20050732 Ver 06_More Info Received_20070829

CONVERSATION RECORD I T17e 132o pm I °dCe August 29, 2007
Type: Visit Conference X Telephone
Lncarion Of Visit/Conference:
Name of Person(s)Contacted
or In Contact with You: Organization
William B. Griffin
Incoming
~]_Outgoing
Telephone No.
[phone]
SUBJECT: Action ID. 200121252; Chatham County, North Carolina.
SUMMARY: Mr. Griffin called in a comment on the modification proposal for
Briar Chapel. In essence, he was afraid that property taxes would exceed
the income of residents of Chatham County.
He also spoke to me about Waco, Ruby Ridge, the U.S. borders, gangs, the
healthcare system, Socialism, Communism, the ATF, the Duke Lacrosse case,
steroid use among politicians, Bill Clinton's sex case, Jim Black's
resignation, rescinding the Lotto, illegal immigrants, and crooked
developers.
ACTION REQUIRED: Consider the pertinent comment within the permit
evaluation.
NAME OF PERSON DOCVMENTING CONVERSATION SIGNATURE DATE
/~ ~ II
Monte Matthews ~~~ 1=t-""~ /L~ ~~`'"'~ August 29, 2007
ACTION TAKEN:
Signature
Date

August 20.2007 X007
TO: Monte Matthews. USCAE
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office ~ ~-~~-
6508 Falls of Neusc Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
FROM: V~~'illiam Sommers
1067 Fearrington Post
Pittsboro, NC 27312
Subject: Comments on USCAE PUBLIC NOTICE # 200121252
Issued August 9. 2007
M~ name is William Sommers and I lire in Chatham County at the above address.
I have maintained a continuing interest in the Briar Chapel Development via the
Fearrington Home O«ners Association and have been. until recently, a member oC the
Briar Chapel lnfonnation Committee which was fornied -and had its first meeting - on
November 20. 2006: it includes representatives of Newland Communities (NC'),
Fearrington Home Ov<-ners Association (FHA_, Haw River Assemble (HRA) and the
Chatham Citizens for E=ffective Communities (CCFC).
I ~yould like to present three comments for your review and consideration as you
deliberate on the Newland/Briar Chapel application.
1. Extent of Changes Between Original Approval and Current Application.
The written information in the Public Notice is somewhat contusing on the relationships
bet~yeen certain of the proposed changes. mitigation and increase/decreases in both
permanent and temporan impact. It is not clear. for example, on ~yhether the reduction
of intermittent stream impact by I50 linear feet noted on page 2 is an absolute reduction.
in vie~~ of the applicant has requested an additional 256 linear feet of permanent impact.
It ~~ould appear that the NC Department of Transportation (UOT) reyuirements would
then be over 400 linear feet, a much more substantial increase than that ~~ hich is
described in the text.
In any event the requested increase of 256 linear feet against the original grant of 1.65
linear feet is a very substantial increase and raises two points:
a. Based on this increase of ?54 linear feet. I believe its impact should he very carefully
•~ examined by the Corps and the NC Division of Water Qualitv(DWQ) since you will he
considering an increase of over 200% and, in fact. a real increase of 400 linear feet based
on the DOT reyuirements.

b. It is also difficult to understand the difference between the linear feet noted in the
original approval and the increase now being sought. What circumstances, for example.
made the approved amount so low when it is quite likely that DOT may have made a /
preliminary estimate on certain crossing but may have not been able to determine the '`~
detail at that time? Did USCAE and DWQ give the final authorization in order that
Newland/Briar Chapel could start construction while at the same time knowing that
changes would have to be made, once the DOT made a final determination'?
2. Justification of DOT's Requirements for Design Changes on previously
permitted road crossings.
As all are well aware, the Briar Chapel approval process was not hastily concluded. After
lengthy hearings before the Chatham Board of Commissioners, the project was approved
after which it was submitted to both the DWQ and the USACE for review. USACf;,
while not holding public meetings, did have a full scale review for selected community
agencies. DWQ held a public hearing on December ] 3. 2005: the DWQ. on May 9, 2006
issued its 401 permit with a dozen restrictions; USACE's parallel permit was issued in
September, 2006.
In all this time, where was DOT? Did the not review the internal road construction of "'
Y ~eTS
the Briar Chapel plan? Did they give initial permission on the design of "5 of the ~c
previously permitted road crossings" and then changed their mind and required an ~
upgrading of these designs? Did Briar Chapel decide that these 5 road crossings needed
to be changed for reasons not included in the Public Notice?
1 think answers on these details should be forthcoming before either the USCAE or DWQ
make their decisions.
3. Newland Communities bypassed the newly established Briar Chapel Information
Committee in seeking these modifications.
As a result of the public hearings held by the DWQ, the latter took into consideration the
FHA request for the establishment of aquasi-official committee that would meet
periodically to discuss current issues, problems and progress in the development of Briar
Chapel. While this was not specifically included in the approvals, both DWQ and
USCAE informally endorsed the proposal. Newland Committees readily agreed to
participate. The Committee, inaugurated in November, 2006, has held regular meetings
every other month since then. The Committee includes representative from Newland
Communities, FHA, HRA and the CCEC. Each meeting has a discussion agenda
focusing on various problems. developmental changes and related items. The meetin~~s
are not confrontational nor do they make decisions as such. Yet the}' provide an
important citizen forum on various issues and developments while attempting to review
incipient problems before they become difficult issues.
I am thus surprised -and disappointed - that Newland representatives did not inform the
Committee of their application for the modifications included in the public notice. Does

,\`(t' __
~W ~~ this action mean that on certain public issues Newland does not intend to discuss these
issues with the Briar Chapel Information Committee? Does it mean that Newland
c1~~ tolerates the Committee as a necessary but non-essential channel of communication that
ma - be i nored when inclusion is not convenient?
~ g
I request that the status of the Committee be discussed with Newland before any decision
is reached on their application.
4. Request for Action
Based on this review of the Public Notice and the identified issues, I respectively request
that USAGE. together with representatives of Newland Communities and the DWQ,
arrange for an informal discussion of the Newland Communities' proposal with the I3rair
Chapel Information Committee as soon as possible, This would, I believe, restore the
significance of this important community organization while providing a convenient,
representative forum for discussion -and understanding - of the Briar Chapel proposal
before a final decision is made.

~ti, i~ - ,- 2007
420 Vickers Road
34 Hunters Way
C apel Hill, NC 27517 7
Monte Matthews
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
6508 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615-6845
Dear Mr. Matthews,
I am writing regarding an application for modification to an existing permit from
Newland Communities to permanently impact an additional 256 linear feet of
stream channels and 0.1524 ac of wetlands and "temporarily" impact 0.1379 ac
of wetlands for Briar Chapel in Chatham County North Carolina, mentioned in the
August 16th Chatham News Record.
I understand that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments on
this issue. I have a home across 15-510 from Briar Chapel and I have watched
the construction from Herbert Herndon Road. All the destruction to nature,
habitat and natural beauty aside, and especially the wetlands which are already
being depleted world wide, on a personal basis I am concerned about how this
will impact on the well of our home and all of the homes in this area.
Has anyone studied the impact of so large a development on the well water ~"5
access and water quality and the aquifers that support them to neighboring
homes? This has been my most pressing concern all along. We do not have
access to water sources other than our well.
Please look VERY CAREFULLY at the impact on nature in this area but also
impact on those of us that already live in this area.
Thank you for your serious consideration of this issue.
Sincerely,
"' . --
r t
/~
Joan Phillips-Trimmer, MPH