20061672 Ver 2_Email_20170419 (2)

COASTAL.. PLANNING SERVICES, INC
Kathy B. Vinson, AYCP
Comprehensive Land Use Planning and Development Assistance
F.O. Box 827
Morehead City, NC 28557
April 12, 2017
Mr. Doug Huggett
NC Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557
RE: Permit 72-07 Major Modification
Robin Comer
Sunset Cove Subdivision
Dear Doug:
Office 252.354.4916
Cell 252.240.9297
We appreciate the opportunity to provide additional information about the Sunset Cove Subdivision and to clarify
project components. Major permit 72-07 was originally issued to Robin Comer on May 8, 2007 for development of
Sunset Cove, a proposed 18 -lot subdivision to be located in Stella along the White Oak River. The permit authorized
construction of a 10 -slip dock, boat ramp with elevated section, driveway/roadway with turn -around at the boat
ramp, retaining wall adjacent the driveway, subdivision streets, stormwater drainage pipes, and excavation of an
access channel.
The Sunset Cove subdivision has not been built. The project has been "on hold" due to economic conditions in
recent years that have negatively affected real estate development and sales. However, due to an improving
economy Mr. Comer has resumed plans to build the project and has renewed the CAMA permit through December
31, 2018. Although original subdivision approvals from Carteret County had expired, the Carteret County Planning
Commission granted new approval of the preliminary subdivision plat on May 9, 2016. It is expected that the
Planning Commission will extend the approval for an additional year at its May 2017 meeting.
Our request proposes to modify previously permitted project plans for the site. The proposed changes are a result of
current Carteret County subdivision requirements necessitating widening of subdivision cul-de-sacs and the
associated reconfiguration (slight) of some of the individual lots. Mr. Comer is also requesting authorization to build
a traditional concrete boat ramp. The requested change in boat ramp construction is based on safety concerns
associated with an elevated ramp, the limited amount of coastal wetlands to be affected, practical issues with using
an elevated ramp, and significantly greater costs for constructing an elevated structure. Modifications to the
currently permitted access channel are also included.
We would like to further address and clarify the following project components:
Stormwater comments/ permit modifications
Project consultants made email contact with staff of the Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources in June
2016 to alert them to plans for submitting a stormwater plan revision to accommodate the street and boat ramp
changes. An explanation was provided of the reason for the proposed change to the stormwater permit. We also
requested clarification of the agency's requirements for stormwater plan revisions.

April 12, 2017
Doug Huggett
Page 2 of 4
Upon receipt of Ms. Lewis' email of January 4, 2017 we responded that ownership of the property has not changed
nor has any work occurred on the site. We again stated that we will be submitting a stormwater plan revision
following resolution of the requested CAMA permit modification. Ms. Lewis replied that her comments were in
response to the CAMA permit review.
Stormwater permit SW8 051235 was issued to Robin Comer on March 7, 2007 for development of Sunset Cove, a
low-density stormwater subdivision with 25% allowed built -upon area (BUA). As noted in Ms. Lewis' comments,
Sunset Cove plans fall below the maximum allowed for low-density subdivisions at 24% built -upon area. Within the
coastal shoreline AEC no impervious surfaces other than the ramp and a section of the driveway turn -around are
proposed by the owner. The proposed built -upon area calculates to 3.7% of the coastal shoreline AEC within the
project area, although CAMA regulations provide up to 30% BUA.
Development of individual lots will be accomplished by future lot owners, who will be restrained by the stormwater
permit and the 150' building setback from normal high water. The building setback is a special condition of CAMA
permit 72-07 that affects all waterfront lots with the exception of Lot #1. Assuming a 30% BUA within the AEC on
Lot 1, at build -out the maximum potential built -upon percentage within the AEC for the project, including a
concrete ramp and the water access driveway/roadway, will be less than 12%, calculated as follows.
5021 sf (30% of Lot 1 within AEC)
(+)-Z262 sf (amount of ramp & driveway BUA in AEC)
7283 sf
7283 sf = 61,102 sf (total sf in AEC for the project) = 11.9 % maximum potential BUA at build -out
The review agencies' comments from both 2006 and 2017 reference "29.411/o impervious surface in the immediate
area of the access road and cul-de-sac." The percentage is misleading, as it is based on proposed impervious in the
common area for the subdivision, not the entire subdivision or even the entire coastal. shoreline AEC of the project.
(Even if not misleading, note should be made that 29.4% falls within the percentage allowed for in the minimum use
standards for non-ORW coastal shoreline AECs.) The percentage arbitrarily isolates a section of the project and
appears to represent a larger percentage of impervious area than is actually proposed. It is not calculated consistent
with applicable stormwater guidelines or with CAMA minimum use standards_
Comments received from the Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) in November 2006, prior to issuance of the
stormwater permit for the subdivision, made reference to missing stormwater information and stated that objections
to the project were based on "insufficient information regarding impervious surfaces." Information required for
stormwater and erosion and sedimentation control approvals was subsequently provided to DMF in December 2006.
The referenced built -upon area calculation has not been applied correctly and is in fact taken out of context of the
stormwater permit. It fails to consider the overall project and design elements that lessen stormwater impacts.
We worked closely with the NC Division of Water Quality (now the Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land
Resources) in the design of this project to develop a stormwater plan that would be acceptable to the regulatory
agencies. The stormwater management methodology for the project is primarily the limitation of built -upon area to
25% or less and the low density design requirements as defined by the North Carolina Administrative Code [15A
NCAC 2H .1005(2)(a)]. The majority of stormwater falling on the site will flow to predevelopment destinations- The
access driveway/roadway to the water is designed to promote sheet flow across minimized slopes into adjacent
wetlands. Storm water has been confined only as necessary for the proposed subdivision roadways and is to be
released via vegetated swales.
Proposed changes to subdivision streets and river access driveway
The Field Investigation Report and comments from the NC Wildlife Resources Commission and Division of Marine
Fisheries appear to reflect some misunderstanding concerning the requested changes in size of the subdivision
streets. The proposed increase of the asphalt radii of the cul-de-sacs of two subdivision streets (Morning Court and
Evening Drive) is from 35' to 40'. The proposed increase in the right-of-way radii of the cul-de-sacs of the two

April 12, 2017
Doug Huggett
Page 3 of 4
streets is from 50' to 55'. The additional paving (from 35' to 40') and unpaved right-of-way radii (increasing from
50' to 55') were requested to better accommodate fire trucks and other emergency vehicles. Increasing the right-of-
way will enlarge the area to remain free of mailboxes, shrubbery, and other impediments to emergency vehicles
turning around in the cul-de-sacs. No additional impervious surfaces beyond the 40' radii are proposed, nor are any
changes proposed in the permitted 24' impervious width of the straightway sections of the subdivision streets.
Morning Court and Evening Drive, including cul-de-sacs, are located entirely outside of wetland areas and LAMA
areas of environmental concern.
Carteret County does not consider the river access driveway to be a subdivision street. As such, the roadway is not
held to the same width standards as Morning Court and Evening Drive. The river access driveway/roadway is
currently permitted at 18' impervious in width (compared to 24' for the subdivision streets). The impervious radii of
this turn -around are 35'. No changes to the permitted footprint of the proposed river access driveway and turn-
around are being required by Carteret County or requested by the owner.
No coastal wetlands are impacted by the river access driveway/roadway. The driveway was located and designed to
impact the smallest possible area of non -coastal wetlands. A retaining wall is permitted adjacent the roadway to
avoid filling of wetlands during construction. The retaining wall will also serve to maintain the built roadway width
while preventing future transport of sediment into the wetlands. The wetland delineation approved by the US Army
Corps of Engineers in October 2016 identifies a small increase in non -coastal wetlands, increasing the area of
impacted non -coastal wetlands from 1698 square feet (currently permitted) to 2230 square feet (proposed).
Shifting the turn -around area east away from the non -coastal wetlands as suggested by reviewers will require
significant additional excavation and structural measures, as compared to the current design which is more
compatible with the site. Proposed retaining structures would have to be extended an additional 8 to 9 feet vertically
while horizontally encroaching into Lot #1 to accommodate the suggested eastward shift. Moving the driveway to
the east could also result in the loss of mature, live oaks and other natural vegetation currently existing on the slope.
The proposed river access driveway/roadway location and design are intended to minimize the freshwater wetland
fill (limited to approximately .05 acre), minimize encroachment into the bluff to the east of the access roadway, and
integrate efficiently into the existing terrain. The increase of each of two subdivision road cul-de-sac radii is 5',
whereas the turnaround at the ramp is not increasing.
Proposed chap a in boat ramp and access channel
The currently requested concrete ramp was, and continues to be, the preferred construction method_ This is due to
safety concerns and difficulty of using an elevated structure (particularly for less experience and skillful boaters) and
cost of construction and maintenance associated with an elevated ramp_ Additionally, the ramp location is sited at
what appears to be the least dense section of the coastal wetland fringe.
Prior to the original CAMA permit submission the owner and consultants met on several occasions with DCM staff
in an effort to ensure that the final proposal would meet regulatory requirements. Upon submission project plans
were again modified several times as requested by staff of review agencies. One requested modification involved
elevating a section of the ramp over the narrow fringe of coastal wetlands. Although reluctant the owner agreed to
the change, as we were advised that elevating the ramp and agreeing to additional restrictions not normally imposed
on similar projects (such as the 150' building setback line) would expedite issuance of the LAMA permit. At that
point the owner had been required to meet numerous criteria justifying the issuance of the permit. He had diligently,
and at considerable expense, provided all of the requested information. Given the time, expense, and effort already
invested he agreed to modify the boat ramp plans to allow the project to move forward. Based on economic
conditions and comparable real estate sales at the time, the additional expense to elevate the ramp was not thought to
be cost prohibitive. Unfortunately, the economy weakened and while real estate sales are improving, sales prices
have not rebounded to the level existing in 2007. Therefore the additional construction costs are now an important
consideration for the owner.

April 12, 2017
Doug Huggett
Page 4 of 4
The area of coastal wetlands to be impacted by the proposed concrete ramp is less than 250 square feet. The ramp
remains proposed for location in the narrowest and least dense section of the coastal wetland fringe, which appears
to have narrowed and become sparser since the original permit issuance in 2007. The concrete ramp construction
will increase the length of the access channel to be dredged by 9' (104' proposed compared to the permitted 95'
channel)_ The width of the proposed channel will range from 15' to 35' compared to the permitted width of 15' to
38'.
A recent photo of the ramp location is enclosed. It depicts the small area of coastal wetlands to be impacted by the
ramp. As shown in the photo, the location is sparsely vegetated for the approximate width of a boat ramp or
launching area. Remnants of old pilings are visible in the water at the location_ The property was recently mowed,
revealing the remnants of an old unpaved roadway leading down the bluff at this location.
Our research of the site revealed potentially relevant site history. Based on her knowledge of the area and its
residents, Stella historian Laura Elizabeth Taylor Sawyers (author of Stella: A Riverside Hamlet), believes the site
was most likely used to launch boats, as was customary in the Stella area. Jack Dudley, another local historian and
author, shared that his 'Wetherington ancestors owned the property for several generations (hence the names
Wetherington Landing and Wetherington Landing Road). He has no photos (he says people of those generations
would not have taken photos of boats being launched), but recalls a general store, known as a "landing" located on
the south side of the river at that site. He relates that the piling remnants visible in the photo probably date from
when residents stored their boats on the river. He recalls cargo being loaded and offloaded at the project site, hauled
up and down the bluff on trailers pulled by horses or tractors. This appears to be a likely explanation for the old
roadway remnant now visible at the site. If this is indeed the case, the sparsity of coastal wetlands at the end of the
old roadway may be the result of the wetlands naturalizing at this site.
hi summary, we trust this information serves to clarify several pertinent facts related to the project and historical
uses at the site:
• The owner is in receipt of a state permit for a low-density stormwater residential subdivision. The proposed
built -upon areas fall below CAMA minimum use standards and stormwater regulations. Upon resolution of
the LAMA permit a stormwater permit modification will be sought to address changes to project plans.
• Proposed changes to subdivision streets only affect the cul-de-sacs of Morning Court and Evening Drive,
and to a smaller extent than stated in the field investigation report and comments from review agencies. No
changes in the footprint of the water access driveway/roadway are being requested by the owner.
• The original acceptance by the owner to the elevated section of the boat ramp was made following
extensive expense and repeated efforts to design the project in a manner acceptable to staff of the review
agencies. He agreed to the elevated ramp and 150' building setback when it was suggested that doing so
would avoid further delays and expense.
• Based on historical research, the site was likely used in the past for launching boats and loading and
unloading cargo being transported on the river. Current photos suggest that the proposed location of the
boat ramp is at the same location used for similar purposes in the past.
• The enclosed photo depicts the proposed location of the traditional concrete boat ramp and small area of
resulting coastal wetland impacts. Given minimal impacts similar to other permitted boat ramps, safety and
practical use concerns, and construction cost issues, we are requesting that consideration be given to
permitting a traditional boat ramp at the site.
Thank you for your consideration of our request. Please let me know if we can provide additional clarification.
Sincerely,
Kathy B_ Vinson, AICP
Enclosure(s)