20130428 Ver 2_401 Application_20170317

Montalvo, Sheri A
From:
Montalvo, Sheri A
Sent:
Thursday, March 09, 2017 11:06 AM
To:
[e-mail]
Subject:
Hillier-Keziah Stream Restoration
Attachments:
Agent Authorization Form.pdf
Importance: High
John,
We received the PCN and fee for the above. Page 10 of 10 has been left unsigned.
Could you please email me a signed page and I have attached an agent authorization
form for your use if needed if you are going to be signing this page. Once received
can take the project off hold and forward it through the review process.
Thanks
Sheri Montalvo
Administrative Assistant
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
919-807-6303 (office)
919 807-6494 (fax)
sheri. montalvo(a-ncdenr.gov
Physical: 512 N. Salisbury St., Ste 942-D, Raleigh, NC 27604
Mailing: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Nothing Compares
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
1

SAMPLE AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOT NO. _ _-NA PLAN NO. NA PARCEL ID: 8844486139 Db 422, Pg 77
STREET ADDRESS: qq�l uffman L?ne
ton,,NC_
Please print:
Property Owner: Hillier-Keziah Family LLC / John Gilham, Maqaging Member
The undersigned, registered property owners of the above noted property, do hereby authorize
John T. Soule
(Contractor / Agent)
of HARP (Habitat Assessme"t and Restmtion Professionals)
(Name of consulting firm)
to act on my behalf and take all actions necessary for the processing, issuance and acceptance of
this permit or certification and any and all standard and special conditions attached.
Property Owner's Address (if different than property above):
2026 Chapel Hill E�q,4dp NC 27215
................. -
Telephone: NA
We hereby certify the above information subn*dtted in this application is true and accurate to the
best of our knowledge.
Autho ed Sig tore
Date: N/i,
Authorized Signature
Date:

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a, Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
0 Yes No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
Q Yes d No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFW$ Field Office you have contacted.
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Crit i
Habitat?
U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service list of threatened and endangered species in Alainance County, North
Carolina.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?EX) N o
0 Yes
6b, What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
'rhe NCDENR has designated the watershed that includes the site as Class WSV; NSW. The endangered
,Sn4-ri*-,Q lio rint- not ieipnrifv nrnti'-rti-rI fkh th-,ii inhibit nt nr ne,,ir ths­"itt-
..... ..... .. ... .
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
0 Yes ONo
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?
Site is a previously impacted area from pond construdtion (ca. 70 years ago) and OtheTconstuction.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain?
es No
8t If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
Thi western portion of the site, along the tributary to Ingles Branch !Back Creek, is located in the 100 -year
floodplain. No significant changes in floodplain storage or floodway conveyance regulated by FEMA are
anticipated.
Sc. What sources) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
FE M website and inforniation provided by City of Burlington officials.
John T Soule, HARP
10 March 2017
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
plicant/Agent's Signature
Date
(A9 rs signatwo is vNid orgy it an authorization
letter from the icant Is prvAded)
Page 10 of 10

0
HABITAT ASSESSMENT & RESTORATION PROFESSIONALS
301 McCullough Drive, 4`h Floor
Charlotte, North Carolina 28262
Office: 704.841.2841
Fax: [phone]
email: [e-mail]
www.habitatassessment.com
Transmittal & Authorization to Represent Owner
Date: 3/2/2017
V
To: David Bailey
[e-mail]
From: Randy Forsythe, Ph.D.
HARP, Inc.
Subject: PCN Application for NW39 for Road Crossing within NW27
This memorandum provides signed authorization for Habitat Assessment and Restoration Professionals
to represent the land owner of the referenced property of interest for the sole purpose of submitting PCN
application attached to this correspondence.
In late October of 2016 you visited the parcel of land at the corner of Univ. Drive and Church St. in
western Burlington that is subject to a stream and wetlands restoration action under a NW27 permit
(SAW -2013-00847). During that visit we discussed the manner in which under the authorized NW27
permit one of two of the pre-existing stream crossings could be restored to preserve the owner's historic
and reasonable access to, and within, the owner's acreage. While our permit application clearly noted
that the pre-existing Glenview Drive crossing location on the crest of the failing dam would not likely
preserve the owner's historic right of access from US Hwy 70 (Church St.) due to its proximity to the
major intersection of University Drive and Church St. and thus needed to be relocated to a more easterly
location (the exact position of which would be dependent on DOT approval) it was your judgment that
such relocation was not authorized. This interpretation as we have been told is due to the existence of
future designs being promulgated by the owner, to use that crossing potentially at a future time to access
partials that would be developed for commercial purposes on the southern side of the restoration corridor.
In the owner's view the submission of designs that would at some time in the future have converted the
use of the restored private road crossing to a private road intended to provide access to commercial lands
does not invalidate the stated purpose of this crossing in the original permit application. The crossing
was and still is ALSO needed for its historical uses. However, since the restoration was in an advanced
stated of construction at the time the USACOE rescinded the authorization to complete his crossing at
the preferred location the owners, at a loss of some additional 90 days of delay and approximately
$200,000 in additional costs, have reconstructed the private drive at its approximate original location so
as to finish the restoration work, and complete its obligations under the NW27 permit. However, the
project acreage now lacks the historic access it has traditionally had from US 70, and as per your request
during your visit in October the more easterly new access road crossing is being applied for under a

V,
separate PCN for a NW39. Without this crossing the loss of historic use of the lands is a foregone
conclusion, and the land owner can simply not afford to build a $400,000 bridge to recapture practical
use of his/her lands. The project taken as a whole has considerable uplift in the quantity and quality of
jurisdictional waters compared to pre-existing conditions, thus maintaining consistency with all
requirements of a NW27 project.
Secondly this correspondence requests a extension of the NW27 permit until this matter is resolved as it
is impractical to remove sediment and erosion control measures, invoke a second phase of temporary
impacts, unnecessarily remediate transition elements in the crossing area, or start the monitoring on a
stream buffer system which lacks final definition.
Sincerely,
Randall Forsythe, Ph.D.
Senior Associate Scientist, HARP, Inc.
By the Signature provided below I, John Gilliam, Managing Member, Hillier Keziah Family LLC, hereby
authorize HARP, Inc to represent us in this application.
�� &==== _�-7 -/I
Y'a'ure Date

0,F \,NjArc,,
I IL-Jl�l�7� 9
oliiii��
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
A.
1.
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Fo
Applicant Information
Processing
-
01
MAR 0 :� 2017 101
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps: ❑X Section 404 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 39 or General Permit (GP) number:
AT 0 Permit
ER F'ERMIT7IN
1 c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑X Yes
❑ No
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
Q 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 ❑X No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ❑X 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
❑X No
1 g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
❑ Yes
❑X No
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes
❑X No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Hillier-Keziah Family LLC, Stream Restoration
2b.
County:
Alamance
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Burlington
2d.
Subdivision name:
NA
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
NA
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Hillier Keziah Family LLC
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
Dd Bk 2962 Dd Pg 0603
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
John Gilliam
3d.
Street address:
2026 Chapel Hill Rd.
3e.
City, state, zip:
Burlington, NC 27215
3f.
Telephone no.:
3g. Fax no.:
3h. Email address:
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is:
❑ Agent ❑ Other, specify:
4b. Name:
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
4d. Street address:
4e. City, state, zip:
4f. Telephone no.:
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:
John T Soule
5b. Business name
if applicable):
Habitat Assessment and Restoration Professionals
5c. Street address:
301 McCullough Drive, 4th Floor
5d. City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28262
5e. Telephone no.:
704-841-2841
5f. Fax no.:
704-841-2447
5g. Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 10

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1 a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
8844486139 Db 422, Pg 77
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
I Latitude: 36.079575 Longitude: -79.5247
1c. Property size:
acres 10.25
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
Ingle Branch / Back Creek
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water.
WS -V, NSW
2c. River basin: 3030002
Cape Fear
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:
Stream restoration corridor as per written NW 27 permit. Approximately 300 acres, 120 foot wide corridor.
3b. List the total estimated acrbage of all existing wetlands on the property: ca. 0.57
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 1,359 feet
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
Provide essential connection accross Restoration Corridor for adjacent landowners. Two lane road
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including #4fype of equipment to be used:
Unsuitable soil will be removed using track hoe and dump truck. A suitable base to be provided and compacted using afore mentioned equipment and compactor.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (includingall riot phases)in the past?
❑X Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
❑ Preliminary ❑X Final
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Michael T. Brame
Agency/Consultant Company: ECS Carolinas, LLP
I Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
08/02/2013
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
0 Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
NWP 27 Aquatic Habitat Restoration, Establishment, and Enhancement Activities
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes © No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑ Wetlands X❑ 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.
Wetland impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
2b.
Type of impact
2c.
Type of wetland
2d.
Forested
2e.
Type of jurisdiction
Corps (404,10) or
DWQ (401, other)
2f.
Area of
impact
(acres)
W1 v
hoose one v
Choose one v
Yes/No v
v
W2 v
Choose one v
Choose one v
Yes/No v
v
W3 v
Choose one v
Choose one v
Yes/No v
v
W4
Choose one v
Choose one v
Yes/No v
v
W5 v
Choose one v
Choose one v
Yes/No v
v
W6 v
Choose one v
Choose one v
Yes/No v
v
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
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.
Stream impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
3b.
Type of impact
3c.
Stream name
3d.
Perennial (PER) or
intermittent (INT)?
3e.
Type of
jurisdiction
3f.
Average
stream
width
feet
3g.
Impact
length
(linear
feet)
S1 P v
Culvert v
UT to Back Creek
PER v
Corps v
4
45
S2 v
Choose one v
v
v
S3 v
Choose one v
v
v
S4 v
Choose one v
v
v
S5 v
Choose one v
v
v
S6 v
Choose one v
v
v
3h. Total stream and tributary
impacts
45
3i. Comments:
See attached plan as per requested.
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

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 individualiv list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary
4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable)
4c.
Type of impact
4d.
Waterbody
type
4e.
Area of impact (acres)
O1 v
Choose one v
Choose v
O2 v
Choose one v
Choose v
03 1.,
Choose one ..
Choose \.
O4 v
Choose one v
Choose v
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, the complete the chart below.
5a.
Pond ID number
5b.
Proposed use or
purpose of pond
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e.
Upland
(acres)
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded Filled
Excavated
P1
Choose one v
P2
Choose one v
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. Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar -Pamlico ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman ❑X Other:
6b.
Buffer Impact
number —
Permanent (P) or
Tem T
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Stream name
6e.
Buffer
mitigation
required?
6f.
Zone 1
impact
(square
feet)
6g.
Zone 2
impact
(square
feet
B1 P v
Road Crossing
UT to InglesBack Creek
No V,
B2
Yes/No IV
B3
Yes/No v
B4
Yes/No v
B5 v
Yes/No v
B6 No,
Yes/No .�
6h. Total Buffer Impacts:
6i. Comments: Lake Jordan
Page 5 of 10

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Road bed elevation adjusted the max allowable to minimize foot print of road fill for culvert.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Culvert to be installed prior to completion of restoration. Pipe and headwall 12" to 18" below stream bed.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
❑ Yes ❑X No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
❑ Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Quantity:
Quantity:
Quantity:
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In4leu 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:
Choose one
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
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

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
E] YesX❑ No
buffer mitigation?
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.
6c.
6d.
6e.
Zone
Reason for impact
Total impact
Multiplier
Required mitigation
(square feet)
(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 7 of 10

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
Yes ❑ No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
This is a stream restoration project. Impervious surfaces will not be
x❑ Yes ❑ No
created.
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
68.6 %
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 overall management plan includes the NW 39 crossing as part of subbasin #4, which together with the
other 9 subbasins are required to meet the City of Burlington Stormwater post construction ordinance for
Quality (1" 85% TSS) and Quantity (1 yr -24 hr storm). The plan is part of a larger TRC plan set
currently under review.
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
Michael Layne, PE
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which localgovernment's 'urisdiction is thisproject?
Burlington, Alamance County, NC
❑X Phase II
❑ NSW
3b. Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑X 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: NA
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No NA
attached?
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No NA
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
El 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'iequirements 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
❑ Yes ❑ No
letter.)
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 EX No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
El Yes 0 No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the abov"uestions, 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
El 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.
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.
This is a stream restoration project and sewage will not be created.
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

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
YX No
El Yes
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
-
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service list of threatened and endangered species in Alamance County, North
Carolina.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ❑x No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
The NCDENR has designated the watershed that includes the site as Class WSV; NSW. The endangered
cne�iec list rine. not identifv nrntectPtl Eich cneriec that inhshit wstPrhndiec at nr near the cite
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 ❑X No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation cProperties 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?
Site is a previously impacted area from pond construdtion (ca. 70 years ago) and other constuction.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA -designated 100 -year floodplain?
❑X Yes ❑ No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
The western portion of the site, along the tributary to Ingles Branch Back Creek, is located in the 100 -year
floodplain. No significant changes in floodplain storage or floodway conveyance regulated by FEMA are
anticipated.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
FEMA website and information provided by City of Burlington officials.
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Date
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization
letter from the applicant isprovided.)
Page 10 of 10

I Begin forwarded message:
From: Michael Layne <mIayne(c-ci.burl ington.nc.us>
Subject: Applicable Stormwater Design Manual
Date: March 2, 2017 at 12:35:27 PM EST
To: Ed Tam <etamabwdre.com>
Dear Ed,
In response to your inquiry regarding which of the NC Stormwater regulatory design guidelines are applicable
to the University Dr. & Church St. parcel, please know that the site's stormwater management plan has been
reviewed and conditionally approved pending final TRC approval relating to NCDOT matters. Thus all future
reviews for additions and/or changes will reference back to the stormwater rules in effect at the time these
plans were initially submitted for review (2009 NC BMP Guidelines). The only caveat on this would be if
progress on the site ceases and all permits, including preliminary plan approval expire. This would then
require integration of the stormwater rules in place at the time the new permits vrere requested.
I hope this clarifies your teams concerns.
Michael Layne
Michael Layne
Field Operations Manager
City of Burlington
Water Resources Department
1103 5. Mebane St.
Burlington, NC 27215
Office [phone]
Mobile [phone]
rnlayneOci.burlington.nc.us
(I a
Please note that any and all correspondence to or from this email address is subject to No-th � a-o'ina Fublic Pero -ds La:: and maybe disclosed to thud
parties.

Width of
Stream Buffer
112.71 ft
/ End .� Reconstructed
,l 'Glenview' Dr.
f Lake Jordan 30' December 2016
! ^�, Riparian Buffer Limit
WNW � \ Lake Jordan 50'
>1 '� Riparian Buffer Limit
u i
� m
da
4 C
o4.
=
JX c
m
2:1 Embankments
Native Vegetation -
ft2
Al.
;.1117 f t r: a
\'--
2:1 Embankments
Crossing Location Need-
ed to tie to new DOT
'approved' signalized
Intersection
--------------- Start
PCN NW39 Pending I
Floodplain areas designed to i
meet bottomland wetland criteria
i Property Boundary
�7 $
Impervious
Area + 11494 ft2S �. 4734
,
I Gin i
7000 ft,; % •...,
wsT6itk MGW-a-WAY rwsewrt
�,.
Native Vegetation -'� - "�"/� � � �
I Project Area/ -1014 ft of EIC Perennial Stream Restoration
C-120ftofC/BPerennial 40 ft
Stream Restoration J/
r -300 ft of EIC Perennial Stream Restoration 'As Built' Conditions 2/14/2017
•1434 Li nea r Feet of Stream Restoration
/ -0.94 Ac res ofWelland Restoration/Creation
-3.5 Acres of B uffer Restorati on
Q
6o83 ft2 a
d
N Scale 1 : 900
50 0 50 100 150 200 feet
H A R F) Hillier Keon Family LLC Figure Ad -2&3 Map of Restored Jurisdictional
Burlington Restoration revised
HABITAT ASSESSMENT 8 RESTORATION PROFESSIONALS Project Streams and Wetlands with Buffer Zones 1 & 2 2/14/2017

J�
J— _ — — -- --- --- —
/aaaaaaaaaaae
M a>t-■■tint am-f-MMENNaaaeae
. c \ SS SS -- \
Ir-
7—v-7—
On
a a a a a a a a a a a N
� „ •e 'v v v a v a v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v a v n v v v� /�r ' \ � � I
PARCEL 88"582481 '
..Co v v a a a a v v v v v v v a v v a v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v a v v d,>g v v a v v a v \ \ GLENWOOD PROPERTIE818t1RLINGTON '
O.B. 1371 PG. 385
j a a a u a a a a Stabilizing (>85%) Vegetation Cover for
- v v v v v v v v v v v v v a v v v v v fi'-v n v v v v v v a a v v`;a v v
Post Construction Erosion Control � — -- .
v a a v a a v v v c- � v a v v a v a v a v v v a v v avv m v v v v v v v v v a v v v v v v l �� � ---- _
t/a p e v a a a a c a a a a a a a u' a a a a a a 6(.a a a a a a a a a a o a 6 a a a a a ii`a/ - s p a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a 0 a a a a v\' `- SS
L
Approx. Overhea
a a �S
'meq n 0 a a o a a o 0 o a o o v o o a o o o a a a a o a a a a a o a a o o a t7 a a a a o D --l— [:--L a a a a a a a,* a a a a a a a a a a a a a 13 a o o a� _�,/
Reconstructed
Driveway
Crossing
° 4...
---------------------------------- tw°'•M na_..---�
nr------------------------------ all a>• a1
*---------------
° fl----------------YYY-0.8acres Legend of Non -aquatic Community Flora Tables
° /------------- v v v w . rr
�+ \ PIEDMONT/MOUNTAIN SWAMP FOREST � rrrr , -0.3 acres
NW39 Request for,
Crossing to
connect to DOT
Approved New
Intersection
EX. HOUSE
4
M1
Scale
50 0 50 100 150 feet
Oamrmoa Name
Scientme Hama
canow
American Elm
Sweet-gim
LiquidambarsoTsofflua,
American elm
Ulmus ame.Moana
Willow oak
Querousphallos
ovtu-uup tach
qutfruubj,""
Cherrybark oak
Querouspagoda
Swamp chestnut oak Quercusmichau�i
Red maple
Goer rubrum
Black willow
Sa U rnWa
Swamp cottonwood
Populus heterophylla
Green ash
FraadnuspennsWvanioa
tradensaay:
Persimmon
Winged aim
Wrauv Alata
Possumhaw holly
nexdecidus
Carolina holly
Ilex ambigua
Ironwood
Carpinue oar cLU2iana
Woa ft viaaa:
Poison ivy
Crossvine
7bidoodenderon radicans
Bignonia capreolata
Catbrier
Bmilaxspp.
Karla:
Llaard tail
Saururus oernuus
sedge
Carex app.
Jewelweed
Impatiens eapensis
False nettle
Boehmeria cylindrwa
Threewa sedge
IDuliahium arundinaceum
Atamasoo lily
JZepb8=thes atemasoo
Bluntleafbedst-i
Galium obtusum
C- -2.0 acres
Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Cnmmnn Nam.
Witch hazel
American Sycamore
alderTM
American Elm
Virlania willow
Green ash
Button bush
River birch
Strawbe bush
S ar er
American beauty bus
Willow oak
Nine bark
Water oak
High bush blueberry
T i o lar
Possonhaw
Black walnut
Red chokeche
Shakbark hickory
Winterbe
Bitternut hickorV
Swamp rose
H one locust
Persimmon
FIac e
American hazelnut
S icebush
Easterred cedar
Deciduous holl
American beech
aw- w
Paw-,f
Black oak
ENote:Table 4 for Planting Details forch Native Plant Community
Riparian Stream Banks
Berms, Bars & Levees
Co mmon Name
Scientific Name
Yellowroot
Xanthorhiza
Coralberry
Sr mphoricarpos
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
Soutliern arrowwood
6ihurnurn dentatum
American hazelnut
C'orvlu.s arnericana
Christmas fern
Polystich,—
Coralberry
Symphoric—pos
River oats
Chasmanthium latifolium
Sensitive fern
Onoclea sensihilis
White wood aster
Eurvhia divaricata
Wild comfrey
Cynoglossurn virginiunuru
Siky Willow
Isalix sericea
■■■■■■ -0.1 acres
■ ■
Riparian/Wetland Scrub/Shrub
o mmon Name
Scientific Name
Coralberry
Symphoricaryos
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
Sikv Willow
Salix sericea
Aht
HARP)17" Hillier Keziah Family LLC Figure Ado. Native Riparian Planting Map of
Burlington Kestorationrovieed
SMENT OFESSIONALS
HABITAT ASSES8. RESTORATION PRProject Proposed Restoration (60% Design Benchmark) 2l 14/ 2017

PRECAST CO
NCDOT STI
48" ADS N-12 OR EQI
FACE BEVEL TO FG SLI
KEVAN ANDREWS, P.E.
3219 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE
CHARLOTTE, NC
704,258.3383
[e-mail]
0 10 20
SCALE: P-20'
BURLINGTON WEST DATE
CULVERT SYSTEM HILLER ROAD CULVERT 11.15,15
PLAN VIEW EXHIBIT 1-A ]OB NO.
SHEET 17
OF 3

7.5%
PRECAST CONC. ENDWALL -
FOR 6,0' PIPE
NCDOT STD, DTL, 838,80
72" CONTECH ULTRA FLO OR EQUAL
ALUMINIZED STEEL CULVERT
INSTALL WITH V INVERT BURY
48" ADS N-12 OR EQUAL
FACE BEVEL TO FG SLOPE
620
DATUM ELEV 610
KEVAN ANDREWS, P.E.
3219 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE
CHARLOTTE,NC
704.258.3363
ka ndrews@a ndrews-mcarthur,com
00
NII
J
,.� TOP B/C HILLIER DRIVE, TYP,
N FG CENTERLINE HILLIER DRIVE, TYP,
J
W
a48" ADS N-12 OR EQUAL
/ FACE BEVEL TO FG SLOPE
////
2,5%
21+50 6' 13' 13' 22+00
A
FG CHANNEL, FOREGROUND (10' HEADWALL),TYP,
FG CHANNEL, WINGWALL (2' HEADWALL), TYP,
STA 22+35,78
EL 623,0
22+50
0 5 10
rmm%m"
SCALE: V-10' H, V
DATE
BURLINGTON WEST HILLER ROAD CULVERT
CULVERT SYSTEM 11,15,16
EAST END VIEW EXHIBIT 1-B )OB NO.
SHEET 2
OF 3

620
DATUM ELEV 610
KEVAN ANDREWS, P.E.
3219 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE
CHARLOTTE, NC
704.25&3363
kand rews@andrewsmcarthur,com
C/L HILLER DR.
45'
37'
-------------
48" ADS N-12 OR EQUAL
FACE BEVEL TO FG SLOPE
FG CENTERLINE
CHANNEL (UPON
COMPLETION)
0 s 10
SCALE: V-10' H, V
DATE
BURLINGTON WEST
CULVERT SYSTEM HILLER ROAD CULVERT 11,15,15
SECTION A -A (SHEET 2) EXHIBIT 1-C JOB NO.
SHEET 3
of 3

Homewood, Sue
From:Bailey, David E SAW <[e-mail]>
Sent:Friday, October 07, 2016 12:07 PM
To:Randy Forsythe
Cc:Karri Cecil Blackmon; [e-mail]; Homewood, Sue; Wheeler, Tracey L SAW
Subject:RE: \[EXTERNAL\] Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: USACOE communication
Attachments:C-2.0.pdf
Randy,

Thanks again for the information you sent Monday pertaining to the Hillier property in Elon. Please see the attached site plan I
received from the City of Burlington regarding the overall development planned in the area. Based on the attached information
(new to our office), and discussions with my office and Sue Homewood (NCDWR), it is clear that the use of the proposed access
drive has changed from that of a driveway (narrow/gravel) to one supporting residential and commercial use (paved, more than
one lane width, etc.). The challenges are the following:

1) Our original NWP 27 verification did not authorize any fill in waters for an access driveway. Rather, the driveway was located in
uplands (on the pond berm), and maintaining that driveway did not require any discharge of dredged or fill material in waters of
the US. The current proposal does propose to place fill material in waters of the US for a crossing (Hillier Drive), either within the
limits of the old ponds or the limits of the new stream/wetland restoration area (depending on your perspective);

2) Maintaining access is certainly justifiable by permit, possibly even via NWP 27 if it can be shown that the new proposed crossing
location benefits the restoration area and would lead to increased aquatic services and function. However, our District would
consider maintaining access relative to the previously existing facility, which in this case was a one lane driveway; width of the
existing crossing over the bypass "ditch" is an appropriate comparison. The road crossing proposed appears to support two lanes,
provides access to multiple commercial parcels or subparcels, and is a through road (Hillier Drive) between South Church Street
and University Drive. The 40' crossing we discussed previously relates to the culvert designed through the old pond berm and was
based on the height of the berm and associated fill slope. Length of this culvert was not evaluated as part of our permit because it
was located in an upland area and thus did not require our authorization. Since the alternate location proposed crossing does go
through waters of the US, we would evaluate travel way width and associated culvert length. Typically, one lane driveways require
less than 40' culvert length (see existing crossing over the bypass "ditch" as appropriate comparison).

Given the above, NWP 27 cannot authorize Hillier Drive as proposed. Instead, a NWP 39 (or possibly NWP 14) is the appropriate
authorization. We would look at the crossing as a separate single and complete project from that of the stream/wetland
restoration since the project purposes are different. One challenge in this case is that the stream/wetland restoration is not
complete; however, it seems prudent that impacts proposed for the NWP 39 be relative to the restored stream system rather
than to the old pond beds (long since filled). The next steps would be to submit a new PCN and plans for the road crossing alone.

Related to changes to the stream/wetland restoration authorized by NWP 27, and per paragraph 2 of my 10/3/2016 email, please
also submit updated plan sheets as we discussed last Friday, including Figure Ad-2 (dated 6/10/2013), Figure Ad-3 (dated
6/9/2013), and Figure Ad-4 (6/7/2013). Updates should include any changes of the centerline of the restoration channel, wetland
areas/cells, restoration/buffer breaks, etc. I recommend that you include the outline of the new proposed crossing in the NWP 27
plans, but note that the crossing is proposed for authorization under separate cover.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

-Dave Bailey

---
David E. Bailey, PWS
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
1

CE-SAW-RG-R
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Phone: [phone], Ext. 30.
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

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: Randy Forsythe \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 4:09 AM
To: Bailey, David E SAW <[e-mail]>; Karri Cecil Blackmon <[e-mail]>;
[e-mail]
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: USACOE communication

David (Bailey),

Thank you for taking the extra time to speak with us after your inspection of the Church & Univ. Drive restoration site. As a
followup this meeting and a precursor to additional detailed engineering information we will forward later this week regarding the
relocation of Glenview Drive I thought it would be best to update you on the progress of the restoration. I'll be copying Sue
Homewood NCDWQ on this, but don't have her email at hand presently.

At the current time neither the upper or lower-tie have been completed. Base, daily regular flow, and stormflow up to the
OHWM stage are still running in the jurisdictional by-pass channel. Large storms, however, like the 5-7' event that predated your
visit, over top separation levees on site and flood into our restoration zone. At the time of your visit the zone was flooded, but we
assure you these waters are overbank and dewatering discharges that have plagued and intermittently delayed our restoration
efforts for the last 12-15 months. Until we reach the restoration milestones established by the permit our continuing channel
work is covered under the expressed impacts only to the pre-restoration jurisdictional waters identified in the permit (see
attached). Regarding your concerns over the relocation of a historical road crossing discussed as a necessary feature within our
permit; this was already assessed as an impact in the permit to the preexisting open waters (see attached figure). For technical
reasons the location was only approximated in the original permit. Its construction is now the next major imminent step in our
site work (2 weeks out) and for a host of technical reasons, must come before, not after, the establishment of the new
jurisdictional stream. As no jurisdictional stream yet exists at the future crossing location, in our view the only applicable
impacted waters are to the prior open waters as they were outlined and portrayed in the plan.

2. We have only completed approximately 60-70% of the stream restoration work. At a minimum:

1. we have approximately 250' of channel that has to be graded into its final location, profile, and
dimension.

2. we have approximately 900 feet of the future stream channel banks needing to have their bank
stabilization measures finalized.

3. we have inflection riffle sections that need to have their riffle armor installed.

4. we have approximately 1/3 of the grading yet to be completed in the out 30' of the riparian buffers and
wetlands.
2

5. We have to build into the outside perimeter of the riparian buffer a series of runoff capture swales and
level spreaders to return all upland stormwater to sheet flow outside our 50' buffers in a manner consistent with the NC
Stormwater buffer restoration credit program

6. we have to oversee the relocation of Glenview Drive across the riparian buffer and restoration channel
prior to the completion of the new jurisdictional stream.

7. we have to remove lower construction sediment erosion BMP.

8. we have to construct a protective sediment erosion control check dam at the end of old diversion by-pass
channel

9. Move base and daily storm flow into the new channel around the end of the year

10. Install a groundwater seepage reclamation layer into the base of the old diversion by-pass channel

11. Install longitudinal low permeability barriers into old by-pass channel to eliminate the hazard of
subsurface piping and sinkhole formation along old by-pass channel for perpetuity.

12. Fill the remainder of the by-pass channel incrementally from the upstream to down stream end

13. Remove temporary check dam and construct the final old channel plug

14. Grade the final 50' of channel at the lower time-in to transition to the DOT rip-rap apron upstream of the
Univ. Drive DOT culvert.

15. Finalize stream bank plantings for the upper and lower tie in zones.

16. Install the remaining 30% of the buffer zone native riparian and wetland plant communities.

Until all this work has been completed in a satisfactory manner and inspected by the HARP project manager to be in conformance
with our permit guidelines it is open to continuing modifications. Impacts to all pre-existing jurisdiction waters from this
restoration work were clearly laid forth in the addendum materials submitted in June of 2013. Impacts for the stream and
wetlands restoration work were referenced to the pre-existing jurisdictional waters, NOT to waters yet to be restored, or in the
case of the proposed relocation of the existing Glenview Drive road crossing to waters NEVER intended to be made jurisdictional
within the approved restoration project.

As further clarification regarding your permitting concerns over the road crossing the following points seems germane:

* The relocation of Glenview Drive only affects the impacted waters identified in the original permit (see Fig. 1Ad,
6/1/2013).

* The relocated historical road crossing is purely to maintain historical uses set forth in land deeds to owners of existing and
any future subdivided parcels (dating back to the deeds recorded in Alamance Co from the late 60's); Thus the Glenview Drive
stream crossing does NOT represent a new or different use, as was expressly laid forth in the initial restoration plan documents.

3

* The relocation was shown only in an approximate location within the lower pond due to the need to have the final
location of the relocation approved and constructed in an acceptable manner to DOT's current guidelines for egress to and from
US Hwy 70 (in close proximity to the 4 lane divided Hwy. Intersection with University Drive).

* Historically both east and west bound traffic on Hwy 70 had right of egress to Glenview Drive.

* To maintain that deeded historical right of egress, the relocation has to be moved to the east to a new signalized
interchange directly across from the main entrance to the Twin Lakes Continuing Care Retirement Center. Our initial plans did not
have the foresight to get this exactly to its agreed upon final location but knowing this uncertainty were annotated as
approximate.

* It should be noted that the impacts (and purposes there to) to the existing jurisdictional open waters (ponds) were
expressly disclosed and tabulated in the documents and remain unchanged. Efforts were taken to explain in the documents that
the land owners requesting the restoration permit had a legal obligation to include within restoration permit the relocation of the
access road in order to maintain contractual obligations that by deed 'run with the land'.

Should additional permits be needed to complete these contractual obligations please let us know. The work that is in progress
still faces huge challenges and the site is under considerable environmental stress. Any delays at this 11 hour in our construction
schedule will potentially lead to catastrophic and costly consequences.

Randy Forsythe
lead environmental scientist and restoration specialist
HARP Inc.

PS as always I am available day or night by phone at: 704-231-5678

4

y�
T
Ln
N
O
0
0
I
Ln
N
O
i
0
U
i
a
c
.3
0
0
i
0
Q
M
Ln
N
O
E
0
j
O
I # / ROADWAY WIDENING IN PARCEL 8844491773
I J
THIS AREA BY OTHERS, I m
SEE PLANS BY OTHERS. LUTHERAN RETIREMENT I n I O
MINISTRIES
4 SEE ROADWAY WIDENING D.B. 885 PG. 54 I V
PARCEL 8844491773 I / / PLANS BY DAVENPORT PARCEL 8844581821 I U I W PARCEL 8844582727
LUTHERAN RETIREMENT / ENGINEERING FOR ROADWAY LUTHERAN RETIREMENT Q TONY GRISWOLD &
MINISTRIES INPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE MINISTRIES Q C/0 TONY GRISWOLD
D.B. 885 PG. 54 / — as — RIGHT-OF-WAY D.B. 468 PG. 806 lit*I D.B. 554 PG. 445
S. CHURCH SIRE _
w �
VV
AL w xx — — — —
-- -- w
ROADWAY PAVEMENT OVERLAY
IN THIS AREA BY OTHERS,
SEE PLANS BY OTHERS.
I
s-
- r
o
®— SS SS ' oliG _ 111111 111111 oo
SS
\ w-
/ 50' R W 60 -R� I o = PAR L 884 2 -
/ / i I J • _ — ENW
l I II I I Q PROPERTIES/BU ON
D.B. 1371 P .3 -
L6/ ��FUTURE o J
I — S
/ z /
■ S DEVICE FUTURE ��_� _ p T� SS —
� SWM/ 4 2 0
/ DEVICE-
/ / CO \�--DRIVE
CO S�R� /q STWM
STWM MMONv /ONi DEVICE CONSERVATION
PARCEL 8844376859 — \ DEVICE gREq i COMMON AREA
ZP NO. 166, LLC
D.B. 2395 PG. 459
LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE
VICINITY SKETCH (NOT TO SCALE)
Site Data
RANDOM LANE OUTFALL
30' SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT Jurisdiction:
DB. 529 PG. 368 Burlington, INC
Parcel Info:
Portion of:
PARCEL 8844586249
JAMES C. PARKER &
KARON S. PARKER
D.B. 2129 PG. 166
V
---
T
OR/VES
PARCEL 8844572928 PARCEL 8844574917 I
MIGUEL A. GIOVINAZZO THOMAS A. NELSON, JR. &
/ D.B. 1704 PG. 266 JOAN Z. NELSON
D.B. 1198 PG. 236 PARCEL 8844575747
/
JAMES CONRAD BROWN
ROADWAY WIDENING IN • / /, /Y� / I / D.B. 2167 PG. 929
THIS AREA BY OTHERS, / EX. HOUSE / PARCEL 8844570918
SEE PLANS BY OTHERS. MARTHA S. SMITH
+' STWM / / D.B. 1309 PG. 84
' / DEVICE /
ROADWAY PAVEMENT OVERLAY 9
IN THIS AREA BY OTHERS,
SEE PLANS BY OTHERS.
s
/ DENNIS M. DARROCH
PARCEL 8844487010
///// • / DB. 1855 PG. 801
LOT 3 - P.B. 68 P.G. 77
NANCY H. KEZIAH SUBDIV
PARCEL 8844479800
THOMAS R. HAMILTON &
_ JANE M. HAMILTON
,l,%EZ/,� y�� D.B. 1032 PG. 333
I DEVELOPMENT 1 /
SIGNAGE
EASEMENT
PARCEL 8844477571
HUFFMAN FAMILY REVOCABLE
I ♦ / TRUST
D.B. 2637 PG. 446
HILLIER DRIVE _
W
z
ROADWAY WIDENING IN
THIS AREA BY OTHERS,
SEE PLANS BY OTHERS.
PARCEL 8844378122
WADE WILLIAMSON, JR. & ETAL
D.B. 422 PG. 33 L
SEE ROADWAY WIDENING
PLANS BY DAVENPORT
ENGINEERING FOR ROADWAY
INPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE
RIGHT-OF-WAY
SS —
PARCEL 8844476294
STWM JAVIER I. GONZALEZ &
fq DEVICE REGINA W. GONZALEZ
I J D.B. 2572 PG. 850
I _ / PROTECTIVE`
DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
/ PARCEL 8844475049
ABBINGTON PLACE TOWNHOME
1 \ ASSOCIATION
D.B. 2520 PG. 766
EXISTING 30'
\ f/ SS \ SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT
P.B. 69, PG 366
PROTECTIV E
PARCEL 8844369860 UTILITY
WATERFORD COMMUNITY EASEMENT
ASSOCIATION
D.B. 2457 PG. 803
/ //A
PARCEL 8844461373
CONCEPT BUILDERS, INC.
D.B. 2103 PG. 239
PARCEL 8844483838
ABBINGTON PLACE TOWNHOME
ASSOCIATION
D.B. 2520 PG. 766
LEGEND
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
RIGHT OF WAY
PROPOSED CENTERLINE
PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER
EXISTING CURB & GUTTER
FOR EASEMENTS
SEE SHEETS
C-2.11 C- 2.2, AND C-2.3
FOR STWM DEVICES AND
AREAS SEE SHEET C-4.40
FOR UTILITY PLANS
SEE SHEETS C-3.0 - C-3.6
FOR GRADING PLANS
SEE SHEETS C-4.0 - C-4.32
FOR ROADWAY PLANS
SEE SHEETS C-6.0 - C-6.4
PIN# 8844-48-6139 (Keziah Hillier Family LLC)
PIN# 8844-47-4896 (Keziah Hillier Family LLC)
PIN# 8844-47-3414 (Concept Builders, INC)
Owner:
Hillier Keziah LLC
PO Box 235
Dozier, AL 36028
386-931-4356
Zoning:
Zoning: R-15, B -2 -CU, O & I CU
Site Acreage:
Note: All Lot Acreages Listed = After R/W Dedications
LOT 1: 1.864 Acres +/-, Zoning: B -2 -CU
LOT 2: 2.428 Acres +/-, Zoning: B -2 -CU
LOT 3: 2.972 Acres +/-, Zoning: B -2 -CU
LOT 4: 0.526 Acres +/-, Zoning: B -2 -CU
LOT 5: 1.533 Acres +/-, Zoning: B -2 -CU
LOT 6: 0.863 Acres +/-, Zoning: O & I -CU
LOT 7: 0.925 Acres +/-, Zoning: O & I -CU
LOT A: 3.354 Acres +/-, Zoning: R-15
Stream Conservation Non -Buildable Lot, West: 1.283 Acres +/-
Stream Conservation Non -Buildable Lot, East: 2.797 Acres +/-
Total Site Acreage: 18.545 Acres +/-
Building Data:
Maximum Building Height: B-2: Unlimited ; 0-1: 3-Story/45' *
* NOTE- Non -Residential 0-1 Buildings providing two side yards of 25' minimum
allow a 60' building height
Proposed Building SF: To Be Determined Upon Final Development
Building Setbacks
B-2
Front: 15'
Side: 0 / 5'/15'*
Rear: 0 / 5'/ 20'**
*NOTE- 5' Side setback required if opening occurs in building wall adjacent to
side property line. 15' Side setback required on property lines adjoining
residence or street
**NOTE- 5' Rear setback required if opening occurs in building wall adjacent to
rear property line. 20' Rear setback required on property lines adjoining
residence
O-1
Front: 50'
Side: 10' / 25' ***
Rear: 30'
***NOTE- 25' Side setback required on property lines adjoining street
R-15
Front: 40'
Side: 10' / 20' ****
Rear: 25
****NOTE- 20' Side setback required on property lines adjoining street
Parking :
Individual lots will be required to adhere to parking requirements per code
section 32.11 of the City of Burlington Zoning Code upon development. All
Parking Areas and Drives must be 12' from Right of Way.
Site Coverage:
Maximum Impervious Coverage shall be per the City of Burlington Code at
General Standards for Associative Zoning lot.
Infrastructure:
Water: Public
Sewer: Public
Road: N/A
Streetyards:
Type Required/Provided: Avg. 12' Streetyard
Boundary & Topographic Information:
Boundary & Topographic information provided from survey
dated May 23, 2008 and prepared by:
Sgroi Land Surveying
PO Box 6277
High Point, NC 27262
Phone: [phone]
100 0 100 200 300
SCALE: 1 " = 100'
stimmel
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND PLANNING
601 N. TRADE STREET, SUITE 200
WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27101
P:336.723.1067 F:336.723.1069
www.stimmelpa.com
SEALS:
SEAL
'l c-69 , :P
r
;w 9 =
PROJECT:
CLIENT:
BWD, LLC
415 PISGAH CHURCH RD. #363
GREENSBORO, NC 27455
DRAWN: KAB, RBR
DATE: 07/25/2016
REVISIONS:
JOB. NO: 11-025A
SHEET TITLE:
OVERALL
SITE LAYOUT
PLAN
SCALE: AS NOTED
SHEET NO.:
C=10
© STIMMEL ASSOCIATES, P.A.