20160566 Ver 1_More Info Received_20160810

Burdette, Jennifer a
From: aaron miller <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 11:22 AM
To: Burdette, Jennifer a
Subject: RE: 611 N Elizabeth St
Attachments: Variance -Application -611 N Elizabeth St_FINAL-5-11-2016.docx; 611Elizabeth stream
survey.pdf
Jennifer,
Here is updated info you requested. The only thing Im lacking is updated letter for mitigation credits. I should have that
shortly and will send it to you as soon as I get it.
From: Burdette, Jennifer a[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, August 8, 2016 11:09 AM
To: aaron miller <[e-mail]>
Subject: 611 N Elizabeth St
Aaron,
I haven't received your additional information for the subject project yet. Just wanted to check in with you to
make sure that we have what we need early this week to make Friday's deadline.
Thanks,
Jennifer
Jennifer Burdette
401/Buffer Coordinator
Division of Water Resources - 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
Department of Environmental Quality
919 807 6364 office
iennifer.burdetteQncdenr.gov
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
(Physical Address: 512 N. Salisbury St, Raleigh, NC 27604 - 9t" Flr Archdale Bldg — Room 942F)
k
Email corretil'.)ol?"'{,ence to and ii`orn thio; a('{"'{I`ess o; sutYect to t1he
P,Iodhl Carolina Public Records L w and 1`Y7ay be ftl`ii:'losed to tr'loird I'.'s'ai{`ies,
1

PLEASE IDENTIFY WHICH RIPARIAN AREA PROTECTION RULE APPLIES:
❑ Neuse River Basin (15A NCAC 02B.0233)
x Major Variance ❑ Minor Variance
❑ Catawba River Basin (15A NCAC 02B.0243)
❑ Randleman Lake Water Supply Watershed (15A NCAC 02B.0250)
❑ Major Variance ❑ Minor Variance
❑ Tar -Pamlico River Basin (15A NCAC 02B.0259)
❑ Major Variance ❑ Minor Variance
❑ Jordan Lake Water Supply Nutrient Strategy (15A NCAC 02B.0267)
❑ Major Variance ❑ Minor Variance
❑ Goose Creek Watershed (15A NCAC 02B.0606 & 15A NCAC 02B.0607)
A. General Information
1. Applicant's Information(if other than the current property owner):
Name: Patterson Custom Builders LLC.
Title: Tony Patterson
Street Address: 817 New Bern Avenue, Suite 1
City, State & Zip: Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
2. Property Owner/Signing Official (person legally responsible for the property and its compliance):
Name: Capital City Property Solutions, Inc
Title: Kristi Thayer, President
Street Address: 3200 Glen Royal Rd, Suite 104
City, State & Zip: Raleigh, NC 27617
Telephone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
FORM: VAR 10-2013

3. Agent Information:
3a. Name:
Company Affiliation
Street Address:
City, State & Zip:
Telephone:
E-mail:
Terry Thaver
Vice President
7823 Cape Charles Dr
Raleieh. NC 27617
terrvPthave rcustomhomes.com
3b. Attach a signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner.
4. Project Name (Subdivision, facility, or establishment name):
611 N. Elizabeth New Construction SFD
5. Project Location:
5a. Street Address: 611 N Elizabeth St
City, State & Zip: Durham NC 27701
5b. County: Durham
5c. Site Coordinates (in decimal degrees): 35.998153 N Latitude 78.890806 W Longitude
5d. Attach an 8 Yz x 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the USGS topographic map indicating the location of the site.
5e. Attach an 8 Yz x 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the published County NRCS Soil Survey Map depicting the project
site.
6. Property Information:
6a. Property identification number (parcel ID): 110654
6b. Date property was purchased: November 20, 2015.
6c. Deed book 7828 and page number 224
6d. Map book 1 and page number 155
6e. Attach a copy of the recorded map that indicates when the lot was last platted.
7. Is your project in one of the 20 Coastal Counties covered under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)?
❑ YES X NO
7a. If you answered yes above, in which AEC do you fall (30 ft or 75 ft)? n/a
7b. If you answered yes above, what is the total percent of impervious cover that you have proposed within the AEC? n a
FORM: VAR 10-2013 Page 2 of 8

8. Directions to site from nearest major intersection:
From Highway 147 Exit 12A, take Fayetteville street north until it turns into N Elizabeth Street, continue north, and property will
be on the left near the intersection of Canal Street and N Elizabeth Street
9. Stream associated with riparian buffer to be impacted by the proposed activity:
Name Water Quality Classification
Ws-IV,nsw
Unnamed Tributary to Ellerbe Creek
9a. For Goose Creek only: Is the buffer in the 100 -year flood plain? ❑ YES❑ NO
10. List any permits/approvals that have been requested or obtained for this project in the past (including all prior phases).
Date Applied: Date Received: Permit Type:
1/27/2016 2/18/16 Single family dwelling new construction permit
B. Proposed Activity
1. Project Description
1a. Provide a detailed description of the proposed activity including its purpose:
Intention to build a single familv dwelling for Drivate one familv residential use. Obtained building Dermits that were aooroved
and issued by the City of Durham, however during the course of construction it was brought to our and their attention that the
creek next to the property was an intermittent stream and that there were buffers that had to be implied and we were in
violation of the area required. This was brought to our attention after numerous site visits by Durham storm water division to
the site without response to the creek as well. I don't believe anyone working ion this project knew this was an identifiable
stream, and applicant was not informed by the City of Durham of this being an identifiable stream or creek when the survey of
the parcel was submitted to the City of Durham as a part of the building permit application process.
1b. Attach a site plan showing the following items as applicable to the project:
0 Development/Project name
0 Revision number & date
0 North arrow
0 Scale (1" = 50' is preferred)
0 Property/project boundary with dimensions
0 Adjacent streets and roads labeled with names and/or NC State Road numbers
0 Original contours and proposed contours
0 Perennial and intermittent streams, ponds, lakes, rivers and estuaries
0 Mean high water line (if applicable)
0 Wetlands delineated, or a note on plans that none exist
0 Location of forest vegetation along the streams, ponds, lakes, rivers and estuaries
0 Extent of riparian buffers on the land including Zone 1 and Zone where applicable
0 Location and dimension of the proposed buffer impact (label the area of buffer impact in ft' on the plan)
0 Details of roads, parking areas, cul-de-sacs, sidewalks, and curb and gutter systems
0 Footprint of any proposed buildings or other structures
0 Discharge points of gutters on existing structures and proposed buildings
0 Existing drainage (including off-site), drainage easements, and pipe dimensions
FORM: VAR 10-2013 Page 3 of 8

0 Drainage areas delineated
C. Proposed Impacts and Mitigation
1. Individually list the square footage of each proposed impact to the protected riparian buffers:
Buffer Impact
Number' —
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
Reason for Impact
Buffer
Mitigation
Required
Zone 1 Impact Zone 2 Impact
(square feet) (square feet)
B1 - ® P ❑ T
Building construction
X Yes ❑ No
230 660
B2 - x P [:]T
Rain Garden
X Yes ❑ No
200
B3 ❑ P ❑ T
Relief swale
X Yes ❑ No
80
Total Buffer Impacts 1170
'Label on site plan
2. Identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation from the table above. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
'For projects in the Goose Creek Watershed, list all riparian buffer impacts as Zone 1
and use Zone 1 multiplier.
3. Provide a description of how mitigation will be achieved at your site pursuant to the mitigation requirements of the applicable
river basin/watershed.
ADD Iicant shall submit a landscape and reveeetation plan that uses a mix of soecies. reeardless of whether less than 20 trees are
determined to be necessary on the subject parcel. Applicant shall use as a guideline that Unified Development Ordinance for the
City of Durham as its foundation, and include any and all required elements per Title 15A NCAC 02B, et. seg., remedial measures
to maintain diffuse flow of runoff by disoersine concentrated flow. ADDlicant'S Dlan is set forth in the attached Mitieation Plan.
which includes a Planting Plan
3a. Is buffer restoration or enhancement proposed? X Yes ❑ No
If yes, attach a detailed planting plan to include plant type, date of plantings, the date of the one-time fertilization in the
protected riparian buffers, and a plan sheet showing the proposed location of the plantings. (SEE ATTACHED PLANTING PLAN)
3b. Is payment into a buffer restoration fund proposed? x Yes ❑ No
If yes, attach an acceptance letterfrom the mitigation bank you propose to use or the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
stating they have the mitigation credits available for the mitigation requested.
FORM: VAR 10-2013 Page 4 of 8
Required
Zone
Total Impact
Multiplier
Mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Zone 1'
510
3
1530
(2 for Catawba only)
Zone 2
660
1.5
990
Total Buffer Mitigation Required:
2520
'For projects in the Goose Creek Watershed, list all riparian buffer impacts as Zone 1
and use Zone 1 multiplier.
3. Provide a description of how mitigation will be achieved at your site pursuant to the mitigation requirements of the applicable
river basin/watershed.
ADD Iicant shall submit a landscape and reveeetation plan that uses a mix of soecies. reeardless of whether less than 20 trees are
determined to be necessary on the subject parcel. Applicant shall use as a guideline that Unified Development Ordinance for the
City of Durham as its foundation, and include any and all required elements per Title 15A NCAC 02B, et. seg., remedial measures
to maintain diffuse flow of runoff by disoersine concentrated flow. ADDlicant'S Dlan is set forth in the attached Mitieation Plan.
which includes a Planting Plan
3a. Is buffer restoration or enhancement proposed? X Yes ❑ No
If yes, attach a detailed planting plan to include plant type, date of plantings, the date of the one-time fertilization in the
protected riparian buffers, and a plan sheet showing the proposed location of the plantings. (SEE ATTACHED PLANTING PLAN)
3b. Is payment into a buffer restoration fund proposed? x Yes ❑ No
If yes, attach an acceptance letterfrom the mitigation bank you propose to use or the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
stating they have the mitigation credits available for the mitigation requested.
FORM: VAR 10-2013 Page 4 of 8

D. Stormwater
1. Provide a description of how diffuse flow will be maintained through the protected riparian buffers (e.g., re -planting vegetation or
enhancement of existing vegetation, gutter splash pads, level spreader to control of runoff from impervious surfaces, etc.).
Surface runoff will be directed thru protective piping and will lead into rain garden. A relief swale will be constructed to allow
water back into stream from SMP/rain garden.
Total stormwater runoff from structure will be 1238 Sa ft directed into rain Barden
1a. Show the location of diffuse flow measure(s) on your site plan.
1b. Attach a completed Level Spreader Supplement Form or BMP Supplement Form with all required items for each proposed
measure.
1c. Attach an Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Form for each proposed level spreader or BMP.
2. For Major, Catawba, and Goose Creek variance requests, provide a description of all best management practices (BMPs) that will
be used to minimize disturbance and control the discharge of nutrients and sediments from stormwater.
We will be constructing a 200 sq.ft. SMP/rain garden. All surface runoff from structure will be directed thru rain garden.
(1238 Sq Ft)
2a. Show the location of BMPs on your site plan.
2b. Attach a Supplement Form for each structural BMP proposed.
2c. Attach an Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Form for each structural BMP proposed.
E. Demonstration of Need for a Variance
The variance provision of the riparian buffer rules allows the Division or the Environmental Management Commission to grant a
variance when there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships that prevent compliance with the strict letter of riparian
buffer protection.
1. Explain how complying with the provisions of the applicable rule would prevent you from securing a reasonable return from or make
reasonable use of your property. Merely proving that the variance would permit a greater profit from the property shall not be
considered adequate justification for a variance. The Division will consider whether the variance is the minimum possible deviation
from the terms of the applicable Buffer Rule that shall make reasonable use of the property possible.
The subject parcel had a pre-existing residential home located thereon, and the neighborhood is a densely populated district within
the city limits of Durham, and within 1.5 miles of the central business district of the City of Durham. There are residential homes
located on all lots surrounding the subject parcel. The pre-existing home on the subject lot is located within Zone 2 of the Neuse
Riparian Buffer and its construction appears to have pre -dated the creation of the Neuse Buffer. The issue in this request is not
about whether the applicant will be able to secure the greatest financial return on its financial investment, but instead is whether
the applicant will be able to secure any return on its investment without approval of a Major Variance. Applicant is a small, family
FORM: VAR 10-2013 Page 5 of 8

run business and has operated within neighboring areas of 611 N. Elizabeth St. within the city limits of Durham on more than 20
prior projects (get exact # building permits issued to CCPS). On each project, applicant orders a lot survey with house location
located thereon, and surrounding streams, creeks, lakes or other waterways, which is sent to the City of Durham as a part of their
building permit application. This is more than the City of Durham requires, and in this case, the survey and plot plan provided to the
city with the building permit application showed the creek/stream location. The survey and plot plan were reviewed by the City of
Durham along with the application, and a building permit was issued without warning or notice of the Neuse Riparian Buffer zones
located on the lot. Applicant was not aware that the lot contained such a buffer and was never informed by any third party or city
employee prior to receipt of a letter and Notice of Violation dated April 14, 2016 from the State of North Carolina Water Resources
and Environmental Quality Department. W.C. Blalock, Chief Building Inspector,
Durham City -County Inspections Department, informed counsel for the applicant that "newer employees had reviewed this permit
application, and they paid more attention to the structure than to the creek located on the survey, and they missed it." In addition,
Mr. Blalock also stated that he had received more information from the lot owner than he normally receives in the building permit
application process, and that normally the City would not be provided enough information to be able to determine whether there
was an existing stream, creek waterway or a state mandated buffer zone; however, in this case, the survey and plot plan provided
to the City of Durham did, in fact, clearly show the path of the stream along the rear property boundary of the subject parcel.
Which put the city on notice of the stream prior to issuing a building permit. Mr. Blalock's comment indicates that his staff should
have determined the existence of the Neuse Riparian Buffer and that the proposed structure would be violative of both Zones 1 and
2 thereof. Thus, the commencement of construction, to the point of framing the structure in its entirety and installing a roof on the
two story home had been completed prior to issuance of a stop work order on this project. Oddly, photos attached to the letter
were date stamped April 6, 2016, and the photos show only the 1s' story framed at the time, and would the lot owner have been
provided with notice of an anticipated violation on or before the time when the photograph was taken, there would have been
significantly less expense involved in moving the structure to a location within the footprint of the previous structure. At this time,
the estimate of the cost to move the home to another location on the lot is approximately $20,000.00, although the home would
still be located within Zone 2, and would require relief from the State of North Carolina in the form of a variance, to proceed with
construction. As a result, the applicant, which secured a mortgage loan to acquire the parcel and for construction of the residence
to be located thereon, and the lender, who has invested capital in this project and anticipated investing additional funds into future
projects located in the City of Durham, will lose money on this project and potentially impact the continued viability of the
applicants ability to continue in its current business — money that we believe would not have been lost had the City of Durham
reviewed the survey and plot plan submitted in the permit application process. It is the desire of the applicant to continue with this
project, with the understanding that it will undertake remediation measures to disperse flow of runoff and also to re -vegetate the
lot in a manner that complies with both 15A NCAC 02B, et seq., and the City of Durham Unified Ordinance. Absent a major variance
being issued, the subject parcel will not be a buildable parcel. With the area where the subject parcel is located already being a
densely populated city neighborhood, the best use of the parcel is for a single family residential home, which is what the lot has
always been used for, prior to the acquisition of the lot in November 2015 by the applicant. Furthermore, the quality of construction
that has been approved by the City of Durham for this lot is above that which previously existed on the lot, and will benefit the
neighborhood and the city in a significant manner, if a major variance is approved and the project is completed, as planned, with
remedial measures added to the project scope that will re -vegetate the land in the affected zones and disperse concentrated flow
of runoff to the stream.
2. Explain how the hardship results from application of the Buffer Rule to the property rather from other factors such as deed
restrictions or other hardships (e.g. zoning setbacks, floodplains, etc).
The parcel has always been used for residential purposes, with a pre-existing home being located thereon when the current owner
purchased the lot in November 2015. Residential use in a city neighborhood that is densely populated, with residential homes on all
sides of the lot make such continued use the best possible use for the lot. Not only is there an extreme financial hardship that would
be created should a major variance not be granted, but there is not other location on the lot where a residential home could be
constructed without issuance of a variance. There are also no other detriments to building on the subject parcel but for the
existence of the Neuse Riparian Buffer.
Explain how the hardship results from physical nature of the property, such as its size, shape, or topography, which is different
from that of neighboring property. (***Tony /Terry to add)
The stream running through the back corner and adjacent property limits our building envelope. To the point where we can't
provide a desired dwelling footprint. The required city setbacks in conjunction with the state required buffers were not compliant
on the previous dwelling either. We attempted to turn in any and all pertinent data/information to the city for plan review,
including a watershed map that didn't alert anybody at that time on the placement of the home on this lot.ln conclusion, we
could have done a better compliant placement of the dwelling had the city provided any knowledge of a possible intermitted
FORM: VAR 10-2013 Page 6 of 8

stream and buffer requirements. We would have been able to rectify the situation at that time by providing a more compliant
placement of the structure.
4. Explain whether the hardship was caused by the applicant knowingly or unknowingly violating the applicable Buffer Rule.
Unknowingly. An initial survey and plot plan was prepared prior to requesting a building permit from the City of Durham, which
showed the location of a creek running through a rear property boundary and corner of the subject parcel. Applicant was unaware
of the existence of the Neuse Buffer being applicable to the creek referenced on the survey / plot plat, and after submission to the
City of Durham, the building permit was issued, also without reference to the Neuse Buffer Zones and the location of the proposed
structure. The approved building permit was provided to the applicant after full disclosure of the creek location, parcel identification
information and survey / plot plan, but the City of Durham also failed to identify the Neuse Buffer in their review. Applicant would
have requested a variance or changed the location of the structure had it known of the Buffer location in advance of being issued a
building permit, or after the request for a building permit was made by applicant. However, Applicant proceeded with construction
upon being granted its building permit, still without any knowledge of the Neuse Buffer zones located on the subject property
5. For Neuse, Tar -Pamlico, Jordan Lake and Goose Creek only: Did the applicant purchase the property after the effective date of the
applicable Buffer Rule and then request a variance?
Yes. However, and as specifically stated above in Paragraph 4, an initial survey and plot plan was prepared prior to requesting a
building permit from the City of Durham, which showed the location of a creek running through a rear property boundary and
corner of the subject parcel. Applicant was unaware of the existence of the Neuse Buffer being applicable to the creek referenced
on the survey / plot plat, and after submission to the City of Durham, the building permit was issued, also without reference to the
Neuse Buffer Zones and the location of the proposed structure. The approved building permit was provided to the applicant after
full disclosure of the creek location, parcel identification information and survey / plot plan, but the City of Durham also failed to
identify the Neuse Buffer in their review. Applicant would have requested a variance or changed the location of the structure had it
known of the Buffer location in advance of being issued a building permit, or after the request for a building permit was made by
applicant. However, Applicant proceeded with construction upon being granted its building permit, still without any knowledge of
the Neuse Buffer zones located on the subject property.
6. Explain how the hardship is rare or unique to the applicant's property, rather than the result of conditions that are widespread.
There was a prior residential structure located at 611 N. Elizabeth Street at the time when applicant purchased the parcel in
November 2015. Applicant has exhausted significant financial resources in the beautification of the neighborhood where the subject
parcel is located in Durham, by purchasing old homes and either re -building or tearing down and building a new structure on site, all
single family residences. This has resulted in entire neighborhoods being rejuvenated by applicant in the subject area. In this case,
since a home was located on site that applicant has later learned was also situated within the Neuse Buffer, and since applicant was
not informed by the City of Durham of the existence of the Buffer at the time of requesting their building permit with an attached
plot plan and survey, the issue raised in this request for a Major Variance is unique to this parcel, and applicant does not believe
that a building permit should have been issued, since sufficient identifying information and surveys were provided to the City in
advance of issuance of the building permit. Applicant has previously been denied building permits on other parcels where the City of
Durham finds such Buffer zones or other matters that might prevent a structure to be located on the parcel, and such did not occur
for this parcel and would have prevented the violation from occurring.
F. Deed Restrictions
By your signature in Section G of this application, you certify that all structural stormwater BMPs required by this variance shall be
located in recorded drainage easements, that the easements will run with the land, that the easements cannot be changed or
deleted without concurrence from the State, and that the easements will be recorded prior to the sale of any lot.
G. Applicant's Certification
FORM: VAR 10-2013 Page 7 of 8

I, Kristi Thayer, President, Capital City Property Solutions, Inc. (print or type name of person listed in Section A, Item 2), certify
that the information included on this permit application form is correct, that the project will be constructed in conformance with
the approved plans and that the deed restrictions in accordance with Section F of this form will be recorded with all required
permit conditions.
Signature:
Date
FORM: VAR 10-2013 Page 8 of 8

j�P'C �e ;fir c r
VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE THISPROPERTYISINAPREVIOUSLYRFCORDEDSUBUNISIONANDINTHEINTERESTOFBE4AINGCONSISTENCYW"PREVI0U5LYRECORDEDPIATS,EXmS 4G
j BEARING CONTROLWAS USED. FOR THE PURPOSES OF 21 NCAC55.I@D2 W SURVEYING PROCEDURES OF THE STAN DARDS OF PRACTICE FOR LAND SURVEYING IN
Gray Ave f NORTHCAROLINA, EXISTING BEARING CONTAOLANOTIES TOAPPROPRIATE NATURAL MONUMENTS REPLACE THE MANDATED TIE TO NORTH CAROLINA GRID.
a rn Canar St
OF OB f
® $ rn s� Q BUFFER RESTORATION HEADWALL I
9 d p _� w REPLANTING AREA
E 0 z Hjlpr p .1136 SF TOP OF B ' i ^ •�
Mall rd Ave C/1. STREAIA'1�i � .� • h
y RELIEF GARDEN
FROM SMP/ �`
RAIN GARDEN 70 SIRE BO
CAIRRFNT INFORMATION- C/L STRE
CAPITAL CITY PROPERTY OSSES P
SOLUTIONS LLC r
EDB 7638 PG 224 / ' 1 ZONE 1 /
-..,..
PB IB PO 155 •<i • i q'
PIN: 0631-05-28-2255.. S7915
PARCEL ID: 110154 • • • • • • _ ^ ..-..........'-.$'.5 164 "E
ZONING DRU- 3......URBAN EVEL .0' .
�..,. ZONE 2
ELLERBE CREEK WATERSHED Pj yO• ' N0 u3 J
FALLS LAKE STORMWATER N . : V 0 ; O, ,u_',f
REGULATORY BASIN r.10, : 1
2~ ` 611 14 aur �4 1
o. 9162 k W ri0U5 — NO CK m
6 0 1 ACRES
p "I P D SLAP RAIN GARD
r'A cq ��ARIEA- 200 5
SURFACE RUNOFF PROTECTION PIPING h •;
ROUTED TO SIAP/RAIN GARDEN VARIANCE AREA
LEGEND ZONE 1= 150 SF N79-47 21
IRON PIPE SET PROPOSED PATIO= 241 SF VARIANCE AREA W
r EXISTING IRON PIPE/RODE ZONE 2= 860 SF PROPOSED 166.6&'
g1234 STREET ADDRESS LINE TABLE CONCRETE= 509 SF S
LOT NUMBER " .,,
BOUNDARY LINE BEARING LENGTH r ,CARS 609 g�
AOJDINER OR R/W L1 56' 15 00"W 55.83 Q4� •FESS/ �� '; O rn L11g m
SETBACKS Z : �Q 0 1 a
BUFFER
NOTES: Q r
1- ALL DISTANCES ARE HORIZONTAL GROUND INUSFr. L-4833
2- METHOD PROPERTY
ISLOCATED
INA CALCULATED WNHCAD SOFTWARE METHODS. •`� �� STREAM SURVEY
3THLSPAOPEATY LS NOT LOCATED INASPECW.FLOOD HA2AR0 AREA `9
4 -SURVEY WAS PERFORMED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF ATITLE COMMITMENT. THERE MAY BE �1
EASEMENTS OR ENCUMBRANCESAPFECTING THE PROPERTY THAT ARE NOT SHOWN HEREON. / '.SU94 PREPARED FOR
5- THE STREAM WAS PELO SURVEYED TO PRODUCE THE 8UFFERS AND AREA CALCULATIO14S BUT ��-''•• THAYER CUSTOM HOMES
HAVE NOTBEEN APPROVED BYAREGULATORY OFFICIAL , yy p• `'�
,,,, •` CITY OF DURHAM, DURHAM COUNTY, INC
A I certify that this map was cl a supervision under my sTram an actual DATE: 52/2016 SCALE: 1"=30'
survey made under my supervision (deed description recorded In Deed so
-
Book 7828, page 224); that the positional accuracy Is 1I2o,000+; and 0 15 SO
TERRESTRIAL SURVEYING PC. r that this map meets the requirements of Th
'�
Professional Land Surveying 1 Li?ansa C-3963 ) Land Surveying in North Carolina (21 NCA 56s�QQpb6LLY urrsrnQro
38131100dowl Drive 1 Ra laigh, Norkh Carolina 2773 This Xth day of XYX, 201 B. 6srreo POR REvrEYr ONLY
p. 919,2194278 t e. info TerrWrial3urvegiag.tom ► PREU AINLARY PLAT OAR GRAPH 1 inch = 30 11,
ELIZABETHSTN-61 1—STREAM—LETTER, DWG