20061237 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_20060802

O?O? W A T ?RQG
o ?
August 11, 2006
Brownstone Building Company, Inc.
Mr. Garrett Garcia
3126 Ashel Street
Raleigh, NC 27612
Subject Property: 1706 Nottingham Road, Raleigh, Wake County, NC
Southwest Prong [030402, 27-33-15-1, C NSW]
DWQ # 06-1237
Wake County
AUTHORIZATION of Neuse River Riparian Buffer Protection Rules MINOR VARIANCE [15A
NCAC 2B.0233(9)(b)] with ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Dear Mr. Garcia,
You have our authorization, in accordance with the conditions listed below, to impact 428 (ft) of Zone 2
of the protected buffers to construct the proposed home on the subject property as described within your
variance request dated August 1, 2006 and received by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) on August
2, 2006. This letter shall act as your Minor Variance authorization as described within 15A NCAC 2B
.0233(9)(b). In addition, you should get any other required federal, state or local permits before you
proceed with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control.
This authorization is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your Minor Variance
Request dated August 1, 2006. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required
to send us a new request for authorization. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of
this authorization and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. For this authorization to
be valid, you must follow the conditions listed below.
No impacts (except for "exempt" uses as identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233) shall occur
to Zone 1 of the protected riparian buffers.
Stormwater shall be directed as diffuse flow at non-erosive velocities through the protected
stream buffers as identified within 15A NCAC 2B.0233(5). Roof drainage from the new
addition shall be directed to vegetated areas at non-erosive velocities prior to entering the
protected riparian buffers.
3. Protective Fencing
The outside Zone 1 buffer boundary approved under this authorization shall be clearly
marked by orange fabric fencing for the areas that have been approved to infringe within the
buffer prior to any land disturbing activities to ensure compliance with 15A NCAC 213 .0233.
401 Oversight/Express Review Permits Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] /FAX [phone] / Internet: http://h2o.enr.state,nc.us/ncvvetlands
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
One
N Carolina
,?tura!!y
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50%a Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
August 11, 2006
Garrett Garcia Variance
Page 2 of 2
4. Deed Notifications
Deed notifications or similar mechanisms shall be placed on all retained protective buffers in
order to assure compliance for future buffer impacts. These mechanisms shall be put in place
prior to impacting any wetlands, waters and/or buffers approved for impact under this
Authorization Certificate.
5. Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within this Buffer Authorization, the applicant is
required to return the attached certificate of completion to the 401 Oversight/Express Review
Permitting Unit, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1650 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650.
6. Buffer Mitigation (On-site Restoration/Enhancement) - You are required to mitigate for impacts
to the protected riparian buffers. The required area of mitigation to compensate for impacts to
the protected riparian buffers is 642 square feet as required under this variance and 15A NCAC
2B .0233. The DWQ has determined that you may satisfy this mitigation requirement by
planting at least 5 native woody trees within the retained portions of the protected buffers. You
must ensure their survival for a period of at least five (5) years. You are required to replace any
of these trees or shrubs that die within this five (5) year period. You are required to provide
proof in writing that the trees have been planted within one year of the date of this letter. The
proof of plantings shall be submitted to the Wetlands/401 Unit and copied to the Washington
Regional Office. If this mitigation is not acceptable or practicable, then you may choose to
make a payment in to the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund to compensate for 642 square feet
of mitigation as allowed under 15A NCAC 02B .0242. If you choose to make this payment,
please contact Amy Chapman of the Wetlands/401 Unit at 919-733-1786 for additional
information.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this authorization, you may ask for and adjudicatory hearing.
You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written
petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of
Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-6714. This authorization and its
conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under the Neuse River Riparian Buffer
Protection Rules [15A NCAC 2B.0233(9)(b)]. Please call Amy Chapman at 919-715-6823 if you have
any questions or require copies of our rules or procedural materials.
Sincerely,
A a Klimek, P. ., Director
Division of Water Quality
cc: Eric Kulz, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
AWK/cbk/asc
File: 061237GarrettGarcia(Wake)NB R+MinVar
401 Oversight/Express Review Permits Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX [phone] / Internet htta://h2o.enr.state. nc.ustncwetlands
None Carolina
Ntimally
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
i?FFICE USE ONLY: Date Received Request #
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
20061237
Variance Request Form - for Minor Variances
Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rules
NOTE: This form may be photocopied for use as an original.
Please identify which Riparian Area (Buffer) Protection Rule applies.
X Neuse River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy
Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rule (15A NCAC 02B
.0233)
? Tar-Pamlico River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management
Strategy Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rule (15A
NCAC 02B.0259)
? Catawba River Basin: Protection and Maintenance of Existing
Riparian Buffers (15A NCAC 02B.0243)
Part 1: General Information
(Please include attachments if the room provided is insufficient.)
1. Applicant's name (the corporation, individual, etc. who owns the property). AUGO 2 2006
UE:JZ-V0,1EI:CUALiiY
ly
1?.e)'s
2. Print Owner/Signing Official (person legally responsible for the property and its cord Ranc i
Name:
Title: ITr.PS faG-P11 ? ---------------- ---------- - ----------
Street address:
_---
City, State, Zip: - - ----IV 2
Telephone:
Fax:
-- ---------------- 11-7' -??--- ---------
3. Contact person who can answer questions about the proposed project:
Name: 67, /'
?? T7- GQ r-6 a-- Telephone:
W-ci- ?- nlnw.mhcr 7nn?
Fax: 9/9 ?--1 Lf
Email:
4.
Project Name (Subdivision, facility, or establishment name - consistent with project name on
plans, specifications, letters, opation and aintepance agreements, etc.):
-' U ?- l1 ! D-T T t a ??'1 © -- ------------------------------
5. Project Location:
Street address: / /V C) IT q 7a nq n Q I
City, tate, Ziq:
- LP-I N C -Z??0
- - - --------- ---- ---- County:
-6: r ---- -----
-----------------
Latitude/longitude: - po' I D I 3?0 1
--------------------- Q_--- -------------TT --------
6. -
Directions to site from nearest major intersection (Also, attach an 8 _ x 11 copy of the USGS
to ographic ma indicating the location of the site
as 41 e- Try L (N?s T n,?. Lakes Booms
a
nn /
i4i3'i P?Octd--?Q??rOx--r-Z 1 1 --- - ----- -- -
--- ---------- --------------------
7. Stream to be impacted by the proposed activity:
Stream name (for unnamed streams label as "UT" to the nearest named stream):
ouT!' W?ST_- Co lfJ-- -------- --- - -- -- - - --
Stream classification [as identified within the Sche ule of Clas ifications 15A NCAC 2B .0315
(Neuse) or .0316 (Tar-Pamlico)]:
8. Which of the following permits/approvals will be required or have been received already for this
project?
Required: Received: Date received: Permit Type:
- -- -------- _ CAMA Major
CAMA Minor
401 Certification/404 Permit
----- ----- -----
On-site Wastewater Permit
----- NPDES Permit (including stormwater)
----- Non-discharge Permit
----- Water Supply Watershed Variance
Others (specify) -
Part 2: Proposed Activity
(Please include attachments if the room provided is insufficient.)
1. Description of proposed activity [Also, please attach a map of sufficient detail (such as a plat
map or site plan) to accurately delineate the boundaries of the land to be utilized in carrying
out the activity, the location and dimension of any disturbance in the riparian buffers
associated with the activity, and the extent of riparian buffers on the land. Include the area
of buffer impact in ft2.]:
Variance Request Form, page 2
\1-cinn ?- nln,,amhcr,)nnn
-------------------------------------- - ----------------- - ------
2. State reasons why this plan for the proposed activity cannot be practically accomplished,
reduced or reconfigured to better minimize or eliminate disturbance to the riparian buffers:
--------------------------------------------------------
3. --------
Description of any best management practices to be used to control impacts associated with
the proposed activity (i.e., control of runoff from impervious surfaces to provide diffuse flow, re-
planting vegetation or enhancement of existing vegetation, etc.):
4. Please provide an explanation of the following:
(1) The practical difficulties or hardships that would result from the strict application of this
Rule.
---------------------------- - ---- - - - -----------------------------
(2) How these difficulties or hardships result from conditions that are unique to the property
involved.
---- -- - - ---
(3) If economic hardship is the major consideration, then include a specific explanation of the
economic hardships and the proportion of the hardship to the entire value of the project.
-----------
Variance Request Form, page 3
\/crcinn 7• nln--hr )nnn
PART 2 - PROPOSED ACTIVITY
Question #1: Description of Proposed Activity...
Proposed Activity: Removal of an existing house and construction of a new single-
family residential house in a well-established residential
neighborhood.
Buffer Area Size: The total 50-foot buffer comprises approximately 37% of the
property (the entire back yard of the house and the rear 37% of
the property).
Buffer Area Impacted: The 30 feet of buffer nearest to Southwest Prong stream sliall
remain completely unaffected.
The next 20 feet of buffer area consists of 2,165 SF of area. The
impacted area for which we seek a variance totals approximately
428 SF or only 19.7% of this buffer area.
Question #2: State reasons ivlty this plait for the proposed activity cannot be
practically accomplished, reduced or reconfigured to better minimize or
eliminate disturbance to the riparian buffer.
The property lot is the smallest lot in this neighborhood - approx .32 acres (13,939 SF)
and a portion of the property (rear of the property) is actually situated within the stream
running behind the property. The 50' buffer coupled with the loss of the property in
stream consists of approx 37% of the lot lost for use. Additionally, the setback on the
front of the house is 30 feet plus an additional 10 feet as an established street setback for
construction - this eliminated another 28% of the lot for use. These two items eliminate
approximately 65% of the lot for use.
Of the approximate 2,165 SF of space in the buffer zone nearest to the house (20 feet
deep spanning across the approximate 106 foot width of the lot), we seek a variance
to encroach into only 428 SF or 19.7% of this buffer area. The 30 feet nearest to the
stream would remain completely undisturbed.
We have worked diligently to minimize impact to the proposed buffer by:
1) Removing the 6 foot deep front porch
2) Placing the house as close as possible to the front of the property as is permitted
by zoning ordinances
3) Making the house as wide as possible (and minimizing the depth) to minimize the
impact to the buffer (the house cannot be shifted in either directional horizontally
any further due to zoning setbacks and standard driveway requirements)
4) Reduced the proposed house size by 1,000 SF to minimize the "footprint" of the
house
5) The house will be a two-story house (plus a basement) as opposed to a single
story (heated square footage will be distributed on all 3 levels to minimize the
footprint of the house)
6) No additional structures (i.e. patio, deck, pool, tennis court, etc.) are proposed
outside of the building footprint (except for driveway)
7) The design of the rear of the house steps back (deeper at the left size and
shallower at the right side) to follow the contour of the lot line and minimize
encroachment into the corresponding buffer
We have also considered utilizing a front load garage as opposed to a basement garage
but it cannot be accomplished due to the two huge mature Live Oak trees that are situated
in the City's Right of Way that spans the front of the property that cannot be removed -
they block any vehicular access to the front of the house.
The proposed house is going to be constructed on a property in a "transitional"
neighborhood, whereby existing older homes are being removed and replaced with newer
homes, resulting from unavailability of raw land within the city for new home sites. This
proposed home is consistent with this trend in this neighborhood in terms of design,
scope, size and placement. Many of the existing homes in the neighborhood were built in
the 1950's and do not have garages and are approximately 1,500 SF. The newer homes
that are replacing these older houses are being built usually in excess of 5,000 SF due to
today's sky-high land prices. Economics require that a large house be constructed which
will sell for a price that will justify the high land cost. We are proposing a house that is
closer to 4,000, which is at the low end of the scale.
Furthermore, we are not proposing the additional placement of patios or other
structures on the site outside of the house's "footprint" to minimize impact to the
buffer (except driveway).
Question #3: Description of any best management practices to be used to control
impacts associated with the proposed activity (i.e. control of runoff fi•onz
impervious surfaces to provide diffuse flow, replanting vegetation, or
enhancements of vegetation, etc.)
The primary beauty an appeal of this lot is the natural landscape, trees and the stream.
Removal of these attributes is out of the question. All efforts will be taken to not disturb
any of the existing natural landscape in the rear of the property outside of the proposed
building envelope, including:
1) The area beyond the building envelope will be sealed off from access by barriers
and all trees will remain in place during removal of the existing house and
construction of the new house
2) The natural landscape that exists will remain undisturbed and the areas that are
disturbed during construction will be replanted with like plants, trees and
groundcover (grass, mulch, pine straw, natural topsoil material)
3) Areas disturbed during construction will be constantly seeded and kept with hay
or pine straw to minimize silt runoff
4) Silt fences will be installed on all 3 sides of the property at the buffer to prevent
soil erosion (steel stakes and steel meshed backing for superior strength)
5) Gutters and downspouts will drain onto the ground so that the ground can absorb
the water from impervious surfaces and not run into the stream
Question #4: Please provide an explanation of the following:
1) The practical difficulties or hardships that would result front the strict
application of the Rule.
The property is the smallest lot (depth-wise) in the neighborhood (approx
.32 acres or 100 feet wide by 140 foot average depth) and is at the tail-end
of the lots that back up to the Southwest Prong stream. Additionally, a
portion of the property actually resides within the stream itself, further
crippling the usable area in the lot. The 50 foot setback plats the property in
the stream encompass approximately the rear 37% of the property.
The existing houses in this and all surrounding areas are being removed
and new homes are being constructed in their place. The new homes are
averaging close to 5,000 SF, to justify today's sky-high land prices. The
other lots on this street can accommodate this size house but this particular
lot cannot due to its smaller size and proximity to the Southwest Prong
stream.
We have worked exhaustively to make the proposed house fit entirely
outside of the 50 foot buffer but are unable to do so, even after spreading
the heated square footage over 3 levels and eliminating approx 1,000
heated square feet from the plan. Our response to question #2 above
outlines the extensive measures we have taken to modify the house to
comply fully with the 50 foot setback and the attached plot plan indicates
said changes.
We believe strongly that the house as proposed will fit beautifully within
the lot and has minimal impact on the riparian buffer, especially once the
supplemental vegetation is installed.
If this 50 foot rule were to be strictly enforced, we could not build a new
house due to the severely restricted usable space posed by the buffer,
especially when coupled with the other usual lot restrictions (primarily
zoning setbacks, topography, and the inability (and our lack of desire) to
remove beautiful mature Live Oak trees in the front of the property). The
land cost dictates that a house of 4,500+ heated square feet be constructed
which we have even reduced further to 4,000.
Furthermore, under no circumstances could a garage be built on the
property due to the topography, setbacks, and trees in the City's Right of
Way at the front of the property unless a variance is granted.
As an illustration, the existing 1,500 SF single story house on the property
cannot have a garage and still strictly comply with the 50 foot buffer,
which illustrates the severity of the challenge that the 50 foot buffer
presents to this property.
2) How these difficulties or hardships result from conditions that are unique
to the property involved.
The difficulties and hardships are unique to this property due to its location
at the tail-end of the lots that back up to Southwest Prong stream, which
makes it the smallest lot in the area. The shallow depth of the lot creates
a situation whereby the 50-foot buffer consumes 37% of the lot.
Additionally, the Zoning setbacks are not different for this property than
for the larger lots, thus making the back yard of even greater importance on
this property, as it is much smaller.
Additionally, as previously noted, we have neither the right nor the desire
to remove two mature Live Oak trees that span the front of the lot on the
City's Right of Way. This, coupled with the 30 foot R-4 setback, makes a
front load garage logistically and economically impossible, as vehicles
cannot access the front of the property.
The house just next door would not need to apply for this variance, as the
lot is 20+ feet deeper and the house would not need to be situated within 50
feet of the stream. Unfortunately, this property is not as deep so it cannot
strictly comply and accommodate a house acceptable to today's
homebuyers in this market.
3) If economic hardship is the major consideration, then include a specific
explanation of the economic hardships and the proportion of the
hardship o the entire value of the project.
Economic hardship is a significant factor due to the simple fact that a house
cannot be built on this property that someone would buy given the 50 foot
buffer and the resulting limitations that the house would have, such as no
garage or vehicular access to the side or rear of the property, a difficult
floorplan, below-market square footage, and a price per square foot that
would far exceed anything else in the market. We would have to scrap the
project and would probably lose $100,000 upon resale of the property in its
as-is condition.
New houses must be consistent with the other surrounding new homes and
have the same features, minimum square footages and garages for people to
consider purchasing them. All of the other new homes in the area have 2-
car and mostly 3-car garages and square footages pushing 5,000 square
feet. If these features cannot be incorporated into a house to make it
comparable to the surrounding houses, the house should not be built - there
is simply too much risk and downside.
The potential loss we could suffer if we had to strictly comply with the
50 foot buffer and thus build a below-market, smaller square footage
house without a garage could be catastrophic if it did not sell, which is
a likely outcome. We could easily lose between $300,000 and $500,000,
which would more than bankrupt my family and me and all of my
workers would be out of work as well.
Part 3: Deed Restrictions
By your signature in Part 5 of this application, you certify that all structural stormwater best
management practices required by this variance shall be located in recorded stormwater
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.
Part 4: Agent Authorization
If you wish to designate submittal authority to another individual or firm so that they may provide
information on your behalf, please complete this section:
Designated agent (individual or firm):
Mailing address:
City, State, Zip:
Telephone:
Fax:
Email:
Part 5: Applicant's Certification
_LTo_ FfeT? C'nta (print or type name of person
listed in Part I, 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 a ordance ith Part 5 of this form will be recorded with all required permit
conditions.
Signature: /
Date: F- p b
Title: ?f-e-We f7 Variance Request Form, page 4
\/-i- '7• nln -l-r )nnn
LAND5 OF
BROWNS TONE BUILDING CO. , I NC
PLOT PLAN 1706 NOTTINGHAM ROAD
BUDLEIGH BARBER SECTION
PRELIMINARY PLAT RALEIGH WAKE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA

NOT FOR RECORDATION, DATE: 08-01-06 COMBINED SURVEYING RESOURCES
O
CONVEYANCES OR SALES PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEY
RS
SCALE: 1'=30' 3701 NATIONAL DRIVE SUITE 110

BUDI 6 RAM RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27612
EP2K (919) 787 - 0900

IN.

eip
- 3a'Q?ffe ?

o/ rcr CD nmK v a riQ 4 ce- reO v -,eS 7
LOT Ib b-/'crac?L`117-e?7
0. 231 AC
I'GMIN LINK MCF NiL 50 [L(t tR

,o
^ 30
p,
6
^ er,

V WX FrW.E

t»
b ?

-EIP IG12.12' EIF - - - - - - -

NOTTINGHAM ROAD
AUG U 2 Z006
UEr;R - WATER QUALITY
2 0 0 6 1 2 3 7 STOP--VV„4TER GrtQ,,Cii
REFERENCE5
BOOK OF MAP5 1945 PACE 27
TH15 KV 15 NOT A CERTIFIED SURVEY AND HA5 NOT BEEN REVEIPED BY A LOCAL OOVEWENT AGENCY FOR CO'PLIANCE WITH ANY APPLICABLE LMID DEVELPOWNT RECULAT1O45.
LAND5 OF
BROWNS TONE BU I L D I NG CO., 1 NC
PLOT PLAN 1706 NOTTINGHAM ROAD
BUDLEI GH BARBER 5ECT I ON
PRELIMINARY PLAT RALEI CH WAKE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA

NOT FOR RECORDATION, DATE. 08-01-06 COMBINED SURVEYING RESOURCES
VEYORS
CONVEYANCES OR SALES PROFESSIONAL LAND SUR
5CALEc 1'=30' 3701 NATIONAL DRIVE SUITE 110

BUD16 RAM RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA, 27612
EP2K (919) 787 - 0900

d