channel. The 54" pipe cannot be raised any higher because of the sanitary sewer crossing over the pipes
in the street.
2)d: Shown on plans
2)e: We have revised the plans to show two pipes. One 72" pipe in the stream bed and a high flow 54"
pipe ±1.5 feet above the stream bed. The 54" pipe will be directed to the bend in the creek, therefore
reducing the stream impact during high flow storm events.
2)f: We have included this area in the wetland impact calculations.
3): Shown on plans
4) Items 1 a-c above notwithstanding, how would the project maintain appropriate hydrology to
the remainders of Wetlands WC 21-58 and WE 1-58. The Corps is concerned that upland grading
in these areas would re-route overland flow away from these areas and into downslope
stormwater basins. If onsite hydrology is expected to be maintained via culverts under
roadways, swales, or other methods, please include plan detail sheets to demonstrate. Note
that, in addition to compensatory mitigation requirements for direct, the Corps would consider
requiring compensatory mitigation reasonably foreseeable indirect impacts resulting in a loss of
Page 5 of 7

hydrology and therefore aquatic function, per NWP General Conditions "District Engineers
Decision;"
Response: Culverts will be provided crossing Longfield Drive (see attached site plan, sheet 3 submitted
to the City of Greensboro to allow pass-thru of offsite water which will feed into WE 1-58. This water
will not be collected into the SCM system and will continue to hydrate this area. The remainder of the
site will pass through SCM devices and then be released upstream of WC 21-58 so the total volume of
water into these areas will actually be increased from current levels. Finally, the rear yards of lots 11-17
are not required to be treated and are proposed to drain directly to the wetlands area WC 21-58.
5) For proposed Impact 9, sanitary sewer crossing of Stream SD and Wetland WC 21-58:
a. Per NWP 29 General Condition 10.c., please provide a plan to restore and re -vegetate
wetland areas within the utility corridor;
b. Given that the project exceeds the compensatory mitigation ratio for wetland impacts,
the Corps will also require compensatory mitigation for the permanently maintained
sewer corridor through forested wetlands. Compensatory mitigation for permanent
conversion of forested to herbaceous wetlands is typically required at a 1:1 ratio unless
otherwise justified based on resource quality (NCWAM/NCSAM).
Response: Pilot submitted a request to the NCDMS to include the additional wetland mitigation acreage.
The response is included as an attachment.
6) We acknowledge the statement in the PCN pertaining to endangered species (Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act), that "Potential habitat for these species is not located within the
proposed project areas." However, given the general nature of potentially suitable habitat for
Schweinitz's sunflower and small whorled pogonia, the existence of both open and forested
areas within the project area, and given recent USFWS concerns regarding these species, the
Corps cannot currently reach a No Effect determination for these species within the Section 7
Action Area based on the information provided. Note that, given the distribution of proposed
impacts throughout the property, the entire proposed Flemingfield Reserve development would
be considered the Action Area for Section 7 purposes. As such:
a. If you do not believe that any suitable habitat exists in the Action area for these species,
please provide a more thorough justification so that the Corps could evaluate the
potential for a No Effect determination;
b. If suitable habitat for either of these species does exist in the Action Area, please
complete a pedestrian survey for these species within the appropriate survey window.
Following the survey, please provide the survey report to the Corps (copy also the
USFWS) for review;
Please note that, per NWP 29 General Condition 18, the Corps cannot verify the use of a NWP
until Section 7 consultation is complete.
Response: We had Mr. Jake Duncan (D&D W.E.S.T.) visit the site on March 27, 2022 to assess the site for
suitable habitat. We expect to eliminate many areas of potential habitat based on his final report. Any
Page 6 of 7

remaining areas will require further evaluation during the survey window. We will forward his report as
soon as it is received.
7) Items 1a and c notwithstanding, to demonstrate further avoidance and minimization, would it
be possible to remove the existing driveway crossing of Stream SA or dirt road crossing of
Wetland WE 1-58 and stabilize with appropriate sloping and matting?
Response: Yes, we can include removal of these devices and re -stabilization with wetland seed mix.
8) Please note that responses to the questions above may prompt additional information requests
to allow full evaluation of the proposed project.
Response: Duly noted and understood
Attachments:
• Revised site plans including proposed SCM measures and locations of proposed pipe systems
including on -site collection and by-pass.
• Original sketch plan dated 2/17/21 showing 115 lots
• Revised exhibits for wetland/stream/PCN
Page 7 of 7

L
o �
F 6
< N
N
C
Q o
Ln
r m
O Q
r
N
O T
— W �
Q In LU
W 6 F
Q v
Q
,oWoW
m w p fv
w
J N Q d
W b W p IL
v W W W LL
Q N Q IL m
X W m
di Q p Q 0 0 0
W
Www ,�-:
r
W
=
oddWCiW o��0
�m
W
FF�p
a
m
p
o
�5����p6N
q
u 0
z=Nr��
pp
z�mU-0NTn
—o
<FryO
OpmppQwz
d
F=
41 m m—— 7 N
n u u n n n n n❑
N
J
w=°
J
F
v°
W p 7 0
Q� o m F
�v
W
�v
zI
C) Q
wQ
QQ
v�
4��
O0vz QW
dF—Nmvn�r0
OF6
QQ
sdu
vJ<�
—uuuuuuuuF
W—u
�Q�3
W
�-
I I I o kn
QQQQQQQQp
�
W
J1
Q
�
7wQ
J o
OW:°
Z
ZZZZZZZZ
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
F
Z
Q
O
�Z
Q
z v W
w w w w w w w w
w
Z
w
W Z< Q
o
33333333�
3
3
�z�z
r)
LLI
Q~S(V
Q W�7
z no'
zN
o nJ�Wz
FQttz�wpp
QQWzd
— Z F W Z F
O za $w QQ
Z F-- ~ a-
3zmo 3y
z ul z N
Q
z
J- W
(X LLl
Or 0 (Q m
z
UQJ
(Kl
W
wol
g
W
Qwm
5J
Lj
ok
z —Jz
QF
�N
wzWWup
ILJW
W LLB
pull
Z V
Iv—
�F o
zlKpo
o?
w
d <zr�Oo-
O N
�Z
U
LLI
Qd
Q =O
uj
= n
o
z LL
J
=
d
.88
n Mws
wow
Etc
Qa�
n
ZZ-!2O-ZZOZ N0d\OM4\2AN2G3TJ 4731=IONIW37=1\JOGnNIM\SOOZ SlO3roN,4\'d

< ry a
HIS
LLI z " d N N
> p0
Q
Q F� jF J LnrrOQ
L1 v� —OCR to '^ wow
W �� va �>dp -z�l�Jl(6p0�4J�O
v�
z
>¢
WLU 0- N��
1L L Q< L LU kDwow
tL ] zQ O
m I: W C/)
zoLuoYo-0
a
ps
(1)Z
d F Q<U�� ztY dILLzW=T ¢Z �®
w Q FF�<Wo_ —1 U 0-Q�OiLZIK O o� Qa8
z
v U F Wy 0 Li111zIKr�OzO �z wli
s O QdJ�� Q�(Y—O—O v c�� Mzz
� �W� jW� WWI WWI LLI �(V� �� —o �Z
m;z
Q Q�Q mN (N Q (N < d��000 r LPL J Q =o an�
J J 43 N W N W V if1 W r 6 Wth lD v
LU F W1U)6 OWN 0NO Om- CZ d) dl
3 �dJO NCO NNO Nr0 n�Vnrrm
. .
' ' N
O H1bON z F
W
W
p _6 N_
/ 6 /7`
ly
lu
UFV�eR
/ �ypNER v i
C) /
LU / z
Q
. / . /� / � Z W I 9 53 00
`� / rg
<O I aW� J�o
lz
a b QN \�o
X p m O \ a zz aa�a =pou
\ %
(sw Dzils) YNV9 do dosLu w O o amF=gip=�
(53>Vl 9 SONOd) Q p F NOI1VA3l3 lOOd lVWNON w U J �N HrN izw�w
LLL,
LL
Rz
-a f a
Q GJ� Q lJ- N0I1VA3l3 lOOd lVW210N �� az W
� �Nu �aa�
\Q� �'� ��/ (SWV32LL5) `.INV9 d0 d01 j _ - <oz
Z a
O O ON � $QQ� a3 \ oa-arc.za
7'Z-i20-Z2:02: N0d\OM4\2AN2G2ai 4731=IONIW37=1\JOGnNIM\SOOZ SlO3f OJd\'d

p
a Y w w p Or
Z-<ma, J W (� dQm V0 <5
z M, Q Z K� o z� Z O OQ�
o�
p W a m Q K Z a o z Q Z.
p w ¢ Cow F w l)
<HO1ww Qp $ H d� Z� ¢gym poVIH ¢ ZLi�I)
o�QzoaoLLon 0 3 zo>o zp ooN QNlo `�O O
ozoo-�}wa of o Q=N ow� I`nxoa vl �tnZ�v
H¢< O Z¢ O o Z= Hap pw ~ p Y O w o r w¢> s o K U z O Z
I K w O p Z O w NU' z m �i m K U Z o Haw $ 0 0¢ Z o F Q Z
azaoo>z=m omaa <w~<Oaoz �I,�mzw=tFcu QwOwm
Z��Qo�Qmzz=zoo w���wa�z000Iyg`��I`'d� ���
1 ago0zao F-m M<Ui MOM �pF=Yw¢woaarwz Z~ZLL
�awzw >ooSao Iam¢� a Z. Qwaw3� oU 000w—
QZI- z m L1Z1]0]�
Q� aww¢¢z<MQviomFQl` za¢p o?ozzY Q
Ezz=w?a¢�N=SON z�azcn zw�N��az�>�¢I>��o
d U1WK Mmz ZUz�U K wzQm azU3a Q=0..wU,m 1
ci 1i v 1r ,o ro
az
mo a
rVlp
J
a
trw
IF
a�
&o
a
�IAV215 ISM
Z
Z
w_
w
ssloov >
— —
— 10 Z
o
�
Q
z
w
o3 �
cn
3a�
oaa
O
r
O
m
r
O
N
r
LLI
Z
V
O II
Q N
s
o
m l
.88
LU
O
U>
cwi o
W
Z�6�LLZO>
p
wz
oopW
a 4g
g
�fKl���wz0�gt
QVUJO10Ow_
Q
Uw
V1
�n
z
OiNLLZJ=FAN
w<
fA
("
¢
Z
�w
�®
a?S
<(
j- C,ZVva
� cv � O w =
�Z
Ld
vz
oz1
dl�
Zw Q
= z
°;ow
m;z
LL
■■■■■■■■■■■■I■F■■■%■I■I■■■■■I■III■■®®■■
■■■■■■■■■■■r%■ii■•J■I■I■■■■■I■III■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■L
■■■■Il�\71■I■■�■■I■III
: '�■■■■
•
■■■■■■��IiiiiiPiY�'llf
iiliFiiiiii'i■■■■■■■■11■■■■■■�!��
cz
0
Is
3J 4731.I9NIW37.1\JOS42NIM\SOOZ 5173roN.4vd

p
a Y w w p Or
Z-<ma, J W (� dQm V0 <5
Z N H Q Z K U' Z H Z O Q
o�
p W a m Q K Z a o z Q Z.
p w ¢ Cow F w l)
<HO1ww Qp $ H d� Z� ¢gym poVIH ¢ ZLU
o�QzoaoLLon 0 3 zo>o zp ooN QNlo `�O O
ozoo-�}wa of o Q=N ow� I`nxoa vl �tnZ�v
H¢< O Z¢ O o Z= Hap pw ~ p Y O w o r w¢> s o K U z O Z
I K w O p Z O w NU' z m �i m K U Z o Haw $ 0 0¢ Z o F Q Z
HH }�;pom��a¢¢ Qw �Km a(7 Vl�mzw=�aN U vw�
Z�Qo�Qmzzzzo� w���I`a�zo0oIyg`��I`'d� �����
1 ago0zao F-m M<Ui MOM �pF=Yw¢woaarwz Z~ZLL
�awzw >ooSao Iam¢� a Z. Qwaw3� oU 000w—
QZI- Z m vzvmo
Q� aww¢¢z<MQviomFQl` za¢p o?ozzY Q
E¢z=w?a¢�N=SON z�azcn zw�N��az�>�¢I>��o
d U1WK Mmz ZUz�U K wzQm azU3a Q=0..wU,m 1
ci 1i v 1r ,o ro
az
mo a
rVlp
J
a
trw
IF
a�
&o
a
�IAV215 ISM
z
Z
w_
w
ssloov >
— —
— 10 Z
o
�
Q
z
w
o3 �
cn
3a�
oaa
O
r
Q
r
LLI
z
V
O II
Q N
s
o
m l
.88
LU
O
>
cwi o
4 z LU
-
W
6 LU
O
v z
c p s
W to �
w
���Z N
LLJ
F-
�
a
vWOL�mo
lll�l���wz
k)o,ri0
O
V-�o
v
¢�
oN
QOU1o��v�
Q� =
�w
¢z
ilu
iF-wlo
owZy N
oZ
ww
.®
a?S
0 HWZIKr�OwT
Ld[If z
w�..
dl�
Zw Q
= z
°;ow
LL
o
m;z
■...�.....
......gym...
m
r
N
r
63
w
O
LU
LU
w
3J 4731=19N1

U
z
ZUI
F N
z N
q�
HIS
�tl
z O
t(1 >
)v
IM cv�
o
Q
N
LL,
fX�OpQ
lIl
pC�
u
wosw
D
Ill v
1L1IQQ,QQ
C/)z
pg
a
W
a
v
�� Q
wZ
>}�l�pQo
F-
o�
m
FF
LL, Quite
C/)w
Q
m
�Q F
Q �UIptu-
<
Qz
d
Q
W
�F
IL~}lLo�,J)�Qo
Z� IIJF
N
owLU
Qa
F
Q
<
�W
wU= 0
rvo��z
[L
LL
d
Lw
zF
3—
zw W
QzF Q
O<
FW
ww W
T
�
dLU
F
0PiT
s
ZNo
N
"Zm
OW
wz�K�0
LL
��d
wz
"Q
a� -
LU
3
NvO
NLp
�(N
ENO
W
O
. . F
w
LU
/Vo
\ \ \ \ — in = N
W
r
%-C)>z
w�waw \ lfl
LU v
LLI
O$�Z>o/ !/\I'\, \ did UJ
LLI
�fi ZCL
LU
Ca
Q O QN as z2.?warc
�W N Oa iwa ra�o
\
H1JON /y\ NLL w \ -w" z=
(SWV3?�15) �NV9 d0 d01 �� W Z
(53�V� H S4NOd) w p mo _G�uii� _
\ Q F p ww3
NOIlVA3�3 �OOd �VW?�ON \ Fp O , o26�2waw4
ER
W Lu woaw= ;m
o�zaa
<°
] J Jl p�?oF w.a N?z
O \� m
o O a o (1 -10 ➢ 1V 0 /j Q d om No=oa—,—
NOwvgh!I 3 �OOd �VW?�ON wm W }} oa'^c�s
o CON _ (SWV3?�15) �NV9 d0 d01 j Imo F Nzp'z<
m J o o w O z— �\ ssw th M<�oZR. wazzi -z s
Q m o 1m N \ `fir- a oxo
�LL \ rvoz.zl� do
rva zw=,
Z
�mw �o ou
anima_
maoa�4saa3
ADN 11 3115 1Jb'SnH5\SOOZ 5173f oN,4\'d

•
•
o r F of
W z V q m
Q VI Q J > O II O
�ouooa a
�QQozrQ `n a oQ a� W r-Op z x MM�o
-
z��omwtu
F- �a w� LLl�t(l�/.9OiLZI,I> wz o pg
.zz U. ' 3C� w�p_ �5
o QOQo=� om �a ��Q Qs� �pNO Qdl
OW vxiznozwm m xN ¢w W ml� ly6110 vole
Qm NZ�a Woz? to orY o J�� wz V�=p 0w
olow0� w z
zz� ,woa w U NQaz 0 < lL O-1T rii ¢ F x
vaiola�mQ-D 0 ax ¢mow In Fd OIL th~ZJ �w Qac®5
mw5o �— z6-'zpn w
oaorFowaz r w3 zomw �Z try�OzQ= �z w ..
zw�o
z cn�QQo 3o a 3x v J Mo'z�
o�w xowo in�z Il.l zi
FQ�wmz<mw lzlo>Doz �zw
awQw,xwNozol <w�Qoozo W w Q C) z o
a¢3¢� F Q v �o m;m
'a m c��o wzo w
z �o¢aoz. a�x�o -o�d xc~i�
QFo Fcna�cnoow ¢ ww`n�z
o J �J xzra �m� o
�w o a-000w�Q��o
w��¢�w¢¢¢zw�a�� QOQ�o
o�zoN wzrrrcwo m�m>w
lnw Qoornw oo��� �ww
zEw?o -??m! ww
w
c�i ri v co n ro ro O
S
F
w
w
x
Y
z �
m 0]
K d
N z Q
aw Q Lj z
O
m
CD
m wlno Q
W U m d� az 0 3 Q (n Q N Z
a o Mo�
a dJw �o loo <oN �O = N:
z z W a o a
a a< pl LL
SS z z w_ w .� N Np �• Q
3 3
oaa J w n/ z cQi nlm
z
Q a 0 lT)
�vP3� m O z d O
lUUo WL
Z_ ~ F 1
z
Qo a
m� a
ow w
tail o z
U -
In
O O<5
F F w 0
Z �Ozzv
111 v wz
LU <
� Q Owm
� L
ZFZLL
LLI
W
W
AEIN 11 3115 51, 3GroNd\'d

ry v�
LLI
Zry Q N O1
> _ IS
Oy
Q v ��2,
111 � �i-OQ µ�j z ^ o
a UI�Q�4W wz ps
Q Dew ¢g
Jl lu
p <60 N
oow
z Q UJp�xWv� ¢Z
d� LLzW=F< z m®
LIA J Ou-,J) o ow Qa8
> d w-A Zrrypz�N �Z w...
W ~ U? MP
zv
J = LU o m;w
V I -A
z LL
EMEMINISMEMEMEMWIlmolmal MEN = d O
-A w o
UJ r
LU
W
W
MEMEMEMENEEMERMEMEMEN
MEMEMEMEMEMEMEMOMEMEN
O J r- �� U
Q rid Q N Z
_ U W
cn
�= v
j d
X
/ -w_
T- d d
F-
p
w
v
CL \6 0 /
LL, O
i o oN «moo=way
�w N Oa iwa ra�o
Q Nm a`
(SWV3?�15) �'I9 W Z
-XO H S4NIONWN
S W NOIlVA3�3 �OO14 �VW?�ON F - w z wLL
u_o�i"w,W w
IL m �ww�m�J;mNz�?d -��-Oif) n�w s O \os�
wz
(53-1V-1 ➢ S4NO4 \ d oms-m mF
sw I
NOIlVhd�3 ��?� S.
OOd VWON �� smz
CON j j (SWV3?�15) �NV9 d0 d01 �m m IK F Nzp z
?o w czrww
a�oaWzzm~
s� nJ�
�ILLL N \ rvrva Nw, w>>m OmN w " o Z
i i O QN o ou -w
N
� � � maoatt wsa w
a3
AEIN 11 3115 NOd\SM4\30N34d0\53WOH-LNVSnH5\S00Z 5173r oN,4\'d

CL 9- HIS
w
�3 � N O w O zw > o
No MoMo,K�o
m—cv �l°nv InLL IfX L QOZQ -
(SWY3?ls) NY9 ~Zoil o m Q W
a~�o V ~ O W QQ wg
N0I1Yn313 IOOd lYW?�ON \ W J - Q Q Kl IV a O N
IV Cj
j r�o8`�w w� J lLJ Odd ¢ z
\� moo Fes_ ��w
zWoT
Fw L"F >vl n sallodl �NOIlY/3Z
bW(sWVM15)ONV9d0KW
801 IL
®8 � z
m �
O wz;
U ? oz
o�, Z1 Lu m tL-<<O=��Mm z p° � Z
z z_ z
w..
Z Q
N
W-
O
w
w
Q
N
r
H1NON Z � y LLJ N.
ly
I r r
lD II \ I I<
�LL \
wLL- CA
\ \ \LLI
LW
\
J)O `w
W \ I\ \\ a
2 Q Q \ \ I O
LU ro
LLI
\ \ \+ z
\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\
ON
ZZ-i20-2:2:02: N0d\OM4\2AN2G3TJ 4731=IONIW37=[\JOS42NIM\SOOZ SlO3f OJd\'d

E EE w
° E o
E'E w'E
oho
d �033d�d
yp=3 EcE dw 3dd d
065t10A3Atn NONVI
9 0
v
0 o E
V Stl33NI0N3 ONI1lfI5NO3-
'V'd "ONI 'S3IVIOOSSV O33110 HOnH
�avow
mai�eniwaF� zu aNv'ou'eai 'eEi �o uouaoa
nw4731d9NIW37d�
o E °
Pi �
-
° `o
_
r
?
E
;➢ °
Nak N -
-
�,
55
a"o,"
vaE
oN
oE�ova
3°
E
y
as
as
E Eo
oEa �Eo E -Ea
8E
�Ev
nQ
-°E'o
°E
3 ov°
U
�3¢
S
- _
qov
_
-
3
o0E`°
E
E-
O E
_
E
J
E
�E3�
U
oEE =
I
2 ony Ea
s
o
$
G
'
E
E
E
E
�
v
—
E
N
Q
E
E ^
nN
—
Q
o f
_
b
E
E 3
rj
E—
h
h
<M�oEEo
E
<
E
E
o a
g
h
E
<
�EvaEoaEP
E
a
E
E
E
E�
- - -
w�
o
E
-
a�
o
ol
Ea
of
�v
o
-
a Qo
E�
O
E
`"
o
4N�
4E
4E
�iN as
n3
WF
O
Qa
�J5
gg
ti
g a�
W a �O & a
ry E
o > - o o a ..
o
_$ - _ _
E a¢ 4 E E m
R �
mu¢
��Ev dug oE 5 _ E
f s
0 W �^2 0
E I `■■ g o 3° O x F 5
E o ru
t E a b 3 v
a �E° 8 %�
- B
q'31
w
s
a
r
o
U
w
w
w
0
w
v
Q 3
E
N
��oo=a

Mug
41 — .........,� Q
_ I V
HAW
N
Longo,
i,omo
_�,o""tea 1; �"-5

.iq
HNS;
4
z
m
IL
74
x
m

04 �m
°n.� a_�w
aaarw�w�Q �Q�aa&W d
p THE
��Z\ON ACT V
m
a3pNn
in 8Q
M. 6n

— u -co
Sp THE
CN ACT
ti
ex
aO Nn
� 7N
8
oa om
Q�m6p����sW�° �QaQ4��oa
Qa�
�z�wOu
,Wn
o�oma�
Sp THE
CN ACT
ti
ex
aO Nn
� 7N
8
oa om
Q�m6p����sW�° �QaQ4��oa
Qa�
�z�wOu
,Wn
o�oma�

o
ze m A N S.
pa wF NJ ILj
p. S 5 LLS
�o_a s sao Ll IL $NJ ie
LL o m��W
a = lu
IQ
v.
E�o�oa� m o p a o ��000 0
ors
-§-G a;
-
�e
oar
www �__ osex for: =�a
M,
-
sgm=ems'
-OP.,
- - _ - -
NVa".
www oo no��q� _ W.- .. �<cv
a ro �m Q
F
�B„3-a a3
oMM
- o E ,�,. - 3= __ Y� __ - i� Yew - <3
�O - S<$� - Q
i£_ U
- aEy ��GMpG o --s�soo6
�. _ E �so�w G - - oE¢o s3� p - oao��w� s _
o p� 2se w aEe., ego aam pia ax b3� oo
2'U ww
M tt
o
.,�e<
wo ° apw zwoa - - a o
J%
TZ
old
v w wT s _
U
\ J
n / rc r' i a
Ha
add o sTi\, _ [
v` w

FLEMIN6 oI D ROAD
fD
�1 O\
Imoa
Aug° liffir
IIMPFATA
Wp
VATO
,r
,,z
TYPICAL LOT 5IZE
I. TAX PARCEL NUMBERS. 115,1, 115081, 115076, AND PART OF
PO 327 Pe 127.
5 EXISTING COUN, ZONING: AG
SOUTH BUFALO CREEK HATERSI-ED
SKETCH PLAN
Do, AND D2 FLEMINDFIEHEAD TOWN, �LD ROAR
H 6REENEBORO MIRTH CAROLORD NINA
DATE. FEE 16, 2021 !SCALE _ 100so ENEE, or
HUGH CREED ASSOCIATES, INC, PA
CONSULTING ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS
PO BOX 9623
13D6 W WENDOVER AVE
GREENSBORO, NC 27908
FIRM LICENSE: #C-0551
PHONE: [phone]
DR [phone]
EMAIL: hco®Aughcreedossociotes.com