Request for Additional Info _External_ FW_ 20230952_Lake Glenn SD_Stanly (2)

Baker, Caroline D
From: Chapman, Amy
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2023 3:16 PM
To: C. Matthew Jones, P.E.; Locklear, Susan P
Cc: 'Steve Helms/Helms Builders Inc.'; Mason Ackerman; 'Perry Isner'; Conchilla, Ryan
Subject: RE: [External] FW: 20230952_Lake Glenn SD_Stanly
Mr. Jones,
I'll have Susan address the stormwater questions 6-8 below, but I thought I would address a comment/question # 4 for
you to expediate things while Ryan is out. Avoidance and Minimization is a part of the 401 review. It's a requirement
per our 15A NCAC 2H.0500 rules and is in the ePCN form as well. With that being said, if Phase 1 is built, we won't make
you go back and revise. However, future phases can be revised and may be asked for as part of our review.
Hope that helps.
From: C. Matthew Jones, P.E. <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2023 2:59 PM
To: Chapman, Amy <[e-mail]>
Cc: 'Steve Helms/Helms Builders Inc.' <[e-mail]>; Mason Ackerman <[e-mail]>;'Perry
Isner' <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] FW: 20230952_Lake Glenn SD_Stanly
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the Report Message
button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.
Amy,
I received a bounce -back from Ryan Conchilla's email. I've been trying to reach him, but he is apparently out of the
office, now. Per the bounce -back message, I'm sending this email chain to you.
Please review my email below and advise/respond. There are numerous "Environmental" comments related to
Stormwater, but this project is not located within a State -regulated stormwater program/area. Therefore, we are
seeking clarification on some of the comments as marked in red, below.
Cordially,
-C. Matthew Jones, M.A., P.E.
Principal Engineer
Jones Civil Design, P.C.
Civil Engineering I Land Solutions
"From Conception to Completion"
**V13T1311AN - OWNI?D**
OFFICE: [phone]
MOBILE: [phone]
1019 THORNSBY LANE
MATTHEWS, NIC 28105

www.JonesCiviIDesign.com
From: C. Matthew Jones, P.E. <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2023 2:54 PM
To: 'Rya n.Conchi Ila @deq. nc.gov' <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: 20230952_Lake Glenn SD_Stanly
Ryan,
I'm following up on the voicemail I left you. I haven't heard back. Therefore, please see my comments, below, in
red.
Cordially,
-C. Matthew Jones, M.A., P.E.
Principal Engineer
Jones Civil Design, P.C.
Civil Engineering I Land Solutions
"From Conception to Completion"
"V13T13RAN - OWNED"
OFFICE: [phone]
MOBILE: [phone]
1019 THORNSBY LANE
MATTHEwS, NC 28105
www.JonesCivilDesign.com
From: Perry Isner <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2023 12:23 PM
To: Steve Helms/Helms Builders Inc. <[e-mail]>; C. Matthew Jones, P.E. <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: 20230952_Lake Glenn SD_Stanly
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Conchilla, Ryan <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 11:14 AM
Subject: 20230952_Lake Glenn SD_Stanly
To: Perry Isner <[e-mail]>
Perry,
Good morning. The PCN application for this project is under review with the following comments:
1. Provide a wetland delineation report for the site.
2. Provide copies of the DWR Stream ID Forms completed.

3. On the PCN page 3, section 6b lists two project phases. Depict both Phases on the Grading Plan provided on
page 20. The first phase is already complete (and has people living there). That was already reviewed and
permitted. However, that phase line will be shown on the next submittal — for information purposes.
4. Based on the Grading Plan, it appears stream impacts 1 and 2 could both be avoided by adjusting the
construction access to this area off Renee Ford Road. Discuss why this alternative access route is not feasible
for development of the project. The "discussion" of why this would not be feasible goes far beyond the scope
of this submittal. There are numerous reasons — which are apparent after decades of experience building,
developing, and designing such projects. However, as one explanation (why access is not granted from Renee
Ford Road): There are homes being built there, and those Lots are already platted/deeded and sold to
homeowners who will not be burdened with an encumbering easement for access to the Lots being designed
as part of this phase. Note: My work (as Engineer -of -Record on this project) did not begin during the first
phase; so there was no control over that phasing nor the manner of access to the second phase. Regardless,
this comment seems to be an overstep of State review authority. The design (and design decisions) are made
by the Owner and the Owner's Consultant (not the State nor the State's employees). Regardless, as stated:
The first phase is permitted and built. There will be no changes to that phase and, thus, no changes to the
access through that phase.
5. Glenn Lake Photos- the photo log locations should be depicted on the surface waters and wetlands map (PCN
page 12).
The project is stated to be low density at less than 24%. Is this applicable to the entire "common" plan of
development, Phase 1 and 2, or just Phase 2? Impervious area should be calculated for the entire development,
including roadway, not just a single phase as this is a "common" plan of development. Only Phase 2 plan has
been submitted. I question whether this office has the authority to ask this question. The project location is
not within a State -designated stormwater program/area. If it were, then such questions (related to
impervious coverage) would be reviewed by the State Stormwater reviewer (Jim Farkas). The question being
asked, here, seems outside the scope of a normal Environmental (wetland) review. Please clarify what State
regulation grants the authority for this question (in a non State/Stormwater-regulated area of North
Carolina). Then, for mere informational purposes, a data table of impervious percentages will be provided on
the next submittal. However, for clarity, please provide the State statute being used by this office to make
such a request.
7. Under Stormwater Management Plan (2c), please provide details as to how project qualifies for low
density. What is the total project acreage, proposed roadway impervious area, lot impervious restrictions, etc.
See the response to #6, above.
8. If the project does qualify for low density with no stormwater requirements, how is that going to be ensured in
the future? Restrictions should be placed on the individual lots for a maximum allowable impervious area.
Again, there is no stormwater program identified for this area of North Carolina. Therefore, such
considerations are not under the regulations of DEQ— unless some law has changed, recently. If so, please
advise and provide a reference to that Statute. Secondly, this development will not have an H.O.A. and will
not have deed restrictions. Similarly, there are countless parcels (within the non -regulated portions of the
State) where impervious coverage is increased beyond the low density threshold. However, those projects —
like this one — are located in areas that are not subject to the NPDES regulations. Therefore, please advise:
Under what authority, is the State asserting this comment?
Let me know what additional support I can provide.
Thanks-

Ryan Conchilla, PWS
Environmental Specialist II
401 and Buffer Transportation Permitting Branch (DOT Divisions 7+8)
Division of Water Resources, NC Department of Environmental Quality
919-707-9111 office
[e-mail]
�
,�: D-E
NORTH CAROLINA7AM Q
kJAj
Department of Environmental Duality
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties by an authorized
state official.