20071281 Ver 1_Emails_20070828

Re: Sunset Falls Haywood County DWQ Project No .040305
Subject: Re: Sunset Falls Haywood County DWQ Project No .040305
From: Kevin Barnett <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 09:59:35 -0400
To: 'Ian McMillan' <[e-mail]>, 'Cyndi Karoly' <[e-mail]>
FYI:
This project is underway and is now an ATF.
Thanks,
Kevin
clement riddle wrote:
Ian, Cyndi, and Kevin,
I had the chance to briefly discuss Item 1 in the Add-Info letter dated August 6, 2007 with Ian and I greatly
appreciate his time and respect his thorough explanation of information requested in Item 1.
The purpose of this email is for your opinion regarding my concerns and hope that you agree that there are
instances where a phased permitting approach is reasonable. Thanks in advance for considering the
following. (1 always worry that in emailing my tone%xpression may come across upset or angry- that is not
fhe case).
1. PCN Application Section V. "Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If
so, describe the anticipated work, and provide justification for the exclusion of this work
from the current application."
Clearly the question as asked by the DWQ PCN anticipates that there will be
circumstances where future permits are anticipated and justifiable. We believe this to be
the case because we have permitted many projects in phases under this GC (condition 15
and/or 17). (Just a few examples; Hollabrook -Henderson County; Lonesome valley -
Jackson County; Bright's creek -Polk County; Biltmore Park -Buncombe County,
Linville ridge -Avery County; Wal-Mart (sayles bleachery) -Buncombe County; Wolf
laurel -Madison County) (Cummings Cove) (Some DWQ; some Corps only). From our
project experience with Both DWQ and the Corps a phase has ALWAYS been considered
a complete a separate project if it could stand alone and is not dependent on future, yet to
be permitted amenities.
2. General Certification 3631 (GC3631, and USACE NWP29) and General Certification 3627
(GC3627, and USACE NWP14) Condition No. 15, and Condition No. 17, respectively,
state that, "If this Certification is used to access building sites, all lots owned by the
applicant must be buildable without additional fill beyond that explicitly allowed under
other General Certifications. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the lots are
buildable without requiring additional impacts to wetlands, waters or buffers if required to
do so in writing by DWQ. For road construction purposes, this Certification shall only be
utilized from natural high ground to natural high ground."
The applicant agrees that all lots owned by the applicant must be buildable without
additional fill beyond what is explicitly allowed under other General Certifications. Every
1 of 3 8/28/2007 4:15 PM

Re: Sunset Falls Haywood County DWQ Project No .040305
lot in Phase 1 is accessible without requiring additional impacts to wetlands, waters,
buffers. We believe that we have provided evidence that lots (Phase I) are buildable
without require additional impacts to wetlands, water, or buffers. There are no lots
planned or platted in Phase 2 at this time. It is possible that Phase 2 may never happen.
The owner does not have a loan or any funding in place to address further land planning,
engineering, surveying, or permitting in Phase 2. If Phase 1 is successful, then the owner
may pursue development in Phase 2. There is nothing is Phase 1 that is dependent of
Phase 2. Phase 1 could be a stand alone project. We are willing to place the deed
notification on property owned under Phase 2.
3. Please provide all impacts for all Phases of the entire project. This was requested with the
ad-info but I could not find this statement as a requirement in the GC's. However, I may
have missed it. If so please point me in the right direction. I think this is a good idea but
there are many reasons why this is not practical, feasible, practicable, etc.
Are there rules/laws of DWQ that require a land owner know what she wants to do with
ALL of her property?
4. This is very different than other proposed projects that Ian and I discussed where an
applicant wants a NWP to build a road to access lots in Phase 1. Where these lots are sold
for the sole purpose of being members in a golf course community where there is a yet to be
permitted amenity under an IP (or NWP). In this case there is a clear connection and
purpose in selling early lots. This type of project phasing, as I described it, could not be
considered a stand alone project, because buyers of phase 1 lots are expecting a golf course.
We do not believe this falls under "piecemealing " as we are not avoiding mitigation or
stormwater requirements and we have acknowledged that if there are any permits in the
future, impacts must be considered cumulatively. Piecemealing was previously used by
developers to impact 149 linear over and over again to avoid conditions such as mitigation
and stormwater management.
I very much appreciate your willingness to consider this information and I look forward to discussing it with
you further.
Sincerely,
Clement
C~earWater
Environmental Consultants, Inc.
718 Oakland Street
Hendersonville, NC 28791
828-698-9800
828-698-9003 FAX
clementCc~cwenv.com
www.cwenv.com
2 of 3 8/28/2007 4:15 PM

Re: Sunset Falls Haywood County DWQ Project No .040305
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the
addressee(s). Disclosure to other parties is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, any
disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and
may be unlawful.
Kevin Barnett - [e-mail]
North Carolina Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
Asheville Regional Office
Division of Water Quality - Water Quality Section
2090 U.S. 70 Highway
Swannanoa, NC 28778
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Kevin Barnett <Kevin.Barnett(a~ncmail.net>
NC DENR -Asheville Regional Office
Division of Water Quality -Water Quality Section
3 of 3 8/28/2007 4:15 PM