20050834 Ver 4_More Info Received_20150820

Dana Lutheran
From: Burdette, Jennifer a [Jennifer Burdette @ncdenr gov]
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 5 20 PM
To: Dana Lutheran, Higgins, Karen
Cc: david syster @segi us, Coburn, Chad
Subject: RE The Willows Subdivision Response to DWR RFAI Regarding Major Permit Certification
Dana,
Please mail 3 copies of your response to the central office to resume the application review process.
Thanks,
Jennifer
Jennifer Burdette _
401 /Buffer Coordinator tR' ,�
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit AUG 2 ® 2015
NCDENR — Division of Water Resources DENR - wgTF_ .
1617 Mail Service Center
1�401 a ev�� /-,E r7ivU
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1617
(919) 807 -6364 phone
iennifer.burdette @ncdenr.Rov
(Physical Address: 512 N. Salisbury St, Raleigh, NC 27604 - 9`h Flr Archdale Bldg)
*Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records law and may be disclosed to
third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation *
From: Dana Lutheran [mailto:dlutheran @ segi.us]
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 10:45 AM
To: Higgins, Karen
Cc: Burdette, Jennifer a; david.syster @segi.us; Coburn, Chad
Subject: The Willows Subdivision Response to DWR RFAI Regarding Major Permit Certification
Dear Karen,
Southern Environmental Group, Inc (SEGi) is in receipt of the Division of Water Resources' 28 July 2015
request for additional information (RFAI), which is necessary to complete the Water Quality Mayor Permit
Application for the above referenced project The following is SEGi's response to the RFAI
1. Please provide more details regarding avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts for this
project.
A The proposed wetland impact to extend Curran Court does not appear to be necessary to
provide buildable lots since buildable lots are available on Cottage Field Lane that do not
involve additional wetland impacts. Please provide additional information as to why it is
necessary for this project at this time.
During the 2006 permit process, the Applicant minimized impacts by using the following
techniques

A While adhering to local setbacks and NCDOT roadway design criteria, wetlands were
crossed at their most narrowest points, which minimized wetland impact areas
B Rock retaining walls were installed along approximately 235 linear feet of wetland bank
(see attached photos and Site Plan Areas PDF, depicting the location of the walls). This
action reduced the slope of the bank, subsequently avoiding impacts to the adjacent
wetlands, and also ensured erosion did not take place, removing the potential for sediment to
discharge into the wetlands.
C. Sidewalks were situated next to the edge of pavement, where crossing wetlands (see
attached site plan for locations where sidewalks were relocated). This reduced the width of
the road crossings and, minimizing the wetland impacts associated with the road crossings.
The Curran Court road crossing has been designed utilizing this same practice.
D During the design phase, the Applicant only impacted wetlands to gain access to uplands
No lot fill was required
E Buildable uplands were left behind, further avoiding and minimizing wetland impacts, as
wetland impacts would have been necessary to access some of these areas
With regard to available buildable lots on Cottage Field Lane, there are numerous
(approximately 50) lots still undeveloped within the subdivision. These lots were not built upon
due to the recession. With the housing market recovery, all of the remaining lots, including
those 4 lots at the terminus of Curran Court, have been purchased by Pharmlogic, LLC
(herein referred to as the "Builder ").
During the 2006 permit process, we purposely omitted the impact associated with extending
Curran Court, which was necessary to access the 4 lots. Removing the impact was not to
achieve avoidance and minimization. If the developer had not counted on developing the lots
in the future, the upland area would have been placed into preservation, much like the
remaining, undeveloped uplands within the subdivision (see attached) These lots have
always been part of the development plan and included in the economic feasibility of the
project In 2006, the Applicant (Cardan Holdings, LLC) neither had the money nor the time to
go through the IP process, as he relying on the sale of lots to install roads and infrastructure.
Again, back to the time the permit was being issued, the entrance into this subdivision
required impacting wetlands Having the wetland permit to install infrastructure was critical to
selling lots. Therefore, the impact was removed for permitting, at that time
2 Title 15A NCAC 02H .0506 requires that a proposed activity has not practical alternative by
demonstrating that, considering the potential for a reduction in size, configuration or density
of the proposed activity and all alternative designs, the basic project purpose cannot be
practically accomplished in a manner which would avoid or result in less adverse impact to
wetlands. Because the preferred alternative involves the greatest amount of wetland impact,
the Division cannot review this alternative until the US Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE)
determines that this alternative is the least environmentally damaging practical alternative
(LEDPA). Please provide correspondence from the USACE indicating which alternative is
selected the LEDPA.
A No Action Alternative - The No Action alternative would not achieve the Applicant's desire to
provide affordable housing in a rapidly growing area of Brunswick County and would not
produce a reasonable return on the Applicant's investment
B Off -site Alternative — The Applicant owned the property prior to beginning the permit process
in 2006 Purchasing another piece of property, that would have supported the project purpose
and need, would not have been economically feasible, as the Applicant would not have been
able to acquire an additional property or properties without first selling the subject property
This is due to the limited available credit the Applicant had and the inability to make multiple
mortgage payments Thus, the off -site alternative was not practicable.

C Redesign Alternative — Due to the fact that the subdivision is almost fully built out, redesigning
to reduce impacts, density and /or size of the project is not practical, as the project, form the
onset, was design to produce a reasonable return on investment.
D. Bridging Wetlands Alternative - Due to the fact that the terrain in the area is so flat and the
roads were to be dedicated to the NCDOT, bridging the wetlands to avoid and /or minimize
impacts would not have been practicable In order to meet the USACE's 3' above the
substrate rule and the American's for Disabilities Act sidewalk guidelines, which limits the
grade of a sidewalk to a maximum of 8% in flat landscapes, the structures would have been
massive compared to their surroundings, which would not have been in harmony with the
neighborhood and would have resulted in a loss of lots In addition, the cost of constructing
DOT approved bridges is an expensive endeavor and, thus would not have been
economically feasible
E. Current Site Alternative - The site was selected because of its proximity to Wilmington and
even more important US 74/76, which is the main highway into Wilmington In addition, the
project site was close to a shopping center, had access off Village Road and infrastructure
was available Most importantly, the site exhibited enough available uplands to support the
type of development the Applicant desired to construct (i.e. medium income housing), while
only requiring minimal wetland impacts The site was designed to ensure the Applicant would
see a reasonable return on his investment That design consisted of 190 single family, 78
multi - family dwellings, and amenities (see attached site plan)
It is important to recognize this project began in 2005 The Applicant has held onto this development all
the way through the recession. As you will recall, little building was taking place. While a large number of
developers were forfeiting their properties to the bank, the Applicant maintained the carrying cost of the
project. This was done with anticipation of seeing a return on his investment, or at least some of it, when
the market improved As we all know, the market has improved and developers are starting to build
again Should the Applicant not receive USACE and DWR approval to impact 0.07 acre of pine flat
wetlands, for the purpose of access to 4 buildable lots, a breach of contract, between the Applicant and
the Builder, would occur This would entail the Applicant refunding the Builder his money for the 4 lots,
which has already been allocated to installing roads and infrastructure This would render the project
economically infeasible for the Applicant
It is of SEGi's opinion that the DWR's Water Quality Certification is an independent review and should
not rely on the action (i.e., issue, deny or request additional information) of the USACE, in making a
permit decision We are working with Kyle Dahl (USACE) to determine what level of alternative analysis
is adequate. His request is above and beyond what has been considered sufficient, by the Wilmington
District Office, in the past. As always, the work will not be fully authorized until the USACE issues the
Individual Permit and the appropriate mitigation has been fulfilled Therefore, SEGi respectfully requests
the DWR, based on the information found within and attached to this correspondence, continue to
process the permit request autonomous of the USACE's LEDPA determination
Should you need further information, please call me at 910 452 2711
Thank you for your time and assistance with this project
Dana

0
ro•
3
3•
N

I

i

N
r. VERT . . . . . . . .
:i