20120399 Ver 2_WQC or EMC Recommendation_20150717

Request for a Variance
from the
Neuse Riparian Area
Protection Rules
Gwinn Hedrick
;iverwinds Condominiums, LLC
!36 Blackwell Point Loop Road
Oriental, NC
May 13, 2015

7.5- minute Topographic Map

Site -Soil Survey
Natural Resources Conservation Service Pamlico County Soil Survey M

Lot
C-C�
% `�•
FF�
�
i
- A
_ 0P�_
a
Source: Pamlico County G|\2010 Aerial

Existing Conditions
1.

Project History
May 20, 2003 Purchased subject property
November 4, 2004 Minor Variance issued for 7-unit multi - family condominiums
• Zone 2 Impacts = 1,626 sq ft
• Mitigation: Planted 12 trees within retained buffer
August 25, 2010 Letter that no written concurrence required issued for
condominium completion, driveways, bulkhead, docks and
piers
• Zone 1 Impacts = 8o sq ft
April — June, 2011 Applied for General Major Variance for decks on all 7 units
• Application returned as ineligible due to purchase date of tl
property
August 20, 2012 Minor Variance issued for two decks (units #1 & #2)
• Zone 2 Impacts = 440 sq ft
• Mitigation: 66o sq ft buffer credits from private bank
March 2, 2015 Major Variance application submitted for five additional dec
(complete (units #347)
application) Zone 1 Impacts = 509 sq ft
• Zone 2 Impacts = 931 sq ft

iti
Ja

Proposed Project Impacts
Permanent Impacts:
Zone 1 509 sq ft
Zone z 931 sq ft
Total
1,440 sq ft
Mitigation Proposal:
Private Mitigation Bank
Buffer Credits
2,924 sq ft
Stormwater Plan:
Roof drainage to outlet in
vegetated area outside
buffer
Mitigation Required:
509 x 3 = 1,527 sq ft
931 x 1.5 =1,397 sq ft
Total 2,924 sq ft
, a I

Findings of Fact
Pursuant to 15A NCAC ozB .0233 (9)(c), the Division of Water
Resources makes the preliminary finding that the major
variance request does not demonstrate the following:
practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships are present,
the harmony and spirit of buffer protection requirements ai
met, and
the protection of water quality and substantial justice have
all been achieved in accordance with
15A NCAC 02B.0233 (9)(a)•

Findings of Fact - (9)(a)(i)
al difficulties or unnecessary hardships are not present
-he applicant can make reasonable use of his property
vithout the additional impacts from constructing five
additional decks. While the applicant would not be abl(
o build five open -air decks without these additional
mpacts, two units have open -air decks and each unit har,
i ground level screened porch with optional second ani
third floor decks.
-he hardship results from the application of this Rule
-ather than other factors such as deed restrictions or
)they factors. Application of the buffer rule does not
)revent the applicant from providing ADA- accessible,
)utdoor recreational area.

Findings of Fact - (9)(a)(i)
ie hardship is not due to the physical nature of the
iplicant's property. Although a portion of the property
located within the buffer, approximately two - thirds of
e property is located outside the buffer. The hardship
as created by planning seven townhouse units situated
thin Zone z of the buffer and then requesting a major
riance from the rule.
ie applicant did not cause the hardship by knowingli
knowingly violating this Rule.

Findings of Fact - (9)(a)(i)
The applicant purchased the property on May 20, zoc
which is after the effective date of this Rule. The lot
platted and recorded on August 20, 1997, which is
approximately one month after the effective date of
The hardship is not unique to the applicant's propertl
that adjacent properties are of similar size and also cc
buffer adjacent to Smith Creek.

Findings of Fact - (9)(a)(n)
The purpose of the riparian buffer rules is to protect existing
riparian buffer areas. The applicant could utilize the
townhomes without additional impacts to the riparian buffer.
Allowing the construction of decks by granting the request for
a major variance would not be in harmony with the general
purpose and intent of the riparian buffer protection rules and
does not preserve their spirit.

Findings of Fact - (9)(a)(m)
The variance would not assure the public welfare, protect water
quality and ensure substantial justice has been done. Although th
applicant proposed to discharge gutter downspouts outside the
buffer, the applicant reports that area to provide stormwater
treatment is not available on the property. The applicant failed to
establish that a variance for the proposed decks would assure the
public welfare and protect water quality as it is protected by strict
application of the Neuse River Riparian Area Protection Rules.
Further, the applicant failed to establish that allowing placement c
the decks within the riparian buffer would provide substantial just
when other property owners have been required to comply with t
rules.

DWR Recommendation
DWR recommendation is that the Water Quality Committee
deny this major variance request.
If the Water Quality Committee approves this request, the
Division recommends approval with the following conditior
or stipulations:
Mitigation The applicant shall provide mitigation for the
proposed impacts by purchasing 2,924 buffer credits fron
EBX Neuse Riparian Buffer Umbrella Mitigation Bank as
indicated in the application.
Stormwater Management Plan
The applicant shall direct roof drainage from Units #3
through #7 to outlet in a vegetated area outside the buff(

Questions.,