20160286 Ver 1_401 Application_20160322

�0 WitherSRavenel
`r Our People. Your Success,
1410 Commonwealth Drive, Suite 101
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
t: 910.256.9277 1 f: 910.256.2584
TO:
NC Division of Water Resources
512 N. Salisbury Street; 9th Floor
Raleieh. NC 27604
WE ARE SENDING YOU
❑ Shop Drawings
❑ Copy of Letter
® Attached
❑ Prints
❑ Change order
Letter of Transmittal
03/21/16 02150037.10
Ms. Karen Higgins
Park West Townes - Cary, Wake County
NWP 29 PCN Submittal
❑ Under separate cover via
❑ Plans ❑ Samples
❑ Diskette ❑
the following
items:
❑ Specifications
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
❑ For approval ❑ Approved as submitted
❑ For your use ❑ Approved as noted
❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections
❑ For review and comment ❑
❑ FOR BIDS DUE 20 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
❑ Resubmit
❑ Submit
❑ Return
copies for approval
copies for distribution
corrected prints
REMARKS:
COPY TO: File
SIGNED:
If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once.
DESCRIPTION
COPIESDATE
NO.
4
03/21/16
02150037.10
NWP 29 & Buffer Authorization PCN Submittal
1
03/21/16
02150037.10
Check for $240 Application Fee
1
03/21/16
02150037.10
CD of PCN
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
❑ For approval ❑ Approved as submitted
❑ For your use ❑ Approved as noted
❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections
❑ For review and comment ❑
❑ FOR BIDS DUE 20 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
❑ Resubmit
❑ Submit
❑ Return
copies for approval
copies for distribution
corrected prints
REMARKS:
COPY TO: File
SIGNED:
If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once.

-40- WithersRavenel
1 / Our People. Your Success.
March 21, 2016
US Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
Ms. Tasha Alexander
3331 Heritage Trade Drive
Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
NC -Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
Ms. Karen Higgins
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699
Re: Park West Townes Subdivision - NWP 29 PCN Submittal
Corps Al D# SAW -2015-01667 & SAW -2013-1853
NBRRO# 15-234
WR Project #02150037.10
Dear Ms. Alexander and Ms. Higgins:
On behalf of Meritage Homes, we are requesting authorization from the USACE to use NWP 29 for 0.053
acres of permanent wetland impacts and 169 If of permanent stream impacts for construction of the proposed
project. We are also requesting a 401 WQC from NCDWR for the above referenced impacts, as well as 8,120
sq ft of impacts to Neuse River Riparian Buffers.
The project is ±13.8 acres in size and is located at 9475 Chapel Hill Road in Cary, Wake County (Latitude:
35.8035°N; Longitude: -78.8058°W). The project is located in the Neuse River basin and onsite waters drain
to Coles Branch. The Water Quality Classification for Coles Branch is C; NSW and the Stream Index Number
is: 27-33-3. The cataloging unit for the site is 03020201.
Proposed Project
The purpose of the proposed project is to construct a residential townhouse subdivision to meet the growing
demand for housing in Cary. The proposed project consists of the construction of a 59 unit townhome
subdivision and associated infrastructure, including roads, utilities and stormwater management.
Project History
Onsite wetlands were delineated by WithersRavenel in 2015, and field verified by David Shaeffer with the
Corps of Engineers on 07/31/15 (SAW -2015-01667). In email correspondence with David Shaeffer dated
07/31/15, David specified that he had previously reviewed a delineation for the site with S&EC in 2013 (SAW -
2013 -1853), but never issued a JD due to incomplete information, and the JD would be issued based on the
information submitted by WR (SAW -2015-01667). A copy of David Shaeffer's email has been provided as an
Appendix. As of the date of this submittal, the JD had not been issued. Therefore, we are asking for issuance
of the JD in conjunction with issuance of the NWP 29.
NCDWR issued a Buffer Determination Letter (NBRRO# 15-234) on 06/01/15. A copy of the Buffer
Determination Letter has been provided as an Appendix.
Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources
WR reviewed the NC State Historic Preservation Office's online database, located at:
http:Hgis.ncdcr.gov/h/hpoweb/, to determine if there were any known historic or cultural resources within or
in the vicinity of the proposed project. The database review identified one known historic structure within
the subject property. The occurrence consists of the Richards House (WA0719), located at address 9475
Chapel Hill Road. As part of the rezoning approval for the project, Proposed Zoning Condition 2 (Page 2 of
11) in the Town of Cary Rezoning Staff Report specifies that "Prior to applying for a building permit for
development of the project, the structure currently known as the 1938 Richards House will be preserved
1410 Commonwealth Drive, Suite 1011 Wilmington, NC 28403
t: 910.256.9277 1 f: 910.256.2584 www.withersravenel.com I License No. C-0832
Cary I Greensboro Pittsboro I Raleigh I Wilmington

Park West Townes 10 WithersRavenel
Our People, Yrur Success.
through the use of a preservation easement held by a qualified holder of historic preservation agreements as
defined by NCGS Chapter 121, Article 4. Such easement shall assure that the 1938 Richards House will be
retained and maintained forever substantially for preservation purposes." Therefore, the Richards House
(WA0719) will be preserved in its current location in perpetuity, and will not be affected by the proposed
development. The Rezoning Staff Report has been provided as an Appendix.
Proposed Impacts
The proposed impacts consist of 0.053 acres of permanent wetland impacts, 169 If of permanent stream
impacts and 8,120 If of permanent Neuse River riparian buffer impacts.
All proposed impacts will occur from construction of a single road crossing (Piperton Lane) to access
developable uplands.
Impact 2 will result in 0.053 acres or permanent wetland impacts from fill for construction of Piperton Lane.
Impact 3 will result in 68 If of permanent impacts to Stream 1 (intermittent) for installation of a culvert
Piperton Lane. Impacts 1 & 4 will result in a total of 20 If of permanent impacts to Stream 1 from installation
of rip -rap within the stream above and below the culvert to prevent erosion of the channel and undercutting
of the culvert.
Impact 5 will result in 81 If of permanent impacts to Stream 2 from fill for construction of Piperton Lane.
Stream 2 is a very small intermittent stream that runs parallel to Stream 1, and is essentially an old meander
of the stream that was severed when Stream 1 was historically channelized, and Stream 2 has very little flow.
Due to the small size of Stream 2 and the small amount of flow carried by Stream 2, it was not feasible to install
a culvert within Stream 2. The flow of Stream 2 will be connected to Stream 1 through a constructed channel
through the wetlands on the upstream side of the culvert.
The proposed 8,120 sq ft of permanent riparian buffer impacts (Zone 1: 4,613 sq ft; Zone 2: 3,507 sq ft) will
occur from construction of Piperton Lane. The total riparian buffer impacts are less than 1/3 acre, and
therefore are "Allowable".
Avoidance and Minimization
Prior to site plan design, the applicant requested that a detailed wetland delineation be conducted so that
impacts to wetlands and "waters" could be minimized.
The proposed impacts have been limited to a single road crossing in order to access developable uplands for
construction of three townhomes. The road crossing has been designed to cross the wetland, stream and
buffers at a perpendicular angle. Additionally, retaining walls have been utilized to stabilize road fill to
minimize impacts from traditional back slopes.
While the portion of Stream 2 (Impact 5) will be filled for construction of the road crossing, the flow of Stream
2 will be connected to Stream 1 through a constructed channel through the wetlands on the upstream side of
the culvert.
Furthermore, rip -rap dissipaters (Impacts 1 & 4) have been designed for the rip -rap to be installed so that the
top of the rip -rap matches the pre -construction elevation of the stream bed. This design allows for the
impacted stream areas to continue functioning as a natural stream by maintaining natural water depths and
allowing for passage of aquatic life, which will not result in a loss of stream function.
Mitigation
Stream Mitigation
The proposed project will result in 169 If of permanent stream impacts. However, 20 If of permanent stream
impacts at Impacts 1 & 4will occurfrom installation of rip -rap dissipators. The rip -rap will be installed so that
the top of the rip -rap matches the pre -construction elevation of the stream bed. This design allows for the
Page 2 of 3

Park West Townes 10 WithersRavenel
Our People, Yrur Success.
impacted stream areas to continue functioning as a natural stream by maintaining natural water depths and
allowing for passage of aquatic life, which will not result in a loss of stream function, and therefore does not
count towards the 150 If threshold for requiring stream mitigation. Therefore, a total of 149 If of permanent
stream impacts will result in a functional loss, and therefore stream mitigation is not proposed.
While NCDWR considers the entire 169 If of stream impacts to be a functional loss, House Bill 765/Session
Law 2015-286 resulted in NCDWR no longer require mitigation for impacts to intermittent streams.
Therefore, stream mitigation is not required for NCDWR.
Wetland Mitigation
The proposed permanent wetland impacts are less than 0.10 acres, and therefore, wetland mitigation is not
proposed.
Buffer Mitigation
The proposed 8,120 sq ft of permanent riparian buffer impacts will occur for a perpendicular road crossing,
which will impact less than 1/3 acre of buffers. Therefore, this activity is "Allowable", and mitigation is not
required.
Stormwater Management Plan
The stormwater management plan consists of a constructed stormwater wetland which will provide TSS &
nitrogen removal and will provide diffuse flow. The stormwater management plan will be reviewed and
approved by the Town of Cary.
The current request is for 0.053 acres of permanent wetland impacts, 169 If of permanent stream impacts
and 8,120 sq ft of permanent Neuse River riparian buffer impacts (see the attached maps and PCN for
details).
Please feel free to call if you have questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
WithersRavenel
Troy Beasley
Senior Environmental Scientist
Attachments:
• PCN Form
• Agent Authorization
• Wetland Delineation Exhibit
• USGS Quads & Wake County Soil Survey
• Town of Cary Rezoning Staff Report
• Corps 07/31/15 Email Approving Delineation
• NCDWR Buffer Determination Letter
• Impact Exhibits
Page 3 of 3

W�ATF�9QG
oNjiiW�"MWIIAMI-'<
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Page 1 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1 b.
Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 29 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
FEI es
® No
1d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
❑ Yes ® No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ® No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu
fee program.
❑ Yes
® No
1g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
❑ Yes
® No
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes
® No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Park West Townes
2b.
County:
Wake
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Cary
2d.
Subdivision name:
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Meritage Homes of the Carolinas, Inc
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
Book: 016113; Page: 00123
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
3d.
Street address:
8800 E. Raintree Drive; Suite 300
3e.
City, state, zip:
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
3f.
Telephone no.:
3g.
Fax no.:
3h.
Email address:
Page 1 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a.
Applicant is:
❑ Agent ® Other, specify: Meritage Homes of the Carolinas Local Office
4b.
Name:
Brian Ketchum
4c.
Business name
(if applicable):
Meritage Homes of the Carolinas, Inc.
4d. Street address:
3005 Currington Mill Blvd; Suite 100
4e.
City, state, zip:
Morrisville, NC 27506
4f.
Telephone no.:
919-926-2616
4g.
Fax no.:
4h.
Email address:
Brian. ketchum(cj)meritagehomes.com
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a.
Name:
Troy Beasley
5b.
Business name
(if applicable):
Withers and Ravenel
5c.
Street address:
1410 Commonwealth Drive, Suite 101
5d.
City, state, zip:
Wilmington, NC 28403
5e. Telephone no.:
910-256-9277
5f.
Fax no.:
910-256-2584
5g.
Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
PINs: 0754762985 & 0754772396
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 35.8035°N Longitude: - 78.8058°W
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1 c. Property size:
±13.8 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
Coles Branch (Stream Index: 27-33-3)
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
QNSW
2c. River basin:
Neuse River (HUC 03020201)
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The project currently consists of primarily of undeveloped woodlands, but contains several existing residential dwellings.
The general land use in the vicinity of the project consists of residential and commercial uses.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
±0.18 acres
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
±1,150 If
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The purposed of the proposed project is to construct a residential townhome development to meet the demand for
residential housing in Cary.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The proposed project will consist of the construction of 59 townhome units and needed infrastructure, including roads,
utilities and stormwater management. Standard commercial construction equipment and techniques will be used to
construct the proposed project.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
® Yes F1No ElUnknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
®Preliminary ❑Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Agency/Consultant Company: WithersRavenel
Name (if known): Troy Beasley
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
David Shaeffer with the Corps of Engineers approved the wetland delineation during a site visit on 07/31/15 (SAW-2015-
01667 & SAW-2013-1853), as documented in the attached email. We are requesting issuance of the JD in conjunction
with issuance of the NWP 29.
NCDWR issued a Buffer Determination for the proposed project (NBRRO#15-234) on 06/01/15. A copy of the buffer
determination letter has been provided as an Appendix.
Page 3 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑ Yes ❑ No ® Unknown
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 4 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ® Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
Type of jurisdiction
number—
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps - 404, 10
Area of impact
Permanent (P) or
(if known)
DWQ — non -404, other)
(acres)
Temporary T
Impact #2
Fill for culverted
®Yes
®Corps
(Wetland A)
road crossing
Headwater Forest
❑ No
® DWQ
0.053 ac
®P❑T
2g. Total wetland impacts
0.053 ac
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
3b.
3c.
3d.
3e.
3f.
3g.
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
Type of jurisdiction
Average
Impact
number -
(PER) or
(Corps - 404, 10
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
intermittent
DWQ — non -404,
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
feet)
Impact #1
UT to Coles
❑ PER
® Corps
(Stream 1)
Rip -Rap Dissipator
Branch
®INT
®DWQ
6'
15 If
® P F1T
Impact #3
UT to Coles
[_1 PER
®Corps
(Stream 1)
Culvert
Branch
®INT
®DWQ
6'
68 If
® P F1T
Impact #4
UT to Coles
❑ PER
® Corps
(Stream 1)
Rip -Rap Dissipator
Branch
® INT
® DWQ
6'
5 If
®P❑T
Impact #5
(Stream 2)
Fill for Road
UT to Coles
PER
®Corps
3'
81 If
®P❑T
Crossing
Branch
® INT
® DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
169 If
3i. Comments: 20 If of permanent stream impacts from Impact #1 & 4 will occur from installation of rip -rap within the stream
bed to prevent erosion. The rip -rap will be installed so that the top of the rip -rap will be at the pre -construction elevation as the
stream bed, so that these areas will continue to function as a natural stream by maintaining natural water depths and allowing
for passage of aquatic life. Therefore, the 20 If of permanent impacts for Impact # 1 & 4 are not considered a functional loss,
and will not count toward the 150 If threshold for requiring mitigation.
Page 5 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
4b.
4c.
4d.
4e.
Open water
Name of waterbody
impact number -
(if applicable)
Type of impact
Waterbody type
Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
01 ❑P❑T
02 ❑P❑T
03 ❑P❑T
04 ❑P❑T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, the complete the chart below.
5a.
5b.
5c.
5d.
5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
Stream Impacts (feet)
Upland
Pond ID
Proposed use or purpose
(acres)
number
of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
® Neuse ❑ Tar -Pamlico ❑ Other:
Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b.
6c.
6d.
6e.
6f.
6g.
Buffer impact
number -
Reason
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or
for
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Temporary T
impact
required?
NRB #1
® P ❑ T
Road
Crossing
UT to Coles Branch
❑ Yes
® No
4,613
3,507
6h. Total buffer impacts
4,613
3,507
6i. Comments:
Page 6 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Prior to site plan design, the applicant requested that a detailed wetland delineation be conducted so that impacts to wetlands
and "waters" could be minimized.
The proposed impacts have been limited to a single road crossing in order to access developable uplands for construction of
three townhomes. The road crossing has been designed to cross the wetland, stream and buffers at a perpendicular angle.
Additionally, retaining walls have been utilized to stabilize road fill to minimize impacts from traditional back slopes.
While the portion of Stream 2 (Impact 5) will be filled for construction of the road crossing, the flow of Stream 2 will be
connected to Stream 1 through a constructed channel through the wetlands on the upstream side of the culvert.
Furthermore, rip -rap dissipaters (Impacts 1 & 4) have been designed for the rip -rap to be installed so that the top of the rip -rap
matches the pre -construction elevation of the stream bed. This design allows for the impacted stream areas to continue
functioning as a natural stream by maintaining natural water depths and allowing for passage of aquatic life, which will not
result in a loss of stream function.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Silt fencing will be installed around all disturbed areas to prevent sediment from escaping into adjacent wetlands and streams.
Construction access will be achieved through uplands.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
❑ Yes ® No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
❑ Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
El Payment to in -lieu fee program
project?
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type
Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f. Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Page 7 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 8of12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

E.
Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a.
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
® Yes ❑ No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1b.
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
Comments: The proposed BMP consists of a constructed stormwater wetland which
❑ Yes ® No
will provide required nutrient and TSS removal, and will discharge at non-erosive
flows, achieving diffuse flow. Therefore, a level spreader or VFS is not required.
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a.
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
50%
2b.
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
® Yes ❑ No
2c.
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
2d.
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
The proposed stormwater management plan consists of one constructed stormwater wetland. The stormwater
management plan will be reviewed and approved by the Town of Cary.
® Certified Local Government
2e.
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
Town of Cary
® Phase II
3b.
Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
® NSW
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ® No
attached?
4.
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑ Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a.
Which of the following state -implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ ORW
(check all that apply):
❑ Session Law 2006-246
❑ Other:
4b.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5.
DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a.
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b.
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 9 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a.
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
❑ Yes
® No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes
❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c.
If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.)
❑ Yes
❑ No
Comments:
2.
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a.
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes
® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b.
Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes
® No
2c.
If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3.
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a.
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ Yes
® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
The proposed project is located in a heavily developed area of Cary, and is not anticipated to be a catalyst
for future
development.
4.
Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a.
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non -discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Town of Cary sanitary sewer.
Page 10 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
® Yes ❑ No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
❑ Yes ® No
impacts?
❑ Raleigh
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
❑ Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
WR reviewed the NC Natural Heritage Program database, located at https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/contenVmap to
identify if there were any known occurrences of endangered species on or near the proposed project. The review of the
NHP data did not identify any occurrences of endangered species or critical habitat on the subject property or within 1.0
miles of the project, see attached NCNHP project review letter. Site reviews did not identify any potential habitat for any
federally protected species known to occur in Wake County, except for the Northern Long Eared Bat.
Potential habitat for the northern Long-eared bat (NLEB) is listed as mature forest with trees over 3" dbh, which is used
for roosting during the day. Since the entire project area consists of mature forest over 3" DBH, there is potential northern
long eared bat habitat present. The USFWS Final 4(d) rule for the Northern Long -Eared bat specifies that tree removal
within the White Nose Syndrome (WNS) Zone is not prohibited as long as it occurs more than 0.25 miles from known
hibernacula and does not result in destroying known occupied maternity roost trees, or any other trees within a 150 ft -
radius from the maternity tree, during the pup season (June 1 — July 31). The proposed project is not located within 0.25
miles of any known hibernacula, nor is there any known maternity roost trees present on the project. Therefore, WR
concludes that the project "may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect" the northern long-eared bat.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
There are no waters in Wake County designated as essential fish habitat.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
® Yes ❑ No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
WR reviewed the NC State Historic Preservation Office's online database, located at: http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/, to
determine if there were any known historic or cultural resources within or in the vicinity of the proposed project. The
database review identified one known historic structure within the subject property. The occurrence consists of the
Richards House (WA0719), located at address 9475 Chapel Hill Road. As part of the rezoning approval for the project,
Proposed Zoning Condition 2 in the Town of Cary Rezoning Staff Report specifies that "Prior to applying for a building
permit for development of the project, the structure currently known as the 1938 Richards House will be preserved
through the use of a preservation easement held by a qualified holder of historic preservation agreements as defined by
NCGS Chapter 121, Article 4. Such easement shall assure that the 1938 Richards House will be retained and maintained
forever substantially for preservation purposes." Therefore, the Richards House (WA0719) will be preserved in its current
location in perpetuity, and will not be affected by the proposed development. The Rezoning Staff Report has been
provided as an Appendix.
Page 11 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA -designated 100 -year floodplain?
70 Yes ® No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: www.ncfloodmaps.com
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
Troy Beasley - WithersRavenel
Authorized Agent
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
��-�-
03/21/16
Date
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)
Page 12 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

AGENT AUTHORIZATION

WithersRavenel
AUTHORITY FOR APPOINTMENT OF AGENT
The undersigned Owner Meritaee Homes of the Carolinas. Inc (Client) does hereby appoint
Withers & Ravenel. Inc. as his, her, or it's agent for the purpose of petitioning the appropriate
local, state and federal environmental regulatory agencies (US Army Corps of Engineers, NC
Division of Water Quality, NC Division of Coastal Management, local municipalities, etc.) for:
a) review and approval of the jurisdictional boundaries of onsite jurisdictional areas
(wetlands, surface waters, riparian buffers, etc.) and/or; b) preparation and submittal of
appropriate environmental permit applications/requests for the Park West Townes Project,
located at 9475 Chavel Hill Road in Cary. Wake County.
The Client does hereby authorize that said agent has the authority to do the following acts
on behalf of the owner:
(1) To submit appropriate requests/applications and the required
supplemental materials;
(2) To attend meetings to give representation on behalf of the Client.
(3) To authorize access to subject property for the purpose of
environmental review by appropriate regulatory agencies.
This authorization shall continue in effect until completion of the contracted task or
termination by the Client. {
Date: -�-J
Agent's Name, Address & Telephone: Signature of Client:
WithersRavenel.Inc. AeiAa)�1'irFT(,E At+I DIR, ok- jr71�I�Grt�il/T
(Name - Print) (Title)
115 MacKenan Drive
Cary, NC 27511 (Signature)
Tel. [phone] oU5 C'ate(vL)G-buJ mia oL-), SL, r l7F /Uv
Mailing Address
&w5ule.."'c /(k J?�,C6
City State Zip
Phone: �/-/St- 5,96 ^aG16
Email: J' ✓itan . �,cdc e ,,.(,± m4ev, 765Aav,,,,-5 . cvv.,,
115 MacKenan Drive I Cary, NC 27511
t: 919 469 3340 1 f: 919 467 6008 www withersravenel com I License No. C-0832
Cary I Greensboro Pittsboro I Raleigh I Wilmington

�_1:Zdl21012Wel

9475 Chapel Hill Rd
PIN: 0754762985
Real Estate ID: 0059677
Map Name: 0754 11
Owner: JAS & JAS LLC
Mailing Address 1: 208 OXCROFT ST
Mailing Address 2: CARY INC 27519-7329
Deed Book: 010546
Deed Page: 00479
Deed Date: 11/14/2003
Deeded Acreage: 11.26
Assessed Building Value: $285,137
Assessed Land Value: $1,216,080
Total Assessed Value: $1,501,217
Billing Class: Business
Property Description: TRB OF WILLIAM
HERBERT RICHARD BUPROP
Heated Area: 5050
Site Address: 9475 CHAPEL HILL RD
City: CARY
Township: Cary
Year Built: 1960
Total Sale Price: $0
Type and Use: SINGLFAM
Design Style: Conventional
Land Class: ACRE HS
Old Parcel Number: 487-00000-0024
A
0 100 200 400 Feet
1 inch = 200 feet
Disclaimer
Maps makes every effort to produce and publish
the most current and accurate information possible.
However, the maps are produced for information purposes,
and are NOT surveys. No warranties, expressed or implied,
are provided for the data therein, its use, or its interpretation.

9475 Chapel Hill Rd
PIN: 0754772396
Real Estate ID: 0111757
Map Name: 0754 11
Owner: JAS & JAS LLC
Mailing Address 1: 208 OXCROFT ST
Mailing Address 2: CARY INC 27519-7329
Deed Book: 011891
Deed Page: 01545
Deed Date: 04/03/2006
Deeded Acreage: 5
Assessed Building Value: $135,391
Assessed Land Value: $348,000
Total Assessed Value: $483,391
Billing Class: Business
Property Description: TRA PROP WILLIAM
HERBERT RICHARD
Heated Area: 2166
Site Address: 9493 CHAPEL HILL RD
City: CARY
Township: Cary
Year Built: 1979
Total Sale Price: $436,500
Sale Date: 04/03/2006
Type and Use: SINGLFAM
Design Style: Split Level
Land Class: RES 10 AC
Old Parcel Number: 487-00000-0084
X54
le10i,P
A
0 50 100 200 Feet
1 inch= 100 feet
Disclaimer
Maps makes every effort to produce and publish
the most current and accurate information possible.
However, the maps are produced for information purposes,
and are NOT surveys. No warranties, expressed or implied,
are provided for the data therein, its use, or its interpretation.

LTAWN I wilziplol A RIMU11161MATUI 1 0.1 ki

N
NOTES:
1) WETLAND DELINEATION FIELD VERIFIED BY DAVID SHAEFFER WITH CORPS OF ENGINEERS
ON 07/31/15 (SAW -2015-01667).
2) STREAMS AND WETLANDS ARE APPROXIMATE.
PARK WEST TOWNES II WETLAND DELINEATION EXHIBIT III 10 WithersRavenel
Engineers I Planners I Surveyors
WAKE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA
r1

USGS QUAD MAPS &
WAKE CO. SOIL SURVEY

\` gyp\
r, ! GRAPHIC SCALE
o e�'
l 0 200 400
2
L MORRISVILLE' ��� s9 W ��- -� ��ODy 7 inch = 2000 ft.
OqK ISLAND pR_:, O
l al(Ot� _rBRIDGE DR %J� �l A i �/ N`/G _ —
MORRIS�IL�E
,J 1
J
AIL HIGH BLVD
1
WALTONS
ccBlaekl aWk
1 MORRI' ' LE
PROS YIP
SILVERGROVE DR 1
a RIDGE CRFF�
Hazel ood CARY PINES DR
LAKE
J
TOtyf-,�`/
YNARD RD .
Coles -Br
Np BL WAY � yr/ ^^ SO
Preston ='✓\ Q - ��
j �W B0/ ND
j Dutchess�
Village NOj�o ��FTON
I �
HO", 51
WOOD
D KING Spo :E MADISON AVE I Z
Q,
DELL; o 5� W PARK ST _
MAURY D i BEL ROSE DR Ed ehlll s ARY �P� WILLOW ST
�.. 0',04 R)xr i $1'111 HIGH HOUSE RD , o
Trappers v a
Run ` ; Russell =
Hills
T ,� Cedar even N,RLE
'UPPERS RUN DR s d pR Cree41-1
k
< P I u
y.� W CORNWALL
PARK WEST TOWNES USGS QUAD (2013) -CARY WithersRavenel
,�
Engineers I Planners I Surveyors
CARY WAKE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA

54
PARK WEST T(JVVNES
WAKE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 200 400
� l inch -400h.
USGSQUAD (l013) [A0Y
Withe[SR@WeOe|
Engineers I Planners I Surveyors

ec21 / (// /
Cr
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 150 300
1 inch = 300 ft.
ctc
Pkv
C
Yp
rC2 WtB
of
G032-11
.9
Wte
rC2
PARK WEST TOWNES WAKE CO. SOIL SURVEY - SHEET 46O Engineers I Planners I Surveyors
WithersRavenel
I JIL
CARY WAKE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA

TOWN OF CARY REZONING
61 f_1 a'2:l21 Mol :149

Town of Cary, North Carolina
Rezoning Staff Report
13-REZ-19 Chapel Hill Road Townes
Town Council Meeting
March 27, 2014
REQUEST
To amend the Town of Cary Official Zoning Map by rezoning approximately 16.2 acres located at 9475 and
9493 Chapel Hill Road from Residential 40 (R-40) to Transitional Residential Conditional Use (TR -CU), with
zoning conditions that limit the types of uses, require a minimum amount of masonry material on building
facades, require a community gathering space that exceeds LDO requirements and preserve an existing
historic structure.
NOTE: The purpose of the rezoning is to determine whether or not the land uses and densities allowed in
the proposed zoning district are appropriate for the site. Technical design standards of the Land
Development Ordinance are addressed during review of the site or subdivision plan and can be found at
http://www.amlegal.com/library/nc/caa.shtml.
SUBJECT PARCELS
Property Owner(s)
County Parcel Number(s)
Real Estate ID(s)
Deeded Acreage
(10 -digit)
Agent for Applicant
Glenda Toppe
JAS & JAS LLC
Glenda S. Toppe & Associates
4139 Gardenlake Drive
208 Oxcroft Street
0754772396
0111757
5.0
Cary, NC 27519
9475 and 9493 Chapel Hill Road
Schedule
Public Hearing
JAS & JAS LLC
Town Council
October 10, 2013
208 Oxcroft Street
0754762985
0059677
11.26
Cary, NC 27519
February 27, 2014
Total Area
16.26
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Applicant
JAS & JAS LLC
208 Oxcroft Street
Cary, NC 27519
Agent for Applicant
Glenda Toppe
Glenda S. Toppe & Associates
4139 Gardenlake Drive
Raleigh, NC 27612
Acreage
16.26 ±
General Location
9475 and 9493 Chapel Hill Road
Schedule
Public Hearing
Planning & Zoning Board
Town Council
October 10, 2013
November 18, 2013
December 19, 2013
February 27, 2014
March 27, 2014
Land Use Plan Designation
Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR)
Existing Zoning District(s)
Residential 40 (R-40)
Existing Zoning Conditions
None
Proposed Zoning District(s)
Transitional Residential Conditional Use (TR -CU)
Proposed Zoning Conditions
1. No more than twelve (12) detached dwellings shall be permitted.
The only other uses permitted shall be limited to semi-
detached/attached dwellings or townhomes.
Page 1 of 11

2. Prior to applying for a building permit for development on the TR -
CU Tract, the structure currently known as the 1938 Richards
House will be preserved through the use of a preservation
easement held by a qualified holder of historic preservation
agreements as defined by NCGS Chapter 121, Article 4. Such
easement shall assure that the 1938 Richards House will be
retained and maintained forever substantially for preservation
purposes.
3. A minimum of 50% of all semi-detached/attached dwellings or
townhomes shall be constructed with a two -car garage. The
balance of the semi-detached/attached dwellings or townhomes
shall be constructed with a one -car garage.
4. The Town of Cary masonry material requirement for attached
residential buildings will be increased from 35% to a minimum of
40% surface area.
5. There shall be a minimum of one community gathering space no
less than 4,500 square feet in size to include one (1) gazebo and
one (1) fountain.
Town Limits The subject properties are located inside the Town of Cary corporate limits.
Valid Protest Petition Yes
Staff Contact Wayne Nicholas, Planning Manager
[phone]
wayne. nicholas(cD_townofcary.org
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Streams: Cary GIS maps indicate that both of the properties are potentially impacted by stream buffers.
Field determination of these features will be required at the time of site plan review.
Floodplain, Wetlands: Cary's GIS maps do not indicate any floodplains or wetlands on the subject
properties. Field verification of such features is required at the time of site plan review.
Adjacent Uses and (Zoning)
North — Vacant (R-40), detached dwellings (R-20); and, office (OI -CU) (opposite side of Chapel Hill Road)
South — Religious assembly (R-20 and R-40) and railroad right-of-way
East — Townhomes (TR), and detached dwellings (R-8, R-20, and R-40) (opposite side of Chapel Hill
Road)
West — Vacant (R-40) and railroad right-of-way
CONSISTENCY WITH LAND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (LDO)
Land Use
The zoning conditions proposed by the applicant would limit land uses to semi-detached/attached
dwelling units and townhomes.
Density and Dimensional Standards
Page 2 of 11
Existing Zoning District
Proposed Zoning District
Residential 40 (R-40)
Transitional Residential Conditional Use
(TR -CU)
Max. Gross Density
1.08
6
(du/ac)
5,000 (for detached dwellings)
Min. Lot Size
40,000
(square feet)
No minimum size for semi -attached and
townhouse developments
Page 2 of 11

Open Space: With regard to required open space, Section 8.3.2 of the LIDO reads: The developer of
each residential development requiring development approval shall set aside at least five hundred (500)
square feet of open space for each dwelling unit. This requirement is applicable to uses that require
submittal of a site plan.
Landscape Buffer: Based on the land uses specified within the zoning conditions proposed by the
applicant, buffers for the subject property would be required as follows:
20 -foot Type B adjacent to the religious assembly use (buffer shared with adjacent property);
30 -foot Type B adjacent to the railroad right-of-way (entire buffer on subject property);
40 -foot Type A adjacent to the lots with detached dwellings (entire buffer on subject property);
40 -foot Type A adjacent to the vacant, residentially zoned land (buffer shared with adjacent
property);
Streetscape: The properties are adjacent to Chapel Hill Road, which is designated on the Town's
Comprehensive Transportation Plan as a major thoroughfare. In accordance with Chapter 7 of the LIDO,
a fifty -foot (50') Type A (opaque) streetscape is required between residential development and a major
thoroughfare.
Page 3 of 11
With Septic Tank/Well 150 (160
40 (for detached dwellings)
Min. Lot Width
for corner Lots)
(feet)
With public sewer 125 (135 for
20 (for semi -attached and townhouse
corner lots)
developments)
From thoroughfare: 50
From collector: 30
From other streets: The roadway setback
Min. Roadway
From thoroughfare: 50
between the front of the dwelling and the
Setback
From collector: 30
roadway shall be no less than 18 feet when
(feet)
From other streets: 20
parking is provided between the dwelling and
the roadway or 10 feet when parking is not
provided between the dwelling and the
roadway.
0/3 minimum, 6 combined
Min. Side Yard
(for detached dwellings)
Setback
With septic tank/well: 20
(feet)
With public sewer: 15
0/3 minimum,16 between building groupings
(for semi -attached and townhouse
developments)
For detached dwellings: On thoroughfare,
collector or other streets, the width of the
roadway and rear setbacks combined shall
equal at least forty (40) feet and any individual
Min. Rear Yard
setback shall be a least three (3) feet.
Setback
(feet)
30
For semi -attached and townhouse
developments: On thoroughfare, collector or
other streets the width of the roadway or front
and rear setbacks combined shall equal at
least twenty (20) feet and any individual rear
setback shall be a least three (3) feet.
Maximum Building
Height
35
35
(feet)
*Typical TR zoning districts have a maximum density of 6 du/ac.
Open Space: With regard to required open space, Section 8.3.2 of the LIDO reads: The developer of
each residential development requiring development approval shall set aside at least five hundred (500)
square feet of open space for each dwelling unit. This requirement is applicable to uses that require
submittal of a site plan.
Landscape Buffer: Based on the land uses specified within the zoning conditions proposed by the
applicant, buffers for the subject property would be required as follows:
20 -foot Type B adjacent to the religious assembly use (buffer shared with adjacent property);
30 -foot Type B adjacent to the railroad right-of-way (entire buffer on subject property);
40 -foot Type A adjacent to the lots with detached dwellings (entire buffer on subject property);
40 -foot Type A adjacent to the vacant, residentially zoned land (buffer shared with adjacent
property);
Streetscape: The properties are adjacent to Chapel Hill Road, which is designated on the Town's
Comprehensive Transportation Plan as a major thoroughfare. In accordance with Chapter 7 of the LIDO,
a fifty -foot (50') Type A (opaque) streetscape is required between residential development and a major
thoroughfare.
Page 3 of 11

Traffic
The proposal is for a maximum of 6 units per acre for 16.2 acres, for a total of 97 units for this property.
Of those 97 units, there is a condition which limits detached dwellings to a maximum of 12 units. So, the
rest of the proposed units would be 85 townhomes. Trips for this proposal were calculated with the
detached dwelling unit scenario included to generate the greatest amount of traffic being proposed by the
applicant. Using ITE Land Use 230 Single Family Dwelling units, there would be 19 am and 16 pm peak
hour trips generated for this use. Using ITE Land Use 230 Townhomes, there would be 46 am and 53 pm
peak hour trips generated for this use. The total trips would be 65 am and 69 pm peak hour trips. The
threshold for a traffic study is 100 peak hour trips, so a traffic study would not be required.
Stormwater
At the time of site plan review, the future plan must meet all stormwater management and detention
requirements. Peak flow from the one-, two-, five- and 10 -year storm events must be determined and
must be attenuated back to pre -development conditions from the discharge point leaving the
development.
SUMMARY OF PROCESS AND ACTIONS TO DATE
Neighborhood Meeting
According to the applicant, a neighborhood meeting for the proposed rezoning was held on August 15,
2013. According to the information submitted by the applicant, six residents attended the meeting.
According to the meeting minutes, resident questions and concerns pertained to traffic along Chapel Hill
Road, limiting the proposed use to townhomes, the number of proposed dwelling units, building height
and garages, and improvements for Chapel Hill Road.
Notification
On September 24, 2013 the Planning Department mailed notification of a public hearing on the request to
property owners within 400 feet of the subject property. Notification consistent with General Statutes was
published in the Cary News on September 25 and October 2, 2013. Notice of the public hearing was
posted on the property on September 25, 2013.
Town Council Public Hearing (October 10, 2013)
Staff presented an overview of the request. The applicant's representative explained their justification for
the requested zoning designation, and also indicated that the applicant would be offering an additional
zoning condition regarding the minimum amount of masonry material required on building facades.
During the public hearing, two citizens spoke in opposition to the proposed rezoning. Concerns were
expressed by these speakers regarding traffic on Chapel Hill Road and that they were not aware of any
plans for improving the road. Those in opposition believed that the traffic problem should be addressed
before development is approved.
Two individuals spoke in favor of the request. Those supporting the rezoning believed that this
development was appropriate for the area and noted that the development would create a residential
component in close proximity to a religious use and a commercial area.
Town Council members acknowledged the concerns regarding traffic on Chapel Hill Road. It was noted
that as development occurs along a road, improvements to the road are made along the frontage of the
developing property. One council member commented on the historic house on the property and
believed it was significant due to the style of the house. Another council member indicated that they were
aware of concerns from citizens regarding density and trees. The council member noted the importance
of providing adequate buffers and that consideration should be given to adding conditions regarding these
issues. The applicant was asked by a council member to clarify which facades of the buildings would be
subject to the condition regarding the increased amount of masonry material. The applicant stated they
would work with staff to ensure this condition was clear.
Changes Since the Town Council Public Hearing
The applicant revised the proposed zoning conditions as follows:
Page 4 of 11

Clarified the condition regarding garages to specify that at least 50% of all townhomes shall be
constructed with a two -car garage, and the balance of units shall be constructed with a one -car
garage;
Added a condition that the masonry material requirement for attached residential buildings will be
increased from 35% to a minimum of 40% surface area.
Notification — Planning and Zoning Board Public Hearing
On November 7, 2013 the Planning Department mailed notification of the Planning and Zoning Board
public hearing on the request to property owners within 400 feet of the subject property. Notification
consistent with General Statutes was published in the Cary News on November 6 and 13, 2013. Notice
of the public hearing was posted on the property on November 6, 2013.
Planning and Zoning Board Public Hearing (November 18, 2013)
Staff summarized the request and noted the changes to the proposed zoning conditions since the public
hearing before Town Council. Due to the changes, a second public hearing before the Planning and
Zoning Board was required. During the public hearing, Glenda Toppe, representing the applicant,
explained the reasons for the requested zoning and the proposed conditions. Three citizens spoke in
support of the request.
Mr. Shaw asked about the density of the development to the east. Staff noted that the development is
slightly more than five dwelling units per acre. Mr. Shaw also asked about peak hour traffic and the
widening of Chapel Hill Road. Staff explained that volumes were not available since a traffic study was
not required, and indicated that there was no dedicated capital funding for widening the road.
Mr. Evangelista asked about zoning conditions related to roadway improvements and preserving the
house on the property. Staff confirmed that there were no conditions regarding these items. Mr.
Evangelista also asked about the condition pertaining to the masonry material requirements. Ms. Harris -
Best and Mr. Shaw asked if road widening and the existing house would be addressed at the time of site
plan approval.
Mr. Miller asked about preserving the historic house on the property. Staff indicated that options for
preservation had been discussed with the applicant, including relocating the structure as well as
preserving on-site. The applicant indicated that they would continue discussions with the staff regarding
this matter. Mr. Gascoigne asked if the proposed density is more restrictive than what could be allowed
under the Land Use Plan designation. Staff noted that medium density is between three and eight units
per acre.
Mr. Werner noted that the proposed density is consistent with the Land Use Plan, and noted the transition
to the commercial development to the west. Mr. Shaw indicated that the proposed density is less than
the potential maximum. He also expressed concern about turning movements and additional traffic on
Chapel Hill Road. Mr. Miller believed the use is appropriate for the area and noted the transition. He
expressed concern about the historic house on the property and would like to see it protected and
preserved on-site if possible. Mr. Swanstrom noted the concerns about Chapel Hill Road and the historic
structure; he expressed support for the density and transition.
The Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of the request by a vote of 7-2.
Town Council Meeting (December 19, 2013)
Staff presented an overview of the request. The Planning and Zoning Board Chairman provided a
summary of the board's discussion regarding the recommendation.
Items/concerns discussed by the Town Council regarding the proposed rezoning included: traffic on
Chapel Hill Road; the absence of sidewalks along Chapel Hill Road in the vicinity of the subject property;
proposed improvements to Chapel Hill Road required by the Town's Comprehensive Transportation Plan;
and, preservation of the historic structure (Richards House) located on the property.
Page 5 of 11

Following the discussion, the rezoning request was tabled to provide the applicant with time to address
concerns expressed by the Town Council.
Status of Request Since the December 19, 2013 Town Council Meeting
The applicant met with staff on multiple occasions and also with Capital Area Preservation to discuss
options for preserving the historic house. One example of preservation that was discussed included the
use of a preservation easement on the subject structure. The rezoning request was included as a
discussion item on the February 27, 2014 Town Council meeting agenda. At the meeting the item was
removed from the agenda, at the request of the applicant, to allow the applicant additional time to address
the concerns expressed by the Town Council regarding the proposed rezoning, including the potential for
preserving the historic house.
Since February 27, 2014, the applicant revised the rezoning request in the following manner:
added a zoning condition to preserve the existing historic house through the use of a preservation
easement (the applicant has indicated that the house will remain in its present location on a lot
that is separate from future development of the property);
changed the requested zoning designation to Transitional Residential Conditional Use (TR -CU)
[initial request was for Residential Multi -family Conditional Use (RMF -CU)];
specified a maximum number of detached dwellings that would be allowed under the TR -CU
zoning designation (initial request was for only semi-detached/attached dwellings or townhomes);
added a zoning condition that requires a community gathering space that exceeds the minimum
size required by the LDO, with amenities that include a gazebo and a fountain.
The request to change the zoning designation to TR -CU was initiated by the applicant's desire to keep
the existing historic house (a detached dwelling) on the site in conjunction with future development of the
property. The zoning initially proposed with the application, RMF -CU, would have resulted in the house
becoming a non -conforming use since detached dwellings are not allowed in RMF zoning. The applicant
changed the requested zoning designation to TR -CU since detached dwellings are allowed in that zoning
district, in addition to the other uses already being requested by the applicant (i.e. semi-
detached/attached dwellings or townhomes).
With the change to TR -CU, the potential maximum density for development on the subject property will be
decreased from 6.5 units per acre (as requested under a previous zoning condition) to the maximum of 6
units per acre allowed under the Land Development Ordinance for TR zoning.
CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERATION IN REVIEWING REZONINGS
Section 3.4.1(E) of the Land Development Ordinance sets forth the following criteria that should be
considered in reviewing rezonings:
1. The proposed rezoning corrects an error or meets the challenge of some changing condition, trend or
fact;
2. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan set forth in Section 1.3 (LDO);
3. The Town and other service providers will be able to provide sufficient public safety, educational,
recreational, transportation and utility facilities and services to the subject property while maintaining
sufficient levels of service to existing development;
4. The proposed rezoning is unlikely to have significant adverse impacts on the natural environment,
including air, water, noise, stormwater management, wildlife and vegetation;
5. The proposed rezoning will not have significant adverse impacts on property in the vicinity of the
subject tract;
6. The proposed zoning classification is suitable for the subject property.
APPLICABLE COMPREHENSIVE OR AREA PLAN REQUIREMENTS
Page 6 of 11

Land Uqp Plan
Future land use recommendations for the subject parcels are given by the townwide Land Use Plan,
adopted in November 1996. The Land Use Plan Map recommends that these properties be developed as
either Low or Medium Density Residential, as indicated by the label "LDR/MDR" on the Plan Map'. This
designation includes densities ranging from 1 to 8 dwellings per acre. Full definitions of the LDR and
MDR categories are given in Chapter 6, Sections 6.4 and 6.5 of the Land Use Plan. In summary:
LDR describes single-family detached residential uses at densities typically between 1 and 3
dwellings per acre.
MDR describes single-family attached or detached uses at densities typically between 3 and 8
dwellings per acre. Single-family attached uses might include duplexes, triplexes, and
townhomes. Multi -family is typically not envisioned within MDR areas, unless warranted by the
use of a clustered/conservation development design.
Chapter 6, Section 6.5.2 of the Land Use Plan Document notes that "residential densities should
transition gradually between high, medium, and low density." Historically, density transitions have been
made either by providing a gradual change in density or lot size, or by providing an appropriate vegetative
buffer transition, or by use of an architectural or design transition, or a combination of two or more of
these approaches.
Thus, while the broad definitions for "LDR to MDR" on the Plan Map indicate a potential density range of
anywhere from 1 to 8 dwellings per acre, the specific density and/or housing type that might be
appropriate for the subject parcels can also depend on context and transitions to adjacent residential
properties. In evaluating the case, the Planning and Zoning Board and Town Council typically make the
determination as to the most appropriate density within the density range, depending on the site's context
and transitions.
Planning History for the Subject Parcels:
The Land Use Plan designations along the south side of Chapel Hill Road in this vicinity are
unchanged from plan adoption in 1996.
There was a prior Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) request submitted in December 2010,
as case 10 -CPA -11. However, that case was subsequently withdrawn by the applicants in March
2011, following the first public hearing. That case had requested that the parcels be designated
as part of the Community Activity Center (CAC) that is primarily located within the Town of
Morrisville, and focused around the four quadrants of the intersection of NW Cary Parkway and
Chapel Hill Road.
Planning History for the Surrounding Area:
There have been a number of Land Use Plan changes along the Chapel Hill Road corridor between
NW Maynard and NW Cary Parkway since initial plan adoption in 1996. These include:
The Land Use Plan Map was cosmetically amended in 2009 for the parcel immediately east of
the subject parcels, to reflect the construction of the SVI Temple, by changing the Plan Map for
that parcel from "LDR/MDR" to "OFC/INS" (Office/Institutional). (Temple construction did not
require a change to R40 zoning, so there was no event requiring a formal CPA.)
In 2003 the Land Use Plan was amended along both sides of Chapel Hill Road, approximately
1,600 feet east of the subject parcels, with the adoption of the NW Maynard Activity Center Land
Use Plan. That plan was subsequently amended in 2006 for the properties on the southwest
quadrant of that intersection (south side of Chapel Hill Road).
09 -CPA -05, approved in May 2010, changed the future land use designations for an assemblage
of nine properties totaling 13.9 acres on the north side of Chapel Hill Road, diagonally opposite
the subject properties. For that tract, the future land use designation was changed from LDR to
"Low to Medium Density Residential" (LDR to MDR).
' Note: In 1996, the label "LDR/MDR" was used to indicate that housing in either density category could be
appropriate. In later years, the labeling practice changed to using the label "LDR to MDR".
Page 7 of 11

Growth Management Plan
The Growth Management Plan includes the following Guiding Principles which are relevant to this case:
Guiding Principle R1: Ensure that adequate infrastructure and services are available concurrently with
new development.
Analysis: Utilities are available within this infill site location.
Guiding Principle L1: Concentrate growth near existing and planned employment centers and available
and planned infrastructure to minimize costly service -area extensions.
Analysis: The site is an infill site, located within 1,000 feet of the Park Place Shopping Center,
and less than '/2 mile from the new Park West Village in Morrisville. The site is also convenient to
the Weston Office Park, as well as the office and industrial uses along James Jackson Avenue
(one mile travel distance to either Weston Parkway or James Jackson Ave.).
Guiding Principle Al: Increase permitted densities in preferred growth areas to encourage desired forms
of development.
Analysis: The site can be considered as a preferred growth area, since it is an infill site and in
close proximity to major employment centers.
Affordable Housing Plan
The Affordable Housing Plan includes the following goals that may be relevant to this case:
Goal #1. Provide for a full range of housing choices for all income groups, families of various
sizes, seniors, and persons with special challenges.
Goal #6. Encourage the location of high density housing within walking and convenient
commuting distance of employment, shopping, and other activities, or within a short walk of a bus
or transit stop, through "mixed use" developments, residences created on the upper floors of
nonresidential downtown buildings, and other creative strategies.
Goal #7. Actively participate in the renewal of neighborhoods suffering from physical
deterioration or from the inequitable distribution of public resources in the past.
Goal #8. Assure a quality living environment and access to public amenities for all residents,
present and future, of the Town of Cary, regardless of income.
Comments: The provision of housing at this location would seem to support Goal #6, since the site is
within walking distance of Park Place Shopping Center. The closest entrance to Park Place is located
approximately 1,000 feet from the site at its closest point, following Chapel Hill Road. The case may also
support Goal #7, by providing new housing and redevelopment along this section of Chapel Hill Road.
Increases in traffic along Chapel Hill Road over the last 40 years have affected the quality of life for the
older single-family lots along the road. Depending on the specific housing types ultimately provided on
the site, the case may or may not help to support Goals #1 and #8 above.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapel Hill Road is designated as a Major Thoroughfare
Existing Section: 2 lanes, undivided with a wide shoulder/turn lane in approximately 75 -foot ROW
Future Section: 6 lanes, median divided in 124 -foot ROW
Sidewalks: Existing on the north side; required on both sides
Bicycle Lanes: 14 -foot -wide outside lanes required on both sides
Status of Planned Improvements: NC 54 from NW Maynard Road west to Morrisville is currently under
a feasibility study to explore road widening and rail options. This is a feasibility study only and there is
currently no funding allocated to construct any improvements at this time.
Page 8 of 11

Bus Transit: At present there is no C -Tran or Triangle Transit bus service along this section of Chapel
Hill Road. The nearest existing C -Tran service is provided via Routes 1 and 2 on Maynard Road,
approximately 0.6 mile east of the site at the closest point. The long-range expansion plans for C -Tran
envision a potential future route along NW Cary Parkway, approximately 0.4 miles west of the site at the
closest point.
Regional Light Rail Transit: Triangle Transit's regional transit plans envision a light rail corridor along
the North Carolina Railroad Corridor, with a station stop near the southwest corner of the Park Place
Shopping Center, where NW Cary Parkway bridges over the railroad. Depending on the siting of future
pedestrian trails for the station, walking distance to the subject site could be as close as 0.3 miles at the
closest point, or as far as 0.5 miles at the closest point. However, final funding and approval for Triangle
Transit's proposed rail system has not yet been secured, and project dates are therefore unknown.
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Resources
According to the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Facilities Master Plan, a greenway was
proposed along the parcel's southeastern property boundary. The original intent of this greenway was to
provide a connection between the Chapel Hill Road street -side trail, and the formerly proposed light rail
station at 160 Towerview Court. This greenway connection would have required a grade -separated
crossing of the railroad corridor.
Since the site on Towerview Court is no longer being considered for a light rail station, staff recommends
removal of the proposed section of greenway on the subject property and that no greenway easement
dedication be required. These comments were reviewed and approved by the Town's Greenways
Committee at its September 19, 2013 meeting, and by the Parks, Recreation & Cultural Resources
Advisory Board at its October 7, 2013 meeting.
A recreation payment -in -lieu will be required for residential development in accordance with the Land
Development Ordinance.
Open Space Plan
According to the Open Space Plan there are no significant natural resources associated with this site.
Historic Preservation Master Plan
A goal of the Town's adopted 2010 Historic Preservation Master Plan is to "Preserve, protect and
maintain Cary's historic resources." One of the subject parcels (9475 Chapel Hill Road) contains the circa
1938 Richard House, which is listed in the Cary/Wake County Architectural and Historical Inventory.
The house is a 2 -story, 2 -bay stone veneer dwelling exhibiting Craftsman design features such as a hip
roof with wide overhanging eaves, porch, and porte cochere supported by large, tapered piers, six -over -
one sash windows, and a half-timber design over the front entrance. The house is said to have been built
around 1939 by the Richard family, and its historic nature should be viewed within the context of the
boom, bust and recovery between the World Wars (1919-1941). Though Craftsman -style houses were
popular in Wake County and Cary in the early twentieth century, this house is especially notable because
of its stone veneer and porte cochere, features that are somewhat rare in Cary's remaining inventory of
Craftsman houses. (Note: Porte cochere is the architectural term used to describe the side -projecting
porch that provides protection for vehicles and people entering the house.)
Summary Observations
The density requested by the rezoning is within the density range identified by the Land Use Plan. As
noted previously, however, while the "LDR/MDR" designation on the Plan Map indicates a potential
density range of anywhere from 1 to 8 dwellings per acre, the specific density and/or housing type
that might be appropriate for the subject parcels can also depend on context and transitions to
adjacent residential properties. In evaluating the case, the Planning and Zoning Board and Town
Council typically may determine the most appropriate density within the density range, depending on
the site's context and transitions.
The requested rezoning seems to support three of the Guiding Principles from the Growth
Management Plan.
Page 9 of 11

The requested rezoning seems to support two of the goals of the housing plan, and may support up
to two additional goals, depending on the final housing product selected.
The site is presently not well -served by bus transit, but may enjoy better service as the C -Tran
system is expanded over time. The site may someday be served nearby by light rail transit to
downtown Cary and Raleigh, however this is presently uncertain.
The applicant indicates they will protect the 1938 Richards House with a preservation easement (see
above Summary of Process and Actions To Date). This action supports the goals of the Historic
Preservation Master Plan.
OTHER REFERENCE INFORMATION
Schools,
This information is being provided for your review;
Projected Range of
Type Additional Students2
Elementary School 11 -36
however, the Wake County Board of Education
controls capital projects for school capacities.
Middle School 6-24
High School 4-19
Total Projected range of additional students 21 -79
'Information regarding specific Wake County Public School assignment options may be found by visiting
the following: http://assignment.wcpss.net/preview/myplan.html
2 The Projected Range of Additional Students is a rough approximation. The actual number of students
will vary depending on variables, such as the number of bedrooms, dwelling size, and other factors. For
example: a site with 12 three-bedroom homes could yield six additional students, while 12 homes with
greater than three bedroom units could yield 10 students. The basis for making this calculation is based on
multipliers provided by the Wake County Schools Office of Student Assignment. At rezoning, student yield
can not be accurately determined due to unknown variables.
APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT
Attached are the applicant's responses to the justification questions contained in the application form.
Please note that these statements are that of the applicant and do not necessarily represent the views or
opinions of the Town of Cary.
ORDINANCE FOR CONSIDERATION
13-REZ-19 CHAPEL HILL ROAD TOWNES
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE TOWN OF CARY TO CHANGE
THE ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 16.26 ACRES, LOCATED AT 9475 AND 9493 CHAPEL HILL
ROAD AND OWNED BY JAS & JAS LLC, BY REZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL 40 (R-40) TO
TRANSITIONAL RESIDENTIAL CONDITIONAL USE (TR -CU).
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF CARY:
Section 1: The Official Zoning Map is hereby amended by rezoning the area described as follows:
Page 10 of 11

PARCEL & OWNER INFORMATION
Property Owner(s)
County Parcel Number(s)
Real Estate ID(s)
Deeded Acreage
(10 -digit)
JAS & JAS LLC
208 Oxcroft Street
0754772396
0111757
5.0
Cary, NC 27519
JAS & JAS LLC
208 Oxcroft Street
0754762985
0059677
11.26
Cary, NC 27519
Total Area
16.26
Section 2: That this Property is rezoned from Residential 40 (R-40) to Transitional Residential
Conditional Use (TR -CU) subject to the individualized development conditions set forth herein, if any, and
to all the requirements of the Cary Land Development Ordinance (LDO) and other applicable laws,
standards, policies and guidelines, all of which shall constitute the zoning regulations for the approved
district and are binding on the Property.
Section 3: The conditions proposed by the applicant to address conformance of the development and
use of the Property to ordinances and officially adopted plans, to address impacts reasonably expected to
be generated by the rezoning, and to promote the public health, safety and general welfare, and accepted
and approved by the Town are:
1. No more than twelve (12) detached dwellings shall be permitted. The only other uses permitted
shall be limited to semi-detached/attached dwellings or townhomes.
2. Prior to applying for a building permit for development on the TR -CU Tract, the structure currently
known as the 1938 Richards House will be preserved through the use of a preservation
easement held by a qualified holder of historic preservation agreements as defined by NCGS
Chapter 121, Article 4. Such easement shall assure that the 1938 Richards House will be
retained and maintained forever substantially for preservation purposes.
3. A minimum of 50% of all semi-detached/attached dwellings or townhomes shall be constructed
with a two -car garage. The balance of the semi-detached/attached dwellings or townhomes shall
be constructed with a one -car garage.
4. The Town of Cary masonry material requirement for attached residential buildings will be
increased from 35% to a minimum of 40% surface area.
5. There shall be a minimum of one community gathering space no less than 4,500 square feet in
size to include one (1) gazebo and one (1) fountain.
Section 4: This ordinance shall be effective on the date of adoption.
Adopted and effective: March 27, 2014
Harold Weinbrecht, Jr.
Mayor
Date
Page 11 of 11

C410]Oki 9.121u1_11I
APPROVING DELINEATION

Beasley, Troy
From: Shaeffer, David L SAW <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 4:25 PM
To: Beasley, Troy
Subject: RE: Chapel Hill Townes (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Yes. Are you going to have a project soon?
David L. Shaeffer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Phone: [phone] ext. 31 Fax: [phone]
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at
http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0
-----Original Message -----
From: Beasley, Troy [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 4:23 PM
To: Shaeffer, David L SAW
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Chapel Hill Townes (UNCLASSIFIED)
Ok. Can you disregard theirs and issue based on ours?
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 31, 2015, at 4:21 PM, Shaeffer, David L SAW <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> Caveats: NONE
> No...it is in my incomplete JD pile. It must be missing something.
> David L. Shaeffer
> U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
> Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
> 3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
> Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
> Phone: [phone] ext. 31 Fax: [phone]
1

> The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at
BLOCKEDcorpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:OBLOCKED
> -----Original Message-----
• From: Beasley, Troy [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 4:11 PM
> To: Shaeffer, David L SAW
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Chapel Hill Townes (UNCLASSIFIED)
> Dang, me too. Did you issue a JD?
> Sent from my iPhone
>> On Jul 31, 2015, at 4:04 PM, Shaeffer, David L SAW <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
>> Caveats: NONE
>> I looked at the same two parcels on 10/1/2013 with Steven Ball at S&EC for JAS & JAS LLC. File number SAW-2013-
1853. 1 knew it looked familiar. Your delineation is very similar. I wish I would have noticed this before I scheduled the
site visit.
>> David L. Shaeffer
>> U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
>> Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
>> 3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
>> Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
>> Phone: [phone] ext. 31 Fax: [phone]
>> The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at
BLOCKEDcorpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:OBLOCKED
>> -----Original Message-----
» From: Beasley, Troy [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 1:59 PM
>> To: Shaeffer, David L SAW
>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Chapel Hill Townes
>> Check on delineation near site and Buddist temple.
>>Sent from my iPhone
>> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
>> Caveats: NONE
> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> Caveats: NONE
2

Iz [a] DITA AD-11Jaa21:i
01:0IAOullz/_lIIQz11:0a121:7

A47A
NCDENR 5
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory
Governor
June 1, 2015
AS & JAS, LLC
208 Oxcroft Street
Cary, NC 27519
Donald R. van dor 'Vaart
Secretary
Subject: Buffer Determination
NBRRO# l 5-234
Wake County
Determination Type:
Buffer Call
Isolated or EIP Call
Neuse (15A NCAC 2B .0233)
Startg
❑ Tar -Pamlico (15A NCAC 2B.0259)
❑ Ephemeralllnterrnittent/Perennial Determination
USCS
El Isolated Wetland Determination
171 Jordan (15A NCAC 26 .0267j
To
Project Name: 9475 & 9493 Chapel Hill Road (Hwy 54), Cary NC
Location/Directions: Subject properties are privately owned single-family
residential/undeveloped lots located at project addresses;
Subject Stream: UT to Coles Branch
Determination Date: April 28, 2015
Staff: Sara Knies
Feature
Not
Subject
EMP*
Startg
Stop@
Soil
USCS
/Flag
Subject
To
Survey
'Togo
To
Buffers
Buffers
A
X
E
X
B
X
I
Throughout
Throughout
X
C
X
E
X
Unmapped
X
I
Flag S-4
Confluence w/
Stream 1**
Feature B
Unmapped
X
I
Flag S-2
Confluence w/
Stream 2**
1
Features B
*E/I/P - Ephemeral./Intennittent/Perennial
*Unmapped Stream I and 2 are not depicted ren the Wake County Soil Survey andl©r USCS topographic maps.
Unmapped Stream 1 and 2 are therefore not subject to Neuse River Riparian Buffer Rules; unmapped Stream 1 and 2
are subject to 4011iso/ated waters permitting.
One
NhCarolina
Ae rally
North Carolina Division of Water Resources 1628 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 Phone [phone]
Internet: www ricwaterouality.ora Location: 3800 Barrett Drive Raleigh, NC 27609 Fax [phone]
An Equal OppMunitylAffarmative Action Employer - 50% Recydedll O% Post Consumer Paper

9475 & 9493 Chapel Hill Road
Wake db'7
June
Page nf2
Explanation: The feature(s) listed above has or have been located on the Soil Survey of Wake County, North
Carolina or the most recent copy of the USGS Topographic map at a 1:24,000 scale. Each feature that is checked
"Not Subject" has been determined not to be a stream or is not present on the property. features that are checked
"Subject" have been located on the property and possess characteristics that qualify it to be a stream. There may be
other streams located on your property that do not show up on the maps referenced above but, still may be
considered jurisdictional according to the US Army Corps of Engineers and/or to the Division of Water Resources
(DWR).
This on-site determination shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter. Landowners or affected parties that
dispute a determination made by the DWR or Delegated Local Authority may request a determination by the
Director. An appeal request must be made within sixty (60) days of date of this letter or from the date the affected
party (including downstream and/or adjacent owners) is notified of this letter. A request for a determination by the
Director shall be referred to the Director in writing c/o Karen Higgins, Karen Higgins, DWR — 401 & Buffer
Permitting Unit, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617.
This determination is final and binding unless, as detailed above, you ask for a hearing or appeal within sixty (60)
days.
The owner/future owners should notify the Division of Water Resources (including any other Local, State, and
Federal Agencies) of this decision concerning any future correspondences regarding the subject property (stated
above). This project may require a Section 404/401 Permit for the proposed activity. Any inquiries should be
directed to the Division of Water Resources (Central Office) at (919)-807-6300, and the US Army Corp of Engineers
(Raleigh Regulatory Field Office) at (919)-554-4884.
If you have questions regarding this determination, please feet free to contact Sara Knies at [phone].
Respe tfully,
I' %7)
t4Nr7
Danny S tth, Supervisor
Water Quality Section
Raleigh Regional Office
cc: RRO/SWP File Copy

GRAPHIC SCALE
1 100 200
.61
vp
III��� r + 1 f y,t��-f7P� � r1 �t . • i. �� .�' ,Cy. �Y,x,,, ft � ate_ ��` 1 ,'� '��" r.
+Ilk#�
ATURE A FE-�U'.
T SUBJECT) `(SU
t
4 -
OUT)
tis
UNMAPPED
sTREAM1
:l�^" '�'" •fir `;
��,� s f` UNMAPPED -
STREAM 2
A.Z
xrY'4',r r ��, ��'�A�1„ A•,�� ti FEATURE C
1
NOT SUBJECT)
. d �• 1 l-.;r �J �. �.; f 1
y` � q ���� ♦, �-� ,a�j rf���ra �� ��' ,i, RRr'y�I� a r r ••+t�M'�,f�.l Jw ys j _
-�a/ a•.� `�r YYY � R����. r„1_. ri � �,.�� a �� 1�'. • Yi .. i�Orw' %.w
-'� _ _ �. ..fly 4J ♦'!�}t`i IM+,{r4'��w'•��'�'f 1. �.b'�.�'•,•;+iQL-�? -'1
'PkY irk 171��� Ri�-br > v iK . �.�; •--'�
� � - 'r 1� 1Q � .� l lt� °= .►'1�'•i�"�' - r `�` 'Tri ., �� v•! r � M1''-� .F' '�, ,. - •
1� � �•, ,l +a. ` '•t 'rto4jl'si.� �j '�'t�'�i v1 • ,yt�l its y
T Qti-.'� *��a � `�,~_ My„� �N�• �s�i►l ��qi. �r�t r~''' �'"r�'�1'i ,jM�! :'��
_SrF�w�grjttitt�i�
�,(s:'tia' ��`a-`•�b `'7`aF.�'y�Y'1S�i:a a 1 �h\ •:'°'a�� �a'+1�;'�'`J,�t,.
/"aY' VN,
� Ulf
_ `; ••a��Y`+p')� ��'y,.�'1�,,i�•�a✓,,k •�� � .1�',��iy�ll�'r J�rr"T
j�'y'`� rf 1 � � 7 0 2 .+,s { _ ; • �'' '4 �r .. SFA

4
•
GRAPHIC SOf
ml X, — 460 ft,
-N.. H •
v s+ * w
'RTRE D ItT D ON-
of
.� D
.�,
.� 3w
�• ` +fir. _ .r 11 !• r Is&
d
+Iwo �• C � _A• Y j �.
1 s
CHAPEL HILL TOWNES USGS QUAL] - CARY WITHERS RAYENEL
!M[IM[[!i 9 11k11MlM[ J 1V[Y lYD t1
`-ARV WAKE CC/UNT4 NORTH CARQUxA

I
■
9
I

II&I9MI9*A' 00110.1kW

}N
W
46
Z
Z
5
a
vi
w
Z
W
J'
Z
Z
46
w
g
N
0
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
WETLAND IAND
IMPACT ATEA
� II
� I
� I
'
0
\
\
CONSTRUCTED STORMWATER \
WETLAND
0 100' 200• 400• 800•
SCALE: 1"m 200'
NOTES:
WETLANDS DELINEATION FIELD VERIFIED BY DAVID SHAEFFER WITH THE CORPS
OF ENGINEERS ON 07/31/15 (SAW -2013-1853 & SAW -2015-01667).
BUFFER DETERMINATION ISSUED BY NCDWR ON 06/01/2015 (NBRRO #15-234)
WETLANDS SURVEYED BY WITHERSRAVENEL, INC., 2015
Impact Justification Statement
The purpose of these proposed wetland impacts is to install a
road extension for three (3) townhome units of a new residential
townhome subdivision in the Town of Cary. Due to the location
of the existing wetlands, impact avoidance cannot be achieved,
but will be minimized to the most practical extent possible.
All construction shall be in accordance with the Town of Cary,
NCDENR, NCDWR and USACOE applicable standards and
specifications.
MERITAGE HOMES OF THE CAROLINAS, INC.
PROPERTY OWNER 8800 E. RAINTREE DR., SUITE 300
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85260
MERITAGE HOMES OF THE CAROLINAS, INC.
PROPERTY DEVELOPER 8800 E. RAINTREE DR., SUITE 300
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85260
•` PROJECT \ ADDRESSES 9475 & 9493 CHAPEL HILL ROAD CARY, NC 27513
NCPINS 0754762985 & 0754772396
TOTAL SITE ACREAGE 13.819 ACRES
/ WETLAND IMPACT AREA 2,327 SQ. FT. (0.053 ACRES)
No. Revision Date B
Designer Scope
"=
WR 1 200'
PARK WEST TOWNES
TOWN OF CARY WAKE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA
OVERALL SITE PLAN WITH
WETLAND &NATIONWIDE 29 PERMIT
STREAM IMPACTS
Drawn By Date
RSF 3/7/2016
Checked By Job No.
TB 2150037.10
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR RECORDING OR CONSTRUCTION

® PERMANENT WETLAND
IMPACTS: 2,327 S0. FT.
(0.053 ACRES)
0 PERMANENT STREAM IMPACTS:
of 149 LF
PERMANENT STREAM IMPACTS
(RIP RAP DISSIPATORS): 20 LF
NOTE: PROPOSED COFFER DAM AND
PUMP -AROUND WILL BE CONTAINED
WITHIN THE PROPOSED STREAM IMPACTS
,!WithersRavenel
Engineers I Planners
191 1/2 S. Wkdngten Street I Re fth. NC 278911 C 919.489.334011 ow= #:C-0=Iwww.w§iererev9nsI.can
PARK WEST TOWNES
NATIONWIDE PERMIT 29
IMPACT AREA MAP
AWN OF CARY WAKE COUNTY NORTH CAROLIN
�Vis' I _
_ --
40 _, \ �
-
--
—_-- `_ --- — — — — — — ----��
JtJRIS_DICTIO_N_AL -WffEANR - --'"
\
P
_ \ -PER AN IMPACT #3:-
68--LF-OF STREAM IM
RMA ACTS �-/
5 tP-RA TAttATf6t
SEE'S�ET 3'FOR SIREAAI
CROSS ING�\PR_�`\
PE ANT ST - T1:
F RIP , TI
SE SHEET 4
-
\
PR0�19 S1NCJ U$ -G '
FR ' SEAM'
- ---- - -
-EfZMANENT -
'I
ACT'
ERMAN NT/WET ND-11ri1PACT
- ------
2,327'S : ' 0.053
O/
O
`�I
l
0 0 20' 40' wi
�Ii
lcni
PRELIMINARY
SCALE: V= 40'
Y
NOT FOR RECORDING OR CONSTRUCTION
DATE: 3/7/2016
WR #: 02150037.10
2 Of 3
,!WithersRavenel
Engineers I Planners
191 1/2 S. Wkdngten Street I Re fth. NC 278911 C 919.489.334011 ow= #:C-0=Iwww.w§iererev9nsI.can
PARK WEST TOWNES
NATIONWIDE PERMIT 29
IMPACT AREA MAP
AWN OF CARY WAKE COUNTY NORTH CAROLIN

NO WithersRavenel
Engineers I Planners
1311/2 S. WMlnpmn Streetl Aeklph. NC 2M1l t 919A694Wl Ycenee #:G03Nlwww.wfflww&w9W.=n
PARK WEST TOWNES
STREAM CROSSING PROFILES AND DETAILS
TOWN OF CARY WAKE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA

0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NEUSEI RIVER
IMPACT AREA
I
I
I
I
I
I
0 100' 200• 400• 800•
WETLANDS DELINEATION FIELD VERIFIED BY DAVID SHAEFFER WITH THE CORPS
OF ENGINEERS ON 07/31/15 (SAW -2013-1853 & SAW -2015-01667).
BUFFER DETERMINATION ISSUED BY NCDWR ON 06/01/2015 (NBRRO #15-234)
WETLANDS SURVEYED BY WITHERSRAVENEL, INC., 2015
MERITAGE HOMES OF THE CAROLINAS, INC.
PROPERTY OWNER 8800 E. RAINTREE DR., SUITE 300
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85260
MERITAGE HOMES OF THE CAROLINAS, INC.
PROPERTY DEVELOPER 8800 E. RAINTREE DR., SUITE 300
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85260
PROJECT ADDRESSES _ 9475 & 9493 CHAPEL HILL ROAD
CARY, NC 27513
NCPINS - 0754762985 & 0754772396
TOTAL SITE ACREAGE 13.819 ACRES
WETLAND IMPACT AREA - 2,090 SQ. FT. (0.048 ACRES)
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR RECORDING OR CONSTRUCTION
No. Revision ate B
Designer
WR
Scale
=2°°
PARK WEST TOWNES
TOWN OF CARY WAKE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA
OVERALL SITE PLAN WITH
NATIONWIDE PERMIT 29
NEU E RIVER BUFFER IMPACTS
Sheet No.
1/ WithersRavenel
110 Engineers IPlanners 1 of 2
1"ns.wamnpowlso-eeglte1e.409394011ceneet:C-0B921.widwwav9n9l.can
Drawn By
RSF
Dote
3/7/2016
Checked By
TB
Job No.
2150037.10

® ZONE 1 PERMANENT
BUFFER IMPACTS:
4.613 SQ. FT. TOTAL
ZONE 2 PERMANENT
`♦ BUFFER IMPACTS:
3,507 SQ. FT. TOTAL
, 1 I I I I 1 I ♦ ♦ \ `♦ ♦
1 ` 0
_ v��R pP
----- -----
uj r ; cnl 50, —NE FROG —
PR(POSINE 1NC _ FFER'-------------
WXT
1\\ 2T—
',—
♦` �` � �� �- -- ��,-'�� �� 39,,\`4
CB2G9-'
30
POSED ONCRE�
PERMANEIV,de \ , ' ZD"
K R BUF�E S _ �`
21.0
POSED 42° RCP \ LVERT
--- '
'-----------------_
P-R6POSED CONCRETE ----'' —
ENDWALL1.2 X///////
77
zz
i I m
SCALE: 1' = 40'
WR #: 02150037.10
,!WithersRavenel
Engineers I Planners
191 1/2 S. Wkdnghm Street I Re fth, NC 278911 C 919.489.38401 How= #:C-0=Iwww.wIdiererev9nsI.can
I
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR RECORDING OR CONSTRUCTION
DATE: 3/7/2016
Fof2
PARK WEST TOWNES
NATIONWIDE PERMIT 29
NEUSE RIVER BUFFER IMPACT #1
AWN OF CARY WAKE COUNTY NORTH CAROLIN