SW3221202_Response To Comments_20230315

EAGLE ENGINEERING
44 VFW -
March 15, 2023
NCDEMLR
RE: Piper Meadows
3rd Review Comments
We are in receipt of your 3rd review comments for Piper Meadows located on New Town Road in
Waxhaw, NC. Please find below the edited responses to the requested information.
NCDENR COMMENTS
Contact: Jim Farkas
1) Please QA/QC the submission for consistency. The following items were noted and made it
impossible to fully review the submission. For the purposes of reviewing the design, the values
shown in the calculations were used. If these values are not the "correct" values, there may be
different and/or additional comments in subsequent reviews.
a) The drainage area to Wet Pond 91 is unclear. This value is shown as 7.51 ac in the
calculations, 7.13 ac in the plans, 34.84 ac in the Application (Section IV, 10), and 34.45 ac
in the Supplement-EZ Form (Drainage Areas Page).
i) Drainage area for Wet Pond 91 is now 7.42 ac. This change has been corrected and is reflected
in the plans, calculations, application (Section IV, 10) and Supplement-EZ Form. (MCM)
b) The BUA draining to Wet Pond 91 is unclear. This value is shown as 172,486 sf in the
calculations, 172,460 sf in the Application (Section IV, 10), and 132,747 sf in the
Supplement-EZ Form (Drainage Areas Page).
i) The total BUA for Wet Pond #1 is now 145,192 s£ This change has been corrected and is
reflected in the plans, calculations, application (Section IV, 10) and Supplement-EZ Form.
(MCM)
c) The drainage area to Wet Pond 92 is unclear. This value is shown as 18.78 ac in the
calculations, 19.31 ac in the plans, 23.97 ac in the Application (Section IV, 10), and 23.95 ac
in the Supplement-EZ Form (Drainage Areas Page).
i) Drainage area for Wet Pond 42 is now 18.94 ac. This change has been corrected and is reflected
in the plans, calculations, application (Section IV, 10) and Supplement-EZ Form. (MCM)
d) The BUA draining to Wet Pond 92 is unclear. This value is shown as 275,540 sf in both the
calculations and Application (Section IV,
e) 10), and 280,159 sf in the Supplement-EZ Form (Drainage Areas Page).
i) The total BUA for Wet Pond #2 is now 308,530 s£ This change has been corrected and is
reflected in the plans, calculations, application (Section IV, 10) and Supplement-EZ Form.
(MCM)
www.eaaleonline.net
2013-A Van Buren Avenue
Indian Trail, NC 28079
Ph 704 882 4222
Fax [phone]

Piper Meadows
Project #: UNION-2022-006
3rd Review Comments
2) The following issues were noted with the design of Wet Pond #1:
a) Wet Pond MDC 2 — As designed, the average depth of the main pool is insufficient. Using
the provided main pool volume (18,712 cf), the main pool surface area (6,292 sf, and
Equation 2 from part C-3 of the Manual results in an average depth of 2.98 ft (18,712 cf /
6,292 sf = 2.98 ft < 3.0 ft). Please revise as needed.
i) The main pool depth has been dropped to 618.5' which results in the permanent pool average
depth in being 20,120cf /6,292sf = 3.20' rounded down to be 3.0'. (MCM)
b) Wet Pond MDC 4 — As designed, this wet pond appears to short-circuit. Please either
relocate the outlet structure so that it is further away from the inlet/forebay or add
berms/baffles to the design as to better maximize the flow path through the wet pond.
i) Outlet structure has been relocated farther away from the forebay/inlet to prevent short-
circuiting. (MCM)
c) As designed, the bypass weir in the outlet structure (1.5" weir g 623.25') is located below
the elevation associated with the design volume for this SCM (14,300 cf, provided (c�
approximately 624.4'). In order to be adequately sized, a wet pond must provide at least the
minimum required design volume (14,300 cf per the calcs) in storage between the permanent
pool surface elevation and below any bypasses. The calculations indicate that 15,183 cf of
storage volume is provided, however the bypass weir invert would need to be set at elevation
624.5' to provide this storage volume. Please revise as needed.
i) With the revisions to the calculations the design volume for Wet Pond I is now 15,183 ft3. The
design volume elevation is now 642.75 and is at the structure weir elevation which is now
624.75. (MCM)
3) The following issues were noted with the design of Wet Pond 42:
a) As designed, Wet Pond 92 is undersized. Per the calculations, the minimum required design
volume for this SCM is 24,074 cf and only 21,435 cf of storage is provided. Similar to the
earlier comment for Wet Pond #1, at least the minimum required design volume must be
provided in storage between the permanent pool surface elevation and below any bypasses.
Please revise as needed.
i) With the revisions to the calculations the required design volume for Wet Pond 92 is now 26,578
ft3. We now are showing that the pond is sized correctly with a water quality volume of 31,930
ft3. The design volume elevation is now 622 and is at the structure weir elevation. (MCM)
4) The following issues were noted with the general design of the wet ponds:
a) Since this project is located within 5 miles of an airport, it is recommended to utilize SCMs
that do not pond water (in accordance with G.S. 143-214.7(c3)). Alternative SCMs that do
not pond water can be found in Part E-4 of the Manual.
i) This is recommended but not required. After discussions with Peter Cevallos, the Airport
Manager of the Charlotte - Monroe airport, and he agreed that this projects 2.4 nautical miles
makes it hard to determine the necessity of some type of physical barrier (Email attached to end
of this report). That said, we've still added a note has been added to SCM detail sheets stating a
need for a physical barrier. (MCM)
www.eaaleonline.net
2013-A Van Buren Avenue
Indian Trail, NC 28079
Ph 704 882 4222
Fax [phone]

Piper Meadows
Project #: UNION-2022-006
3rd Review Comments
b) The vegetated shelf top and bottom elevations, as shown on the plan view of the wet ponds,
does not correspond to the information shown in the calculations. For example, the plan
view of Wet Pond #1 shows the vegetated shelf to be located between elevations 624' &
625' while the other submittal items indicate that the vegetated shelf is located between
elevations 623' (the permanent pool surface elevation) and 624'. The same issue is also
present with Wet Pond 92. Please revise as needed.
i) The vegetated shelf elevations now correspond between the plan sheets, profiles, and
applications. (MCM)
c) As shown in the plan view of the wet ponds, the contour lines for the bottom of the main
pool and forebay do not correspond to the information shown in the cross sectional views
and other submittal information. For example, the main pool of Wet Pond 91 is shown to be
excavated down to elevation 619' however the cross -sectional view shows the main pool
being excavated down to elevation 618'. The sediment storage zone is provided between
elevations 618' & 619', but it must be excavated so that it can fill up with sediment that gets
deposited into the wet pond. This issue is also present in the forebay and for Wet Pond 92.
Please revise as needed.
i) The plans are now showing contour lines down to the sediment storage zone and can be seen in
the cross sectional view. In addition, labels have been added to clarify the sedimentation storage
bottom (excavated bottom). (MCM)
d) As designed, the forebays do not appear to meet the requirements of Wet Pond MDCs 3 &
5b. The cross -sectional views of the forebays show the forebay as being deeper at the
entrance than at the exit, however this is not shown on the plan view. Please also clarify the
elevation of the top of the sediment storage zone, the excavated bottom elevation of the
forebay near the entrance, and the excavated bottom elevation of the forebay near the exit on
the cross -sectional view. The excavated bottom elevation of the forebay near the entrance
must be at a lower elevation than the excavated bottom elevation of the forebay near the exit
(Wet Pond MDC 5b) and at least 6" of sediment storage must be provided over both the
excavated bottom elevation of the entrance & exit of the forebay (Wet Pond MDC 3).
NOTE: The sediment storage top in the forebay is typically shown as being flat, similar to
how it is in the main pool cross sectional view. REMINDER: The sediment storage zone
does not contribute to the volume of the main pool or the forebay.
i) The forebays have been revised to meet the requirements MDC 3 & 513. You can now see that
there is a contour line that shows the entrance is deeper than the exit in the plan view. Notes
have been added to clarify the excavated bottom elevation of the forebay near the entrance and
exit. We are providing a I' of sediment storage. The sediment storage zone is not being
contributed towards the volume of the forebay or main pool. (MCM)
5) The following issues were noted with the Application:
a) Section IV, 10 — As noted earlier, there appears to be a discrepancy with the information
shown in this table. The information in this table should be an accounting of the drainage
areas to the proposed SCMs and should correspond to the other submittal items. Off -site
drainage area refers to any portion of the drainage area to the SCM that is located outside of
the project area (not areas bypassed around the SCM). Please revise as needed.
i) The discrepancies in information from the plans and other applications have been addressed. The
areas in the table of Section IV, 10 now only pertain to the areas of the referenced SCM and not
diverted drainage. (MCM)
b) Sections III, 2 & IX — Since the applicant is also the property owners, the information in
these sections is not needed. With your permission, I can cross out the information provided
www.eaaleonline.net
2013-A Van Buren Avenue
Indian Trail, NC 28079
Ph 704 882 4222
Fax [phone]

Piper Meadows
Project #: UNION-2022-006
3rd Review Comments
on the hard copies of these pages of the Application. Please revise the electronic copy of the
Application.
i) Yes, you may get rid of Sections III, 2 & IX since the applicant is also the property owners. We
have left those sections blank as of your comment. (MCM)
2) The following issues were noted with the Supplement-EZ Form:
a) Cover Page:
(1) Line 6 — Please answer this item.
i) Line 6 has been answered "No" this project doesn't use an off -site SCM. (MCM)
(2) Line 7 — Please include the width of the required vegetated setback from surface waters
(15A NCAC 02H .1017(10)) for this item. It is noted that the setback and water shown
on the plans are not subject to 15A NCAC 02H .1003(4), per email correspondence with
Margie during the administrative completeness review for this project, however we ask
that this value be included. Lines 8-10 may be left as is. If you are concerned about this
setback width being confused for the one shown on the plans, you can elaborate in the
additional information section on the Drainage Area Page.
i) Line 7 has been answered "20 ft" to the vegetated setback for Wet Pond 1. We got approval
from Shannon Leonard (NCDEQ) to use a 20 ft setback in this location. In addition, please see
correspondence with Maggie DeBerry of NCDENR of 20' setback approval (Correspondence
added to end of this report). Wet Pond 2 doesn't have a vegetated setback. (MCM)
b) Drainage Areas Page:
(1) Entire Site Column — Please complete this column. The information in this column is an
accounting of the entire project area (similar to how the drainage area columns are an
accounting of the entire drainage area to the SCM). The "drainage area" for the entire
site column is equal to the project area. NOTE: This column is not merely a summation
of the other columns (although it can be). If there is BUA that is located on -site and does
not drain to an SCM, it would be accounted for in this column, but not in the drainage
area columns.
i) The Entire Site Column has been filled out in accordance with the above comment. (MCM)
c) Drainage Area Columns:
(1) As noted earlier, there appears to be a discrepancy with the information shown in these
columns. The information in these columns should be an accounting of the drainage
areas to the proposed SCMs and should correspond to the other submittal items.
i) The discrepancies in information from the plans and other applications have addressed. Areas in
this column now only pertain to the areas that the SCM in reference treats. (MCM)
(2) Line 19 — The design storm for this part of the State is 1.0".
i) Line 19 has been revised to 1.0" of designed storm. (MCM)
(3) Line 20 — The design volume of the SCM is the volume that can be stored between the
permanent pool surface elevation and below any bypasses. This volume must be at least
as large as the minimum required design volume.
i) Line 20, design volume of the SCM, has been revised for wet pond I & 2. (MCM)
(4) Line 21 — The calculation method for the design method is either the Simple Method or
the Discrete NRCS Curve Number Method (The simple method appears to be used in
the calculations).
i) Line 21 has been revised as the simple method for the design storm calculation. (MCM)
2) Wet Pond Page:
a) Line 2 — This value is the minimum required treatment volume for the SCM (Dv per the
calculations).
www.eaaleonline.net
2013-A Van Buren Avenue
Indian Trail, NC 28079
Ph 704 882 4222
Fax [phone]

Piper Meadows
Project #: UNION-2022-006
3rd Review Comments
i) Line 2, the minimum required treatment volume, has been revised to be 12,236 cft for wet pond
1 and 26,578 cft for wet pond 2. (MCM)
b) Line 25 — The temporary pool surface elevation is determined by the lowest bypass invert.
This elevation (and the permanent pool surface elevation) is used to determine the provided
design volume of the SCM. Please also revise the O&M Agreement.
i) Line 25, the temporary pool surface elevation, has been revised to be 624.75 for wet pond 1 and
622.00 for wet pond 2. (MCM)
c) Line 26, Wet Pond 91 — The provided value, 6,124 sf, does not correspond to the provided
stage -storage table (6,292 sf).
i) Line 26, surface area of the main permanent pool, has been revised to be 6,292 sf for wet pond 1.
(MCM)
d) Line 34 — The cleanout depth of the forebay is the distance from the permanent pool surface
elevation to the top of the sediment storage zone in the forebay, expressed in inches.
i) Line 34, cleanout depth of the forebay, is 24" for wet pond 1 and 48" for wet pond 2. (MCM)
e) Line 35 — The design volume of the SCM is the volume that can be stored between the
permanent pool surface elevation and below any bypasses. This volume must be at least as
large as the minimum required design volume.
i) Line 35, design volume of the SCM, has been revised to 19,888 cf for wet pond 1 and 31,930 cf
for wet pond 2. (MCM)
f) Line 37 — This item refers to the diameter of the small drawdown orifice (2" & 2.5").
NOTE: These cells round input values to the nearest whole number. Please either manually
add in fractional values or provide this information in the additional information section
(Line 55).
i) Line 37, diameter of the small drawdown orifice, is 2.0" for wet pond 1 and 2.5" for wet pond 2.
(MCM)
g) Lines 43 & 44 —These items refer to the distance from the permanent pool surface elevation
to the excavated bottom of the forebay near the entrance (43) or exit (44).
i) Lines 43 & 44, depth of forebay entrance and exit, has been revised for wet pond 1 and wet pond
2. (MCM)
h) Line 48 — The proposed drawdown orifice configuration draws down from below the
permanent pool surface elevation.
i) Line 48 has been revised for wet pond 1 and wet pond 2. (MCM)
2) While it is not required, it is recommended that the off -site drainage from upstream properties be
diverted around the SCM since the Applicant cannot maintain control over the development of
property that they do not own. If the Applicant elects to account for off -site drainage, it must either
be accounted for as 100% BUA (its full build out potential, or there must be a recorded legal
agreement in place between the Applicant and the Owner of the upstream property in which the
Owner of the upstream property agrees to record a deed restriction limiting the minimum/maximum
amount of BUA on the upstream property that will be treated in the Applicant's SCM, the locations
and sizes of access and drainage easements, how construction and/or ongoing maintenance costs will
be handled, maintenance responsibility, a list of legal recourses available to each party should one
party fail to hold up their end of the agreement, and any other related legal issues.
i) All off -site drainage is being diverted around the SCM with bypass ditches. (MCM)
3) Please note that this request for additional information is in response to a preliminary review. The
requested information should be received by this Office prior to April 1, 2023, or the application will
www.eagleonline.net
2013-A Van Buren Avenue
Indian Trail, NC 28079
Ph 704 882 4222
Fax [phone]

Piper Meadows
Project #: UNION-2022-006
3rd Review Comments
be returned as incomplete. The return of a project will necessitate resubmittal of all required items,
including the application fee. Please reference the State assigned project number SW3221202 on all
correspondence.
i) Acknowledged. Project will be resubmitted with the requested information prior to April 1,
2023, with the state assigned project number SW3221202. (MCM)
4) If you need additional time to submit the information, please submit your request for a time
extension to the Division at the contact below. The request must indicate the date by which you
expect to submit the required information. The Division is allowed 90 days from the receipt of a
completed application to issue the permit.
1) Acknowledged. If additional time is needed, then a time extension request will be submitted to
the Division. (MCM)
5) The construction of any impervious surfaces, other than a construction entrance under an approved
Sedimentation Erosion Control Plan, is a violation of NCGS 143-215.1 and is subject to enforcement
action pursuant to NCGS 143-215.6A.
i) Acknowledged. (MCM)
As you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office.
Sincerely,
Eagle Engineering Inc.
Phillip Hines
Project Manager
www.eaaleonline.net
2013-A Van Buren Avenue
Indian Trail, NC 28079
Ph 704 882 4222
Fax [phone]

[e-mail]
From:
Peter Cevallos < [e-mail] >
Sent:
Thursday, March 9, 2023 3:39 PM
To:
[e-mail]
Cc:
'Farkas, Jim J';[e-mail]; [e-mail]; 'Steven Prophet';
[e-mail]
Subject:
RE: Piper Meadows State Stormwater Submittal - 4004 New Town Rd, Waxhaw, NC
Attachments:
4004 New Town Rd Waxhawjpg; FAA AC 150-5200-33C EXCERPT.PDF
Good Afternoon Phillip,
Thanks for reach out to me the other day and asking the question. I have attached a screen shot from Google Earth that
shows the location of your proposed development and the Charlotte -Monroe Executive Airport. I agree that given this
distance (approximately 2.4 nautical miles), it would be hard to determine if the installation of the proposed storm
water control measure (SCM) necessitates some type of physical barrier to deter wildlife as I do not have any
information on your specific SCM.
I have also attached an excerpt of the FAA's Advisory Circular 150/5200-33C, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or near
Airports, specifically Paragraph 2.3.2, 'New Storm water Management Facilities'. While you are correct that these are
recommended steps that can be taken, please review the entire paragraph provided as there are other design measures
that can be implemented such as the design of the SCM or the amount of time that the SCM holds water. There are also
a variety of physical barriers that can be incorporated into SCM IF it retains water for longer than the prescribed 48-
hours, as defined in the AC that I've provided.
Let me know if you have any further questions.
Thanks,
Peter Cevallos
City of Monroe
Charlotte -Monroe Executive Airport
Airport Manager
3900 Paul J. Helms Drive
Monroe, NC 28110
[phone]
[e-mail]
monroenc.ora
MoCharlotte
Executive Airport
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subiect to North Carolina's public records laws and if
so, may be disclosed

From: [e-mail][mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 16:15
To: Peter Cevallos <[e-mail]>
Cc: 'Farkas, Jim J' <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail];'Steven Prophet'
<[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Piper Meadows State Stormwater Submittal - 4004 New Town Rd, Waxhaw, NC
Good afternoon Peter,
Thank you for taking the time to take my call this afternoon. It was a pleasure to speak with you again.
The below screen grabbed comment is what I was referring to. As discussed, the site in question, 4004 New Town Rd,
Waxhaw, NC, is 3.0 miles from the Monroe Airport.
In both the 'Hazardous Wildlife Attractant on or near Airports Advisory Circular' and the comment below it states that is
'recommended' to not have SCM (stormwater control measures) that pond water located within 5 miles within an
airport.
4. The followincy issues were noted with the general design of the yet Pon
a. Since this project is located within 5 miles of an airport, it is recoml
SCMs that do not pond water in accordance with G.S. 143- 14.7 c
S Ms that coo not pond water can be found in Fart E-4 of the Manu;
Please let me know your thoughts on this recommendation and our proposed SCM 3 miles from the airport. Thank you.
Sincerely,
D. Phillip Hines, P.E.
Project Manager I Civil Division
Eagle Engineering, Inc.
2013 Van Buren Avenue, Indian Trail, NC 28079
Direct: 704.234.6559
Main: 704.882.4222
Cel I: 980.213.0496
Fax: [phone]
4

[e-mail]
From: DeBerry, Margie <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2022 7:59 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; 'Jeremy Roberts'; [e-mail]; 'Kayle Schmidt'; 'Ryan
McGee'; 'Mitch Eudy'; Leonard, Shannon; Perez, Douglas J; Khan, Zahid; Farkas, Jim J
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Piper Meadows, Waxhaw, Union County
Good morning Phillip,
Thank you for providing the revised grading plan showing the 30' vegetative buffer. However, we are in agreement with
what Jeremy Roberts noted previously, about the channel not shown as a stream on the soil survey or USGS topo maps.
The rule requires the 30' vegetated setback if shown on the maps. After additional review, the proposed 20' buffer from
the intermittent stream is ok. Although the 30' buffer is not required in this case for post -construction, please ensure
that the project continues to meet all of the requirements for E&SC as determined by other NCDEQ staff. Please let me
know if you have other questions or concerns.
Thank you,
Margie DeBerry
Environmental Specialist, Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Office: [phone]
[e-mail]
D77 E Q
NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Quality
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 5:05 PM
To: DeBerry, Margie <[e-mail]>
Cc: M Kirchner@eagleonline. net; 'Jeremy Roberts' <jroberts@eagleonline. net>; lauren.thomas@eagleonli ne. net; 'Kayle
Schmidt'<kayle.sch midt@eagleon line. net>; 'Ryan McGee' <Ryan@ mcgeebrick.com>; 'Mitch Eudy'
<[e-mail]>; Leonard, Shannon <[e-mail]>; Perez, Douglas J
<[e-mail]>; Khan, Zahid <[e-mail]>; Farkas, Jim J <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Piper Meadows, Waxhaw, Union County
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Good afternoon Margie,