20141158 Ver 1_Emails_20141029

Burdette, Jennifer a
From: Kevin Martin <kmartin @sandec.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 8:57 AM
To: Karoly, Cyndi; Reeder, Tom
Cc: Burdette, Jennifer a
Subject: RE: Potential Appeal of buffer call
I will be handling it.Monday after noon the 10th would work for me if it works for you. if not propose some
other dates unfortunately the 11th 12th and 13th would be out for me Kevin
Sent f'ycnn niv VeTizon v% i eless a< J.rllF smutpklone
-- - - - - -- Original message -- - - - - --
From: "Karoly, Cyndi" <cyndi.karoly @ncdenr.gov>
Date: 10/29/2014 8:51 AM (GMT- 05:00)
To: Kevin Martin <kmartin @sandec.com >, "Reeder, Tom" <tom.reeder @ncdenr.gov>
Cc: 'Burdette, Jennifer a" <Jennifer. Burdette@ncdenr. gov>
Subject: RE: Potential Appeal of buffer call
Morning Kevin. I talked with Tom and Jennnifer. We concur that a site visit would be appropriate for conducting an
;ippeal, so we'll consider this your formal appeal request. Just let me know if you want to schedule it for when you
return after 11/7, or if you're going to delegate this to a staff member. And we'll set up a mutually convenient date for
From: Kevin Martin [mailto:kmartin @ sandec.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 11:32 AM
To: Reeder, Tom; Karoly, Cyndi
Cc: Burdette, Jennifer a
Subject: Potential Appeal of buffer call
Cyndi, Jennifer and Tom, I am considering appealing a call made by the RRO (copy attached) based on the feature being
a man -made ditch and not a modified stream and therefore not subject to the buffer rules. I have no issue with the way
James Graham and I scored the feature but as you know you are not supposed to use the stream form on ditches. So
that leaves little but best professional judgment and policy in deciding if the feature is a man -made ditch or a modified
stream. The reason I am sending this to you prior to filing a formal appeal is for discussion purposes, depending on the
outcome of the discussion, I may ask you to consider this a formal appeal. I explained to James that since my client has
the property under contract, if the buffer remains he will have no choice but to go back to the owner and explain that
the lot is worth less than the owner thought, however prior to doing that my client asked that I pursue all options
available short of a variance to see if the buffer could be removed. A site visit would be in order but it will be more about
determining if the feature is a ditch or a modified stream rather than how it scores. I will be out of town until 11/7 but
will be checking emails. A huge amount of stormwater is discharged to the site from 4 adjacent lots that are mostly
made up of impervious surfaces (see attached aerial) so a site visit would have to occur when there had not been recent
rainfall events. My logic is outlined below.
The appeal would be based on the following since the rules say: