20080525 Ver 1_Emails_20080827

[Fwd: Terry Walters]
Subject: [Fwd: Terry Walters]
From: James Taylor <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 08:57:18 -0400
To: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>
Cyndi:
I received an e-mail from John Dorney stating he was out of town for the next three weeks. I met with
Joanne Steenhuis re: this project, and she was going to talk to John to discuss our avoidance and
minimization. We met about three weeks ago, and I am concerned about the turn-around time if he is
going to be out for the next three weeks.
My clients have been held up in permit limbo due to their wetland being a wetland with no significant
nexus to navigable waters. Now that we have been told to use the permit for Isolated Wetland Fill, we
have two issues to solve with DWQ.
The first, stormwater. I understand that DWQ will be willing to condition the 401 so that work can
not begin until a valid stormwater plan is obtained for the project since I can not get a stormwater plan
without a 401 cert (stormwater features are located in the wetland).
The second is the avoidance and minimization issue that should be looked at in light of the overall
project purpose. I had a good meeting with Joanne, and she was going to discuss some of the issues
with John so that we could get some direction as to what would be required.
As stated with Joanne, the site is a low-quality wetland surrounded by uplands. The wetland is a
"bowl "/depression in the landscape that drains, only after severe rainfall, through a dry ditch that
extends west, south of the residence located to the west of the subject parcel.
Mike Wiley of the EPA visited the site prior to the Corps calling the site a wetland with no significant
nexus to navigable waters. Brad Shaver is the Corps representative who made the jurisdictional call.
On sites like this that receive some of their water from rainfall events (that don't drain anywhere), I
was concerned that any development might impact additional wetlands by potentially redirecting
stormwater to a stormwater feature and then out the ditch to the west. Remember, a significant
amount of fill has to be brought in to bring the level of the lot up to the level of Hwy. 17.
My client is willing to travel to Raleigh to meet with you if that will help with the process, and I would
just like to get this permit application off of everyone's desk. I do think this is one of those permit
applications where the applicant has some significant issues to deal with on-site that make avoidance
and minimization a little different than most projects.
I'll wait to hear from you.
Sincerely,
James Taylor
-------- Original Message -
1 of 4
8/28/2008 10:11 AM
[Fwd: Terry Walters]
Subject:Terry Walters
Date:Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:35:12 -0400
From:James Taylor <jtaylor(a,segi.us>
To: j ohn. dorneyn ncmail.net
Mr. Dorney:
I hope you are doing well. I wanted to contact you directly as I have
not had an update form Joanne Steenhuis re: the application to fill a
wetland having no significant nexus to a navigable water located along
Hwy 17 in Pender County, North Carolina. We have been asked to use an
Isolated Permit Application, and we have several issues that are being
worked out with the DWQ.
First, the DWQ has asked us to provide a valid and issued stormwater
plan prior to getting 401 to issue their 401 certification. Stormwater
has informed us that since stormwater structures are located in
wetlands, the 401 certification must be issued first. As I understand
the situation, I believe the DWQ is going to issue the 401 first with a
condition about obtaining a valid stormwater plan prior to commencing
with the impacts.
Secondly, Joanne asked us about avoidance and minimization of wetland
impacts within the project boundary. In light of the overall project
purpose of building a two building office/retail development that meets
all county/state requirements and that will provide a reasonable return
to the developer, we had proposed filling almost an acre of
jurisdictional wetlands. Ms. Steenhuis has asked us to why we can not
avoid or minimize further, and we have responded with financial
information showing the costs of the project and the expected return and
information showing that any reduction in area (two-story building) may
increase costs and require an additional building to allow the developer
to have a reasonable return. We have also stated that the wetland
appears to be fed by stormwater and groundwater, and the development
will remove the stormwater that flows into any remaining
wetland--perhaps causing a reduction in the wetland area of any
remaining wetlands. I don't want to get to the final stage and have DWQ
state that we need to increase the acreage of impact because we are, in
effect, impacting wetlands by redirecting water that used to feed the
wetland into a stormwater feature that drains to the west.
We proposed to impact all of the wetlands on the site since a
significant amount of fill is required to bring the site up to the
elevation of Hwy 17 and because the slopes from the fill would be
significant at a 3:1 ratio.
The client is willing to condition their 401 to say, in so many words,
that the area set aside for stormwater control will be minimized as much
as possible to still obtain a valid stormwater permit. Any area
remaining in that area set aside for stormwater structures that is not
needed/required to be filled in order to obtain a valid stormwater
permit in light of the overall project purpose, will be left as
preserved wetland area.
I have attached an impact plan and an aerial photograph. Note that the
area is surrounded by upland areas. The wetland is a "bowl" that
drains, during significant rain events (tropical storm, hurricane, etc.)
to the west down a dry ditch that had been reviewed by Mike Wiley of the
EPA prior to the Corps agreeing that the wetland was not regulated by
the Corps of Engineers or the EPA.
I would appreciate a call to discuss this project.
2 of 4 8/28/2008 10:11 AM
[Fwd: Terry Walters]
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
James Taylor
910.443.5266
k i
?? ``
3293-10-9812-0000`
,329' .3-1 M61V-,
t4S3t

l579?t ?q 210
>j J, XA
'
TYS ¢1 ?A

3 of 4 8/28/2008 10:11 AM
[Fwd: Terry Walters]
t Walters impact map.pdf Content-Type: application/pdf
Content-Encoding: base64
Parcel with Aerial Photo 2003.jpg Content-Type: image/jpeg
Content-Encoding: base64
4 of 4 8/28/2008 10:11 AM
n6
14 y
moo
;
?? ' ?-
N a
a
Mx: o
° o yy
*
• ?W co
_w p
N
W W N C1 ff1
E

V Jooa
(M/a allqnd) ` C
N w ?1

C
OTZ •a •u V 4T XKH s•fl 0 c U
U
.,
LL'99 o
3 „902114.£ N S 43'54'06' W 252.20'
6 0
_
Dull au
v.,, q
1
a
o 1
g
Proposed -?
Parking 3 1
o

" 100 Front
etbac
_ _ _ _ _ _
\ o
? • 1 Cj 1
Q
(1
N
t
n \
03 ,? q 1 M
o 1
O dP
J a N 'D V `
C N C
D N? %g
1
O
O
?
o a r iL fL F'
\
\N ?j 1
017.
1

lJ 6.2r

1
V4

I o J5\\ ?\ v - - c ?.? 1

o\ 0\0
o m
j0 l
\ ui 'IooQlaS \ v
^ ?oaa gz\ ^ ^ 1

N ? 1
I _ r+ ,6b'L6l Q 1
__
Tie _Line
5" E 165.00
' SO'61Z 3 .14,99.94 N
n

T 2
N '18
55 pram Fie?d t
ance Eosemen
SeP11c &
\
9LZ fid 09LL 80 1
1 H
5ys\em DBn2g?6 P9 1 _ _ laddiNS saADH XQI
1/u

V/-)
,K-1111
Y
O
'V
}? N
0 0 _0
x
b C
O 00
$ Q o° °
O
N 0 ? E a? 8)
` x b? N vY? v N _II
Z _W (A C.S [
o a o??'? i
pp0 9w,4 4 d .+s J c JAW p O J ro 1
NO O U ?mU ?$
Bi $ JZ K A z(^ O d
G 99?? kk € 88CC v N +, 'O 0
20 E Q,
IS 0?
0 U)
$ E a? °?w TLi ?° w d U
0 Z N > a
s§a SYi
w g?8 ° E C? N 0 0_ o
° s
z M
t ['? C $ fit's ER 'a)
P
a
of ° a
E go
x aw
m
L
O
? mF
C f; Y
>•I c
E+ aWWN
5 J ooa
LL•99
3 „90,ti9.£4 N
aun a1
C
0
0
V) fl)
_2
J m
?a
c?0
O ?
(n 0
W
S
0
O
S AA-Cd!r1R" Ill
TN 3578'25' E 165.00' r J
1 Septic do Oroin Field
1 System Maintenance Eosemenl 11
/ 1 DB 2976 P9 t _-__J
1111111 1
`
` \\1
1
D
v
e

n
P-4
s t?o? rtp o CQ
'
"?414nnl?nd" •? 0 'W
~O W
> .F

L1 t
NUn

W
G
di

M (Q
M 1 0 ~
x
?
1

N
o? 3
I
1
o
n
,
a
w
°
iN o\ ? 1
I

?N
1
OR 2
6? r or
aN 1
? Na
w
G U? 1
\ 1 r
?
\O
jO 1

ti N 1
1
In
N
c
7
C) o
Y `o

c (n d

a
m
C

S?
C)

lY

NU o
n
LL TS Ca-
(
D
N
11

o
V C
, V
U3 (13 C L s
S.° 'd33 Q ? o ?, o
LJ
1°
nrn
°
ti
"• a
°. N o n
"v
v
Z
O O O C.V O
Q e a
L
a
`
N 5
° w
N b ?'"
O d a v 4 2
o 'G J cavct E
L L a N
L V

Sa
m
e
E

a
R.

o .9
-6Sa

c?$ ?g
yn a°

m
(ate 7--
o 0
c
0-U
Z N

Q
- )
F- V O
a? o m
o?

w t a
p8

G V
y o
C Z B°$$
Cd
t

.?.? o
O_
Q
N o
'o ° Y
a. o ?
S; W O ^
E J rn Y
Ul a
a? a C
g.
O
.0 F0
my G 'ER
Z
m

a u fBa

3
0,229 9

'50 `o
?
v
a
d
{{??
3m a
So n
O
a0 a?
N to
f/l Gm m mm w'1 ??n° N
Rl m? a ?¢€«
? li
z ^Z ao ^ ,
c
vAC!
`E ?

uu
a
o
0
(M/N oll9nd)
0 T Z 'D*N ;? 4T -KH s•n
- l-l '0 - Kai
9LZ 6d 0911 8a
jaddl>IS sakDH xal
J/u
[Fwd: Terry Walters]
Subject: [Fwd: Terry Walters]
From: James Taylor <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 08:57:18 -0400
To: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>
Cyndi:
I received an e-mail from John Dorney stating he was out of town for the next three weeks. I met with
Joanne Steenhuis re: this project, and she was going to talk to John to discuss our avoidance and
minimization. We met about three weeks ago, and I am concerned about the turn-around time if he is
going to be out for the next three weeks.
My clients have been held up in permit limbo due to their wetland being a wetland with no significant
nexus to navigable waters. Now that we have been told to use the permit for Isolated Wetland Fill, we
have two issues to solve with DWQ.
4916 r"a 1 Jt &u.11 n ',
The first, stormwater. I understand that DWQ will be willing to condition the 401 so that work can
not begin until a valid stormwater plan is obtained for the project since I can not get a stormwater plan
without a 401 cert (stormwater features are located in the wetland).
The second is the avoidance and minimization issue that should be looked at in light of the overall
project purpose. I had a good meeting with Joanne, and she was going to discuss some of the issues
with John so that we could get some direction as to what would be resuired.
?;ff ''? Ova f Prf ,
As stated with Joanne, the site is a low-quality wetland surrounded by uplands. The wetland is a
"bowl "/depression in the landscape that drains, only after severe rainfall, through a dry ditch that
extends west, south of the residence located to the west of the subject parcel.
Mike Wiley of the EPA visited the site prior to the Corps calling the site a wetland with no significant
nexus to navigable waters. Brad Shaver is the Corps representative who made the jurisdictional call.
On sites like this that receive some of their water from rainfall events (that don't drain anywhere), I
was concerned that any development might impact additional wetlands by potentially redirecting
stormwater to a stormwater feature and then out the ditch to the west. Remember, a significant
amount of fill has to be brought in to bring the level of the lot up to the level of Hwy. 17.
My client is willing to travel to Raleigh to meet with you if that will help with the process, and I would
just like to get this permit application off of everyone's desk. I do think this is one of those permit
applications where the applicant has some significant issues to deal with on-site that make avoidance
and minimization a little different than most pro ects.
I'll wait to hear from you.
Sincerely,
James Taylor
-------- Original Message
1 of 4
8/28/2008 10:05 AM
[Fwd: Terry Walters]
Subjeefferry Walters
Date:Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:35:12 -0400
From:James Taylor <jtaylornsegi.us>
To: j ohn. dorney(- ,ncmail .net
Mr. Dorney:
I hope you are doing well. I wanted to contact you directly as I have
not had an update form Joanne Steenhuis re: the application to fill a
wetland having no significant nexus to a navigable water located along
Hwy 17 in Pender County, North Carolina. We have been asked to use an
Isolated Permit Application, and we have several issues that are being
worked out with the DWQ.
First, the DWQ has asked us to provide a valid and issued stormwater
plan prior to getting 401 to issue their 401 certification. Stormwater
has informed us that since stormwater structures are located in
wetlands, the 401 certification must be issued first. As I understand
the situation, I believe the DWQ is going to issue the 401 first with a
condition about obtaining a valid stormwater plan prior to commencing
with the impacts.
Secondly, Joanne asked us about avoidance and minimization of wetland
impacts within the project boundary. In light of the overall project
purpose of building a two building office/retail development that meets
all county/state requirements and that will provide a reasonable return
to the developer, we had proposed filling almost an acre of
jurisdictional wetlands. Ms. Steenhuis has asked us to why we can not
avoid or minimize further, and we have responded with financial
information showing the costs of the project and the expected return and
information showing that any reduction in area (two-story building) may
increase costs and require an additional building to allow the developer
to have a reasonable return. We have also stated that the wetland
appears to be fed by stormwater and groundwater, and the development
will remove the stormwater that flows into any remaining
wetland--perhaps causing a reduction in the wetland area of any
remaining wetlands. I don't want to get to the final stage and have DWQ
state that we need to increase the acreage of impact because we are, in
effect, impacting wetlands by redirecting water that used to feed the
wetland into a stormwater feature that drains to the west.
We proposed to impact all of the wetlands on the site since a
significant amount of fill is required to bring the site up to the
elevation of Hwy 17 and because the slopes from the fill would be
significant at a 3:1 ratio.
The client is willing to condition their 401 to say, in so many words,
that the area set aside for stormwater control will be minimized as much
as possible to still obtain a valid stormwater permit. Any area
remaining in that area set aside for stormwater structures that is not
needed/required to be filled in order to obtain a valid stormwater
permit in light of the overall project purpose, will be left as
preserved wetland area.
I have attached an impact plan and an aerial photograph. Note that the
area is surrounded by upland areas. The wetland is a "bowl" that
drains, during significant rain events (tropical storm, hurricane, etc.)
to the west down a dry ditch that had been reviewed by Mike Wiley of the
EPA prior to the Corps agreeing that the wetland was not regulated by
the Corps of Engineers or the EPA.
I would appreciate a call to discuss this project.
2 of 4 8/28/2008 10:05 AM
[Fwd: [Fwd: Gnanasekaran Letter]]
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: Gnanasekaran Letter]]
From: Chuck Wakild <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 08:47:39 -0400
To: Matt Matthews <[e-mail]>
CC: [e-mail], Paul Rawls <[e-mail]>
Matt - Is this the project Robin was asking about a couple of days ago? Let's
discuss.
Subject: [Fwd: Gnanasekaran Letter]
From: Ed Beck <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 10:35:08 -0400
To: Chuck Wakild <[e-mail]>
Not sure if the other had the attachment.
Subject: Gnanasekaran Letter
From: Joanne Steenhuis <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 10:48:21 -0400
To: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>
CC: Ed Beck <[e-mail]>
Cyndi,
Here is the letter, I didn't know if you also wanted to cc Terry Walters, Realty
Executives 805 S. Topsail Dr
Surf City, NC 28445.
Let me know what we need to do next (after I get back on the 2nd). Thanks!
[Fwd: Gnanasekaran Letter].eml Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Encoding: 7bit
Gnanasekaran Letter Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Encoding: 7bit
080525 Gnanasekaran Pender.aug08.doc Content-Type: application/msword
Content-Encoding: base64
1 of 1 8/28/2008 10:10 AM