SW3230803_Response To Comments_20240620

RESPONSE MEMORANDUM
Date: June 19t", 2024
To: Jim Farkas
NCDEQ
[e-mail]
• • • design
From: James McGivern for Hy Nguyen
master planning . civil engineering
Proj: 19076—McCoy Farm urban design .landscape architecture
Re: Response to Staff Review May 21st, 2024 Comments
The following is an enumeration of responses to plan review comments:
Provide the following Permits.
1. Prior Comment 2.b.:
DPR: Understood. Entire Site BUA % = (Proposed BUA (-) Ex. BUA)/(Project Area (-)Existing BUA)
Note:Project Area =entire project area within boundaries(-)area of water bodies.
2. Prior Comment 2.c.:
DPR:Sorry! All references to SCM 1 B were removed from the Application.
3. Prior Comment 2.d.:
DPR: The BUA values on both forms now match. Note: The Future BUA values only apply to the HOA's
BUA, "not on sublots". There is only a space for Not of sublots Future value on the SUPPEZ form, and so the
application only is shown that. The future allocation for individual homes is part of the Building BUA listed on
both forms.
4. Prior Comment 2.e:
DPR: The signature area on the Application was signed correctly, and the owner signature area was left
blank.
5. Prior Comment 3.b.ii.1:
DPR: Line 5, 6, and 7 were updated.
6. Prior Comment 3.b.ii.4:
DPR: Understood and corrected;the Entire Site column only refers to inside the project boundaries.
7. Prior Comment 3.b.iii:
DPR: The Application and SUPPEZ now use the same numbers.
8. Prior Comment 3.c.i:
DPR: Line#10 was changed to YES. This note was added to the sheet: Concerning#10:both SCMs will be
converted from E&SC basins to Sand Filters when the E&SC stages end. This will include a complete basin
restoration and cleanout as necessary.
9. Prior Comment 3.c.ii:
DPR: The notes on the Construction Documents were updated to IMPERMEABLE liner only.
DPR DESIGN. • 901 Berryhill Road,Suite. 101,Charlotte,NC 28208 • PH 704.332.1204 • www.dpr.design 1

10. Prior Comment 3.c.iii:
DPR: All volume and area values were updated.
11. Prior Comment 3.c.v:
DPR: Sand and sediment chamber volumes were calculated to the first by-pass invert.
12. Prior Comment 4:
DPR: An Original signed and notarized copies of the O&M agreements were provided.
13. SCM 1, 10" underdrain lines:
DPR: The 10"SOLID underdrain lines are the "transmission"pipes, not the perforated pipes. The
perforated pipes may be 6". The pipe(s)carrying the water from multiple 6"pipes need to be 10". I added
the word SOLID to the plan callouts and arranged the location of the callouts so it is more understandable.
14. Proposed BUA increase must be captured:
DPR: The net increase in BUA is 11.5 AC(after the Ex. BUA is subtracted). The two SCMs are capturing
14.15 AC. If the off-site BUA is removed from that number, then the SCMs are capturing 12.35 AC.
15. Correct issues:
DPR: For the Drainage Page: The values were carefully evaluated. For the Sand Filter Page:For Line 2:
minimum required treatment volume, a slightly higher design BUA % values was used compared to the BUA
values reported on the SUPPEZ and the Application. As the design engineer, this was considered justifiable
and reasonable. The slightly higher design allows for the SCMs to naturally slightly degrade and it provides a
small safety factor. The higher design value only appears in the calculations. The recorded BUA values will
match the SUPPEZ and Applications forms, so no additional BUA will be added. For line 23, 26, and 30: the
areas were measured and the volumes were recalculated. Line 35:the correct elevations were now used.
Thanks for the multiple clarifications!
16. Application Form, Section II, 4.a.:
DPR: Updated. The E&SC was checked, and the LOD value was added.
DPR DESIGN. • 901 Berryhill Road,Suite. 101,Charlotte,NC 28208 • PH 704.332.1204 • www.dpr.design 2