19920083 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19920101

,.
e,,. StATt'°
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street o Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
March 6, 1992
Mr. Kevin Martin
Soil and Environmental Consultants, Inc.
3818 Bland Road
Raleigh, NC 27609
Dear Mr. Martin:
George T. Everett, Ph.D.
Director
Subject: Proposed Fill in Headwaters or Isolated Wetlands
Matthews Glen at Planters Walk
Wake County
DEM Project #92083
Upon review of your request for Water Quality Certification
to place fill material in 0.14 acres of wetlands for Matthews
Glen located at Planters Walk, Knightdale, North Carolina in Wake
County, we have determined that the proposed fill can be covered
by General Water Quality Certification No. 2671 issued
January 21, 1992. A copy of the General Certification is
attached. This Certification may be used in qualifying for
coverage under Corps of Engineers' Nationwide Permit No. 26.
If you have any questions, please contact John Dorney at
919/733-1786 or 919/733-1787.
Sincerely,
rge T. Everett
7
GTE:JD
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Regional Office
Raleigh DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
PFC110NAL OFFICE
Asheville Faycttcville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winsuat-Salem
704/251-6208 914/486-1541 704/663-166 919/571-47(X) 919/94(1-6481 919,995-31M 1)19/896-7(X)7
Pollution Prevention Pays
1'.0. Rox 29535, Raleigh North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
A,, l n.A 01)1-mmiiv Alfinnanve Action Lmplowr
{
R?
D CC??d
February 28, 19921
,. - ;1 I
MAC - 09?
MEMORANDUM ?i, ?,?
D
To: John Dorney ;'Wp >??,
17?n ?,
Through: Arthur Mouberry, .E.- Regi na Superv'
WETLANDS gaM? ON
im Donnelly, P.E.- Regiona W
Supervisor
From: Karl Shaffer- Soil Scientist
Subject: Morgan Glen at Planters Walk
NW 26 Project No. 92083
Wake County
The applicant has submitted adequate plans and concessions
for the project. Please refer to copies of my original memo and
response from Thomas Craven, P.E. for the applicant (enclosed).
The RRO recommends a 401 certification be issued with
appropriate restrictions for this activity. The stream is class
C-NSW.
i
PRIEST, CRAVEN &. ASSOCIATES, INC.
LAND USE CONSULTANTS
February 5, 1992
Mr. Kevin Martin
Soil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.
3818 Bland Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27609
Re: Matthew's Glen
Karl Shaffer Memorandum of Jan. 6, 1992
Dear Kevin :
We have reviewed the Memorandum dated. January 6, 1992 from
Karl Schaffer to John Dorney. We offer the following
response to the suggestions in the memo : .
1. We can not provide a 50' buffer on the lots which adjoin
the intermittent stream. The lots are nominally 100 to 110
feet deep. Due to topographic and boundary constraints this
dimension can not be increased. The Town of Knightdale
requires a 30' front yard setback. If a 50' buffer were
required along the rear of these lots, it would only leave a
buildable area 20' to 30' deep. If this 50' buffer were
required the project would lose approximately 20 of the 67
proposed lots. This would obviously make the project
economically unfeasible. It should be noted that this
property is zoned for the development of over 150 apartment
or townhouse units. This proposal for development of 67
single family detached homes represents a substantial
reduction in density and impervious surfaces when compared
to the multi-family- development allowed by the zoning. The
water quality impact from the proposed development is
significantly less than would be experienced if the property
were developed at its allowable density. The Town of
Knightdale requires a 20 foot rear yard setback which
precludes the construction of buildings in this area. In
addition, we have agreed to a 20 foot wide buffer easement
along this area which would require the preservation of
existing vegetation and not allow the introduction of
impervious surfaces within the buffer easement.
2. Our plans call 'for the introduction of piping and
rip-rap channel lining in several areas of the stream. These
measures are to stabilize areas which are currently
experiencing significant erosion and channel bank
degradation. It appears to us that a poorly managed logging
activity several years ago partially blocked the natural
channel, causing the stream to meander erosively. We feel
PLANNERS ENGINEERS SURVEYURS
4401 Bland Road, Suite 110, Raleigh NC 27609. Phone [phone]

Mr. Kevin Martin
Matthews Glen
February 5, 1992
Page 2
that, our proposed improvements will stabilize the channel
and substantially decrease erosion.
3. A sedimentation and erosion control plan will be
submitted to Wake County for their review and approval.
Prior to beginning construction, all erosion control
measures must be in place. The County will continually
monitor construction to insure that erosion control measures
are properly maintained and that. disturbed areas are
properly stabilized.
4. The design approach and management practices called for
in this proposal are more sensitive to the stream and its
associated quality than the existing development which Mr.
Shaffer suggests we emulate.
5. There is no area on this site which would allow the
installation of a significant retention basin. If a basin
were introduced in the low area at the southeast corner of
the tract, it would cause flooding of some of the existing
yards which adjoin this property to the south. There are
also no other detention measures currently in place within
the existing subdivision.

Thomas F. Craven, P.E.
Priest, Craven & Associates, Inc.
Sincerely,
cJ
91036.012

FILE COPY
January 6, 1992
MEMORANDUM
To: John Dorney
Through: rthur Mouberry, P.E.- Regional Supervisor
Tim Donnelly,
From: Karl Shaffer-
Subject: Planters Walk
Water Quality
Wake County
P.E.- Regional Water Quality
Supervisor
Soil Scientist
Subdivision
Certification
The above project was not submitted through your office
for a project number. I met with the consultant for his general
guidance concerning possible 401 issuance. The consultant for the
applicant is Soils and Environmental Consultants- 790-9117.
The wetlands to be impacted are low-value as they
presently exist. However, reasonable water quality protection
will be realized if some restrictions are required concerning the
drainageway through the subdivision. No plans have yet been
submitted by the developer with respect to surface water
management. The following should be required with the 401
issuance, if appropriate:
1) Minimum of 50 foot buffers on those lots through
which the stream runs. This buffer strip shall
require permanent vegetation and no impervious
surfaces such as driveways or storage buildings.
2) Stabilization of the stream bank in any area which
washing or sloughing poses a problem.
3) Erosion and sedimentation control during
construction such that turbidity standards are not
violated.
4) The existing subdivision with established homes has
adequate stream protection and this area may be used
as a model.
5) If the developer chooses not to accept the above
conditions, a retention basin or two would be needed
for water quality protection.
Planters Walk Subdivision
Page -2-
I do not have the entire history on this development,
but several 401's and Corps permits have been issued prior to
this date. I have discussed this with Ron Ferrell and he will be
looking into the files for other permits and restrictions on the
site. With the information I have, I recommend a 401 be issued
with the above restrictions. Should any information based on the
past history come into play, I am in concurrence with any
decisions from your office as you deem appropriate concerning the
permitting of additional wetland acreage. Please note that before
a 401 is issued, the developer or his agent shall submit plans
which detail stormwater control and any drainageway modifications
that are proposed.
cc: Mr. Kevin Martin- Soil and Environmental Consultants

WETLAND RATING SYSTEM WORKSHEET
I
Project No. or description 'JD(A??5- WALK Soc. - 14 / r-
Location ??Dbi?16 1J
County Nearest road or town
River basin
Nearest stream
o and classification
Evaluato"r. •c?'?,. ??:2, n %a +f Qk,q)
Agency and address
Date and time evaluated 2- r '
( d I 1 :50 4111 -a14
?? tit. , ? _ S ? C
Major Wetland Type
Approximate size of wetland system acres
Approximate extent of wetlands in area acres
with
Item No.
Location/Landscape
1 Natural area buffer
2 Sensitive watershed
3 Dispersal corridor system
Ecological Values
4 Special ecological attributes
5 Wildlife habitat
6 Aquatic life
7 Water storage
8 Streambank stabilization
9 Removal of pollutants
Human Values
10 Outdoor recreation/education
11 Economic value
-?ZLLC'?i?/?.„7 - .?"t- ':T/•"2??Nit / H .L?c?./..U-C-i?w'??...
for rare, endangered or
species observed or recorded.
Score (circle one)
5 0
5 4 3 2 1 0 Cat o,,, i,:,o ?(
5 4 3 2 ri 0
5 4 3 2
5 4 3 2 1- 0
5 4 3 2 0
5 4 3 2 0
5 4 3 2 0
5 4 3 2 0
5 4 3 1 0
5 4 3 2 0
Total score
ry =? 2s
Site description and notes: &/Z,&r?.y??'
-?J7
13 --JL / 4AQ1
in miles
Three most common plant species (in
order) :
Soil Series (if known) ;, tow
Hydrologic indicators
Direct surface hydrologic conn c on? ES NO
Existing Conditions
Drainage 7!{s Ir et_wi.s
Disturbance /I q o.?? ?J k.A
Restoration pote t al
Restoration value
Is site known to provide habitat
threatened species?_41,) If so, list

February 28, 1992
MEMORANDUM
To: John Dorney
Through: Arthur Mouberry, OPE.- Regional Supervisor
Tim Donnelly, P.E.- Regional Water Quality
Supervisor
From: Karl Shaffer- Soil Scientist
Subject: Morgan Glen at Planters Walk
.NW 26 Project No. 92083
Wake County
The applicant has submitted adequate plans and concessions
for the project. Please refer to copies of my original memo and
response from Thomas Craven, P.E. for the applicant (enclosed).
The RRO recommends a 401 certification be issued with
appropriate restrictions for this activity. The stream is class
C-NSW.
y
PRIEST CRAVEN &ASSOCIATES, INC.
LAND USE CONSULTANTS
February 5, 1992
Mr. Kevin Martin
Soil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.
3818 Bland Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27609
Re: Matthew's Glen
Karl Shaffer Memorandum of Jan. 6, 1992
Dear Kevin :
We have reviewed the Memorandum dated. January 6, 1992 from
Karl Schaffer to John Dorney. We offer the following
response to the suggestions in the memo :
1. We can not provide a 50' buffer on the lots which adjoin
the intermittent stream. The lots are nominally 100 to 110
feet deep. Due to topographic and boundary constraints this
dimension can not be increased. The Town of Knightdale
requires a 30' front yard setback. If a 50' buffer were
required along the rear of these lots, it would only leave a
buildable area 20' to 30' deep. If this 50' buffer were
required the project would lose approximately 20 of the 67
proposed lots. This would obviously make the project
economically unfeasible. It should be noted that this
property is zoned for the development of over 150 apartment
or townhouse units. This proposal for development of 67
single family detached homes represents a substantial
reduction in density and impervious surfaces. when compared
to the multi-family- development allowed by the zoning. The
water quality impact from the proposed development is
significantly less than would be experienced if the property
were developed at its allowable density. The Town of
Knightdale requires a 20 foot rear yard setback which
precludes the construction of buildings in this area. In
addition, we have agreed to a 20 foot wide buffer easement
along this area which would require the preservation of
existing vegetation and not allow the introduction of
impervious surfaces within the buffer easement.
2. Our plans call for the introduction of piping and
rip-rap channel lining in several areas of the stream. These
measures are to stabilize areas which are currently
experiencing significant erosion and channel bank
degradation. It appears to us that a poorly managed logging
activity several years ago partially blocked the natural
channel, causing the stream to meander erosively. We feel
PLANNERS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS
4401 Bland Road, Suite 110, Raleigh NC 27609 Phone [phone]
t.
w
Mr. Kevin Martin
Matthews Glen
February 5, 1992
Page 2
that our proposed improvements will stabilize the channel
and substantially- decrease erosion.
3. A sedimentation and erosion control plan will be
submitted to Wake County for their review and approval.
Prior to beginning construction, all erosion control
measures must be in place. The County will continually
monitor construction to insure that. erosion control measures
are properly maintained and that. disturbed areas are
properly stabilized.-
4. The design approach and management practices called for
in this proposal are more sensitive to the stream and its
associated quality than the existing development which Mr.
Shaffer suggests we emulate.
5. There is no area on this site which would allow the
installation of a significant retention basin. If a basin
were introduced in the low area at the southeast corner of
the tract, it would cause flooding of some of the existing
yards which adjoin this property to the south. There are
also no other detention measures currently in place within
the existing subdivision.
Sincerely,
s P?
Thomas F. Craven, P.E.
Priest, Craven & :associates, Inc.
91036.012
FILE COPY

January 6, 1992
MEMORANDUM
To: John Dorney
Through: rthur Mouber:
Tim Donnelly,
From: Karl Shaffer-
Subject: Planters Walk
Water Quality
Wake County
=y, P.E.- Regional Supervisor
P.E.- Regional Water Quality
Supervisor
Soil Scientist
Subdivision
Certification
The above project was not submitted through your office
for a project number. I met with the consultant for his general
guidance concerning possible 401 issuance. The consultant for the
applicant is Soils and Environmental Consultants- 790-9117.
The wetlands to be impacted are low-value as they
presently exist. However, reasonable water quality protection
will be realized if some restrictions are required concerning the
drainageway through the subdivision. No plans have yet been
submitted by the developer with respect to surface water
management. The following should be required with the 401
issuance, if appropriate:
1) Minimum of 50 foot buffers on those lots through
which the stream runs. This buffer strip shall
require permanent vegetation and no impervious
surfaces such as driveways or storage buildings.
2) Stabilization of the stream bank in any area which
washing or sloughing poses a problem.
3) Erosion and sedimentation control during
construction such that turbidity standards are not
violated.
4) The existing subdivision with established homes has
adequate stream protection and this area may be used
as a model.
5) If the developer chooses not to accept the above
conditions, a retention basin or two would be needed
for water quality protection.
Planters Walk Subdivision
Page -2-
I do not have the entire history on this development,
but several 401's and Corps permits have been issued prior to
this date. I have discussed this with Ron Ferrell and he will be
looking into the files for other permits and restrictions on the
site. With the information I have, I recommend a 401 be issued
with the above restrictions. Should any information based on the
past history come into play, I am in concurrence with any
decisions from your office as you deem appropriate concerning the
permitting of additional wetland acreage. Please note that before
a 401 is issued, the developer or his agent shall submit plans
which detail stormwater control and any drainageway modifications
that are proposed.
cc: Mr. Kevin Martin- Soil and Environmental Consultants
WETLAND RATING SYSTEM WORKSHEET
known to provide habitat for rare, endangered or
species?Ar,;,) If so, list species observed or recorded.
Item No.
Location/Landscape
1 Natural area buffer
2 Sensitive watershed
3 Dispersal corridor system
Ecological Values
4 Special ecological attributes
5 Wildlife habitat
6 Aquatic life
7 Water storage
8 Streambank stabilization
9 Removal of pollutants
Human Values
10 Outdoor recreation/education
11 Economic value
Score (circle one)
5
5 4
3 0
2 1 0
5 4 3 27 0
5
5 4
4 3
3 2
2 0
5 4 3 2 1 0
5 4 3 2 0
5
5 4
4 3
3 2 0
2 0
5 4 3 E:Z)1 0
5 4 3 2 0

Total score
Site description and notes: &gy-'?az ezu &rn 'n""" ,
eeo a z/ a, .2 .Zroz v P %vffi:.Q , ,?-'??.n ,,,?r ?
. ?_. ??-ctµ.? .Ira-?c,c, ..,d-,?wtic :7?ru•ts?-?zd `?-'?
fro" S ccx?lre-l' alts-a.K? ca'<°?- ? ?o Gee--c?1+•?/, t?:?+.L
13
Project No. or description ?(,?? ? w { G sob ?9 kpr
Location ADDiT6rJ
County j/ J-0- Nearest road or
River basin
Nearest stream and
Evaluato'r
town ?61.. ?classification
C'
r-
btAi.
/
Agency and address e
Date
Major
??
and time evaluated J 2-/3 6 n'Pj? Jrti1 "
Wetland Type
Approximate size of wetland system acres
Approximate extent of wetlands in area acres
within miles
Three most common plant species (in order):
Soil Series
Hydrologic
Direct
(if known) indicators
surface hydrologic co=n c on? ES NO
Existing Conditions
D r a i n a ge
Disturbance
Restoration po- to t al
Restoration value

Is site
threatened
TER?tIARY OR ADVANCED TREATMENT UNIT (10) CHEMICAL ADDITION SYSTEM (S) (See definition No. 9)
(a) Activated Carbons Beds - (not applicable to chemical additions rated as item
without carbon regeneration .................. 5
with carbon regeneration .................... 15 (3) (j). (5) (a) (xi), (6) (a), (6) (b), (7) (b), (7) (e),
or 19) (c) 5
oints each: List:
(9) (a)
(9) (b)
() () (j (j ?) ()
(b) Powdered or Granular Activated Carbon Feed - .
.
p
5
without carbon regeneration ................. 5
5
With ca$on regeneration ..... ............. 15
5
(c) Air Stripping .......................... .. 5 5
(d) Denitrification Process (separate process) ..... 1 0
(e) Electrodialysis .............................. 5 (11) MISCELLANEOUS UNITS
(f) Foam Separation ............................. 5 (a) Holding Ponds, Holding Tanks or Settling Ponds
(g) ton Exchange ................................. 5 for Organic or Toxic Materials including wastes
(h) Land Application of Treated Effluent from mining operations containing nitrogen and/or
(see definition no. 22b) (not applicable for phosphorous compounds in amounts significantly
sand, gravel, stone and other similar mining greater than is common for domestic wastewater .......... 4
operations) (b) Effluent Flow Equalization (not applicable to storage
V) on agriculturally managed sites (See def. basins which are inherent in land application systems). 2
No. 4) ................................... 10 (c) Stage Discharge (not applicable to storage basins
(ii) by high rate infiltration on non-agriculturally inherent in land application systems ....................................... 5
managed sites (includes rotary distributors
(d) Pumps .........:.................................................................................... .....
and similar fixed nozzle systems) ........... 4 (e) Stand-By Power Supply ..................................................................
(iii) by subsurface disposal (includes low pressure (f) Thermal Pollution Control Device ............................................. 3
pipe systems and gravity systems except at
plants consisting of septic tank and nitrifica-
tion lines only) ............................. 4
TOTAL POINTS
(i) Microscreens .................................. 5
Gj Phosphorus Remo-ial by Biological Processes CLASSIFICATION
(See def. No. 26) ............................ 20
(k) Polishing Ponds - without aeration ....... 2 Class I ........................................................... 5 - 25 Points
with aeration .......... 5 Class If ........................................................ 26- 50 Points
(I) Post Aeration - cascade .............. 0 Class III....................................................... 51- 65 Points
diffused or mechanical ... 5 Class IV ........................................................ 66- Up Points
(m) Reverse Osmosis ............................... 5
(n) Sand or Mixed-Media Fillers - low rate ........... 2 Facilities having a rating of one through four points, inclusive,
high rate .......... do not require a certified operator. Classification of all other
(o) Treatment processes for removal of metal or facilities requires a comparable grade operator in responsible
cyanide .................................... 15 charge.
(p) Treatment processes for removal of toxic
materials other than metal or cyanide ......... 15 Facilities having an activated sludge process will be assigned
a minimum classification of Class II.
t SLUDGE TREATMENT Facilities having treatment processes for the removal of metal
(a) Sludge Digestion Tank - Heated ...............
Aerobic ............... 110 or cyanide will be assigned a minimum classification of Class IL
Unheated .............
(b) Sludge Stabilization (chemical or thermal) ......: 3 Facilities having treatment processes for the biological removal
5 of phosphorus will be assigned a minimum classification of Class
(c) Sludge Drying Beds - Gravity ................. 2 1 I I
Vacuum Assisted ....... 5 ,
(d) Sludge Eluldalion ............................. 5 In-plant processes and related control equipment which are an
(e) Sludge Conditioner (chemical or thermal) ........ 5 integral part of industrial production shalt not be considered waste
(f) Sludge Thickener (gravity) ...................... 5 treatment. Likewise, discharges of wastewater from residences
(g) Dissolved Air Flotation Unit having a design flow of 1,000 gpd or less, shall not be subject to
(not applicable to a unit rates as (3) (i) ......... 8 rating.
(h) Sludge Gas Utilization (including gas storage) .... 2
(i) Sludge Holding Tank - Aerated ................ 5 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
Non-aerated ............ 2
(j) Sludge Incinerator - (not including activated
carbon regeneration) ..... 10
(k) Vacuum Filter, Centrifuge or Filter Press or other
similar dewatering devices .................... 10
(8) SLUDGE DISPOSAL (including incinerated ash)
(a) Lagoons ........................................ 2
(b) Land Application (surface and subsurface)
(see definition 22a)
-where the facility holds the land app. permit ... 10
-by contracting to a land application operator who
holds the land application permit ............ .
-land application of sludge by a contractor who does
not hold the permit for the wastewater treatment
facility where the sludge is generated ......... 10
(c) Landfilled (burial) ............................. 5
(9) DISINFECTION
(a) Chlorination ............................ .
(b) Dechlorination ........................ 5
(c) Ozone .............................. 5
(d) Radiation .......................... 5
ice!
January 6, 199 °?
Zq'
MEMORANDUM
To: John Dorney
Through: rthur Mouberry, P.E.- Regional Supervisor
Tim Donnelly, P.E.- Regional Water Quality
Supervisor
From: Karl Shaffer- Soil Scientist
Subject: Planters Walk Subdivision
Water Quality Certification
Wake County
The above project was not submitted through your office
for a project number. I met with the consultant for his general
guidance concerning possible 401 issuance. The consultant for the
applicant is Soils and Environmental Consultants- 790-9117.
The wetlands to be impacted are low-value as they
presently exist. However, reasonable water quality protection
will be realized if some restrictions are required concerning the
drainageway through the subdivision. No plans have yet been
submitted by the developer with respect to surface water
management. The following should be required with the 401
issuance, if appropriate:
1) Minimum of 50 foot buffers on those lots through
which the stream runs. This buffer strip shall
require permanent vegetation and no impervious
surfaces such as driveways or storage buildings.
2) Stabilization of the stream bank in any area which
washing or sloughing poses a problem.
3) Erosion and sedimentation control during
construction such that turbidity standards are not
violated.
4) The existing subdivision with established homes has
adequate stream protection and this area may be used
as a model.
5) If the developer chooses not to accept the above
conditions, a retention basin or two would be needed
for water quality protection.

$ 6_N
Planters Walk Subdivision
Page -2-
I do not have the entire history on this development,
but several 401's and Corps permits have been issued prior to
this date. I have discussed this with Ron Ferrell and he-will be
looking into the files for other permits and restrictions on the
site. With the information I have, I recommend a 401 be issued
with the above restrictions. Should any information based on the
past history come into play, I am in concurrence with any
decisions from your office as you deem appropriate concerning the
permitting of additional wetland acreage. Please note that before
a 401 is issued, the developer or his agent shall submit plans
which detail stormwater control and any drainageway modifications
that are proposed.
cc: Mr. Kevin Martin- Soil and Environmental Consultants

for rare, endangered or
species observed or recorded.
Item No.
Location/Landscape
1 Natural area buffer
2 Sensitive watershed
3 Dispersal corridor system
Ecological Values
4 Special ecological attributes
5 Wildlife habitat
6 Aquatic life
7 Water storage
8 Streambank stabilization
9 Removal of pollutants
Human Values
10 Outdoor recreation/education
11 Economic value
Score (circle one)
5
4
3 0
2 1 0
5 4 3 2 rl
0
5 4 3 2
5 4 3 2 0
5 4 3 2 0
5 4 3 2
0
5 4 3 ?
2 0
5 4 3 2 0
5
5 4 3 1 0
4 3 2 CD 0
Total score
Site description and notes ?? ?,.?
eQG lJ.CQ? O..iJ ?,C •-GrGZ?t? ? Gi.t1LGG? . ??c Q? I e'e;7
cLud? j?na.l ?ci? a l S _. 7 Q/"?2J161 //?`
cx?!.?'- _..?,e•uJ ?-?--2 ? f? yf?. j .-?zt?- ??2?•t? l/a..Z,t.cy . i?wec .?7?crzy-F?? ?-Zt`'?y?x
C?j/^ _`? c t .o P vZc < ? gib ?' ! v h9 %a ? C? C'ext,
13
Approximate size of wetland system acres
Approximate extent of wetlands in area
within acres
miles
Three most common plant species (in order) :
WETLAND RATING SYSTEM WORKSHEET
Project No. or description Pu,t'?? (i(l?C so
Location f'ti?la tJ
County //JJ2- Nearest road or town
River basin 'ma'y ` US
Nearest stream Q z, and classification /US o
Evaluator 517 ?f. rates; • (%a,t Qand?
Agency and address
'
Date and time evaluated-1.2-/36/i/ 1:50101 '5
Major Wetland Type
Soil Series (if known) u)J 61aj;1
_J
Hydrologic indicators atc6n'.2-
Direct surface hydrologic Conn c on?
ES. NO
Existing Conditions
Drainage
Disturbance ?q a.C/(? ?tJ? eo_ to
Restoration poteal
Restoration value
-Ile -
Is site known to provide habitat
threatened species?-&-,7) If so, list
The only wetland area on-site has been avoided by the
development,. We will be glad-to-discuss the project with you
in' more detail if it is necessary.
I 'should note that Mr. Schafer concurred that the
jurisdictional areas to be impacted have very little 'water
quality ofa,wildlife,value for reasons mentioned earlier.
However, there is a complicating factor in this case.
According.to Corps files there have been previous Corps
permits .and OEM Certifications issued to the Planter's Walk__
project. These permits and delineations do not appear to
have coverda'the Matthews Glen Section of Planter's Walk.-
Acreage,;wisae it appears that this project has minimal
impacts, site evaluations of the quality of the
jurisdictional areas leads us to believe that most that are
to; be impacted probably should not be jurisdictional,in the
first place. However, when interpreted literally, the
"Ma_nual'k' and,.the Clean Water Act definitions of Waters of the
US would,include these areas.
Please call of you have questions or require further
inf ormation.
Sincerely''
uz?
Kevin 'C Mart
President
Enclosures;
cc: With Enclosures
Mr Karl Schafer (DEM)
NC}" Dept of Cultural Resources
USF&WZ -
s PRIEST, CRAvEN&AssocLATEsJNc.
LAND USE CONSULTANTS
February 5, 1992
Mr. Kevin Martin
Soil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.
3818 Bland Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27609
Re: Matthew's Glen
Karl Shaffer Memorandum of Jan. 6, 1992
Dear Kevin .
We have reviewed the Memorandum dated. January 6, 1992 from
Karl Schaffer to John Dorney. We offer the following
response to the suggestions in the memo :
1. We can not provide a 50' buffer on the lots which adjoin
the intermittent stream. The lots are nominally 100 to 110
feet deep. Due to topographic and boundary constraints this
dimension can not be increased. The Town of Knightdale
requires a 30' front yard setback. If a 50' buffer were
required.along the rear of these lots, it would only leave a
buildable area 20' to 30' deep. If this 50' buffer were
required the project would lose approximately 20 of the 67
proposed lots. This would obviously make the project
economically unfeasible. It should be noted that this
property is zoned for the development of over 150 apartment
or townhouse units. This proposal for development of 67
single family detached homes represents a substantial
reduction in density and impervious surfaces when compared
to the multi-family development allowed by the zoning. The
water quality impact from the proposed development is
significantly less than would be experienced if the property
were developed at its allowable density. The Town of
Knightdale requires a 20 foot rear yard setback which
precludes the construction of buildings in this area. In
addition, we have agreed to a 20 foot wide buffer easement
along this area which would require the preservation of
existing vegetation and not allow the introduction of
impervious surfaces within the buffer easement.
2. Our plans call for the introduction of piping and
rip-rap channel lining in several areas of the stream. These
measures are to stabilize areas which are currently
experiencing significant erosion and channel bank
degradation. It appears to us that a poorly managed logging
activity several years ago partially blocked the natural
channel, causing the stream to meander erosively. We feel
PLANNERS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS
4401 Bland Road, Suite 110, Raleigh NC 27609 Phone [phone]
,.M
Ve
Mr. Kevin Martin
Matthews Glen
February 5, 1992
Page 2
that our proposed improvements will stabilize the channel
and substantially decrease erosion.
3. A sedimentation and erosion control plan will be
submitted to Wake County for their review and approval.
Prior to beginning construction, all erosion control
measures must be in place. The County will continually
monitor construction to insure that. erosion control measures
are properly maintained and that. disturbed areas are
properly stabilized.
4. The design approach and management practices called for
in this proposal are more sensitive to the stream and its
associated quality than the existing development which Mr.
Shaffer suggests we emulate.
5. There is no area on
installation of a signii
were introduced in the 1
the tract, it would caul
yards which adjoin this
also no other detention
the existing subdivision.
Sincerely,
-rwc?&
Thomas F.
Priest, Cr
91036.012
this site which would allow the
icant retention basin. If a basin
ow area at the southeast corner of
e flooding of some of the existing
property to the south. There are
measures currently in place within

Craven, P.E.
aven &. Associates, Inc.
Planter's
Walk
Kevin Martin Jan. 29, 1992
Soil and Environmental Consultants
3818 Bland Road
Raleigh, NC 27609
Re: Matthews Glen
Dear Mr. Martin:
This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation from today
regarding Matthews Glen in Planter's Walk. O'Neal Builders and
Developers has under gone some management changes in the last year
which has affected our previous view of how Planter's Walk will be
developed in the future. We have become more conscious:.of-and
concerned about the wetlands contained within the boundries of the
subdivision. We intend to minimize impact to jurisdictional waters
to the extent practical and to protect water quaility. Our conver-
sation today has reassured me that your approach to the issues
surrounding the wetlands are in agreement with what we see for the
actual development of Planter's Walk.
I hope that we will be able to resolve any questions that the
agencies involved have so that John Crosland Company may move
foreward with their design for Matthews Glen. If we can assist in
any manner please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
4Z . it(r
Jon M. Carter
Project Director
O'Neal Builders and Developers
Box 249, Knightdale, NC 27545 [phone]