20041983 Ver 2_Emails_20070921

Re: Garden at Town Hall Commons Lots 31 & 32
Subject: Re: Garden at Town Hall Commons Lots 31 & 32
From: Amy Chapman <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:58:38 -0400
To: "Mark J. Magrath, P.E." <[e-mail]>
1. The square footage of impact on your plan sheet labeled ""Exhibit-Location of Wall Relative of
Neuse River Buffer" shows an impact of 791 sq ft. This does not match the mitigation requested from
EEP which is 836 sq ft. Does the 791 include the dimenions of the retaining wall as an impact? Which
square footage of impact is correct?
2. What is the retaining wall for specifically? If it's a prohibited use in the buffer rules, thus requiring a
variance, then stormwater is a requirement for any variance. Any impervious surface added to the
buffers (as a prohibited use) must treat for nutrients. A portion of the function of the buffer is taken
away with the new impervious surface and that is reasoning for the stormwater requirement.
Thanks.
-Amy
Mark J. Magrath, P.E. wrote:
Amy;
I received the letter today from DWQ dated 9/17/07 for DWQ project 2004-1983v2 Wake County as
referenced above in the subject line. It sounds like the only reason we cannot get the variance is because
the Square footage of Zone 2 is not labeled (impact area). It actually is given on each of the drawings Lot
32 is shown as 791 SF of impact and Lot 31 is shown on the drawing to be 45 SF of impact. So you can
see its very very minimal compared to the overall size of the Riparian Buffer.
The second item about stormwater management I think may want to be relooked at again from your office
because these walls do not generate a measurable amount of impervious surface. Not sure if that
comment was intended for roof tops or pavement impacting a buffer but walls are only about 8" to 1' thick
so I can't imagine it creating a true measurable amount of runoff that would have a negative impact on the
stream.
Please let me know as soon as you can regarding this. Thank you.
Mark J. Magrath, PE
Principal of
Venture Engineering, P.A./Sitescapes, LLC
314 West Millbrook Road, Suite 005
Raleigh, NC 27609
0:919.676.0303
F:919.676.0301
M:919.602.1894
Amy Chapman
NC Division of Water Quality
401/Wetlands Unit
2321 Crabtree Blvd, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
Phone: [phone]
1 of 2 9/21/2007 3:59 PM

Re: Garden at Town Hall Commons Lots 31 & 32
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: amy.chapman a,ncmail.net
2 of 2 9/21/2007 3:59 PM

Garden at Town Hall Commons Lots 31 & 32
Subject: Garden at Town Hall Commons Lots 31 & 32
From: "Mark J. Magrath, P.E." <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:16:32 -0400
To: "'Amy Chapman"' <[e-mail]>
CC: "'Brodnick, Ethan"' <[e-mail]>, "'Carpenter, Tim"'
<Tim. Carpenter@centexhomes. com>
Amy,
I received the letter today from DWQ dated 9/17/07 for DWQ project 2004-1983v2 Wake County as referenced
above in the subject line. It sounds like the only reason we cannot get the variance is because the Square
footage of Zone 2 is not labeled (impact area). It actually is given on each of the drawings Lot 32 is shown as
791 SF of impact and Lot 31 is shown on the drawing to be 45 SF of impact. So you can see its very very
minimal compared to the overall size of the Riparian Buffer.
The second item about stormwater management I think may want to be relooked at again from your office
because these walls do not generate a measurable amount of impervious surtace. Not sure if that comment
was intended for roof tops or pavement impacting a buffer but walls are only about 8" to 1' thick so I can't
imagine it creating a true measurable amount of runoff that would have a negative impact on the stream.
Please let me know as soon as you can regarding this. Thank you.
Mark J. Magrath, PE
Principal of
Venture Engineering, P.A./Sitescapes, LLC
314 West Millbrook Road, Suite 005
Raleigh, NC 27609
0:919.676.0303
F:919.676.0301
M:919.602.1894
1 of 1 9/19/2007 2:23 PM