20080529 Ver 1_Emails_20080502

RE: Baum Baldwin Peak, Chatham County
Subject: RE: Baum Baldwin Peak, Chatham County
From: "Nikki Thomson" <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 10:58:10 -0400
To: "Matthews, Monte K SAW" <[e-mail]>
CC: "Ian McMillan" <[e-mail]>
Good morning Monte.
Thanks for being willing to handle this via email.
With respect to relocating the main road at Crossing B around the stream channel, there are several obstacles
in the way.
The first is the previously mentioned Power Line Easement. If you will notice on the plans, while there are 2
proposed road crossings of that easement, they are located a significant distance away from the Tower
Structures (labeled as "Structure #54, #55, etc.). These are per the requirements of Progress Energy that we
have discussed previously. That is what makes those road crossings of the easement acceptable to Progress
Energy. Relocating the Main Road to completely avoid the need for Stream Crossing "B" would require that the
road parallel the easement and be in close proximity to Structures #51 - #54, which would be unacceptable to
Progress Energy.
Additionally, as was noted in our original application, the location of the Main Road entrance from Bynum Ridge
Road that necessitates Crossing A and Crossing B was pre-determined by NC DOT regulations for intersection
spacing, sight distance, radius of curvature, etc. To attempt to have the road "swing" far enough to the eastern
side of the property to avoid Crossing B would require essentially the loss of lots 18, 19 and 20 as the "termini"
for the Main Road has been established by NC DOT (i.e. the applicant cannot relocate the entrance road).
There can't be "sharp" turns on subdivision roads as they would be deemed "unsafe;" therefore, the only way to
have appropriate "curvature" in the Main Road and completely avoid Stream B would be to build the road right
through Lots 18, 19 and 20. This would significantly and negatively affect this development. These lots are
intended to be a minimum of 10 acres and while the shifting of the road has the potential to make lots 1, 4 and 5
significantly larger, the applicant would be left with unusable property that would have been former lots 18, 19
and 20 (i.e. they would be too small to be consistent with the rest of the development). There is also the
additional concern of being able to market a development that has 3 extraordinarily large lots while the
remaining lots would be relatively and significantly smaller, and in essence, undevelopable, due to the size and
location near the Power Line Easement.
There is also the difficultly in the significant amount of clearing and grading that would be required in order to
shift the road closer to the Power Line Easement. The currently proposed location of Crossing "B" is in a
relatively flat/low area on the landscape. The topography at the origin point of that stream is significantly steep
which would require massive amounts of clearing and grading in order to construct a road. There would also be
a significant amount of cut/fill in order to make the roadway grades work. This is not in keeping with the general
plan for this development and is something that Chatham County Sediment and Erosion Control would be less
than likely to approve (the mass grading/clearing).
Bridging the proposed Stream Crossing "B" was never seriously entertained as the cost of engineering a bridge
to span an intermittent/unimportant stream channel was prohibitive when compared with the economic feasibility
of the development as a whole.
hope this better explains the reasoning for not proposing the roadway to completely avoid the stream and the
proposal to instead cross at the location as identified in our April 25th revised response (i.e. removed the
bi-furcation of the roadway and reduced the overall crossing). Please don't hesitate to contact me if I can be of
any further assistance.
Nikki
From: Matthews, Monte K SAW [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 3:43 PM
I of2 5/21/2008 12:59 PM
RE: Baum Baldwin Peak, Chatham County
To: Nikki Thomson
Cc: Ian McMillan
Subject: Baum Baldwin Peak, Chatham County
Nikki,
Please reference your recent PCN for the above project. On 4-15-08 1 sent an incomplete notification
requesting additional information on avoidance and minimization. I have received your response dated April 25,
2008, and still have a few questions. In an effort to keep time delays to a minimum, I'm hoping we can clarify
these items over email.
First, thanks for minimizing the roadway impact by reducing the median at the stream crossing.
The other item, potentially avoiding the stream altogether, might need additional justification. The information
provided in your response letter focused on the easement right-of-way and the limitations it presents. However,
it appears that the roadway proposes to cross this easement in two other locations. I'll need further information
on why the road cannot cross it a third time, or why this crossing can't take the place of one of the other (if only
two encroachments are allowed). If you think a site visit is warranted, just let me know.
Thanks,
Monte
2 of 2 5/21/2008 12:59 PM