20070026 Ver 1_Public Notice_20070208

~.
a
~o®~i
US Army Corps PUBLIC NOTICE
Of Engineers
Wilmington District

Issue Date: February 6, 2007
Comment Deadline: March 8, 2007
Corps Action ID #: 2006 589 071
The Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers (Corps) has received an application from
Land Management Group, Inc. on behalf of Barnett Properties LLC and Wilco-
Hess LLC seeking Department of the Army authorization to impact 7.04 acres of 404
wetlands associated with a new commercial/retail shopping center to be known as
Surf City Market in Pender, North Carolina.
Specific plans and location information are described below and shown on the attached
plans. This Public Notice and all attached plans are also available on the Wilmington
District Web Site at www.saw.usace.army.mil/wetlands
Applicant: Barnett Properties, LLC
Attn: Hall Barnett
1775 Graham Avenue, Suite 201
Henderson, North Carolina 27536
WilcoHess, LLC
Attn: Steve Williams
5446 University Parkway
Winston Salem, North Carolina 27105
AGENT (if applicable): Land Management Group, Inc.
Attn: Ms. Kim Williams ~~~ ~"~ ~~~ -,; ~,~a
Post Office Box 2522 ~ ~~' ~ ~ "~r ~~~-~~ ~s
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402 ~`` - ~F6'~
~=%:B v OGl
Authority
The Corps will evaluate this application and a decide whether to issue, conditionally
issue, or deny the proposed work pursuant to applicable procedures of Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344).

Location
The 62.48 acre project site is located in Surf City, NC, on the northeast side of the
intersection of Highway 17 and Highway 210 in Pender County, NC. The site can be
located at 34° 27.28' N and 77° 36.28' W.
Existing Site Conditions
According to the Pender County Generalized Soil Survey, the site contains Leon fine
sand and Kureb fine sand which are shown in the upland areas. The wetland areas within
the site are depicted as Murville fine sand and Leon fine sand.
The majority of the site is forested except for a few small areas that have been previously
developed. The current developed areas have been converted into residential uses. The
residential uses, which includes a small dirt road, are concentrated in the southern portion
of the project area with access off Hwy 210. The wetlands that form the southern and
eastern project boundary contain a very dense assemblage of pond pine (Pinus serotina),
loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), gallberry (Ilex glabra),
and cat briar (Smilax laurifolia). The forested areas near Highway 17, both uplands and
wetlands, appear to have been mowed in previous years and support a sparse canopy of
longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) trees with little or no shrub
layer. The pines range in size from 4" diameter at breast height (DBH) to 18" DBH. A
ditch approximately 3' deep runs southeast from Highway 17 between two wetland
fingers which was determined to provide some drainage influence to the surrounding
wetlands and has been adjusted on the final wetland map. Uplands located further away
from Highway 17 contain younger and thicker stands of longleaf and loblolly pine trees
with scattered titi (Cyrilla racemiflora) and loblolly bay shrubs.
The project area has recently been annexed by the Town of Surf City and been provided
water and sewer. The property is zoned Extended (entranceway) Commercial District,
which allows additional commercial uses which are suitable, practical, and appropriate
for the mainland area of Surf City's planning and zoning jurisdiction.
Applicant's Stated Purpose
The applicant's stated purpose is to provide a commercial development within an
expanding section of Surf City.
Project Description
Applicant provided alternatives analysis information:
No Action- This alternative would keep the site in its current, undeveloped
condition. The applicant states that this alternative would be detrimental to the public's
interest because it would prevent the development of a regional shopping center in the
area served by Surf City.
2 Version 12/12/05

Off site Alternatives- The applicant identified a 10 mile study area along the
Highway 17 corridor. The applicant utilized the following search criteria to focus their
search; properties that could tap into local water and sewer lines, properties that were
zoned commercial, properties which had traffic infrastructure, and properties which were
located in an area convenient to residents of Surf City. The applicant studied and rejected
the following six sites based on this search criteria; (1) Highway 17 and Sloop Road, (2)
Highway 17 and Sloop Point Loop, (3) Highway 17 and Country Club Road, (4)
Highway 17 and Dan Owen Drive, (5) Highway l7 and Highway 50, and (6) Highway 17
and Highway 172.
On site Alternatives- (No Wetland Impact) A site plan was generated with no
wetland impact proposed however according to the applicant this was rejected being that
it only provided three small outparcels, up to eighteen small office units, and two medium
sized retail/commercial buildings. The limit on the size of complex along with the
possibility of multiple outlets to Highway 17 and Highway 210 creating potentially a
hazardous traffic situation made this plan not practicable in the eyes of the applicant.
(Increased wetland impact) The applicant states that the original master plan
maximized development within the entire tract to include a residential development
southeast of the commercial development. This plan would have impacted up to ten
acres of wetlands and may have impacted those perceived higher value wetlands located
closer to the main tributary running along the property boundary.
Applicant's preferred alternative- The preferred project consists of constructing
275,000 square feet of commercial/retail space, associated parking, and access roads
within the property. The site plan utilizes the minimum amount of parking required by
the Town of Surf City for commercial development. This proposed complex would
impact 7.04 acres of wetlands through fill for retail space and parking lots. The applicant
has proposed to mitigate for the loss of wetlands by preserving the remaining on-site
wetlands and through the purchase of credits from the N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement
Program at a 2:1 ratio. This total purchase would be 13 acres ofnon-riparian wetlands
within the Cape Fear River watershed.
Other Required Authorizations
This notice and all applicable application materials are being forwarded to the appropriate
State agencies for review. The Corps will generally not make a final permit decision
until the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) issues, denies, or waives
State certification required by Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (PL 92-500). The
receipt of the application and this public notice combined with the appropriate fee at the
North Carolina Division of Water Quality central office in Raleigh will constitute initial
receipt of an application fora 401 Water Quality Certification. A waiver will be deemed
to occur if the NCDWQ fails to act on this request for certification within sixty days of
the date of the receipt of this notice in the NCDWQ Central Office. Additional
information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be reviewed at the NCDWQ
Central Office, 401 Oversight and Express Permits Unit, 2321 Crabtree Boulevard,
3 Version 12/12/05

Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-2260. All persons desiring to make comments regarding
the application for certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act should do so in
writing delivered to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 1650 Mail
Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650 Attention: Ms Cyndi Karoly by
March 1, 2007.
The applicant has certified that the proposed work complies with and will be conducted
in a manner that is consistent with the approved North Carolina Coastal Zone
Management Program. Pursuant to 33 CFR 325.2 (b)(2) the Corps is, by this notice,
forwarding this certification to the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
(NCDCM) and requesting its concurrence or objection. Generally, the Corps will not
issue a Department of the Army (DA) permit until the NCDCM notifies the Corps that it
concurs with the applicant's consistency certification.
Essential Fish Habitat
This notice initiates the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation requirements of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The Corps' initial
determination is that the proposed project will not adversely impact EFH or associated
fisheries managed by the South Atlantic or Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Councils
or the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Cultural Resources
The Corps has consulted the latest published version of the National Register of Historic
Places and is not aware that any registered properties, or properties listed as being
eligible for inclusion therein are located within the project area or will be affected by the
proposed work. Presently, unknown archeological, scientific, prehistoric, or historical
data maybe located within the project area and/or could be affected by the proposed
work.
Endangered Species
The Corps has reviewed the project area, examined all information provided by the
applicant and consulted the latest North Carolina Natural Heritage Database. Based on
available information, the Corps is not aware of the presence of species listed as
threatened or endangered or their critical habitat formally designated pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) within the project area. A final determination on
the effects of the proposed project will be made upon additional review of the project and
completion of any necessary biological assessment and/or consultation with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and/or National Marine Fisheries Service."
4 Version 12/12/05

Evaluation
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable
impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity on the public interest.
That decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of
important resources. The benefit which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the
proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors
which may be relevant to the proposal will be considered including the cumulative effects
thereof; among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental
concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, flood plain
values (in accordance with Executive Order 11988), land use, navigation, shoreline
erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy
needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property
ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. For activities involving
the discharge of dredged or fill materials in waters of the United States, the evaluation of
the impact of the activity on the public interest will include application of the
Environmental Protection Agency's 404(b)(1) guidelines.
Commenting Information
The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State and local
agencies and officials, including any consolidate State Viewpoint or written position of
the Governor; Indian Tribes and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate
the impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by the
Corps of Engineers to determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for
this proposal. To make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on endangered
species, historic properties, water quality, general environmental effects and the other
public interest factors listed above. Comments are used in the preparation of an
Environmental Assessment (EA) and/or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Comments are also used to
determine the need for a public hearing and to determine the overall public interest of the
proposed activity.
Any person may request, in writing, within the comment period specified in this notice,
that a public hearing be held to consider the application. Requests for public hearings
shall state, with particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing. Requests for a
public hearing shall be granted, unless the District Engineer determines that the issues
raised are insubstantial or there is otherwise no valid interest to be served by a hearing.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will be received
by the Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, until Spm, March 8, 2007. Comments
should be submitted to Brad Shaver, Regulatory Specialist at P.O. Box 1890 Wilmington,
NC 28402-1890.
5 Version 12/12/05

PROJECT NARRATIVE
December 2006
Surf City Market
Barnett Properties LLC & Wilco-Hess LLC
Pender County, NC
INTRODUCTION
Barnett Properties LLC and Wilco-Hess LLC propose to develop the Surf City Market, a
regional shopping center that will contain 275,000 square feet of commerciaUretail space. Total
proposed impacts are 7.04 acres of 404 wetlands. The project area is located within the Cape
Fear River Basin and is 62.48 acres in size.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project area is located in Pender County, northeast of the intersection of Highway 17
and Highway 210 in Surf City, NC (Figures 1 & 2). The project area actually consists of eight
separate tracts. One tract (Wilco-Hess) already has a valid wetland survey. A site delineation of
404 wetlands for the other seven tracts was performed by Land Management Group, Inc. and
was approved in the field by Ms. Lillette Granade of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on
February 22nd, 2006. LMG staff then met with Mr. Brad Shaver of the. Corps on December 19~',
2006 to evaluate the drainage effect of ditches within the project area. It was determined that the
ditch running north-south on the property had an approximate 50' foot drainage effect on either
side of it. The Swale located adjacent to Highway 17 had less of an effect. (The wetland line in
this area was redelineated by LMG and will be evaluated by the Corps during a site meeting in
early January.) The project area contains approximately 22 acres of 404 wetlands. Most of the
wetlands can be classified as non-riparian wetland flats. No streams exist within the site. Two
small wetland fingers flow southeast into a main wetland system that forms the southern and
eastern project boundaries. In addition, there are two wetland pockets located directly off of
1

Highway 17. All of the wetlands located adjacent to Highway 17 likely receive some stormwater
runoff from the road. A functional assessment of these wetlands was recently conducted by Land
Management Group, Inc (Appendix A). The Division of Water Quality has determined that the
project area is not located within 1/2 mile of an SA-classified waterbody.
According to the Pender County Generalized Soil Survey, uplands within the site are
classified as Leon fine sand and Kureb fine sand (Figure 3). Wetlands within the site are shown
as Murville fine sand and Leon fine sand.
Most of the site is forested, except for a few small areas that have been previously
developed (Figure 4). These developed areas have been converted into residences and contain
several homes and sheds. A small dirt road cuts through the wetlands located on the southern
part of the tract to provide access to these structures. The wetlands that form the southern and
eastern project boundary contain a very dense assemblage of pond pine (Pinus se~otina), -loblolly
bay (Gordonia lasianthus), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), gallberry (Ilex glabra), and cat briar
(Smilax laurifolia). The forested areas near Highway 17, both uplands and wetlands, appear to
have been mowed in previous years and support a sparse canopy of longleaf pine (Pinus
palustris) and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) trees with little or no shrub layer. The pines trees range
in size from 4" diameter at breast height (DBH) to 18" DBH. A ditch approximately 3' deep runs
southeast from Highway 17 between two wetland fingers and may have some drainage effect on
the adjacent wetlands. Uplands located further away from Highway 17 contain. younger and
thicker stands of longleaf and loblolly pine trees with scattered titi (Cyrilla racemiflora) and
loblolly bay shrubs. Surrounding land use consists of Highway 17 to the northwest, Highway 210
to the southwest, scattered residential development to the south and southeast, and undeveloped
land to the east.
. A search of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database was conducted to
determine whether any state or federally listed rare species have previously been observed within
or near the project area. No rare species were noted within or surrounding the tracts ('/2 mile
radius).
2

Table 1.Federally-listed endangered and threatened species known to occur in Pender County, NC,
excluding coastal and marine species.
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Animals
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis T(S/A)
Bald ea le Haliaeetus leucoce halus T
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E
Shortnose star eon Aci enser brevirostrum E
West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus E
Plants
American chaffseed Schwalbea americana E
Cooley's meadowrue Thalictrum cooleyi E
Golden sedge Carex lutea E
Rough-leaf loosestrife Lysimachia as erulaefolia E
KEY:
Status Definition
Endangered A taxon "in danger of extinction. throughout all or a significant portion of its
range."
Threatened A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range."
T(S/A) Threatened due to similarity of appearance - a species that is threatened due to
similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection.
The project area has recently been annexed by the Town of Surf City and provided with
water and sewer. The property is zoned Extended (entranceway) Commercial District, which
allows additional commercial uses which are suitable, practical, and appropriate for the mainland
area of Surf City`s planning and zoning jurisdiction. Its regulations are designed to: 1) encourage
a continuity of uses along the main thoroughfare onto the island; 2) enhance the landscaping of
properties in the district; 3) provide a commercial district with an expanded number of permitted
uses; and 4) limit access points on NC 50/210 to preserve the transportation capacity of the
highway.
Because until recently the entire project area fell under the jurisdiction of Pender County,
the Pender County CAMA Land Use Plan was consulted to determine land classifications. The
Land Use Plan, updated in 2005, classifies the project area as an `Urban Growth Area'. "The
Urban Growth Area classification provides for the continued development of areas provided with
3

water and/or sewer services or where the county is actively engaged in planning these
community services. These areas also have excellent access to the regional transportation system
for a mixture of more intensive commercial and industrial or job creating uses and a range of
residential land uses and housing types. It is focused on the Rocky Point area and the Highway
17 Corridor.
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
The alternatives evaluated include a no-action alternative, off-site alternatives, on-site
alternative site layouts, and the preferred project.
No-Action Alternative
The no-action alternative would keep the site in its current, undeveloped condition and
would prevent the applicants .from developing it. The no-action alternative is not considered
feasible for several reasons. The Surf City area is experiencing rapid growth. Currently there are
few available shopping centers to meet the needs of this growing community. This altemative
would leave a minimum of forty-one acres of uplands undeveloped. The inability to expand
development within this tract of land would be a significant Loss of return for the current owners
and a loss of a retail center for people living in this area. This altemative would be detrimental to
the public's interest because it would prevent the development of a regional shopping center in
the area served by Surf City water and sewer and at a location providing the best traffic pattern
for people living in this area.
Alternate Sites
The study area that was originally identified for this project was limited to the Highway
17 corridor, 10-miles in both directions from the subject property. Highway 17 serves as the
primary north/south traffic artery for eastern Pender County. When selecting a site, the applicant
searched for properties that could tap into local water and sewer lines, were already zoned for
commercial use, had established traffic infrastructure, were at least thirty acres in size, had
limited environmental impacts, and were located in an area convenient to residents of Surf City.
Several tracts were rejected because they did not meet one or more of these criteria (Figure 5;
Table 2).
4

Off-site Alternatives
1. Hi hway 17 and Sloop Point Road
This is a 20-acre tract located at the corner of Highway 17 and Sloop Point Road.
Because the site is only 20 acres, the development potential is diminished. Furthermore,
of the 20 acres, approximately 70% appears to be wetlands (Figure 6). Finally, there is no
water or sewer infrastructure to this tract. Based on these conditions, this is not
considered a practical alternative or one with less environmental impact.
2. Highway 17 and Sloop Point Loop
This 10-acre tract appears to be approximately 80% wetlands (Figure 7). Furthermore,
water and sewer infrastructure is not available. Therefore, this is not considered a
practical alternative or one with less environmental impact.
3. Highway 17 and Country Club
This 25-acre tract is surrounded by residential uses. It has a long and narrow shape,
which would limit the size of commercial buildings that could be placed within the tract.
Furthermore, preliminary wetlands analysis shows it to be approximately 60% wetlands
(Figure 8). Finally, water and sewer infrastructure is not available. Because of these
reasons, this is not considered a practical alternative or one with less environmental
impact.
4. Hi way 17 and Dan Owen Drive
This tract is located near Hampstead. It is already in commercial use and does not have
access to water or sewer utilities (Figure 9). Furthermore, it is not located at a major
intersection. Because of these reasons, this is not a practical alternative.
5. Highway 17 and Highwa~50
This 150-acre project area is fairly large and appears to have limited wetlands issues
(Figure 10). However, water and sewer infrastructure is not available. Furthermore, the
site is already in industrial use. Therefore, this is not a practical alternative.
5

6. Highway 17 and Highway 172
This tract is 470 acres in size. Preliminary analysis shows up to 90% of the site to be
wetlands (Figure 11). Furthermore, this site is iri active industrial use and water and
sewer infrastructure is not available. For these reasons, this is not considered a practical
alternative or one with less environmental impact.
On-site Alternatives
Once the specific project location was determined, two site plans other than the preferred
project were evaluated. The first option is a site plan that would not impact any wetlands within
the property. The second alternative is a site plan that would maximize development within the
tract.
1. Alternate Site Plan with No Wetland Impacts
An alternate site plan was evaluated in which no wetlands would be disturbed (Figure
12). Because several wetland fingers span the entire project area, avoiding wetlands
completely would severely limit the development potential of the site. Only small buildings
could be placed in between wetland fingers and there would be limited interconnectivity
between buildings. This site plan would allow three small outparcels, up to eighteen small
office units, and two medium-sized retaiUcommercial buildings. Multiple driveways off of
Highway 17 would be needed to provide access to these buildings. These smaller building
footprints would limit the type of retailers that cauld use this development, which would
diminish the overall marketability of the site. Furthermore, the multiple driveways off of
Highway 17 would make it cumbersome to access the site, creating a hazardous traffic
situation. Because of these problems, this site plan is not considered a practical alternative to
satisfy the developer's or the public's purpose and need.
2. Alternate Site Plan with More Wetland Impacts
The applicant's original site plan maximized development within the entire tract,
including a residential development southeast of the commercial development. This site plan
contained all of the commerciaUretail buildings and parking shown on the preferred site plan
6

plus residential development to the south. Total wetland impacts would have been
approximately ten acres and would impact the wetlands on the site which have the highest
fiuictional value. Even though this site plan would maximize the economic value of the land,
the wetland impacts were greater. Furthermore, the developer could satisfy its purpose and
need without the residential component. Therefore, this alternative was not considered
feasible.
Preferred Project
The applicant's purpose and need is to develop an economically viable community
shopping center of thirty or more acres with at least one anchor tenant with complimentary
business services, being primarily office and retail in nature to serve the population located on
Topsail Island, especially the Town of Surf City. The center will serve the population located
approximately ten (10) miles north and south along US Highway 17.
The preferred project consists of constructing 275,000 square feet of commerciaUretail
space, associated parking, and access roads within the property (Figure 13). The site plan
contains the minimum amount of parking required by the Town of Surf City for commercial
development; five spaces per 1000 square feet of building.
The number of buildings planned within the project area is based on the price of the
tracts, development costs, and the applicant's anticipated profit margin. The applicant is
purchasing twenty-four acres for $6 million. Please note that the applicant has taken the large
retail development out of the economic analysis because it is not making any profit on it. Barnett
Properties LLC is essentially selling this part of the project area directly to a retailer for the price
it pays for it. The applicant understands that this large retailer will bring many customers to the
shopping center and will have an overall benefit on the development. The estimated development
costs for the remaining twenty-four acres of the proposed project, including construction of roads
and utilities, engineering, land planning, and finance costs are anticipated to be approximately
$15,452,750. Therefore, total expenses to the applicant would be $21,452,750. The developer is
proposing to sell three outparcels for an estimated total price of $2,502,000 ($834,000 each). In
addition, the net operating income once the center is fully leased is expected to be $1,425,774
7

per year which equates to a 4% return on equity after debt service. Given this scenario, it will
take approximately ten years to achieve market returns.
In addition to any economic benefit to the applicant, it should be noted that the
development of this shopping center will greatly benefit the Town of Surf City and Pender
County. This project will meet the goals of the Strategic Plan of the Town of Surf City (adopted
14-Mar-Ol and updated 11-Sept-Ol). One of the stated goals of this plan is to "Improve the
availability of business services for residents and visitors." A few of the implementation
measures to accomplish this goal -as stated in the plan -are the following:
• Specifically encourage the establishment of new service businesses.
• Develop a Thoroughfare Plan for the mainland portion of Surf City, to guide well-planned
development of new commerce.
• To make improvements to the Town's water and sewer infrastructure which support the
development of new business services.
Another stated goal of the Town's Strategic Plan is "To maintain and improve a municipal
water and sewer utility system that will sustain continued growth of the community and which
will improve fire protection for persons and property." In summary, the Town's development
of the water and sewer infrastructure, the desire of Town planners for commercial development
at the Highway 210/17 intersection, and the existing transportation network at this intersection,
make this proposed site the best alternative in the described trade area. Furthermore, this project
will create jobs for the community. This project has the full support of the Town of Surf City
(Appendix B).
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The proposed project would impact 7.04 acres of 404 wetlands (Figure 13). The majority
of these impacts would be to wetlands that appear to have limited functional capacity (Appendix
A). Secondary impacts to wetlands and water quality could occur during and after construction
of the project through erosion and stormwater runoff. These potential impacts will be minimized
by the development and implementation of a Stormwater Plan and a Sedimentation and Erosion
8

Control Plan. These plans will reduce the potential for erosion or runoff into wetlands and other
water bodies located off site.
As noted earlier, this site is classified as an `Urban Growth Area' by the Pender County
CAMA Land Use Plan, dated 2005. The proposed project meets the stated purpose of this land
classification. The proposed project complies with the enforceable policies of North Carolina's
approved coastal management program and will be conducted in a manner consistent with such
program.
NIITIGATION
To mitigate for proposed wetland impacts, a conservation easement will be placed on all
remaining wetlands within this tract to prohibit any wetland fill beyond what is being requested
by this permit application. This will protect approximately 14.57 acres of wetlands. In addition,
the applicant plans to buy into the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) for the restoration of
thirteen acres (2:1 ratio) ofnon-riparian wetlands within the Cape Fear River watershed.
9

Table 2. List of sites evaluated for proposed proiect.
Site Location Distance Costs Lo istics Technolo Issues
Water and sewer from Town of Surf A 30-acre showing center can be developed Not located within %2 mile of SA
City. on this site. waters and allows for discharge
Subject Traffic light at Hwy 210 and 17. Clustered with other retail uses. of waters rather than large

(
d Hwy 17 and
0 Road improvements on Hwy 210. Designated by the Town of Surf City as a infiltration ponds.
Pro~ec ) Hwy 210 commercial node.
Site best suited to serve residents from
north, south, and east (from TopsaiUSurf
Ci via 210 .
No sewer Site only 20 acres in size. Within'/Z mile of SA Waters;
Alternate #1 Hwy 17 and 2 miles No water Mapped as 70% wetlands. would require infiltration
Sloop Point Rd south No stoplight Other parcels occupied with residential
Cost rohibitive dwellin s, with umnotivated sellers.
Hwy 17 and
8 miles
3 No sewer Site only 10 acres in size. Within 'h mile of SA Waters;
Alternate #2 Sloop Point .
south No water Mapped as 80% wetlands with potential would require infiltration
Loo Cost rohibitive stream.
Hwy 17 and No sewer Largely developed with residential uses. Within'/s mile of SA Waters;
Alternate #3 Country Club 6.8 miles No water One large tract is not configured for would require infiltration
Rd south Cost prohibitive commercial development.
Ma ed as 60% wetlands.
Hwy 17 and No sewer Already developed with commercial uses. Within''/Z mile of SA Waters;
Alternate #4 Dan Owen 8.5 miles No water would require infiltration
Dr./H 210 .south Cost rohibitive
No sewer Large parcels owned by US government. Within''/2 mile of SA Waters;
Hwy 17 and No water Only large privately owned site in active . would require infiltration
Alternate #5 50 4.3 miles Cost prohibitive industrial use.
north Numerous small parcels clustered within the
(Holly Ridge)
area.
Mix of commercial and residential.
No sewer Large parcels owned by US government Within''/2 mile of SA Waters;
No water and/or State. government. would require infiltration
Alternate #6 Hwy 17 and 8.3 miles No stoplight Privately owned parcels are already
Hwy 172 north Cost prohibitive developed with residential uses or viable
commercial uses.
Remote area, awa from o ulation centers.

12-11-06;02:14PM;
Dec 1 I Qfi 1 1 : Ulu
;L5L4yL51V( ~ 4/ 4
p.
A.G~NT AISCLOSI(JRE ~ORNI
TO WHOM IT MANX CONCERN:
Uwe, the undersig~aed, hereby authorize La~ctd Management Group, Inc. to act as our agent in the
preparation and representation of infomnation related to the permit application for the
(,(f l~Gp /~~i ~r site. Ali questions is zegards to this project should be directed
to Land Management Cnoup, Inc.
Sincerely,
!. Gl/~GLC/f-r~C1
Owner/Applicant
~ eu 7. ~~
Print Name
/.Z "~~-' D (o
Date

06-28-06;02:18PM;
t7 D! LO! GUCIO C17: 4D 71 C14JLCICID0
!_l-~IYLI•IFt1YHl7CJ`'ICIV 1
AGENT DYSCLQS ~d~
TO WHOM ~T MAY' CONCIiItN:
;2524925107
# 2/ 3
rHUC ny~ no
.U~uvc, tho undersi~.cd, hereby autho>:izc Land Management Group, Inc. to act a5 our wont irk tote
prcp~aratidn end representation of information related to the permit application fort the Sidbury
Si»ith Capps site, Fender County, NC. A11 ciuestior~s im regaXds to this project should be dirEGtod
to T~rrd management Group, Inc.
Sincet'eXy,

Applicant
~---
1-f~ll i- v~~~n~.c 1
Print 'Dame
~~
Date

LIST OF FIGURES and APPENDICES
Surf City Market; Pender County, NC
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Topographic Map
Figure 3 SCS Soils Map
Figure 4 Aerial Photograph
Figure 5 Off-site Alternatives Vicinity Map
Figure 6 Off-site Alternative #1
Figure 7 Off-site Alternative #2
Figure 8 Off-site Alternative #3
Figure 9 Off-site Alternative #4
Figure 10 Off-site Alternative #5
Figure 11 Off-site Alternative #6
Figure 12 On-Site Alternative: No Wetland Impacts
Figure 13 Proposed Site Plan
Appendix A. Wetlands Functional Assessment
Appendix B. Letter from the Town of Surf City
Appendix C. Adjacent Property Owners

~ =~ a . ~ . r
.. Y. ~. ~ , , ~ _
_ \ ~ L _ _ _itl+. ~ ~„~~ ~g ~ _ A ~ s r r
.._, n
`: ~rw ~"' ~ i4` f a``
;' Nv
M:. _
1 I ~ _,:~
`~" J - f
~ ~~~ Ym ~~- ~~ ~ ~ - ~ !~4,~~ ~ Y ~'~ ~~+ ~ '~ SITE ~\
_ 4;
N~, i za ..:rte -~ ,i r '~- - ~ ~3r 9::
r f ~ '*~, "G -, ~, ~ „~.. • _ t ~ ~ _ ~~ _ _ mss' ' , ~ . -.i 'e~f ~ ~
~~. ,< ~ j~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V a.
`1- i x~ 4 i __ ~~ ~~ - ~ ~' '~ ~ #P+j ~ ` ~ j. max.
~.
w ~ ~
_ _ ~ ~ ~
- _
~c.~
k ~ ~ ~ ~ t t
.~ y
*Boundanes are approximate ano are aiTE
not meant to be absolute.
Map Source: North Carolina Atlas & Gazetteer. Pg 85.2003
Surf City Market Land Management Group, Inc.
Barnett Properties, LLC Environmental Consultants
Pender County, NC Wilmington, N.C.
03-06-404P December 2006
SCALE 1" = 1 Mile
Figure 1
Vicinity Map

*Bounda~ yes are approximate ana are
not meant to be absolute.
Map Source: NRCS Soils Map.
Surf City Market
Barnett Properties, LLC
Pender County, NC
03-06-404P
aiTE
Land Managemenf Group, lnc.
Environmental Consultants
Wilmington, N.C.
December 2006
SCALE 1" = 400'
Figure 3
Soils Map

•,
,` _ s , -_.- (' -.~ _ it ~7~"
~; '=P
~.
. ~ ` °~ ~ ~ 'i _ r ~ e
~,i j r -, _ .. } - _. ~;~-.,.. ~.-.._ SITE 6 -._ -~_~, ~,
,i. .,
t :., i. . ! ~. ~ o:
~-
~ -. _ ~
_ r `
;!
t _ 4~.-_~
vp/ - ^
~:~ ~ - _ _ - i SITE 5 ~, ~~ P ~a~.~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~
f i x N"'e0 - _' i - ~
.,4it t _ - _ }. .. 1 { ~ ~, - ~ ; I i a- _ Srv ~ ao 210
?k ya °° ~,- ~ .1 ~ t ~
-0 _
~. L Y .. z _. 5 f i E~T E Ft i. ,:_ ~: { 6 f ~ ~" t~ ~~-j • ,'
r
_ _ _ ` ..~~ ~ Ei`;~a - `5 f~~~~~~ 1,
- _ ~.
v ~ ~ ` - _ - '_' ` ~ tit ~ _. i ~ ~ f -~ _ 4L ~ ri ~'~S~'~~"'d ,
A NI E LR7' E5 , ~ .~ } \MRa ,.R .~ ~ `~~ ~L`- 'r
f !.. Sf •,cr ~e+:cn ~ z ~. } '~, .'~, ~ Y ,1 ~ b na,.. ) t~y,,. ~~ o t
L /4
`~, =-;. -.~ ~ ~ - _ SITEr1 J `~~ ~ , ~~-~ - . $'~ ll ~ rt ~ ~ , ,~~~fjy'
--~~ SITE 4 = ~ ~ ~ •; ~ ~ - _ ~ ,~.n ~ ~ ,~ ~~.
_ ~ j;. r1~R~.
.~ ,,- `Y
j ` . , ~, r
.. i f~-. ` ^ ~ ~ ''~ ~ ~ ~`'O A r~ F~ ng Pier
,. _' i_. ~~' 210 ~ L r~ ri. Z\
fT i~
s-~ ~ ~ SITE 2 ~'` ~: ~ .~.~ - ,:~ ~ ` ~ ` %'~; „" , ` ~~
~ L i~ ~ ~ C` ~~` ~/ F:I i~i~Pei
- ~ ~ '"~
' -SITE 3 ~ _~' ~ ~ " 4, ~ ~ ~ ~ «« ~, .; ~ ~es,.~r~,ry~e,.,P;e~
y~. ~
t t F.io ty mf'b'ja~ ~i. ~ 1:. r ~ % ~
1 ~ ~ Sig 1 ` .`~ ~. 1 ~ - ~3?-_ tr s~.r".-`1"'~' ~ ~ 'y - - ~ _ _ __. _ _-
\'
-~ '~ SITE
i ~ r~
1iya~ ~~ aT yy,.~a~ ~3,~Y/
i ~ ~ t m~~ ~r ~ _ ~~ ~~ - \: T'.--7~oki~4/i ~~ I+ilr, 2cr;;ec -
~ ~ ts.J~/ .. F.~/ ~~ Fi.hing F',s!
/~\ .~ Lim ~~y'~\`~~~
,. - _
_ ; c - _
.'. ~' ..
.~~.i ..:.. _. ... ...,.._ :..
DES
*Boundarie5 are apprvxunare anu are
not meant to be absolute. SCALE 1" - 2.4 Miles
Map Source: North Carolina Atlas ~ Gazetteer. Pg 84 ~ 85.2003
Barnett Properties T 1-/rG Figure 5
Surf City Market: Alternatives Analysis l.lvl
Pender County NC LANDbUINAGEMENTGROUP1trc Vicinity Map of
~ Environments! Consultants
03-06-a04P ~ Alternate Sites
December 2006

r
I
,;
!I
I
E
I
I)
C
C
h
I
I
I
\'
,~` ~ _
__
L '- - ----
o 'u o - - _
I ~._..~. --- _
I~ ~ r ------_,_
a u, r.~ ., a i ,.
_ n J _...
L^ __J y r a ` i a s i r r .t r r a a i ~'~."~
r a I x r a l a a a i ~~ I //.. `~ "T...
(- a
E-., a
~ a '' a v i i a a
++ x x a , ~ ,'
fi ~... a a a ~ I I x r a a ~ '~ a
° x a I ~~ a ((
\) r a ~ « ~ r
/ r
/_ r ( M
fr I IIII4~1I a r
i r ~I I« I}'~{I,}I I}{I{II}~~{I i n ~~~y}~7«~~ ~ i/ I
( / a a a
+ ~~ I 119 I I I I i I I U I I 1 I I I I PCiI! / / x a a s a r r~
O r i a
I x a r r
a r r
a N r a x a
/ a x x a +1
v -
a ! a a
a ~ a ~ a r a a r a a/
a 11 ~ ~.., a r a r
i .. x a a a r
r
~J~~~
.. ~~ ~ __~ _. a i ... _... \~ i J 1 I N~I I~~~~EU 11 I I I 1 I I I R V ~ r a a r r +s
- r M a W a
I r, a a r a
a x x r r
a i r a r r r
« r r x a ~
a r a a a
+ (~,~ ~ i N I« ~ r r r a r
a r a r r r +~ a
CI~UIIIIIAIII~ a r r
a r x
a a a x '4 a a r r a y!
a a r ~ 1« .. I-
a a a a a
a
a vI~I111 MFV r 4
a ~ I r r a y//
a a lI a ~IIIIII~~~p(~ I« a a ra r• a x'/
r a ! a i\``\` J nIW_IIIIII~nIIIIIIIIIi'f1 a r r r
r a a a ,~ a ~ )~1 ~r r a s a a
' a a r r r +' ~.~ ~_ ~_/ a '~ r. a ~ a / -
a a a r a r /"`~"~ a a r I r ~ r a a ~
r a r a a p a a r
i x r a a /
\a a r a 6 r a x r
a r a a a,.. r r • a
~y a s a a x r a r '~7i8 r i t • r a r r r ~
~~r- _4 r 4 ..
a r r r x a a x r x a a a,! a~
{ --` a i r r _ r r a a a
a a~ r a r • r
r a x r a r r r i
a r a a i.... a r r a r a s a a r i
a a -m ~. a r r r a a a
a r r w r /
a r a • 'a 1..... a a r a a .. r--.A. ~. /
4 a a r '
l as a •a as a a a _~_.._..~g,~-`
r a + a a + r r a a a~ ~~ -
~ a • a a a a
r "'
a r as r. r~~irt&~~ s a ra r a r •~
r a a K ~ - ;i r a a r
i i r r a a xN r r a a
i x r r a 4 r - r a r ~}„ l
r ~. 'r r a x a r ~ ~,~"'
6 a a~ a • r a x a ~
r a a r a r ~~~.! r~
a a r r r a r a r a 1
a a a r a a r y, r
r r r a a • r r , a
a a r a 4 r a x r~
r ~ r r r • r a a
~ a a r a a r `- r
` a • r a a r r
a • • a a a
a as r ~,4r
\r a i r
a a
\ i a
a { a
r
• a a
404 Wetlands ~ : • a
NOTE: THIS SITE PLAN IS NOT BASED ON ENGINEERED ~ 0 200 400
SPECIFICATIONS AND IS ONLY MEANT TO SHOW POTENTIAL FlgUre ~ 2. Slte plan with no wetland impacts.
DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT WETLAND IMPACTS. SCALE i°=200'
F~
~. o
N
!~ ~
~ ~ ~
N ~CC Z
C
z~TZ
}
W ~ ~ U
r
N ~ W
og
0~
woa
~ w
o v d
g~
w yFo
z "gym'
F o
O °z ivr
U
Z
d.
O N
~ d'
Z
W U~
W~ZO
QNZ N
v (Ot^~ 'yy^
G O^~ V V
W c~c ~\
O G
~a~

~,
~~`
o5i
;'sr_
...- ~
,:~/ -
uc wain iEa
~. YCINIt'f tJAP
~,.' ..
,~~ `
~~.
)

--.-~ FONT iN/ RE'wif OUi ~ --, _` ., _.' .-_.. ~ . .. ~.. - - - -
l"`~~ ~,,.' ~ ~~;,,~~ L~lEt7AY
~` ~, .±E -_':: -.____ PROPERTY UNE J
_,r~~-` ,
;'~~ ___ -_ "--.._..-_.. PROPOScO PROJECT
RfOh7 Mf REUI{T CIFY
ORhEW&Y
_ ,~ ~ ~ tULI 5 JRiVE'~YAY
-~_
II ~(/..'"~'~. `~`'^-- ~~__-~___- _~- L'ARlABLE WiD?'ri PUBLIC ~ ... : ~~. ~--- ~ --- -_-..__ _-~._ _- _~ -___-_--__-___ \ ~
r-- ---- -------- _
~k ~ '_ -~_- -- ----- - ------ - __
_ "s-~ ~ _--~ _:
' t I _~ `T ~ - -- ' , _ 4~~--_ >timate IocaUon of ~ --- _....._~ - - - - - - - ~- ~--__ --- _ __-
..
~~~ I! I~ f71 dlmpact#1: "'~--_=_r~-~- eX _.._ __r- i__~~-_.-_ _ _~ --:
! ~ Ij I ~ ~ p i ~.97 acre i - _ -~"_= __-~
r~ ' ~ /.. ~ ~ ~ ~ d "'"_
~~ ti 4~sT r`oai: s,soD sr ~ ~-a,t
(~N! vaRr ~ r ~ ~ i ~ w.o ~ ~ r , r ~.
I ~~ s,aoo! 9P ,, x I_ ~ „o r
~'y ! 't-RE area 30o RETd1L n ~ - Wetland Impact #3: a / w
I pC~ ~ fE 3a az,3sa sF ~ ~ 1.41 acres " -,~ ~~ / ENnr;ta ' w-~ .
~~ ~ tl ~'. ~ ~. ~ae.D ~' ~ ~ T ~ - CI ~ / ~P~~
L t ~ ~~ -----I E ~ / ` a!
i , _ ~J
... -I 't(tO N?JOR ~kL C ` % /,;~ ~~ w.. w ..w'' K w * m<
I _-- -_ ... _ - ~ ~ ~ w
m
t It tt 11 ~ If tt i1 N H 11 tt - K ~ ....__.... .
(): 11 r~ d d w d ~~ /
I ~ ~ d d Y w
~' PtifiRVAh^Y ~ fh^t7.~ I a .J I- I ~~ ~ a w a w d d d
I ~I ~ ' Ta,BZD sP ~f3+ . i POND ~ I ~. _ { } I t ~ s.~.... ~ +' ® ~ w 4 w
I ~ F}'E 38.0 ~ I ~
w d d d
1~ O£I I! ~ ~ i- ~t I- i t I ~ ,y w e w ~ w m w w d d +n a
I I d w d d/
I / I- ~ t q ~ ~ w d ! K
jl(fI~ Q'IIIIIIIC.~Ii110 t} - - r tr }t tr " -I !l*. ,a d d, ,,
,. , _
T`i11..- ~ f I- - - ~ - r ~: ~ ~ d d w d .v w
t _.._.. - -~a-rax s
~~ ~ ~ I,
R I ~ , -- w
I°!~ -„ .~ _ _ _.2 _.._ ._~ __.___ ~ U I f 1I I I IdU d K w w °'
~~ ' i f ~~ /...- ~ I ~ x a /
I sE'tTAld _''~ ~ ~ ~ ( t- ~ d d m d
v .~-w -i- -~~ •- ~ l~rIfATT1T~i1~fTIT~TffAl1 L! "~ /
I - - _ - Y ~ ' ~ RETkt' yl~~ SR ~ ~ '~ ~I h ~.. m '°. m w / d~ r
I F ° ~ ~. \ ' 34.0 ~ 2O,0~ SF pOy~ , ~ ~~ ~ ./~ d d a w "~ ~ SEO
I ~ ~ NLL ACCESi RYc'~-..-..~..•. "'- ~ 1 _. d w +n w BOUNOtJtY +
d d ~ ~~~% '`~,~. ~~ ~ 1 rte. a~d '° w w w / d
I , w Wetland ImpacY#5:w ``•~ `` ; ( ~.t ~ ~-"~" d d r w
I" '~ ~ w ~ ~ w d w m 4 d w
`~ .. ,/.
~ ~ d w 0.04 acre w ~ w ~!I ~A~ ~ ~;` 6~ ~etland Impact #4: Jj / ~7HN~0 WI~1. / "' ,~ "' w " d m / w
d \ d m d d" d w I t ,~ ~~ 2.49 acres ~I ~ d w w+ w d w * d w ~/ /w y
' - -~---- - '+ w q '~t ~ x ~, w d / d~,('~ DATA
d + ,I , .~ r R /1 ~ rs~Ermon J/ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ Y w
PROPOSED'" ~ w , R,c j1ry I d ~ ``'^, ,7%I`/ }'O;,1D 1 ~ '~ ~, ~I.r ° d q w as # ' i d ri&s tkan fAC has 5853 eau
a6` Ptt0.1ECT d i "tE.NTivN T ~. t ~`.,~ C .--..ffJ ~ .mow ~..~A' a w w ~M ~aat,es. LLC dew 58.831 germ
w I Pt~irD t / d ' ! "'--~-_....,~,_ +. ~ f~ < d d d w ~ d Rrga1 Tatai Mca 82M3 tmas
w gplfN~rRy d d B 5, r ~ W ~•~`., ---.._'`'^ !. ~ a m w w • d r „~---.n. _ ,, WflUtm &~x
w a~ / d / ~ ., ! y t d d d
I d r" d ~ ~~. a d w _ ~*+^'-"' ~. (%dkM arm 4oxd on aa~ Maw bamtloy. WcBm ds rotor mtirn
d 1,. d ~ / _ `~ ~•+ r/ w a _ ---~§-' ' a sawn a rrmn >,evcy ey t~l damcd ta}
I w a I .. f t • ~1 d w \~~ w ~: ! d ~~ROPBSED PPRCEdL ~' ~ a w ram Fsding bepmer ffmnglt tic) tt.743 acres
d d / !~' d FXISTINO Nona \ a ~ d ~~1lrNeVNDRY POR '* PROPOSED w w Tam Prtax+ee~ WeBardr;8anait PmperBe ut): 6,Ut arac
+a ~ d~ _ _ _ _ _ s TO CONNECT .r' ~rr~' ~ m d ""m. i34aECT w CBa~ amper8c~ tick tSB:t arm
°~ '" TO NEWd '+ 'w • 21.0 PUR~~ BWNOdRY "~ Tam r~t^x (MA7eo-te® tit'): 0.834 ann
m / w d P~EMENT d "* d ~` w d m ~ d w w d rmel gapoead waeas# {~,ro-fYw t:t}; R853 acres
w ~ w d ~._. , w wPR~ERi+ED w a w d w 1w m~ d w ~ d Parkine:
w e d nti-~gNO$.~ w d w S d
a w n. d i a.57 A,^RES d d . d w . d ,ad d ebjtr Retax t:
d a w t +: d d w m i~Eaa^x tanWY. 8 Cm!) . tS1,T3{ f
t r • d • w ~ w d - ~x praidta 1x3 apo:m f~iHx i8 Hance npam)
w ~ w /.._..~ d w +m le w ~ asa,7.u J lip. 15t,73a
w ` d w.. d a d w .~~i"""\ :~^~.--+- ~ w \ w r d ;x3 1 154.734 . S17 R/,aR ar i(O3 of
d ~ ! 4 m d ~4 t ~ Ratd & . 81,wp
w / d d d R~9 4~ sPaaw4 (Nt6,din4 A Rarer arpocnr)
d \~ d +~ d ~ ~-~ x1,O~ l F~ . 41.E
~ d ~ d m d l d ~ 1 ~ f 91.W3 . S75 cwca pe f3%q zf
404 Wetlands ~ "~
d • ~~ w w o~ < w 1 w ~ 4ys.m C++~r~ i ts+d- v sPUas)
T: f tasa . a.sa ~, ror taw m
® d ° ~ w ~ ~ w d Sts Rxox A . St~36D eP
Proposed Impocts to 404 Wetlands (7.04 ac) m ;~-~.. `~ i) , ~~ ~, T 6 ~~ ~~)
d rf! .,~ I i u.~ /tow . 4zs5
d t ~ \;~ f/) Zzt / 4x35 . sit ;acen ov taw Y
~~ / / I s~ / lcmw - ~ ~«e. fa~r~r~ t maces)
d m ~~~\ ~~/' 0 100 200 400 ~ / a3>z -587 ~n ,~ ,C93
NOTE: PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTfON ~ d ~~ ___ ~~ rat ~voa a w: veer . 54ca d
d ,~ ---- SCALE 7 "= 200' ~ a~ ~npaam TEau~ z )
w
is ! aao . 4,a a>aa~ mr ,oro ,r
d
x
x
~ ~
~ }
~ ~ _
~ ~ Z
~ ~ F
~ ~
P' ~ r z
W
~~~~
~ ~ is
LL~~ ~
say
wz
as
k°`~
W 0 ~' ¢ u~i
Z "Q b'
3 fr a "'
0 i°¢ uw
r
~ Z m~
z~~~`
~ ~ oa
W a.?;
I' ~ xz
x171 ~ 0. 4
Y W ~~
r~ y~N
-~2
y~'
_~ J o~
p3:
{~
C} 0
Z U
06011
~ JAXkR
cm J?II
eater RUT
eta tt1t913a