SW8120204_HISTORICAL FILE_20171004

STORMWATER DIVISION CODING SHEET
POST -CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
PERMIT NO.
SW OI
DOC TYPE
El CURRENT PERMIT
❑ APPROVED PLANS
HISTORICAL FILE
❑ COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION
DOC DATE
T
YYYYMMDD

�1.
Johnson, Kelly
From: Johnson, Kelly
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2017 12:24 PM
To: 'Jeanie Clinkinbeard'; 'Mario Canepa'
Subject: RE SW8 120204 (Canepa Residence, Lot 28)
Mario,
I got your voicemail, but I am not sure if it was a status update or a request? I can help you with permitting questions
and technical things, but I can't facilitate HOA disputes. Please work through whatever issues you are having with your
HOA and then work with Jeanie's group to submit the necessary items.
Thanks,
Kelly
From: Johnson, Kelly
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 2:21 PM
To: 'Jeanie Clinkinbeard' <[e-mail]>; Mario Canepa <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: SW8 120204 (Canepa Residence, Lot 28)
Mario,
It has been a l000nnnngggg time. I do not remember the details of this. I do know that we spent quite some time
nailing down the options. So, as long as you do one of the options that has been identified you should be fine. Just have
Jeanie's group get the paperwork together, and this will be a done deal. If you want to come down and see the file to
see what those options were just let me know. But, I have a feeling Jeanie knows this better than I do at this point.
Thanks,
Kelly
From: Jeanie Clinkinbeard [mailto:[e-mail]_m)
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 2:02 PM
To: Mario Canepa <[e-mail]>
Cc: Johnson, Kelly <[e-mail]>
Subject: SW8 120204 (Canepa Residence, Lot 28)
Mario and Kelly:
Mario,
As we discussed, I'm copying this email to Kelly Johnson so that you have her email. Also, the phone number is 910-796-
7215.
Thanks,
Jeanie
Kelly,
I spoke with Mr. Canepa again today, and we've decided it's best if he contact you directly.

Once he has decided on a path that is acceptable to all parties, we can jump back in (if necessary).
Thank you!
Jeanie

Johnson, Kelly
From: Johnson, Kelly
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 2:21 PM
To: 'Jeanie Clinkinbeard'; Mario Canepa
Subject: RE: SW8 120204 (Canepa Residence, Lot 28)
Mario,
It has been a l000nnnngggg time. I do not remember the details of this. I do know that we spent quite some time
nailing down the options. So, as long as you do one of the options that has been identified you should be fine. Just have
Jeanie's group get the paperwork together, and this will be a done deal. if you want to come down and see the file to
see what those options were just let me know. But, I have a feeling Jeanie knows this better than I do at this point.
Thanks,
Kelly
From: Jeanie Clinkinbeard [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 2:02 PM
To: Mario Canepa <[e-mail]>
Cc: Johnson, Kelly <[e-mail]>
Subject: SW8 120204 (Canepa Residence, Lot 28)
Mario and Kelly:
Mario,
As we discussed, I'm copying this email to Kelly Johnson so that you have her email. Also, the phone number is 910-796-
7215.
Thanks,
Jeanie
Kelly,
l spoke with Mr. Canepa again today, and we've decided it's best if he contact you directly.
Once he has decided on a path that is acceptable to all parties, we can jump back in (if necessary).
Thank you!
Jeanie

Johnson. Kell
From: Johnson, Kelly
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2017 9:21 AM
To: 'Jeanie Clinkinbeard'
Subject: RE: SW8 120204 (Canepa Residence, Lot 28)
Thanks Jeanie.
From: Jeanie Clinkinbeard [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 5:01 PM
To: Johnson, Kelly <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: SW8 120204 (Canepa Residence, Lot 28)
Kelly,
I just spoke with Mario.
4�,,8 C�Ojp
I believe we made the situation VERY clear to him, and met with the HOA as well. We delivered the applications for
signature. We never got the applications back. Mario did purchase the extra land, but we never heard back from him
after that. (I've attached a copy of the deed and the recombination plat, which I found online.)
When I called him today, he said he thought buying the land would solve everything and nothing else was needed.
I'm going to meet with him next week, and I'll let you know what he decides to do.
Thank you,
Jeanie
From: Jeanie Clinkinbeard [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 4:17 PM
To: 'Johnson, Kelly'
Subject: RE: SW8 120204 (Canepa Residence, Lot 28)
Hi Kelly,
Mr. Canepa told us some months ago that he DID buy the extra land, but he never gave us the "go" on the permit
modification. I'll contact him and let you know.
Have a good weekend!
Jeanie
From: Johnson, Kelly [mailto:kellyp.johnson(@ncdenr.c�ov]
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 2:40 PM
To: Jeanie Clinkinbeard (jean [e-mail])
Subject: FW: SW8 120204 (Canepa Residence, Lot 28)
Jeanie,
Just following up. Is this still coming in?

Thanks,
KJ
From: Johnson, Kelly
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 3:33 PM
To: 'Jeanie Clinkinbeard' <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: SW8 120204 (Canepa Residence, Lot 28)
I think that is reasonable.
From: Jeanie Clinkinbeard [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 3:32 PM
To: Johnson, Kelly <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: SW8 120204 (Canepa Residence, Lot 28)
I understand completely, but he's hoping to get the permit first (based on the Offer to Purchase contract he has with the
seller) and then buy the land. Can we re -write the deed restriction form to say something like he agrees to record the
restrictions within 30 days of completion of either the purchase of the adjacent property or of the combining of the two
properties?
Jeanie Clinkinbeard
Crystal Coast Engineering, PA
205 Ward Rd. # 3
Swansboro, NC 28584
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Email [e-mail]
From: Johnson, Kelly[mailto:[e-mail]
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 3:02 PM
To: Jeanie Clinkinbeard
Subject: RE: SW8 120204 (Canepa Residence, Lot 28)
Yes, or better yet, just go ahead and record it now if it is possible. Frankly, he didn't install the sand filter years ago and
so I don't have a lot of confidence that he will record that restriction if he gets the permit first.
From: Jeanie Clinkinbeard [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 2:59 PM
To: Johnson, Kelly <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: SW8 120204 (Canepa Residence, Lot 28)
Since the other lot restrictions are already recorded, would we just include a deed restriction form for Lot 28, and have
Mr. Canepa sign it?
Thank you so much!!
Jeanie Clinkinbeard
Crystal Coast Engineering, PA
205 Ward Rd. # 3
Swansboro, NC 28584
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]

Email [e-mail]
From: Johnson, Kelly [mailto:kell .'ohnson ncdenr. ov]
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 2:25 PM
To: Jeanie Clinkinbeard
Subject: RE: SW8 120204 (Canepa Residence, Lot 28)
Jeanie,
I personally like to just go ahead and get things recorded ASAP if they can be recorded because things tend to fall
through. We have the standard language in the permit that says that restrictions have to be recorded before the lots
are sold because that seems to be the smoothest approach for our typical project where a developer develops a whole
subdivision at once. If Mr. Canepa owns the lots already then let's go ahead and record the restrictions. If he doesn't
own the second lot then he can't yet record restrictions on the land and so we would have to have him record them as
soon as he owns the lot. I would prefer to steer clear of having his requirement be to record restrictions before he sells
the land and moves one day.
Thanks,
Kelly
From: Jeanie Clinkinbeard [mailto:ieanie(@bizec.rr.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 2:05 PM
To: Johnson, Kelly <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: SW8 120204 (Canepa Residence, Lot 28)
Kelly,
We've got the applications ready for signature by the HOA president tomorrow — it may take longer if the HOA president
wishes to consult with his board before signing.
I'm having a little trouble with the Deed restrictions, though. I believe Halls Creek North Section I has previously
recorded the required deed restrictions for all 44 lots (4,572 sf allowable BUR each.) Now, would we just need Mario to
sign that he will record deed restrictions for his enlarged lot before he sells it? Or that he would do so as soon as he
combines the lots? Or would it be the HOA president (the permittee) who signs the deed restriction form? (I'm sure
Mario won't object to having the deed restrictions recorded by whoever needs to.) And if so, would the language still
be, "before the lot is sold"?
(Dote, for this submittal, I've used the deed restriction language from the 2005 version -SWU 101 version 3.99 - which
they originally signed). Depending on your advice, I'm planning on submitting something like we usually do when the
lots are different sizes, i.e. "Lots 1-27: 4,752 sf ; Lot 28: XXXXX sf; Lots 29-44: 4,752 sf". (We have a lot / BUA listing
too...). It seems like the HOA president will be the one to sign, but I just want to make sure you agree...
Sorry for the confusion — I'm probably making it more complicated than I have to...
Jeanie Clinkinbeard
Crystal Coast Engineering, PA
205 Ward Rd. # 3
Swansboro, NC 28S84
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Email Jeanieffi)bizec.rr_com
From: Johnson, Kelly[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 10:44 AM

JO
To: Jeanie Clinkinbeard; 'John Freshwater'
Subject: RE: SW8 120204 (Canepa Residence, Lot 28)
Jeanie,
It has been a really long time. I just don't remember the details well enough to make a quick assessment of this. I think
the best path forward is to come do a file review if you don't have all of the information you need, and then prepare
that application package for submittal. if you have a specific question, then we can discuss that item but I will do the
actual review it once it gets to the "top" of the list.
Thanks,
Kelly
From: Jeanie Clinkinbeard [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2017 4:47 PM
To: Johnson, Kelly <[e-mail]>; 'John Freshwater' <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: SW8 120204 (Canepa Residence, Lot 28)
Kelly,
I wanted to show you Mr. Canepa's proposed lot addition (see attached boundary survey) to see if you had any thoughts
on the new configuration.(especially if you see any roadblocks we've missed). The survey doesn't show all of Mr.
Canepa's lot or his existing BUA, but shows a portion of his lot and the area he plans to add (2.25 acres). From my
calculations, the size of the addition should allow him enough to bring his existing BUA into compliance once he's re-
joined with Halls Creek North (and allow additional BUA). There are wetlands on the new property though, and I haven't
done the 1995 wetland calculations (which I understand may complicate things).
Please let us know what you think.
Thank you!
Jeanie Clinkinbeard
Crystal Coast Engineering, PA
205 Ward Rd. # 3
Swansboro, NC 28584
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Email [e-mail]
From: Johnson, Kelly[mailto:kelly.o.johnsonCancdenr.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 3:08 PM
To: Jeanie Clinkinbeard; 'John Freshwater'
Subject: RE: SW8 120204 (Canepa Residence, Lot 28)
Jeanie,
Thanks. I really hope this goes smoothly.
Kelly
From: Jeanie Clinkinbeard [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 3:01 PM
To: Johnson, Kelly <[e-mail]>; 'John Freshwater' <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: SW8 120204 (Canepa Residence, Lot 28)

Kelly,
I wanted to update you on the status of this project (and let you know that things do seem to be moving forward this
time).
Mr. Canepa has hired a surveyor to survey the new property he plans to add to his lot, and also a soil scientist to flag
wetlands there. (I know the wetlands will complicate things somewhat, but Mr. Canepa assures us the wetlands area is
very small.) The surveyor plans to be out there early next week. Once we have the survey & wetlands information, we'll
review the new lot info to check for any possible "snags". (Which we don't expect.)
His next move (or concurrent move) will be obtaining written agreement from the HOA as to their willingness to allow
him to re -join (as well as to modify their permit). (Same thing as far as the Swansboro Soccer Association and their
permit.)
Once he has those agreements in hand, has closed on the property sale and has combined and recorded the new lot, we
plan to move forward on submitting the permit modification applications for Halls Creek North and the Swansboro
Soccer Association.
I'm very hopeful that this time we can follow the process through to the end!
P.S. I've also attached an email I found in our file, from the last time we discussed this project. I thought it was a very
helpful and time -saving review. I included the entire email thread, but you really only need the first page — it's your
explanation of the options available to Mr. Canepa at the time, and seems to be a perfect summary of the "approved
paths" that were discussed.
Thank you so much!!
Jeanie Clinkinbeard
Crystal Coast Engineering, PA
205 Ward Rd. # 3
Swansboro, NC 28584
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Email [e-mail]
From: Johnson, Kelly[mailto:kelly.p.iohnson(ancdenr.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2016 1:57 PM
To: Jeanie Clinkinbeard; 'John Freshwater'
Subject: RE: SW8 120204 (Canepa Residence, Lot 28)
John & Jeanie,
have been thinking about this one. I haven't gone back and reviewed any of this in detail. But, in the interest of time
(because I don't see a thorough review any time soon) I think that if we had identified options years ago and.he now
wants to choose to do one of the options that we offered him before that we would let him do that. If I remember
correctly, the path to give him his own permit and take him out of the subdivision's permit was not our first choice
because I think it put the subdivision in a bind. Other options may actually work out better.
I am assuming that all of the circumstances are the same as they were before. But, I feel like there is always another
layer with this story, and so I somewhat cautious about this. If any circumstances have transpired (or are planned to
transpire) that would prohibit appropriate implementation of the previously -discussed options then we would have to
discuss it further. Part of that discussion would include the fact that he didn't build the sand filter he was required to
build.
5

Thanks,
Kelly
From: Jeanie Clinkinbeard [mailto:ieanie(Mbizec.rr.coml
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2016 10:36 AM
To: 'John Freshwater' <iohnfh2o@)gmail.com>; Johnson, Kelly <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: SW8 120204 (Canepa Residence, Lot 28)
I'm not sure, but I think the sudden push is because he has that option to buy the property at an acceptable price, and
the HOA has said they'd welcome him back. (Those were the two sticking points when he first wanted to go with this
option.) He seems anxious to move forward in case someone changes their mind!
Thanks!!
Jeanie Clinkinbeard
Crystal Coast Engineering, PA
205 Ward Rd. 4 3
Swansboro, NC 28584
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Email Jeanie(@bizec.rr.com
From: John Freshwater [mailto:1ohnfh2oCa)gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2016 8:42 AM
To: Johnson, Kelly
Cc: Jeanie Clinkinbeard
Subject: Re: SW8 120204 (Canepa Residence, Lot 28)
Good 'Morning Kelly
No lawyers involved that we are aware of. Sand filter never built.... brought us option to purchase adjacent
property. I don't know why sudden push.
1-lope you're doing well!
John
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 7.55 AIM, Johnson, Kelly <kelly.pJohnson((-i) enr.�lov> wrote:
Yes; I remember.... I will have to pull the file and look through all of the details though. I assume he never
built that sand filter? What is behind the sudden push to re-evaluate? Have more layers to the story evolved?
From: Jeanie Clinkinbeard [mailto:Jeanie.. bizec.rr.com]
Sent: I=riday. November 04. 2016 4:55 PM
To: Johnson, Kelly <kellv.P.johnsonnncdenngov>
Cc: iollnfli2on_,mail.com
Subject: SW8 120204 (Canepa Residence, Lot 28)

Good afternoon, and please brace yourself -
I'm sure you remember the 2012 saga of \,1r. Mario Canepa's overbuilt lot within the Loin Densit, Subdivision
of Halls Creek North, his removal from that subdivision, and the subsequent shuffling and rnodifying of permits
to accommodate the situation for all involved. Nor. Canepa now has an option to purchase adjacent property
(2.25 acres) that would make his lot effectively "'low density" (with room to spare). He wishes to purchase the
property, combine it with his existing lot and then re -join the Halls Creek North subdivision (rescinding his high
density permit). He would also like to allow for an amount of future 13UA on the enlarged lot; -while staring
well within Low Density limits.
(He has mentioned this scenario before, but has just recently been able to obtain the option to purchase the
adjoining property as well as agreement from Halls Creek 'North that they would allow him back into the
subdivision.)
Before he finalizes the purchase of the additional property, N ir. Canepa wishes to confirm with you that this
scenario would be feasible. (Assuming the applicable rules & requirements could be met with each step.) He
knows you can't guarantee a permit; but does he have "path" (so to speak) to Low Density?
1 spent some time re -wrapping my head around these projects after N-ir. Canepa contacted us about his proposed
plans. You may have the entire thing seared into your brain, but if not, I'll summarize some of the relevant
information (in case it helps)..
-kir. Canepa's current (High Density) 2012 permit is SNN18 120204 - Canepa Residence, Lot 28.
The adjacent 2.25 acres he wishes to purchase are on property owned by the Swansboro Soccer
Association, under their 2010 permit SNN78 050816 -MOD - Swansboro Soccer Complex.
The 2012 modified Halls Creek permit (with 'Mr. Canepa's lot removed) is SW8 040239 NIIOD - Halls
Creek North.
Both the Swansboro Soccer Complex and the Halls Creek Forth projects are lover density (25%) and
were permitted under 1995 rules. �Ir. Canepa's permit Nvas split between 1995 rules (for his originally
permitted BUA) and 2008 rules (for the overage BUA). Also, with the removal of Mr. Canepa's lot area

from the Halls Creek subdivision, the subdivision ended up with an overage of BUA. To allow the
subdivision to remain I.,ow Density, Mr. Canepa was required to include the 13UA overage in his
treatment calculations.
It appears from our review of the files that the proposed `'swapping" of property (even with additional
"'future" 13UA on Lot 28) would allow all projects to remain (or become) Low Density.
While it would be cumbersome to make the proposed modifications, we're hoping you-11 agree that it would be
simpler in the end to have two "normal'' Low Density projects (Swansboro Soccer and Halls Creek) rather than
one "normal" project (Swansboro Soccer) and two "complicated'' projects (Canepa Residence and Halls Creek
North).
Please let us know if Mr. Canepa's plan is feasible and ifNCDEQ is amenable to the proposed
modifications. (We understand it may take some time and effort to review the files..). If you need any more
information from us (or have any questions); please let us know.
Thank you! 11
Jeanie Clinkinbeard
Crystal Coast Engineering, PA
205 Ward Rd. # 3
Swansboro, NC 28584
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
);;mail Jeanie(a�bizec.rr.coin
John R. Freshwater, PE
Crystal Coast Engineering, PA
205-3 Ward Road

M
Johnson, Kelly
From: Johnson, Kelly
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 10:44 AM
To: 'Jeanie Clinkinbeard'; 'John Freshwater'
Subject: RE: SW8 120204 (Canepa Residence, Lot 28)
Jeanie,
It has been a really long time. I just don't remember the details well enough to make a quick assessment of this. I think
the best path forward is to come do a file review if you don't have all of the information you need, and then prepare
that application package for submittal. If you have a specific question, then we can discuss that item but I will do the
actual review it once it gets to the "top" of the list.
Thanks,
Kelly
From: Jeanie Clinkinbeard imailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2017 4:47 PM
To: Johnson, Kelly <[e-mail]>; 'John Freshwater' <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: SW8 120204 (Canepa Residence, Lot 28)
Kelly,
I wanted to show you Mr. Canepa's proposed lot addition (see attached boundary survey) to see if you had any thoughts
on the new configuration (especially if you see any roadblocks we've missed). The survey doesn't show all of Mr.
Canepa's lot or his existing BUA, but shows a portion of his lot and the area he plans to add (2.25 acres). From my
calculations, the size of the addition should allow hire enough to bring his existing BUA into compliance once he's re-
joined with Halls Creek North (and allow additional BUA). There are wetlands on the new property though, and I haven't
done the 1995 wetland calculations (which I understand may complicate things).
Please let us know what you think.
Thank you!
Jeanie Clinkinbeard
Crystal Coast Engineering, PA
205 Ward Rd. # 3
Swansboro, NC 28584
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Email [e-mail]
From: Johnson, Kelly [mailto:[e-mail]_]
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 3:08 PM
To: Jeanie Clinkinbeard; 'John Freshwater'
Subject: RE: SW8 120204 (Canepa Residence, Lot 28)
Jeanie,
Thanks. I really hope this goes smoothly.
Kelly

4
From: Jeanie Clinkinbeard [mailto:ieanie2bizec.rr.com)
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 3:01 PM
To: Johnson, Kelly <[e-mail]>; 'John Freshwater' <'ohnfh2o mail.com>
Subject: RE: SW8 120204 (Canepa Residence, Lot 28)
Kelly,
I wanted to update you on the status of this project (and let you know that things do seem to be moving forward this
time).
Mr. Canepa has hired a surveyor to survey the new property he plans to add to his lot, and also a soil scientist to flag
wetlands there. (I know the wetlands will complicate things somewhat, but Mr. Canepa assures us the wetlands area is
very small.) The surveyor plans to be out there early next week. Once we have the survey & wetlands information, we'll
review the new lot info to check for any possible "snags". (Which we don't expect.)
His next move (or concurrent move) will be obtaining written agreement from the HOA as to their willingness to allow
him to re -join (as well as to modify their permit). (Same thing as far as the Swansboro Soccer Association and their
permit.)
Once he has those agreements in hand, has closed on the property sale and has combined and recorded the new lot, we
plan to move forward on submitting the permit modification applications for Halls Creek North and the Swansboro
Soccer Association.
I'm very hopeful that this time we can follow the process through to the end!
P.S. I've also attached an email I found in our file, from the last time we discussed this project. I thought it was a very
helpful and time -saving review. I included the entire email thread, but you really only need the first page — it's your
explanation of the options available to Mr. Canepa at the time, and seems to be a perfect summary of the "approved
paths" that were discussed.
Thank you so much!!
Jeanie Clinkinbeard
Crystal Coast Engineering, PA
205 Ward Rd. # 3
Swansboro, NC 28584
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Email [e-mail]
From: Johnson, Kelly [mailto:kell . .'ohnson ncdenr. ovj
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2016 1:57 PM
To., Jeanie Clinkinbeard; 'John Freshwater'
Subject: RE: SW8 120204 (Canepa Residence, Lot 28)
John & Jeanie,
I have been thinking about this one. I haven't gone back and reviewed any of this in detail. But, in the interest of time
(because I don't see a thorough review any time soon) I think that if we had identified options years ago and he now
wants to choose to do one of the options that we offered him before that we would let him do that. If I remember
correctly, the path to give him his own permit and take him out of the subdivision's permit was not our first choice
because I think it put the subdivision in a bind. Other options may actually work out better.

I am assuming that all of the circumstances are the same as they were before. But, I feel like there is always another
layer with this story, and so I somewhat cautious about this. If any circumstances have transpired (or are planned to
transpire) that would prohibit appropriate implementation of the previously -discussed options then we would have to
discuss it further. Part of that discussion would include the fact that he didn't build the sand filter he was required to
build.
Thanks,
Kelly
From: Jeanie Clinkinbeard [mailto:ieanieftizec.mcom]
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2016 10:36 AM
To: 'John Freshwater' <[e-mail]>; Johnson, Kelly <[e-mail]>
Subject: RF: SW8 120204 (Canepa Residence, Lot 28)
I'm not sure, but I think the sudden push is because he has that option to buy the property at an acceptable price, and
the HOA has said they'd welcome him back. (Those were the two sticking points when he first wanted to go with this
option.) He seems anxious to move forward in case someone changes their mind!
Thanks!!
Jeanie Clinkinbeard
Crystal Coast Engineering, PA
205 Ward Rd. ## 3
5wansboro, NC 28584
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Email [e-mail]
From: John Freshwater [mailto: ohnfh2o mail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2016 8:42 AM
To: Johnson, Kelly
Cc: Jeanie Clinkinbeard
Subject: Re: SW8 120204 (Canepa Residence, Lot 28)
Good Morning Kelly
No lawyers involved that we are aware of. Sand filter never built.... brought us option to purchase adjacent
property. I don't know why sudden push.
Hope you're doing well!
John
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Johnson; Kelly <kelly.p Johnson cr ncderingov> wrote:
Yes, I remember.... I will have to pull the file and look through all of the details though. i assume he never
built that sand filter? What is behind the sudden push to re-evaluate? Have more layers to the story evolved?

r
From: Jeanie Clinkinbeard I.mailto:jeanie a,bizee.rr.com]
Sent: Friday. \November 04, 2016 4:55 PNI
To: Johnson; Kelly <kell,,,`.p.iohnson ci.ncderir.12ov>
Cc: 'olinth2onumail.com
Subject: SNN18 120204 (Canepa Residence; Lot 28)
Good afternoon, and please brace yourself..
I'm sure you remember the 2012 saga of Mr. Mario Canepa's overbuilt lot within the I.,ow Density Subdivision
of Halls Creek North, his removal from that subdivision, and the subsequent shuffling and modifying of permits
to accommodate the situation for all involved. Mr. Canepa now has an option to purchase adjacent property
(2.25 acres) that would make his lot effectively "lour density" (with room.to spare). I-Ie wishes to purchase the
property, combine it with his existing lot and then re -join the Halls Creek North subdivision (rescinding his high
density permit). He would also like to allow for an amount of future BUA on the enlarged lot, while staying
well within Low Density limits.
(He has mentioned this scenario before, but has just recently been able to obtain the option to purchase the
adjoining property as well as agreement from Halls Creek North that they would allow him back into the
subdivision.)
Before he finalizes the purchase of the additional property, Mr. Canepa wishes to confirm with you that this
scenario would be feasible. (Assuming the applicable rules & requirements could be met with each step.) He
knows you can't guarantee a permit, but does he have "path" (so to speak) to Low Density?
I spent some time re -wrapping my head around these projects after Mr. Canepa contacted us about his proposed
plans. You may have the entire thing seared into your brain, but if not, I'll summarize some of the relevant
information (in case it helps)..
Mr. Canepa's current (High Density) 2012 permit is SW8 120204 — Canepa Residence, Lot 28.
The adjacent 2.25 acres he wishes to purchase are on property owned by the Swansboro Soccer
Association; under their 2010 permit SW8 050816 NIOD — Swansboro Soccer Complex.

The 2012 modified Halls Creek permit (with Mr. Canepa's lot removed) is SNV8 040239 -1101) — Halls
Creek North.
Both the Swansboro Soccer Complex and the Flalls Creek North projects are low density (25%) and
were permitted under 1995 rules. Mr. Canepa's permit was split between 1995 rules (for his original I
permitted BUA) and 2008 rules (for the overage I3UA). Also; with the removal of Mr. Canepa's lot area
from the Halls Creek subdivision, the subdivision ended up with an overage of BUA. To allow the
subdivision to remain Low Density, Mr. Canepa was required to include the 13UA overage in his
treatment calculations.
It appears from our review of the files that the proposed "swapping' of property (even with additional
"future" 13UA on Lot 28) would allow all projects to remain (or become) Low Density.
While it would be cumbersome to make the proposed modifications; were hoping you'll agree that it .would be
simpler in the end to have two "'normal" Low Density projects (Swansboro Soccer and Halls Creek) rather than
one "normal" project (Swansboro Soccer) and two "complicated" projects (Canepa Residence and Halls Creek
North).
Please let us know if Mr. Canepa's plan is feasible and if ::\SCDL'Q is amenable to the proposed
modifications. (We understand it may take some timc and effort to review the files..). If you need any more
information from us (or have any questions), please let us know.
fhank vou!!!
Jeanie Clinkinbeard
Crystal Coast Engineering, PA
205 Ward Rd. # 3
Swansboro, NC 29584
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Email Jeanie na bizec.rr.coin

John R. Freshwater, PE
Crystal Coast Engineering.. PA
205-3 Ward Road
S«ransboro_ NC 28584

Johnson, Kelly �� CIP
From: Johnson, Kelly
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 3:08 PM
To: 'Jeanie Clinkinbeard'; 'John Freshwater'
Subject: RE: SW8 120204 (Canepa Residence, Lot 28)
Jeanie,
Thanks. I really hope this goes smoothly.
Kelly
From: Jeanie Clinkinbeard [mailto:[e-mail])
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 3:01 PM
To: Johnson, Kelly <[e-mail]>; 'John Freshwater' <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: SW8 120204 (Canepa Residence, Lot 28)
Kelly,
I wanted to update you on the status of this project (and let you know that things do seem to be moving forward this
time).
Mr. Canepa has hired a surveyor to survey the new property he plans to add to his lot, and also a soil scientist to flag
wetlands there. (I know the wetlands will complicate things somewhat, but Mr. Canepa assures us the wetlands area is
very small.) The surveyor plans to be out there early next week. Once we have the survey & wetlands information, we'll
review the new lot info to check for any possible "snags". (Which we don't expect.)
His next move (or concurrent move) will be obtaining written agreement from the HOA a5 to their willingness to allow
him to re -join (as well as to modify their permit). (Same thing as far as the Swansboro Soccer Association and their
permit.)
Once he has those agreements in hand, has closed on the property sale and has combined and recorded the new lot, we
plan to move forward on submitting the permit modification applications for Halls Creek North and the Swansboro
Soccer Association.
I'm very hopeful that this time we can follow the process through to the end!
P.S. I've also attached an email I found in our file, from the last time we discussed this project. I thought it was a very
helpful and time -saving review. I included the entire email thread, but you really only need the first page — it's your
explanation of the options available to Mr. Canepa at the time, and seems to be a perfect summary of the "approved
paths" that were discussed.
Thank you so much!!
Jeanie Clinkinbeard
Crystal Coast Engineering, PA
205 Ward Rd. # 3
Swansboro, NC 28584
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Email Jeanie bizec.rr.com

From: Johnson, Kelly [mailto:kelly_piohnson ncdenr.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2016 1:57 PM
To: Jeanie Clinkinbeard; 'John Freshwater'
Subject: RE: SW8 120204 (Canepa Residence, Lot 28)
John & Jeanie,
have been thinking about this one. I haven't gone back and reviewed any of this in detail. But, in the interest of time
(because I don't see a thorough review any time soon) I think that if we had identified options years ago and he now .
wants to choose to do one of the options that we offered him before that we would let him do that. If I remember
correctly, the path to give him his own permit and take him out of the subdivision's permit was not our first choice
because I think it put the subdivision in a bind. Other options may actually work out better.
I am assuming that all of the circumstances are the same as they were before. But, I feel like there is always another
layer with this story, and so I somewhat cautious about this. If any circumstances have transpired (or are planned to
transpire) that would prohibit appropriate implementation of the previously -discussed options then we would have to
discuss it further. Part of that discussion would include the fact that he didn't build the sand filter he was required to
build.
Thanks,
Kelly
From: Jeanie Clinkinbeard [maiIto: ieanie(@bizec.rr.com)
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2016 10:36 AM
To: 'John Freshwater' <[e-mail]>; Johnson, Kelly <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: SW8 120204 (Canepa Residence, Lot 28)
I'm not sure, but I think the sudden push is because he has that option to buy the property at an acceptable price, and
the HOA has said they'd welcome him back. (Those were the two sticking points when he first wanted to go with this
option.) He seems anxious to move forward in case someone changes their mind!
Thanks!!
Jeanie Clinkinbeard
Crystal Coast Engineering, PA
205 Ward Rd. 4 3
5wansboro, NC 28584
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Email JeaniePbizec.rr.com
From: John Freshwater [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2016 8:42 AM
To: Johnson, Kelly
Cc: Jeanie Clinkinbeard
Subject: Re: SW8 120204 (Canepa Residence, Lot 28)
Good Morning Kelly
No lawyers involved that we are aware of Sand filter never built. ...brought us option to purchase adjacent
property. I don't know -%vby sudden push.

I -lope you're doing well!
John
On -\ton, Nov 7. 2016 at 7:55 AM, Johnson, Kelly <kellti^.p.iohnson a,ncdenr.,-,ov> wrote:
Yes, I remember.... I will have to pull the file and look through all of the details though. I assume he never
built that sand Filter? Wiat is behind the sudden push to re-evaluate? Have more layers to the story'cvolved?
Trom: Jeanie Clinkinbeard [mailto:Leanie abizec.rncom]
Sent: Friday, \ovetnber 04. 2016 4:55 I'_%­1
To: Johnson, Kelly <kelly.p.johnsonPncdenr.gov>
Cc: 'ohnfh2o y) nail.com
Subjecl: SW8 120204 (Canepa Residence; Lot 28)
Good afternoon, and please brace .yourself..
Urn sure you remember the 2012 saga of Mr. Mario Canepa's overbuilt lot within the Low Density Subdivision
of Halls Creek North, his removal from that subdivision; and the subsequent shuffling and modif}ring of permits
to accommodate the situation for all involved. Mr. Canepa now has an option to purchase adjacent property
(2.25 acres) that would make his lot effectively `'logy density' (with room to spare). He wishes to purchase the
property, combine it with his existing lot and then re -join the Halls Creek Forth subdivision (rescinding his high
density permit). Fle would also like to allow for an amount of future BliA on the enlarged lot, while staying
well within Low Density limits.
(lie has mentioned this scenario before, but has just recently been able to obtain the option to purchase the
adjoining property as well as agreement from Halls Creek North that they would allow him back into the
subdivision.)
Before he finalizes the purchase of the additional property, Mr. Canepa wishes to confirm with you that this
scenario would be feasible. (Assuming the applicable rules & requirements could be met with each step.) He
knows you can't guarantee a permit, but does he have "path" (so to speak) to Low Density?
I spent some time re -wrapping my head around these projects after Mr. Canepa contacted us about his proposed
plans. You may have the entire thing seared into your brain, but if not, I'll summarize some of the relevant
information (in case it helps)..

Mr. Canepa's current (High Density) 2012 permit is S\V8 120204 — Canepa Residence; Lot 28.
The adjacent 2.25 acres he wishes to purchase are on property owned by the Swansboro Soccer
Association, under their 2010 permit SW8 050816 7MOD — Swansboro Soccer Complex.
The 2012 modified Halls Creek permit (with .lr. Canepa's lot removed) is SWS 040239 MOD — Halls
Creek North.
Both the Swansboro Soccer Complex and the Halls Creek 'North projects are low density (25%) and
were permitted under 1995 rules. 'Mr. Canepa's permit was split between 1995 rules (for his originally
permitted BUA) and 2008 rules (for the overage BUA). Also, with the removal of Nir. Canepa's lot area
from the Halls Creek subdivision, the subdivision ended up with an overage of BUA. To allow the
subdivision to remain Low Density, Nlr. Canepa was required to include the BUA overage in his
treatment calculations.
It appears from our review of the files that the proposed "swapping" of property (even with additional
"future" BUA on Lot 28) would allow all projects to remain (or become) Low Density.
While it would be cumbersome to make the proposed modifications; we'rc hoping you'll agree that it would be
simpler in the end to have two "nonnal" Low Density projects (Swansboro Soccer and Halls Creek) rather than
one "normal" project (Swansboro Soccer) and two "complicated" projects (Canepa Residence and Halls Creek
'North).
Please let us know if NIr. Canepa's plan is feasible and ifNCDEQ is amenable to the proposed
modifications. (We understand it may take some time and effort to review the files..). If you need any more
information from us (or have any questions); please let us know.
Thank you!!!
Jeanie Clinkinbeard
Crystal Coast Engineering, PA
205 hard Rd. 4 3

Swansboro, NC 28584
Pbone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Email Jeanie Rbizeexr.com
John R. Freshwater. PE
Crystal Coast Engineering; PA
205-3 Ward Road
Swansboro_ NC 28584

Johnson, Kelly
From: Johnson, Kelly
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2016 1:57 PM
To: 'Jeanie Clinkinbeard'; 'John Freshwater'
Subject: RE SW8 120204 (Canepa Residence, Lot 28)
John & Jeanie,
I have been thinking about this one. I haven't gone back and reviewed any of this in detail. But, in the interest of time
(because I don't see a thorough review any time soon) I think that if we had identified options years ago and he now
wants to choose to do one of the options that we offered him before that we would let him do that. If I remember
correctly, the path to give him his own permit and take him out of the subdivision's permit was not our first choice
because I think it put the subdivision in a bind. Other options may actually work out better.
I am assuming that all of the circumstances are the same as they were before. But, I feel like there is always another
layer with this story, and so I somewhat cautious about this. If any circumstances have transpired (or are planned to
transpire) that would prohibit appropriate implementation of the previously -discussed options then we would have to
discuss it further. Part of that discussion would include the fact that he didn't build the sand filter he was required to
build.
Thanks,
Kelly
From: Jeanie Clinkinbeard [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2016 10:36 AM
To: 'John Freshwater' <[e-mail]>; Johnson, Kelly <[e-mail]>
Subject: RF: SW8 120204 (Canepa Residence, Lot 28)
I'm not sure, but I think the sudden push is because he has that option to buy the property at an acceptable price, and
the HOA has said they'd welcome him back. (Those were the two sticking points when he first wanted to go with this
option.) He seems anxious to move forward in case someone changes their mind!
Thanks!!
Jeanie Clinkinbeard
Crystal Coast Engineering, PA
205 Ward Rd. # 3
Swansboro, NC 28584
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Email [e-mail]
From: John Freshwater [mailto:johnfh2o0gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2016 8:42 AM
To: Johnson, Kelly
Cc: Jeanie Clinkinbeard
Subject: Re: SW8 120204 (Canepa Residence, Lot 28)
Good Morning Kelly

No laNvyers involved that we are aware of. Sand filter never built.... brought us option to purchase adjacent
property. I don't know why sudden push.
I -lope you're doing well!
John
On \-lon, Nov 7, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Johnson; Kell), <kelly.p.iohnsonPncdenr.�> wrote:
Yes, I remember.... I will have to pull the file and look through all of the details though. I assume he newer
built that sand filter? What is behind the sudden push to re-evaluate? Have more layers to the story evolved?
From: Jeanie Clinkinbeard [mailto:icaniena bi-r_ec.rr.com]
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 4:55 P1\4
'To: Johnson. Kelly <kelly. .'ohnson c ncdenr. =ov>
Cc: lohnfh2o05gmail.cotn
Subject: SW8 120204 (Canepa Residence, Lot 28)
Good afternoon, and please brace yourself..
I'm sure you remember the 2012 saga of Nlr. 1\4ario Canepa's overbuilt lot within the Lover Density Subdivision
of Halls Creek North, his removal from that subdivision, and the subsequent shuffling and modifying of permits
to accommodate the situation for all involved. Mr. Cancpa now has an option to purchase adjacent property
(2.25 acres) that would make his lot effectively `'low density" (with room to spare). I-Ic wishes topurchase the
property, combine it with his existing lot and then re join the Halls Creek North subdivision (rescinding his high
density permit). He would also like to allow for an amount of future BUA on the enlarged lot, while staying
well within Low Density limits.
(He has mentioned this scenario before, but has just recently been able to obtain the option to purchase the
adjoining property as well as agreement from I -falls Creek North that they would allow him back into the
subdivision.)
Before he finalizes the purchase of the additional property, Mr. Cane a wishes to confirm with you that this
scenario would be feasible. (Assuming the applicable rules & requirements could be met with each step.) He
knows you can't guarantee a permit, but does he have "path" (so to speak) to Low Density?

I spent some time re -«Trapping my head around these projects after -\-lr. Canepa contacted us about his proposed
plans. You may have the entire thing seared into your brain, but if not, 1'11 summarize some of the relevant
information (in case it helps)..
Mr. Canepa's current (High Density) 2012 permit is S%V8 120204 — Canepa Residence; Lot 28.
The adjacent 2.25 acres he wishes to purchase are on property owned by the Swansboro Soccer
Association, under their 2010 permit S\V'8 050816 -N-IOD — Swansboro Soccer Complex.
The 2012 modified Halls Creek pen -nit (with Mr. Canepa's lot removed) is S1N78 040239 1'IOD — Halls
Creek North.
Both the Swansboro Soccer Complex and the Halls Creek North projects are low density (25%) and
were permitted under 1995 rules. Mr. Canepa's permit was split between 1995 rules (for his originally
permitted BUA) and 2008 rules (for the overage BUA). Also, with the removal of Mr. Canepa's lot area
from the Halls Creek subdivision; the subdivision ended up with an overage of BUA. To allow the
subdivision to remain Low Density, Mr. Canepa was required to include the BUA overage in his
treatment calculations.
It appears from our review of the files that the proposed "swapping" of property (even with additional
"Future" BUA on Lot 28) would allow all projects to remain (or become) Low Density.
WWhile it would be cumbersome to make the proposed modifications, we're hoping you'll agree that it would be
simpler in the end to have two "'normal'' Low Density projects (Swansboro Soccer and Halls Creek) rather than
one "normal" project (Swansboro Soccer) and two "complicated'' projects (Canepa Residence and Halls Creek
North).
Please let us know if N,lr. Canepa's plan is feasible and if NCDEQ is amenable to the proposed
modifications. (We understand it may take some time and effort to review the files..). If you need any more
information from us (or have any questions), please let us know.
Thank you!!!

Jeanie Clinkinbeard
Crystal Coast Engineering, PA
205 Ward Rd. # 3
Swansboro, i`C 28584
Phone (9 i 0) 325-0006
Fax [phone]
Email JeanieLobizec.rr.co n
John R. Freshwater, PE'
Crystal Coast Engineering, PA
205-3 Ward Road
Swansboro, NC 28584

Johnson, Kelly
From: Johnson, Kelly
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 2:51 PM
To: 'Jeanie Clinkinbeard'
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];'John R. Freshwater III, P.E.; Scott,
Georgette
Subject: RE: Canepa Residence, Lot 28 (SW8 120204)
Jeanie,
I am not sure how to answer your question. This is a fairly abstract question seeking a fairly specific solution, and I
cannot give you a specific answer without a specific proposal. For instance, I don't know what is being added, where it
will go, how much BUA will be added/subtracted/banked for future/kept on the soccer association's land, what waters it
will be near, if all of the land that will be added is already permitted, what rule(s) the land is under, if the "leftover"
pieces of each permit that are reduced in area due to a sale to Mr. Canepa will leave that permit/those permits as LD or
HD, and there are probably a variety of other factors to consider. You are correct that under the 1995 rule there were
"Pockets" and that the 2008 rule is different in that you basically have to keep impervious in upland areas and away
from drainage ways/surface waters. But, I am not sure why the permit would "revert" from the 2008 rule to the 1995
rule? Mr. Canepa's current permit (SW8 120204) is written as a hybrid of the 1995 and the 2008 rules, as is his
subdivision's permit under which he is also covered (SW8 040239).
This is also complicated because this permit was only written because we didn't want to make Mr. Canepa knock down
impervious area that he had overbuilt. This was something that the Central Office allowed in order to help Mr. Canepa,
but technically issuing this permit left the subdivision above what they were allowed to do (above their 25%) and so we
have already stretched the bounds of the law fairly thin. I think you would agree that we have made every effort to help
Mr. Canepa through this ordeal. We even found a way to allow 3,698sf of future area above the overbuilt amount. This
permit was negotiated through the Central Office and it doesn't fit the mold of any other permit we have ever written,
and so the specific details are important in determining a route forward if you want to change the unusual terms that
have already been approved. Mr. Canepa has already been allowed almost three times the amount that he was
permitted to have originally. We certainly want to help Mr. Canepa find a financially feasible solution, but I do not know
how to do that given the information in front of me.
We will need to know specifically what you are proposing to change. For instance, we will need to have data
summarizing the current and proposed project area and impervious area of his permit as well as any related permits
(SW8 120204, SW8 040239, the soccer association, any other permit that may be involved and may have to be modified
to accommodate this, and any other land that is involved that isn't permitted), an associated plan summarizing the data
spatially with any complicating factors such as streams or pockets, a general proposal from you documenting what you
want to do, what rule(s) you recommend it to be under and why, etc. I am not sure that we can continue down a path
to approval without this type of information.
Kelly
From: Jeanie Clinkinbeard [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 1:26 PM
To: Johnson, Kelly
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 'John R. Freshwater III, P.E.'
Subject: Canepa Residence, Lot 28 (SW8 120204)
Kelly,
Thank you for your continued assistance with this project!

Mr. Canepa has asked that we advise you of his serious intent to move forward with the "Low Density" option for his
property (as indicated in previous emails). He is currently in the process of negotiating (more aggressively than in the
past) with the Swansboro Soccer Association to acquire the additional property he will need in order to rejoin Hall's
Creek North as a Low Density lot. Once an agreement with the SSA is reached, he plans to approach the Hall's Creek
HOA. He appreciates your continued patience with him as he attempts to resolve this issue in a manner both acceptable
to DWQ and financially feasible to himself.
Before moving further with the property negotiations, Mr. Canepa wishes to confirm with you that (once sufficiently
enlarged and rejoined with the Hall's Creek subdivision), his lot will "revert" back to 1995 rules (including the "overbuilt"
BUA now designated as "2008 BUN") and will thus have a 25% limit on impervious, accounting for wetlands as
necessary. (The lot itself would have less than 25% BUA to account for the BUA "overage" created when he "seceded"
from the subdivision.) We understand from your previous emails that this is possible because both the Soccer
Association and the Hall's Creek North subdivision were originally permitted under 1995 rules.
In addition, it is our understanding that the "pocket of high density" test is now defunct (even if 1995 rules apply), due
to relatively recent ruling that it was never an "official " rule. Although it may not even be an issue, could you please
confirm for us (if true) that the "pocket of high density" test would not be applied in this case (even though subject to
1995 rules)?
Again, thank you for your patience and assistance in this matter.
Jeanie Clinkinbeard, El
Crystal Coast Engineering, PA
205 Ward Rd. # 3
Swansboro, NC 28584
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]

'•
Johnson, Kell
From: Johnson, Kelly
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 12:43 PM
To: 'Jeanie Clinkinbeard'
Cc: 'John R. Freshwater III, P.E.'; Scott, Georgette
Subject: RE: Canepa Residence, Lot 28 (SW8 120204)
Jeanie,
The reason the 2008 rule got triggered for Mr. Canepa was because he had been in an area permitted as I.D and he
added enough BUA to go HD. The 2008 rule says that you can stay under the old rule if you don't either 1.) Add BUA, or
2.) Increase the size of the BMP. (It is in the portion of the rule that talks about "minor modifications". It is a fairly
confusion section, though.) So, for a LD permit permitted up to 25% you can add BUA up to that number, but then once
you break that threshold you have to go to the 2008 rule. If both Halls Creek and the Soccer permit are LD at 25% and
you are going to stay LD then you shouldn't trigger 2008 unless you do something odd like odd like add curb and gutter
do something else to trigger one of those 2 qualifiers above. The only thing that strikes me as a potential issue is the
possibility of getting a pocket of high. Hopefully that won't be an issue though. I can't think of any other issues. But,
that was a really unusual permit. If there is anything else "odd" in it that I am forgetting that you think may complicate
this please let me know. Chances are that you will be OK though.
KJ
From: Jeanie Clinkinbeard (mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 12:05 PM
To: Johnson, Kelly
Cc: 'John R. Freshwater III, P.E.'; Scott, Georgette
Subject: RE: Canepa Residence, Lot 28 (SW8 120204)
Kelly,
Your email was very helpful — we did not realize that Mr. Canepa's lot was also covered by the Hall's Creek permit (I
guess somewhat like an "offsite" thing, since he is treating some of their BUA). With that in mind, modifying three
permits does seem a bit much. We agree that the most logical thing to do (if Mr. Canepa decides to go that route)
would be to add land via the Swansboro Soccer property and "re -combine" with Hall's Creek. I'm not sure he will want
to re -negotiate with the HOA again — that might be the sticking point.
I did have one question about which Low Density rules to follow in this case, which as you said would be whatever it was
"previously permitted" with. Mr. Canepa's lot was originally permitted at 25% (in Hall's Creek permit) and then
permitted with additional "2008" BUA with the high density permit. The Swansboro Soccer Complex is permitted at the
25% rules (although it's permitted BUA is much lower). Would the theoretical "re -combined" Halls Creek Low density
permit be all at 25% or would the 2008 portion in Mr. Canepa's current permit beat 12%? (ie does the "previously
permitted" rule follow the land or the BUA in this case?) Since Mr. Canepa's high density permit would, in that case, be
rescinded, it seems logical to be all 25% (and lots easier).
Once we know if Mr. Canepa wants to proceed with this or continue with his current permit, we will let you know.
Thanks again for all of your help!
Jeanie

From: Johnson, Kelly [mailto:kell . .Johnson ncdenr. ovI
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 9:03 AM
To: Jeanie Clinkinbeard
Cc: 'John R. Freshwater III, P.E.'; Scott, Georgette
Subject: RE: Canepa Residence, Lot 28 (SW8 120204)
Jeanie,
I think we need to step back and look at the big picture. I have cc'd Georgette Scott (my supervisor) so that she is in the
loop on this.
Mr. Canepa has a LD lot in Halls Creek North Subdivision (SW8 040239). He overbuilt his lot. Then, the Division agreed
to issue him a highly unusual type of permit, a HD permit in a LD subdivision (SW8 121204). Mr. Canepa is covered by
both permits. SW8 040239 is written for 29.62ac. The LD "subdivision" portion is 28.602ac and Mr. Canepa is 1.018ac.
(That 1.018ac portion is also SW8 121204).
This was only done after an extensive search for a "better solution" such as getting the HOA to give him more BUA,
buying BUA from other lots, potentially buying adjacent land to expand the project area, etc. This permit is the only one
of its kind that I am aware of, and was done only as a last resort.
Having said that, I don't remember discussing the possibility of giving Mr. Canepa his own LD permit that overlaps with
his HOA's LO permit, and I am not sure that that is the best approach. I understand that the relationship between Mr.
Canepa and the HOA is strained at best. But, no matter what he does with his lot in terms of expanding the project area
to effectively "buy more land to get more BUA" he will still have to deal with the HOA because he is still under SW8
040239. And, if the land that he buys is already covered by another permit and owned by another entity (the Soccer
Association), then there will be three permits involved with simply expanding the project area for Mr. Canepa's lot (Halls
Creek, Canepa, and the Soccer Association). Given the fact that the Division only gave Mr. Canepa his own HD permit
because an alternate solution could not be found, giving him his own LD permit inside a LD permit and modifying all
three to adjust the project areas seems to be a mute point in the end. If he is going to end up being LD, then there is no
reason for him to have his own LD permit.
1. Halls Creek North (SW8 040239): It will be much simpler to simply modify the Halls Creek North permit and the
Soccer Association's permit to give enough of the Soccer Association's area to Halls Creek and rescind Mr.
Canepa's permit. The math on this should work out like any other modification where you combine permits.
Any land that has been previously permitted under a rule will stay under that rule. Any land that has not been
permitted will be permitted under the most recent rule. The max BUA % for the respective project areas will
area -weighted for an overall amount that is allowed. The areas covered by each rule will be shown on the Hall
Creek North plans. If "Area A" is under 1995 and "Area B" is under 2008 then the BUA allowed in Area A can
only be built in Area A, and the BUA allowed in Area B can only be built in Area B to keep each area at the
appropriate percentage per each rule. Each area will have to meet the buffer, wetland and other requirements
of the particular rule. If there are complications that arise we will have to work through each of those issues as
they come up. (FYI, in email #2 item #1 that you send me I must not have realized that the area that you wanted
to add was already permitted under an old rule because it looks like I was talking about it being newly permitted
and therefore under the "new" rule.)
2. Soccer Association: The land that is split off of this permit should come with a proportional amount of
impervious. For instance, if it is a 25% permit and it is a 100ac project then the Soccer Association will sell 25ac
of BUA with 100ac of project (assuming that there are no wetland exclusion talcs complicating this calculation).
I do not recommend that it try to negotiate to sell more of its BUA (in exchange for giving itself a BUA< 25%
allowed) or to sell less of its BUA than 25ac (to give itself a BUA> 25% on its remaining 75ac). Both of these
situations will make a complicated situation more so.
Hopefully that will resolve the issue at Mr. Canepa's?
KJ
2

From: Jeanie Clinkinbeard [mailto:jeanie(@bizec.rr.com]
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 5:19 PM
To: Johnson, Kelly
Cc: 'John R. Freshwater III, P.E.'
Subject: RE: Canepa Residence, Lot 28 (SW8 120204)
Kelly,
Thank you for your quick response! I looked in our file more thoroughly and found some of your previous emails where
you DID discuss the Low Density option. Sorry i missed those before. They were very helpful — especially the
"complicating factors' you mentioned. (Mainly wetland, high density pocket and Non -discharge issues.) (I've attached
those emails in case you haven't already pulled them from your file —one of them is mainly about calculations for the
high -density option he used, but the other is Low Density).
We have a slightly different scenario now, and need somewhat different input before we can even begin to figure out
how much land he may need to purchase if he is to become Low Density. I apologize in advance for being long-winded:
Mr. Canepa DOES prefer to have a "stand-alone" Low Density permit (rather than "re -join" Hall's Creek Subdivision with
a bigger lot). We would need to know if there is any reason DWQ wouldn't allow that, assuming whatever plans we end
up with meet all the rules and regulations. (The property he wants to purchase is from a different ad"oiner -with a
separate SW permit- and he wants to leave Hall's Creek alone this time, if at all possible.)
The questions we need to answer before we can really give Mr. Canepa any useful information seem to boil down to
these:
With Mr. Canepa's current high density permit (SW8120204) being a "hybrid" of 1995 and 2008 rules, and the
property he wants to "annex" being covered by a 1995 Low Density permit (if I'm not mistaken), what set of
rules do we use to figure the amount of additional property that would be necessary to achieve Low_DensiW-
ness? (ie what rules would the new "Low Density" project need to follow?) (1995 only or 1995 AND 2008?)
And, 2, if it is a hybrid of both sets of rules, can he purchase enough land that would make the "2008" BUA at
12% density (even though the BUA wouldn't be physically on the new area)? (i.e., 12% of [additional property] _
amount of 2008 BUA)
The adjoining property Mr. Canepa would like to "annex" belongs to the Swansboro Soccer Association, and IS
covered by a Low Density Permit for the "Swansboro Soccer Complex" - SW8 050816 MOD (issued Sept. 20, 2010,
but original permit dated Jan. 2006). The Soccer Complex site appears to be under 1995 rules, and is allowed 25%
impervious, but is only "using" 12.42% (12.42% is the permitted amount, including a small amount of "future" BUA).
So it doesn't look like they would be risking an overage of BUA by selling off the property Mr. Canepa would need.
Of course we would have to modify their permit too. Both sites drain to the same SA:HWQ waters.
Since there are so many variables which we can't really address until we have more information (and I can't keep
them all in mind at the same time), I tried to simplify things by making these ASSUMPTIONS (which can be verified
or refuted when we have more information):
So—assumin-g that:
1. DWQ will allow a stand-alone Low Density permit in this case, if the proposed plans meet all rules and
requirements.

2. Mr. Canepa will be able to purchase enough land from the neighboring project to qualify as Low Density, and the
other project can be successfully modified (without creating any BUA overages or other unforeseen problems).
3. There are no wetlands on either property. (There ARE non -coastal wetlands on the Soccer Complex property,
but we don't have enough information yet to know if any wetlands would end up on Mr. Canepa's property or if
so, how they would affect Mr. Canepa's project. (i.e. site area calculations or upland location of development,
etc.) (Apart from water quality issues / rules, I understand that the specific wetland issues will depend on which
set of rules apply.)
4. No "pocket of high density" will be created with the addition of property.
5. No non -discharge issues will be created. (All will be sheet flow and nothing else would trigger a problem with
that rule).
With those assumptions,_ which rules would apply for the new enlarged lot? All 1995 or 1995 / 2008 hybrid?
There would appear to be a valid argument for "All 1995", since the permit for the Soccer Complex is under 1995 rules,
and Mr. Canepa's lot was originally permitted with 1995 rules (when it was in Hall's Creek). Both properties were
previously permitted within 1995 rules, and if there had been a single 1995 Low Density permit for the property (instead
one for Hall's Creek and one for the Soccer Complex) , they could modify the permit and add BUA to go up to 25%. If
Mr. Canepa could "revert" back to "all 25%", it would certainly simplify calculating how much additional property he
needs.
If, on the other hand, he has to follow 2008 rules for the "new" BUA, we want to confirm the method for finding how
much area is needed for Low Density (with the assumptions above). Would we just find the area for which the "new'
BUA would be 12%? (even though the BUA wouldn't physically be on that area)? (By "new" BUA, I mean the amount
treated as 2008 BUA in the current high density permit, which was the amount of BUA over the originally permitted 25%
of his lot, and was also the original BUA allocation for his lot plus the resulting "overage" BUA for the subdivision, which
ended up being 24.9% of the lot). So, in the case of a hybrid Low Density permit, can we say he would need 68,157 sf of
additional property (ignoring wetlands, pockets of high density, etc.), since 12% of 68,157 sf is 8,179 sf (the amount of
"new', 2008 BUA)?
Once we know what rule(s) would apply, we can move forward with addressing the "complicating factors", and we
might be able to give Mr. Canepa a rough estimate of area (with caveats) or at least a starting point or a minimum, and
then see if he wants us to continue working out the various issues that would affect the estimated area.
I hope I have not made things more confusing. Or else made it more complicated than it needs to be! At least it seemed
to help organize things in my head. (And maybe I'll finally understand a few things about 1995 vs 2008 rules!)
THANK YOU!!
I hope you have a great weekend! (But I hope you have already left the office so you won't have to think about this until
Monday!)
Jeanie
Crystal Coast Engineering, PA
From: Johnson, Kelly [ma iIto: kell . p,Johnson ncdenr. ov
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:56 AM
To: Jeanie Clinkinbeard

Cc: 'John R. Freshwater III, P.E.'
Subject: RE: Canepa Residence, Lot 28 (SW8 120204)
Oh my goodness, it has been a while, but I think we crunched those numbers back when we were going through this
originally (I think?) I would have to go back and review all of that data but I think we did that exercise already. I have
attached the data summary I made at the end of that saga about the size of each tract, the wetlands on each tract etc.
This situation was unusual because we basically worked out a deal for him so that he wouldn't have to tear down
anything he had built. But, I don't remember exactly all the terms of that deal. It seems like if he bought enough
adjacent land that would be counted at 12% per 2008 (accounting for coastal wetland area etc), and the math worked
out such that he could "bank" enough BUA to make his lot LD (while keeping his BUA in upland areas and away from
surface waters per 2008) that it could work out (unless there was something we have already talked about that made
that not work out? I don't think there was though. It think it was just that he perceived buying the land to be
expensive?)
Would you be proposing to rescind his separate permit and modify the subdivision's permit to expand its whole area
such that it would maintain LD? If so, would the HOA be willing to work with him on that? It wouldn't make sense to
give him a LD permit in a LD subdivision.
From: Jeanie Clinkinbeard (ma Hto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:08 AM
To: Johnson, Kelly
Cc: 'John R. Freshwater III, P.E.'
Subject: Canepa Residence, Lot 28 (SW8 120204)
Ms. Johnson,
First of all I'd like to apologize for somehow always coming up with complicated permitting situations, and we very much
appreciate your continued assistance with figuring out how to handle them!
If you remember, you helped us a while ago with Mr. Mario Canepa's high density permit (SW8 120204), where he
overbuilt on his low density lot and had to remove it from the Halls Creek North subdivision and get his own high density
permit. Now, before he finishes installing his sand filter he wants to investigate the possibility of purchasing enough
adjacent property to bring his site back to Low Density. (And, I suppose if he does that, to apply for a new Stormwater
Permit.) He has asked us to determine the amount of land he would have to buy to achieve Low Density status.
Could you please review our "calculations" to confirm that we have figured the correct amount of additional property
Mr. Canepa would need? (Or let us know if we are going about it the wrong way?) We do not want to find out after he
buys more property that DWQ disagrees with our calculations!
Basically, we are thinking that he can buy enough property so that the "new" (2008) BUA would be 12% of the additional
area (even though it won't actually be ON that area), and the "old" BUA would be 25% of the original area, and it would
be acceptable as Low Density overall.
This is how we are calculating the additional area he will need:
The existing property is 44,357 sf
The "original" BUA allocation for his lot (from the Subdivision's permit) was 4,752 sf.
Since removing his lot from the original low density permit caused an overage in BUA for that project, that "overage"
BUA (6,298 sf) was included in the BUA for Mr. Canepa's lot (as "offsite").
So, for a Low Density permit, the total amount of "1995" BUA (25%) would be the allocated BUA plus the "offsite" BUA:
4,752 + 6,298 = 11,050 sf. (24.9% of current property).

The total amount Mr. Canepa wants to build (including the "offsite" 6,298) is 19,229 sf. This is the BUA permitted under
the "new" High Density permit for his lot.
The amount OVER the "1995" BUA (19,229 sf-11,050 sf) is 8,179 sf, which would be subject to 2008 (12% Low Density)
rules.
We are thinking that if Mr. Canepa purchases 68,157 sf (1.56 ac) of adjacent property, that "2008" BUA (8,179 sf) would
be 12% of the new area, and he could be Low Density? The total BUA would still be 19,229 sf, but the total area would
be 112,514 sf (or 17.1 % overall).
Does this make sense, and do you think it will (as they say) fly?
Thank you (again) for your help,
Jeanie Clinkinbeard, El
Crystal Coast Engineering, PA
205 Ward Rd. # 3
Swansboro, NC 28584
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]

19
J Clinkinbeard
G C3aQ'n19hqS
From: Johnson, Kelly [[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday; March 18, 2013 9:03 AM
To: Jeanie Clinkinbeard
Cc: 'John R. Freshwater Ill, P.E.'; Scott, Georgette
Subject: RE: Canepa Residence, Lot 28 (SW8 120204)
Jeanie,
I think we need to step back and look at the big picture. 1 have cc'd Georgette Scott (my supervisor) so that she is in the
loop on this.
Mr. Canepa has a LD lot in Halls Creek North Subdivision (SW8 040239). He overbuilt his lot. Then, the Division agreed
to issue him a highly unusual type of permit, a HD permit in a LD subdivision (SW8 121204). Mr. Canepa is covered by
both permits. SW8 040239 is written for 29.62ac. The LD "subdivision" portion is 28.602ac and Mr. Canepa is 1.018ac.
(That 1.018ac portion is also SW8 121204).
This was only done after an extensive search for a "better solution" such as getting the HOA to give him more BUA,
buying BUA from other lots, potentially buying adjacent land to expand the project area, etc. This permit is the only one
of its kind that I am aware of, and was done only as a last resort.
Having said that, I don't remember discussing the possibility of giving Mr. Canepa his own LD permit that overlaps with
his HOA's LD permit, and I am not sure that that is the best approach. I understand that the relationship between Mr.
Canepa and the HOA is strained at best. But, no matter what he does with his lot in terms of expanding the project area
to effectively "buy more land to get more BUA" he will still have to deal with the HOA because he is still under SW8
040239. And, if the land that he buys is already covered by another permit and owned by another entity (the Soccer
Association), then there will be three permits involved with simply expanding the project area for Mr. Canepa's lot (Halls
Creek, Canepa, and the Soccer Association). Given the fact that the Division only gave Mr. Canepa his own HD permit
because an alternate solution could not be found, giving him his own LD permit inside a LD permit and modifying aIf
three to adjust the project areas seems to be a mute point in the end. if he is going to end up being LD, then there is no
reason for him to have his own LD permit.
Halls Creek North (SW8 040239): It will be much simpler to simply modify the Halls Creek North permit and the
Soccer Association's permit to give enough of the Soccer Association's area to Halls Creek and rescind Mr.
Canepa's permit. The math on this should work out like any other modification where you combine permits.
Any land that has been previously permitted under a rule will stay under that rule. Any land that has not been
permitted will be permitted under the most recent rule. The max BUA % for the respective project areas will
area -weighted for an overall amount that is allowed. The areas covered by each rule will be shown on the Hall
Creek North plans. If "Area A" is under 1995 and "Area B" is under 2008 then the BUA allowed in Area A can
only be built in Area A, and the BUA allowed in Area B can only be built in Area B to keep each area at the
appropriate percentage per each rule. Each area will have to meet the buffer, wetland and other requirements
of the particular rule. If there are complications that arise we will have to work through each of those issues as
they come up. (FYI, in email #2 item #1 that you send me I must not have realized that the area that you wanted
to add was already permitted under an old rule because it looks like I was talking about it being newly permitted
and therefore under the "new" rule.)
Soccer Association: The land that is split off of this permit should come with a proportional amount of
impervious. For instance, if it is a 25% permit and it is a 100ac project then the Soccer Association will sell 25ac
of BUA with 100ac of project (assuming that there are no wetland exclusion talcs complicating this calculation).
I do not recommend that it try to negotiate to sell more of its BUA (in exchange for giving itself a BUA< 25%
allowed) or to sell less of its BUA than 25ac (to give itself a BUA> 25% on its remaining 75ac). Both of these
situations will make a complicated situation more so.

%Hopefuily that will resolve the issue at Mr. Canepa's?
KJ
From: Jeanie Clinkinbeard (mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 5:19 PM
To: Johnson, Kelly
Cc: 'John R. Freshwater III, P.E.'
Subject: RE: Canepa Residence, Lot 28 (SW8 120204)
Kelly,
Thank you for your quick response! I looked in our file more thoroughly and found some of your previous emails where
you DID discuss the Low Density option. Sorry I missed those before. They were very helpful —especially the
"complicating factors" you mentioned. (Mainly wetland, high density pocket and Non -discharge issues.) (I've attached
those emails in case you haven't already pulled them from your file — one of them is mainly about calculations for the
high -density option he used, but the other is Low Density).
We have a slightly different scenario now, and need somewhat different input before we can even begin to figure out
how much land he may need to purchase if he is to become Low Density. I apologize in advance for being long-winded:
Mr. Canepa DOES prefer to have a "stand-alone" Low Density permit (rather than "re -join" Hall's Creek Subdivision with
a bigger lot). We would need to know if there is any reason DWQ wouldn't allow that, assuming whatever plans we end
up with meet all the rules and regulations. (The property he wants to purchase is from a different adioiner -with a
separate SW permit- and he wants to leave Hall's Creek alone this time, if at all possible.)
The questions we need to answer before we can really give Mr. Canepa any useful information seem to boil down to
these:
With Mr. Canepa's current high density permit (SW8 120204) being a "hybrid" of 1995 and 2008 rules, and the
property he wants to "annex" being covered by a 1995 Low Density permit (if I'm not mistaken), what set of
rules do we use to figure the amount of additional property that would be necessary to achieve Low Density-
ness? (ie what rules would the new "Low Density" project need to follow?) (1995 only or 1995 AND 2008?)
And, 2, if it is a hybrid of both sets of rules, -can he purchase enough land that would make the "2008" BUA at
12% density (even though the BUA wouldn't be physically on the new area)? (i.e., 12% of [additional property] =
amount of 2008 BUA)
The adjoining property Mr. Canepa would like to "annex" belongs to the Swansboro Soccer Association, and IS
covered by a Low Density Permit for the "Swansboro Soccer Complex" - SW8 050816 MOD (issued Sept. 20, 2010,
but original permit dated Jan. 2006). The Soccer Complex site appears to be under 1995 rules, and is allowed 25%
impervious, but is only "using" 12.42% (12.42% is the permitted amount, including a small amount of "future" BUA).
So it doesn't look like they would be risking an overage of BUA by selling off the property Mr. Canepa would need.
Of course we would have to modify their permit too. Both sites drain to the same SA:HWQ waters.
Since there are so many variables which we can't really address until we have more information (and I can't keep
them all in mind at the same time); i tried to simplify things by making these ASSUMPTIONS (which can be verified
or refuted when we have more information):
So, assuming that:

i
1. DWQ will allow a stand-alone Low Density permit in this case, if the proposed plans meet all rules and
requirements.
2. Mr. Canepa will be able to purchase enough land from the neighboring project to qualify as Low Density, and the
other project can be successfully modified (without creating any BUA overages or other unforeseen problems).
3. There are no wetlands on either property. (There ARE non -coastal wetlands on the Soccer Complex property,
but we don't have enough information yet to know if any wetlands would end up on Mr. Canepa's property or if
so, how they would affect Mr. Canepa's project. (i.e. site area calculations or upland location of development,
etc.) (Apart from water quality issues / rules, I understand that the specific wetland issues will depend on which
set of rules apply.)
4. No "pocket of high density" will be created with the addition of property.
5. No non -discharge issues will be created. (All will be sheet flow and nothing else would trigger a problem with
that rule).
With those assumptions, which rules would apply for the new enlarged lot? All 1995 or 1995 2008 hybrid?
There would appear to be a valid argument for "All 1995", since the permit for the Soccer Complex is under 1995 rules,
and Mr. Canepa's lot was originally permitted with 1995 rules (when it was in Hall's Creek). Both properties were
previously permitted within 1995 rules, and if there had been a single 1995 Low Density permit for the property (instead
one for Hail's Creek and one for the Soccer Complex) , they could modify the permit and add BUA to go up to 25%. If
Mr. Canepa could "revert" back to "all 25%", it would certainly simplify calculating how much additional property he
needs.
if, on the other hand, he has to follow 2008 rules for the "new" BUA, we want to confirm the method for finding how
much area is needed for Low Density (with the assumptions above). Would we just find the area for which the "new"
BUA would be 12%? (even though the BUA wouldn't physically be on that area)? (By "new" BUA, I mean the amount
treated as 2008 BUA in the current high density permit, which was the amount of BUA over the originally permitted 25%
of his lot, and was also the original BUA allocation for his lot plus the resulting "overage" BUA for the subdivision, which
ended up being 24.9% of the lot). So, in the case of a hybrid Low Density permit, can we say he would need 68,157 sf of
additional property (ignoring wetlands, pockets of high density, etc.), since 12%of 68,157 sf is 8,179 sf (the amount of
"new", 2008 BUA)?
Once we know what rule(s) would apply, we can move forward with addressing the "complicating factors", and we
might be able to give Mr. Canepa a rough estimate of area (with caveats) or at least a starting point or a minimum, and
then see if he wants us to continue working out the various issues that would affect the estimated area.
hope I have not made things more confusing. Or else made it more complicated than it needs to be! At least it seemed
to help organize things in my head_ (And maybe I'll finally understand a few things about 1995 vs 2008 rules!)
THANK YOU!!
I hope you have a great weekend! (But I hope you have already left the office so you won't have to think about this until
Monday!)
Jeanie
Crystal Coast Engineering, PA

From: Johnson, Kelly [mailto:kelly.a.johnsonna ncdenr.govJ
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:56 AM
To: Jeanie Clinkinbeard
Cc: 'John R. Freshwater III, P.E.'
Subject: RE: Canepa Residence, Lot 28 (SW8 120204)
Oh my goodness, it has been a while, but I think we crunched those numbers back when we were going through this
originally (I think?) I would have to go back and review all of that data but I think we did that exercise already. I have
attached the data summary I made at the end of that: saga about the size of each tract, the wetlands on each tract etc.
This situation was unusual because we basically worked out a deal for him so that he wouldn't have to tear down
anything he had built. But, I don't remember exactly all the terms of that deal. it seems like if he bought enough
adjacent land that would be counted at 12% per 2008 (accounting for coastal wetland area etc), and the math worked
out such that he could "bank" enough BUA to make his lot LD (while keeping his BUA in upland areas and away from
surface waters per 2008) that it could work out (unless there was something we have already talked about that made
that not work out? I don't think there was though. It think it was just that he perceived buying the land to be
expensive?)
Would you be proposing to rescind his separate permit and modify the subdivision's permit to expand its whole area
such that it would maintain LD? If so, would the HOA be willing to work with him on that? It wouldn't make sense to
give him a LD permit in a LD subdivision.
From: Jeanie Clinkinbeard mailto:Jeanie bizec.rr.comj
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:08 AM
To: Johnson, Kelly
Cc: 'John R. Freshwater III, P.E.'
Subject: Canepa Residence, Lot 28 (SW8 120204)
Ms. Johnson,
First of all I'd like to apologize for somehow always coming up with complicated permitting situations, and we very much
appreciate your continued assistance with figuring out how to handle them!
If you remember, you helped us a while ago with Mr. Mario Canepa's high density permit (SW8 120204), where he
overbuilt on his low density lot and had to remove it from the Halls Creek North subdivision and get his own high density
permit. Now, before he finishes installing his sand filter he wants to investigate the possibility of purchasing enough
adjacent property to bring his site back to Low Density. (And, I suppose if he does that, to apply for a new Stormwater
Permit.) He has asked us to determine the amount of land he would have to buy to achieve Low Density status.
Could you please review our "calculations" to confirm that we have figured the correct amount of additional property
Mr. Canepa would need? (Or let us know if we are going about it the wrong way?) We do not want to find out after he
buys more property that DWQ disagrees with our calculations!
Basically, we are thinking that he can buy enough property so that the "new" (2008) BUA would be 12% of the additional
area (even though it won't actually be ON that area), and the "old" BUA would be 25% of the original area, and it would
be acceptable as Low Density overall.
This is how we are calculating the additional area he will need:
The existing property is 44,357 sf
The "original" BUA allocation for his lot (from the Subdivision's permit) was 4,752 sf.

Since removing his lot from the original low density permit caused an overage in BUA for that project, that "overage"
BUA (6,298 sf) was included in the BUA for Mr. Canepa's lot (as "offsite").
So, for a Low Density permit, the total amount of "1995" BUA (25%) would be the allocated BUA plus the "offsite" BUA:
4,752 + 6,298 = 11,050 sC (24.9% of current property).
The total amount Mr. Canepa wants to build (including the "offsite" 6,298) is 19,229 sf. This is the BUA permitted under
the "new" High Density permit for his lot.
The amount OVER the "1995" BUA (19,229 sf—11,050 sf) is 8,179 sf, which would be subject to 2008 (12% Low Density)
rules.
We are thinking that if Mr. Canepa purchases 68,157 sf (1.56 ac) of adjacent property, that "2008" BUA (8,179 sf) would
be 12% of the new area, and he could be Low Density? The total BUA would still be 19,229 sf, but the total area would
be 112,514 sf (or 17.1 % overall).
Does this make sense, and do you think it will (as they say) fly?
Thank you (again) for your help,
Jeanie Ciinkinbeard, El
Crystal Coast Engineering, PA
205 Ward Rd. # 3
Swansboro, NC 28584
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]

A Y42
MCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
February 16, 2012
Division of Water Quality
Charles Wakild, P. E.
Director
Mr. Doyle Evans
2411 N. Marine Blvd
Jacksonville, NC 28546
Subject: State Stormwater Management Permit No. SW8 040239 MOD
Halls Creek North
Low Density Subdivision Permit
Onslow County
Dear Mr. Evans:
Dee Freeman
Secretary
The Wilmington Regional Office received a complete Stormwater Management Permit Application for Halls Creek
North on February 8, 2012. Staff review of the plans and specifications has determined that the project, as proposed,
will comply with the Stormwater Regulations set forth in Session Law 2008-211 and Title 15A NCAC 21-1.1000,
effective September 1, 1995. We are forwarding Permit No. SW8 040239, dated February 16, 2012, for the
construction of the built -upon area associated with the subject project. This project was previously issued on August
12, 2005 as a 25% low density subdivision. This modification is being issued to correct a non -compliant situation.
Lot 28 is overbuilt and is now covered by SW8120204, a high density permit covering Lot 28 only. Because SW8
040239 is still slightly above its maximum 25% impervious area even after Lot 28 is removed , the BMP designed for
permit SW8120204 is required to treat all of the BUA on lot 28, and as much runoff from SW8 040239's BUA as
feasibly possible. A summary of impervious area is provided in Table 1 of this permit. There is no available future
impervious area available for this project. If, in the future, this -project is found to have built more than the
i his permit shall be effective from the date of issuance unfit rescinded and shall be subject to the conditions and
limitations as specified therein, and does not supersede any other agency permit that may be required. If any parts,
requirements, or limitations contained in this permit are unacceptable, you have the right to request an adjudicator,/
hearing by fling a written petition with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). The written petition must conform
to CNagter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and must be filed with the OAH within thirty (30) days of
receioi cf this oerni t. You should contact the C° u vgth atl questions regarding the filing fee (if a filing fee is required)
ar ru,cr the details of file piing process at 67i4 Maii Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-6714, or via telephone at
c: F9-4-3 i-3000. or visit their website at www.NCOAH.co,m. Unless such demands are made this permit shall be final
and binding. You should contact the OAH -with all questions regarding the fling fee andior the details of the filing
process. Tne mailing address. telephone and fax numbers for the Office of Administrative Hearings are. 6714 iv4Rii
Service Center, Raleigh. NC 27699-6714. Telephone [phone]. FAX [phone]. If you thave any questirns,
or need additional information concerning this matter, please contact Kelly Johnson at [phone].
Sincerely,
ForCharleg%a .E., Director
Division of Water Quality
GDSlkpj: S:1WQS1StormwaterlPermits & ProjectsQ0041040239 LD12012 02 permit 040239
CC' John Freshwater, PE
Inspector, Onslow County Building Inspections
NCDOT District Engineer
Division of Coastal Management
Wilmington Regional Office Stormwater File, SW8 040239
Wilmington Regional Office Stormwater fife, SW8120204
W9minnton Regional01fte
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, North Carolina 28405 ne
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] DENR Assistance: l-077-623-6748 NocZhCarofina
Internet w mr.ncwatergaality.org "1! I ,V i., ",V 114 r

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No.SW8 040239
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
STATE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT
LOW DENSITY DEVELOPMENT
In accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of Chapter 143, General Statutes of North Carolina as
amended, and other applicable Laws, Rules and Regulations
PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO
Mr. Doyle Evans
Halts Creek North Section 1
Hammocks Beach Rd, Swansboro, Onslow County
FOR THE
construction, operation and maintenance of a low density subdivision in compliance with the
provisions of Session Law 2008-211 and 15A NCAC 2H .1000, effective September 1, 1995
(hereafter collectively and separately referred to as the "stormwater rules') and the approved
stormwater management plans and specifications, and other supporting data as attached and on file
with and approved by the Division of Water Quality and considered a part of this permit. This project
was previously issued on August 12, 2005 as a 25% low density subdivision. This modification is
being issued to correct a non -compliant situation. Lot 28 overbuilt, and is now covered by SW8
120204, a high density permit covering Lot 28 only. SW8 040239 could not have been overall low
density if Lot 28 was left in the project area. SW8 040239 also could not have been overall low
density if Lot 28 was removed from its project area. SW8 040239 is 6,298sf above its maximum
25% impervious area after Lot 28 is removed from its project area and covered by SW8 120204. A
summary of impervious area is provided in Table 1 of this permit. There is no available future
impervious area available for this project. If, in the future this proiect is found to have built
more than the amount of impervious area shown in Table 1 this protect will become a high
density permit and all of the impervious area will have to be _ collected and treated from the
entire project area.
The Permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until rescinded and shall be subject to the
following specific conditions and limitations:
I. DESIGN STANDARDS
Each of the 43 lots is limited to a maximum of 4,752 square feet of built -upon area (BUA), as
indicated in the application and shown on the approved plans. Lot 28 is now covered by
SW8 120204, a high density permit covering Lot 28 only. Lot 28 is not included in -the project
area for SW8 040239.
2. The overall tract built -upon area percentage for the project is limited to the impervious area
specified in Table 1 which specifies a total of 298,168sf of impervious area per the
requirements of the stormwater rules.
3. Approved plans and specifications for projects covered by this permit are incorporated by
reference and are enforceable parts of the permit.
4. This project proposes a curb outlet system. Each designated curb outlet swale or 100'
vegetated area shown on the approved plan must be maintained at a minimum of 100' long,
maintain 5A (H:V) side slopes or flatter, have a longitudinal slope no steeper than 5%, carry
the flow from a 10 year storm in a non -erosive manner, maintain a dense vegetated cover,
and be located in either a dedicated common area or a recorded drainage easement.
Page 2 of 6

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No.SW8 040239
5. Projects covered by this permit will maintain a minimum 30-foot-wide vegetated buffer
adjacent surface waters, measured horizontally from and perpendicular to the normal pool of '
impounded structures, the top of bank of each side of streams and rivers, and the mean high
water line of tidal waters.
6. All runoff directed into and through the vegetative buffer must flow through the buffer in a
diffuse manner. All runoff directed into wetlands shall flow into and through the wetlands at a
non -erosive velocity of 2 feet per second or less.
7. The only runoff conveyance systems allowed will be vegetated conveyances such as swales
with minimum side slopes of 3:1 (H:V) as defined in the stormwater rules and approved by
the Division.
8. Table 1 summarizes the permitted impervious area.
Table 1: Permitted Impervious Area
SW8 040239
Before 2/16/12
Modification
(44 Lots)
SW8 040239
All Lots Except 28
(43 Lots)
SW8 120204
Lot 28
(1 Lot)
Project Area (ac)
29.62
28.602
1.018
Wetland Area (ac)
1.8
1.8
0.0-
Project Area, Wetland Corrected (ac)
27.82
26.802
1.018
Project Area, Wetland Corrected (sf)
1,211,839
1,167,482
44,357
Max % (per 15A NCAC 2H .1005, eff. 911195)
25.0%
25.0%
Max BUA (sf):
Actual % BUA
302,960
25.0%
291,870
25.5%
43.4%
Allocated BUA(sf):
302,920
298,168
19,229
Onsite
302,920
298,168
12,931
Buildings (4,752sf/lot)
209,088
204,336
4,752
Existing Overbuilt
73,854
73,854
4,481
Additional impervious Proposed
3,698
Streets
0
Sidewalks
19,978
19,978
0
"Extra" Future Potential (sf):
0
0
0
Offsite
0
0
6,298
Amount "over" 25% Low Density (sf):
6,298
II. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE
Swales and other vegetated conveyances shall be constructed in their entirety, vegetated,
and be operational for their intended use prior to the construction of any built -upon surface.
2. During construction, erosion shall be kept to a minimum and any eroded areas of the swales
or other vegetated conveyances will be repaired immediately.
3. The permittee shall at all times provide and perform the necessary operation and
maintenance as specified in the signed Operation and Maintenance Agreement, such that the
permitted stormwater management system functions as designed and permitted.
Page 3 of 6

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No_SW8 040239
4. The permittee shall submit to the Director and shall have received approval for revised plans,
specifications, and calculations prior to construction, for any modification to the approved
• plans, including, but not limited to, those listed below:
a. Any revision to any of the items shown on the approved plans, including the
stormwater management system, design concept, built -upon area, details, etc.
b. Redesign or addition to the approved amount of built -upon area or to the drainage
area.
C. Further subdivision, acquisition, or selling of the project area.
d. Filling in, altering or piping any vegetative conveyance shown on the approved plan.
e. Construction of any future development area on the plan with a BUA allocation.
5. The permittee shall submit all information requested by the Director or his representative
within the time frame specified in the written information request.
6. No piping shall be allowed except that minimum amount necessary to direct runoff beneath
an impervious surface such as a road and that minimum amount needed under driveways to
provide access to lots.
7. The permittee is responsible for verifying that the proposed built -upon area does not exceed
the allowable built -upon area. Once the lot transfer is complete, the maximum allocated built -
upon area for the lot may not be revised without approval from the Division of Water Quality.
If the allocated maximum built -upon area on the lot is exceeded without approval of the
permittee and the Division, the lot owner is subject to enforcement action by the Division of
Water Quality.
8. Within 30 days of completion of the project, the permittee must certify in writing that the
project's stormwater controls, and impervious surfaces have been constructed within
substantial intent of the approved plans and specifications. Any deviation from the approved
plans must be noted on the Certification.
9. If the permittee sets up an Architectural Review Committee or Board to review new lot plans
and subsequent modifications for compliance with the restrictions, the plans reviewed must
include all built -upon area (BUA) and piping. Any approvals given by the Committee or Board
on behalf of the permittee do not relieve the lot owner or the permittee of the responsibility to
maintain compliance with the permitted lot BUA limit.
10. Deed restrictions are incorporated into this permit by reference and must be recorded with
the Office of the Register of Deeds prior to the sale of any lot. Recorded deed restrictions
must include, as a minimum, the following statements related to stormwater management:
a. Before any structure or improvement whatsoever (including, but not limited to,
residential dwellings, patios, storage building, outbuildings, garages, carports, or
gazebos) may be erected upon any lot, the plans and specifications for such a
structure or improvement; the proposed location and orientation in relation to streets
or other lots; and the construction materials, the covering material, style and slope of
the roofs shall have been approved in writing by the Committee.
b. The following covenants are intended to ensure ongoing compliance with State
Stormwater Management Permit Number 040239.Mod, as issued by the Division of
Water Quality under NCAC 2H.1000.
c. The State of North Carolina is made a beneficiary of these covenants to the extent
necessary to maintain compliance with the Stormwater Management Permit.
d. These covenants are to run with the land and be binding on all persons and parties
claiming under them.
e. The covenants pertaining to stormwater may not be altered or rescinded without the
express written consent of the State of North Carolina, Division of Water Quality.
f. Alteration of the drainage as shown on the approved plans may not take place without
the concurrence of the Division of Water Quality.
Page 4 of 6

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No.SW8 040239
g. The maximum built upon area per lot is 4,752 square feet. This allotted amount
includes any built -upon area constructed within the lot property boundaries, and,that
portion of the right of way between the front lot line and the edge of the pavement. '
Built upon area includes, but is not limited to, structures, asphalt, concrete, gravel,
brick, stone, slate, coquina, driveways, and parking areas, but does not include
raised, open wood decking, or the water surface of swimming pools.
h. Filling in, piping or altering any 3:1 vegetated conveyances (ditches, swales, etc.)
associated with the development except for average driveway crossings, is prohibited
by any persons.
i. Lots within CAMA's Area of Environmental Concern may have the permitted built -
upon area reduced due to CAMA jurisdiction within the AEC.
j. Filling in, piping or altering any designated 5:1 curb outlet swale or vegetated area
associated with the development is prohibited by any persons.
k. A 30' vegetated buffer must be maintained between all built -upon area and the Mean
High Water line of surface waters.
I. All roof drains shall terminate at least 30' from the Mean High Water mark.
m. This project proposes a curb outlet system. Each designated curb outlet swale or 100'
vegetated area shown on the approved plan must be maintained at a minimum of
100' long, maintain 5:1 (H:V) side slopes or flatter, have a longitudinal slope no
steeper than 5%, carry the flow from a 10 year storm in a non -erosive manner,
maintain a dense vegetated cover, and be located in either a dedicated common area
or a recorded drainage easement.
11. The permittee shall submit a copy of the recorded deed restrictions, which contain all of the
above statements, within 30 days of the date of recording.
12. The Director may notify the permittee when the permitted site does not meet one or more of
the minimum requirements of the permit. Within the time frame specified in the notice, the
permittee shall submit a written time schedule to the Director for modifying the site to meet
minimum requirements. The permittee shall provide copies of revised plans and certification
in writing to the Director that the changes have been made.
13. All stormwater conveyances will be located in either a dedicated right-of-way (public or
private), recorded common areas or recorded drainage easements. The final plats for the
project will be recorded showing all such required rights -of -way, common areas and
easements, in accordance with the approved plans.
III. GENERAL CONDITIONS
Failure to abide by the conditions and limitations contained in this permit may subject the
Permittee to an enforcement action by the Division of Water Quality, in accordance with
North Carolina General Statutes 143-215.6A to 143-215.6C.
2. The permit issued shall continue in force and effect until modified, revoked or terminated.
3. The permit may be modified, revoked and reissued or terminated for cause. The filing of a
request for a permit modification, revocation and re -issuance, or termination does not stay
any permit condition.
4. The issuance of this permit does not prohibit the Director from reopening and modifying the
permit, revoking and reissuing the permit, or terminating the permit as allowed by the laws,
rules, and regulations contained in Title 15A of the North Carolina Administrative Code,
Subchapter 2H.1000; and North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 et. al.
Page 5 of 6

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No.SW8 040239
5. The permit is not transferable to any person or entity except after notice to and approval by
the Director. The Director may require modification or revocation and re -issuance of the
permit to change the name and incorporate such other requirements as may be necessary.
At least 30 days prior to a change of ownership, or a name change of the permittee or of the
project, or a mailing address change, the permittee shall submit a completed and signed
Name/Ownership Change Form to the Division of Water Quality accompanied by the
supporting documentation as listed on the form. The approval of this request will be
considered on its merits, and may or may not be approved.
6. The permittee is responsible for compliance with all permit conditions until such time as the
Division approves the permit transfer request. Neither the sale of the project nor the
conveyance of common area to a third party constitutes an approved transfer of the
stormwater permit.
7. The issuance of this permit does not preclude the Permittee from complying with any and all
statutes, rules, regulations, or ordinances, which may be imposed by other government
agencies (local, state and federal), which have jurisdiction. If any of those permits result in
revisions to the plans, a permit modification must be submitted.
8. The permittee grants permission to DENR Staff to enter the property during business hours
for the purposes of inspecting the stormwater management system and its components.
9. Unless specified elsewhere, permanent seeding requirements for the swales must follow the
guidelines established in the North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and
Design Manual.
Permit modified and reissued this the 16"' day of February 2012.
ANORHOLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
--------- -��`� #------------------
akiid, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
Page 6 of 6

Central Files: AP5 SWP
02/16/12
Permit Number SW8120204
Permit Tracking Slip
Program Category
Status Project Type
State SW
Active New Project
Permit Type
Version Permit Classification
State Stormwater
1.00 Individual
Primary Reviewer
kelly.johnson
Coastal SW Rule
Coastal Stormwater - 2008
Permitted Flow
Facili
Permit Contact Affiliation
Facility Name Major/Minor Region
Canepa Residence Lot 28 Halls Creek North Minor Wilmington
Section I
Location Address County
212 Pigeon Ln Onslow
Swansboro
Owner
Owner Name
Mario
Dates/Events
NC 28584
Canepa
Scheduled
Orig Issue App Received Draft Initiated Issuance
02/16/12 02/08/12
Facility Contact Affiliation
Owner Type '
Individual
Owner Affiliation
Mario Canepa
212 Pigeon Ln
Swansboro NC 28584
Public Notice Issue Effective Expiration
02/16/12 02/16/12 02/16/20
Regulated Activities _ Requested/Received Events
State Stormwater - HD - Sand filters Deed restriction requested
Deed restriction received
Outfall NULL
Waterbody !Name Stream index Number Current Class Subbasin

DWQ USE ONLY
Date Received
Fee Paid
Permit Number
Applicable Rules: ❑ Coastal SW — 1995 ❑ Coastal SW — 2008 ❑ Ph 17 - Post Construction
(select all that apply) ❑ Non -Coastal SW- HQW/ORW Waters ❑ Universal Stormwater Management Plan
❑ Other WQ Mgmt Plan:
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
This form may be photocopied for use as an original
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Project Name (subdivision, facility, or establishment name -should be consistent with project name on plans,
specifications, letters, operation and maintenance agreements, etc.):
Canepa Residence, Lot 28 Halls Creek North, Section I
2. Location of Project (street address):
212 Pigeon Lane
City: Swansboro
County: Onslow
3. Directions to project (from nearest major intersection):
Zip: 28584
US 17 and Hwy 24, take Hwy 24 East out of Jacksonville. Upon Entering Swansboro, turn right on
Hammocks Beach Rd. Take second right onto Cormorant Dr. Turn right onto Pigeon Lane. Site will be on
the right.
4. Latitude:34* 41' 41.18" N Longitude:770 09' 04.88" W of the main entrance to the project.
II. PERMIT INFORMATION:
1. a. Specify whether project is (check one): ®New []Modification
b.If this application is being submitted as the result of a modification to an existing permit, list the existing
permit number , its issue date (if known)__ ' and the status of
construction: ❑Not Started ❑Partially Completed* El Completed* 'provide a designer's certification
2. Specify the type of project (check one):
[-]Low Density ®High Density ❑Drains to an Offsite Stormwater System ❑Other
3. If this application is being submitted as the result of a previously returned application or a letter from DWQ
requesting a state stormwater management permit application, list the stormwater project number, if
assigned, and the previous name of the project, if different than currently
proposed,
4. a. Additional Project Requirements (check applicable blanks; information on required state permits can be
obtained by contacting the Customer Service Center at 1-877-623-6748):
❑CAMA Major ❑Sedimentation/Erosion Control:
❑NPDES Industrial Stormwater ❑404/401 Permit: Proposed Impacts
ac of Disturbed Area
b.If any of these permits have already been acquired please provide the Project Name, Project/Permit Number,
issue date and the type of each permit:
DEB � � 101
Form S WU-101 Version 077un2010 Page 1 of 6

III. CONTACT INFORMATION
1. a: Print Applicant / Signing Official's name and title (specifically the developer, property owner, lessee,
designated government official, individual, etc. who owns the project):
Applicant/Organization: Mario
Signing Official & Title: Mario Canepa, owner
b. Contact information for person listed in item 1a above:
Street Address: 212 Pigeon Lane
City: Swansboro State.
Mailing Address (if applicable):same
City: State:
Phone: [phone] Fax:
HMERIN
Zip:
Email:mrmariol961Qyahoo.com
c. Please check the appropriate box. The applicant listed above is:
® The property owner (Skip to Contact Information, item 3a)
❑ Lessee* (Attach a copy of the lease agreement and complete Contact Information, item 2a and 2b below)
❑ Purchaser* (Attach a copy of the pending sales agreement and complete Contact Information, item 2a and
2b below)
❑ Developer* (Complete Contact Information, item 2a and 2b below.)
2. a. Print Property Owner's name and title below, if you are the lessee, purchaser or developer. (This is the
person who owns the property that the project is located on):
Property Owner/Organizati
Signing Official & Title:
b. Contact information for person listed in item 2a above:
Street Address:
City:
Mailing Address (if applicable):
City:
State:
State:
Phone: ( 1 Fax:
Email:
Zip:
3. a. (Optional) Print the name and title of another contact such as the project's construction supervisor or other
person who can answer questions about the project:
Other Contact Person/Organization:
Signing Official & Title:
b. Contact information for person listed in item 3a above:
Mailing Address:
City: State: Zip:
Phone: l ) Fax: l
4. Local jurisdiction for building permits: Town of Swansboro
Point of Contact: Jennifer Holland, Town Planner Phone #: (910 ) 326-4428
Form SWU-101 Version 07Jun2010 Page 2 of 6

IV. PROJECT INFORMATION
1. ' In the space provided below, brieflX summarize how the stormwater runoff will be treated.
High density stormwater project with sand filter & level spreader
2. a. If claiming vested rights, identify the supporting documents provided and the date they were approved:
❑ Approval of a Site Specific Development Plan or PUD Approval Date:
❑ Valid Building Permit Issued Date:
❑ Other: Date:
b.If claiming vested rights, identify the regulation(s) the project has been designed in accordance with:
❑ Coastal SW —1995 ❑ Ph II -- Post Construction
3. Stormwater runoff from this project drains to the White
River basin.
4. Total Property Area: 1.02 (Lot 28) acres 5. Total Coastal Wetlands Area: 0"0 acres
6. Total Surface Watei Area: 0.0 acres
7. Total Propperty Area (4) — Total Coastal Wetlands Area (5) — Total Surface Water Area (6) = Total Project
Area*: 1% + 0.145 (offsite) =1.17 __acres
` Total project area shall be calculated to exclude thefollowing: the normal pool of impounded structures, the area
between the banks of streams and rivers, the area below the Normal Hi h Water (NHW) line or Mean High Water
(MHW) line, and coastal wetlands landward from the NHW (or MH1 ) line. The resultant project area is used to
calculate overall percent built upon area (BUA). Non -coastal wetlands landward of the NHW (or MHW) line may
be included in the total project area.
8. Project percent of impervious area: (Total Impervious Area / Total Project Area) X 100 = 38.0 %
9. How many drainage areas does the project have?1 (For high density, count 1 for each proposed engineered
stormwater BMP. For low density and other projects, use 1. for the whole property area)
10, Complete the following information for each drainage area identified in Project information item 9. If there
are more than four drainage areas in the project, attach an additional sheet with the information for each area
provided in the same format as below.
asinInformation:,;­--'.Drainage
rea l._
rauia e" rea '
aina a _rea-.: "
= rau_ i_a a reap. r'
Receiving btrearn. Name
U I Queens r
Stream Class
Stream Index um er
Total Drainage Area(so
50,655
-site Drainage Area s
Off -site Drainage Area s6,298
Proposed Impervious Area (so
% Impervious Area (total)
38.0
eiih pd%vious; Surfa' e Area , .;, . _
;, . wage= e'a"—_
rainage,= rea T
- - ramage rea _
ravnage . rea,=
-site BuildingsLots s
,
-site Streets s
-site Parking(so
0
-site Sidewalks (st)
Other on -site s
Future s
Off -site s
Existing(so
9,233
Total s19,229
* Stream Class and Index Number can be determined at: htt ortal.ncdenr.or web w s csu classi tcations
** Impervious area is defined as the built upon area including, but not limited to, buildings, roads, parking areas,
sidewalks, gravel areas, etc.
'Report only that amount of existing BUA that will remain after development. Do not report any existing BUA that
is to be removed and which will be replaced by new BUA.
11. How was the off -site impervious area listed above determined? Provide documentation. "overage" (amount
of BUA > 25%) from SW8 040239 Mod (removing Lot 28 from permit)
Form SWU-101 Version 07Jun2010 Page 3 of 6

Pro iects in Union County: Contact DWQ Central Office staff to check if the project is located within a Threatened &
Endangered Species watershed that may be subject to more stringent stormwater requirements as per NCAC 02B .0600.
V. SUPPLEMENT AND O&M FORMS
The applicable state stormwater management permit supplement and operation and maintenance (O&M) forms
must be submitted for each BMP specified for this project. The latest versions of the forms can be downloaded
from h": / /vortal.nedenr.or�/web/wo/ws/su /bmp-manual.
VI. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Only complete application packages will be accepted and reviewed by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ).
A complete package includes all of the items listed below. A detailed application instruction sheet and BMP
checklists are available from hqp://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ws/su/statesw/forms flocs. The complete
application package should be submitted to the appropriate DWQ Office. (The appropriate office may be
found by locating project on the interactive online map at 11M./ /portal.ncdennorg/web/wq/ws/su/maps.)
Please indicate that the following required information have been provided by initialing in the space provided
for each item. All original documents MUST be signed and initialed in blue ink. Download the latest versions
for each submitted application package from hLtp:ZZportal.ncdenr.org/web/­wq/ws/su/statesw/forms- does.
C�1. Original and one copy of the Stormwater Management Permit Application Form. v
2. Original and one copy of the signed and notarized Deed Restrictions & Protective Covenants
Form. (if required as per Part vII below)
3. Original of the applicable Supplement Form(s) (sealed, signed and dated) and O&M
agreement(s) for each BMP.
4. Permit application processing fee of $505 payable to NCDENR. (For an Express review, refer to
h www.envhel .or a es onesto ex ress_html for information on the Express program
and the associated fees. Contact the appropriate regional office Express Permit Coordinator for
additional information and to schedule the required application meeting.)
5. A detailed narrative (one to two pages) describing the stormwater treatment/management for
the project. This is required in addition to the brief summary provided in the Project
Information, item 1.
6. A USGS map identifying the site location. If the receiving stream is reported as class SA or the
receiving stream drains to class SA waters within 16 mile of the site boundary, include the'h
mile radius on the map.
7. Sealed, signed and dated calculations.
8. Two sets of plans folded to 8.5" x 14" (sealed, signed, & dated), including:
a. Development/Project name.
b. Engineer and firm.
c. Location map with named streets and NCSR numbers.
d. Legend.
e. North arrow.
f. Scale.
g. Revision number and dates.
h. Identify all surface waters on the plans by delineating the normal pool elevation of
impounded structures, the banks of streams and rivers, the MI4W or NHW line of tidal
waters, and any coastal wetlands landward of the MHW or NHW lines.
• Delineate the vegetated buffer landward from the normal pool elevation of impounded
structures, the banks of streams or rivers, and the MHW (or NHW) of tidal waters_
i. Dimensioned property/project boundary with bearings & distances.
j. Site Layout with all BUA identified and dimensioned.
k. Existing contours, proposed contours, spot elevations, finished floor elevations.
1. Details of roads, drainage features, collection systems, and stormwater control measures.
m. Wetlands delineated, or a note on the plans that none exist. (Must be delineated by a
qualified person. Provide documentation of qualifications and identify the person who
made the determination on the plans.
n. Existing drainage (including off -site), drainage easements, pipe sizes, runoff calculations.
o. Drainage areas delineated (included in the main set of plans, not as a separate document).
p. Vegetated buffers (where required).
i
Form SWU-101 Version 07Jun2010 Page 4 of 6

9. Copy of any applicable soils report with the associated SHWT elevations (Please identify
elevations in addition to depths) as well as a map of the boring locations with the existing
elevations and boring logs. Include an 8.5"x11" copy of the NRCS County Soils map with the
project area clearly delineated. For projects with infiltration BMPs, the report should also
include the soil type, expected infiltration rate, and the method of determining the infiltration rate.
(Infiltration Devices submitted to WiRO: Schedule a site visit for DWQ to verify the SHWT prior
to submittal, [phone].)
10. A copy of the most current property deed. Deed book: 2804 Page No: 144-145
11. For corporations and limited liability corporations (LLC): Provide documentation from the NC
Secretary of State or other official documentation, which supports the titles and positions held
by the persons listed in Contact Information, item la, 2a, and/or 3a per NCAC 2H.1003(e). The
corporation or LLC must be listed as an active corporation in good standing with the NC
Secretary of State, otherwise the application will be returned.
hqp://www.secretaa.state.nc.us/Con2orations/CSearch.aspx
VII. DEED RESTRICTIONS AND PROTECTIVE COVENANTS
For all subdivisions, outparcels, and future development, the appropriate property restrictions and protective
covenants are required to be recorded prior to the sale of any lot. If lot sizes vary significantly or the proposed
BUA allocations vary, a table listing each lot number, lot size, and the allowable built -upon area must be provided
as an attachment to the completed and notarized deed restriction form. The appropriate deed restrictions and
protective covenants forms can be downloaded from
http://portal.ncdennorg/web/wq/ws/su/statesw/forms does. Download the latest versions for each submittal.
In the instances where the applicant is different than the property owner, it is the responsibility of the property
owner to sign the deed restrictions and protective covenants form while the applicant is responsible for ensuring
that the deed restrictions are recorded.
By the notarized signature(s) below, the permit holder(s) certify that the recorded property restrictions and
protective covenants for this project, if required, shall include all the items required in the permit and listed
on the forms available on the website, that the covenants will be binding on all parties and persons claiming
under them, that they will run with the land, that the required covenants cannot be changed or deleted
without concurrence from the NC DWQ, and that they will be recorded prior to the sale of any lot.
VIII. CONSULTANT INFORMATION AND AUTHORIZATION
Applicant: Complete this section if you wish to designate authority to another individual and/or firm (such as a
consulting engineer and/or firm) so that they may provide information on your behalf for this project (such as
addressing requests for additional information).
Consulting Engineer: iohn R. Freshwater III, PE
Consulting Firm: Crystal Coast Engineering, PA
Mailing Address: 3817-3 Freedom Way ^
City. Hubert
State: NC
Zip:
Phone: (910 ) 325-0006 Fax: (910 ) 325-0060
Email: [e-mail]
IX. PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION (if Contact Information, item 2 has been filled out, complete this
section)
1, (print or type name of person listed in Contact Information, item 2a) certify that I
own the property identified in this permit application, and thus give permission to (print or type name of person
listen in Contact friformation, item 1a) with (print or type name of organization listed in
Contact Information, item Ia) to develop the project as currently ropposed. A copy of
the lease agreement or pending property sales contract has been provided with the submittal, Mich indicates the
party responsible for the operation and maintenance of the stormwater system.
Form SWU-101 Version 07Jun2010 Page 5 of 6

As the legal property owner I acknowledge, understand, and agree by my signature below, that if my designated
agent (entity listed in Contact Information, item 1) dissolves their company and/or cancels or defaults on their
lease agreement, or pending sale, responsibility for compliance with the DWQ Stormwater permit reverts back to
me, the property owner. As the property owner, it is my responsibility to notify DWQ immediately and submit a
completed Name/Ownership Change Form within 30 days; otherwise I will be operating a stormwater treatment
facility without a valid permit. I understand that the operation of a stormwater treatment facility without a valid
permit is a violation of NC General Statue 143-215.1 and may result in appropriate enforcement action including
the assessment of civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day, pursuant to NCGS 143-215.6.
Signature: Date:
I, -------------- ----------------
-------, a Notary Public for the State of --------------------, County of
--------------------- do hereby certify that -------------------------------------- personally appeared
before me this _ day of -----------------, -------, and acknowledge the due execution of the application for
a stormwater permit. Witness my hand and official seal, _________________________________________________
SEAL
My commission expires
X. APPLICANT'S CERTIFICATION
I, (print or type name of person listed in Contact Information, item 1a) Mario Canga _
certify that the information included on this permit application form is, to the best of my knowledge, correct and
that the project will be constructed in conformance with the approved plans, that the required deed restrictions
and protective covenants will be recorded, and that the proposed project complies with the requirements of the
applicable stormwater rules
under` 15A NCAC 2H .1000, SL 2006-246 (Ph. II- Post Construction) or SL 2008-211.
Signature:,�x/k-� T/ U/ Date:_
1, I I c� _ Li ri �< ►1L3 17 -Y _, a N ary Public for the State of _► V �' �� Y� �CZrZ� � ! 1 '�, County of
do hereby certify that �Yr+ D Co ,it i_" ----------
before -' Y Y------------- �-�-� -personally appeared
me this Ll day of S� rl U �; t=��, �'_f and ackn le xe Lion of tile ap c lion for
a stormwater permit. Witness my hand and official seat, �-____-
CELLO J. CLINKINBEARD
Notary Public
onslow County
North Carolin Ica
My Commission Expires � 1 I 1
SEAL
My commission expires f tDy' r 1 I a L% 1
v�i %%T -
va
Form SWU-101 Version 07Jun2010 Page 6 of

Design Calculations
for
Stormwater Treatment Facilities
serving the
Canepa Residence
Lot 28, Halls Creek North, Section 1
Swansboro Township, North Carolina
Owner/Developer: Mario Canepa
February 3, 2012
11%
I -
�30
_z/7/ram
RECI!A V r�
VEB 4 8 Z0'Z
WA
Prepared by:
I . Crystal Coast Engineering, PA
John R. Freshwater, III, PE
Civil and Environmental Engineers
i 3817-3 Freedom Way
Hubert, N.C. 28539
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
License No.: C-2553

�
`���
° � �
��
�� �'
�
/�.
.
\ ���-a
�
£��
w��
/���
2��{ .
� /�� \
�y
� �
I/ k �
�� �
® �
�
�g �i� ,r
� }
��
!�
\ %: t� { .a
.
� f � $
�� .= ,
� � � �
� .
.. - \� ��� »� � �/�
'�
�
a
;��>�
�

February 6, 2012
Lot 28, Section 1 - Halls Creek North
Calculations & Discussion — Sand Filter & Offsite
Sand Filter
Per Section 11.3.5 of the NCDENR Stormwater BMP Manual
(See attached spreadsheet A)
Step 1: Compute the water quality volume (WQV) using Schucler's Simple Method, and the adjusted
water quality volume (WQVAdj)
WQV(ft3) = 3,754 ft3
WQVAdj (ft3) = (0.75)WQV= 2,815 ft3
Step 2: Determine the maximum and average head on the sand filter, and determine the surface areas of
the sand filter and the sedimentation chamber.
Maximum Head on the Sand Filter
As the system is capable of collecting the entire WQVAdj before pumping to the
sedimentation chamber, the head of concern is the operational head. This is the level above
the sand at which water will leave the filter at a rate equal to that of water being pumped
into the sediment chamber.
I.e., the system is not dependent on stormwater filling the sediment and sand chambers
(and the assumption that complete filling occurs prior to infiltration) and drawing down
from this maximum level.
The design operational head (hop) for this system = 2ft
Sedimentation Basin Surface Area
The minimum surface area for the sedimentation basin is determined by the Camp
Hazen Equation
Which reduces to: AS (ft) = 0.066(WQV) = 2402
Sand Filter Bed Surface Area
The minimum surface area for the sand filter bed is determined by Darcy's Law where:
Ae(ft) — ((WQV)(dr))/((k)(t)(h pf dF)i=277ft2
Step 3: Ensure that the Water Quality Volume is contained
From above noted calculations WQVAdj (ft3) _ (0.75)WQV= 2,815 ft3
The capacity to collect via gravity and contain the required volume is provided in a chamber
upstream and independent of the sedimentation and sand filter chambers.

Management of Runoff from Mite
The following is in accordance with the conditions set forth during the January 10, 2012 meeting in the
NCDENR Wilmington office regarding the project. It was, as previously, agreed that Mr. Canepa (owner)
shall treat the runoff resulting from a 1.5" rainfall from a minimum of 6,298 square feet of BUA within
the subdivision (in addition to that from his lot).
During the meeting, per Mr. Canepa's observations and resolution of previous flooding issues with
adjacent property owners, it was accepted that the capacity of two of the existing 12" diameter pipes
(exclusive of the Q10 (cfs) for the 6,298 sf of BUA to be treated) shall quantify the offsite design flow to
bypass the proposed collection and sand filter system.
Given: 2 — 12" Diameter CPPs, S = 0.0175ft/ft, n = 0.018
Qmax = 2(3.4cfs) = 6.8 cfs to bypass the proposed collection and sand filter system
L (distance) from conflict box to swale—110ft, Invert in = 31.20, Invert out = 30.94
S = 0.0024
For 2-15" diameter smooth wall pipes:
Q = 2(3.6cfs/pipe) = 6.88 cfs
Therefore, the flow from the two offsite pipes shall be conveyed separately via the proposed conflict box
and 2 — 15" dual wall (smooth interior) pipes from the box to the proposed swale.
Swale Velocity Check
For: Q =6.8 cfs, M=5, B=2ft, Y=0.67ft, n=0.03, S=0.005 ft/ft
V =19fps - "OK"
The pipe to convey offsite flow to the collection and sand filter system (per meeting concurrence) is
designed to convey the Q10 from 6,298 sf of (offsite) BUA as follows:
Q 10 = CiA = (0.95)(8.96)(6,298/43,560) = 1.2 cfs
S = 0.0175ft1ft, n=0.012
D = 16(nQ/ds)31$ = 6.97" use 8" PVC within (1 of the 3) existing 12" CPP

Sheet A
Treatment Volume and
Sand filter Design Calculations
12/17/2011
Lot 28, Section I
Halls Creek North
Lot 28
Sq ft
Previously Permitted BUA
4,752
Existing BUA
9,233
Proposed BUA
3,698
Total BUA
12,931
BUA > Permitted
8,179
Subdivision BUA>Permitted (when Permt
Modified)
6,298
1995 Rule Prev
Permitted On
Lot 28
1995 Rule Prev
Permitted for
Subdivision
(Not Lot 28)
2008 Rule
Over &
Proposed
Proposed -Total
DA - Total (sf)
44,3571
µ
6,298 8,179
DA - Subject to Rule (sf)
36,178
BUA (sf)
4,752
6,298
8,179
19,229�
%BUA
13.14%
100.00%
100.00%
Rv-Pre
_ _
0.17 0.95
1 0.05
Rv-Post
r 0.95
Design Storm (in)
1.5
1.5
3.66I
Water Quality Volume (WQV) (cf)
761
748
2,245
3,754
WQVadj (cf) = (0.75)WQV =
2,815
Sedimentation Basin Surface Area ("As" Min.)
As(sf) = 0.066 (WQV)=
248
Sand Filter Bed Surface Area ("Af' Min.)
Af(sf)=((WQV)(df))/((k)(t)(ha+df))=
277
Given: df=1.5ft, k=3.5ft/day, t=1.66 days
ha (ft)=
2
*Where ha = operational head
Water Quality Volume Contained
Required (cf)
2,815
Provided (cf)
2,834
(Temp storage tank)

Sheet B
Pipe and Inlet Chart
2/1/2012
Lot 28, Section I
Halls Creek North
tc = 5 mins
110 =
8.96
C =
0.9
Pipe
or
Inlet
Sub. Pipe
or
Inlet
Inc
Drainage
Area (so
Inc
Drainage
Area (ac)
inc 010
(ct's)
Total DA
(acres)
Total Q10
(c�)
Pipe Diameter
(or Trench Width)
Minimum (inches)
Pipe
(or Trench)
Length (ft)
Invert In
(ft)
Invert Out
(ft)
S (ft/ft)
Min Grate
Net Open
Area (sq ft)
A
886
VK
0.16
6
42
31.50
3Q50
OA24
DI 1 6051 0.14 1.12 0.520
B 0.16 1.28 12 50 30.50 30.30 0.004
TD1 831 0.02 0.15 6 10 32.18 32.01 0.017 0.071
C
0.15
6
5
31.50
30.30
0.240
D
0.20
1.65
12
36
30.30
30.12
0.005
E=
1148
0.03
0.21
6
10
32.00
30.60
0.140
TD2 272 0.01 0.05 6 15 32.18 32.01 0.011 0.023
F 4.05 6 5 31.50 F7i0.12F 0.307
TD3 1016 0.02 0.19 6 20 32.18 32.01 0.009 0.087
G
0.19
6
3
31.50
30.12
0.460
H
0.23
1.89
12
38
30.12
29.80
0.008
I
6298
0.14
1.17
8
10
31.02
30.85
0.017
TD4 1173 0.03 0.22 6 5 32.33 32.23 0.020 0.101
J
1
0.22
6
14
31.73PE9.80
0.138
0.17
14
31,600.35
0.089
DL2 0.08 0.036
i6
0.03 0.24 8 26 30.35 30.20 0.006
I -. � I 1 - - 0,006
DI 1291 0.03 0.24 0.111
M
0.09
0.70
8
44
30.20
29.80
0.009
N
753
0.02
0.14
6
10
O
439
0.01
0.08
6
18
P
0.49
3.98
15
74
29.80
29.20
0.008
Total
21480
QQ
6.80
2 - 15"
110 (each)
31.20
30.94
0.0024
TD = trench drain
DI = drop inlet
Inc = incremental
Sub. = subordinate

Completeness Review Checklist
Project Name: camepa Received Date:
Project Location: Accepted Date:
Rule(s) FT008 Coastal
El1995 Coastal
Phase II (WiRO) El Universal
El1988 Coastal
Type of Permit(New r
Mod or PR
Existing Permit # (Mod or PR):
FPE Cert on File?
(Density: HD or LD I Type: Commercial or Residential F-1NCG:
%: n(% OK?) Stream Class: nSA Map nOffsite to SW8
(Subdivided?: Subdivision or Single Lot II JORW Map I I JExempt
Paperwork Emailed Engineer on:
❑Supplement(s) (1 original per BMP) BMP Type(s):
❑O&M with correct/original signatures (1 original per BMP except LS/VFS and swoles)
❑Application with correct/original signatures
❑Corp or LLC: Sig. Auth. per SoS or letter Note to Reviewer:
❑$505 (within bmo) J
Soils Report with SHWT
❑
Calculations (signed/sealed)
CJ
�No obvious errors
Density includes common areas, etc W09—v-k e%J(� CYU r7 r
❑Deed Restrictions, if subdivided: JZ
Signed & Notarized (P40 S .
1
1:1C_orrect Template [,CommLRes & HD/LD) or Dec. Covenants &Rest.
Plans
❑2 Sets
❑Grading
Vicinity Map
Legend
Infiltration
Soils Report
SHWT:
Bottom:
Visited:
Additional Information:
BUA (sf)
DA (sf)
PP (el)
SHWT (el)
Depth (ft)
5A (sf)
Details (roads, cul-de-sacs, curbs, sidewalks, BMPs, Buildings, etc)
11 Wetlands: Delineated or No Wetlands
Layout (proposed BUA dimensions)
Project Boundaries �DA Maps
Wet Pond
Soils Report
SHWT:
PP:
Offsite
❑PE Cert for Master
Deed Rest for Master
BUA Permitted (Master):
BUA Proposed (Offsite):
Lot #:
Lot # Matches Master
Permitted Proposed: Proposed: Proposed:
sf
sf

HicLlj Density Residential Subdivisions
Deed Restrictions & Protective Covenances
In accordance with Title 15 NCAC 2H.1000 and S.L. 2006-246, the Stormwater Management Regulations,
deed restrictions and protective covenants are required for High Density Residential Subdivisions where
lots will be subdivided and sold and runoff will be treated in an engineered stormwater control facility. Deed
restrictions and protective covenants are necessary to ensure that the development maintains a "built -upon"
area consistent with the design criteria used to size the stormwater control facility.
I, Mario Canepa , acknowledge, affirm and agree by my signature below, that I will cause
the following deed restrictions and covenants to be recorded prior to the sale of Halls Creek North Section I Lot
28:
The following covenants are intended to ensure ongoing compliance with State Stormwater
Management Permit Numberas issued by the Division of Water Quality under the
Stormwater Management Regulations.
2. The State of North Carolina is made a beneficiary of these covenants to the extent necessary to
maintain compliance with the stormwater management permit.
3. These covenants are to run with the land and be binding on all persons and parties claiming under
them.
4. The covenants pertaining to stormwater may not be altered or rescinded without the express written
consent of the State of North Carolina, Division of Water Quality.
5. Alteration of the drainage as shown on the approved plan may not take place without the concurrence
of the Division of Water Quality.
6. The maximum allowable built -upon area for lot 28 is 12,.931 square feet. This allotted amount
includes any built -upon area constructed within the lot property boundaries, and that portion of the
right-of-way between the front lot line and the edge of the pavement. Built upon area includes, but is not
limited to, structures, asphalt, concrete, gravel, brick, stone, slate, coquina and parking areas, but does
not include raised, open wood decking, or the water surface of swimming pools.
OR, if the proposed built -upon areas per lot will vary, please REPLACE #6 above with the following:
6. The maximum built -upon area per lot, in square feet, is as listed below:
Lot # BUA Lot # BUA Lot # BUA Lot # BUA
This allotted amount includes any built -upon area constructed within the lot property boundaries, and
that portion of the right-of-way between the front lot line and the edge of the pavement. Built upon area
includes, but is not limited to, structures, asphalt, concrete, gravel, brick, stone, slate, coquina and
parking areas, but does not include raised, open wood decking, or the water surface of swimming
pools.
7. Each lot will maintain a 30** foot wide vegetated buffer between all impervious areas and surface
waters.
**50 foot for projects located in the 20 coastal counties.
8. All runoff from the built -upon areas on the lot must drain into the perm' ed sy em. This may be
accomplished through a variety of means including roof drain gutters hic drain to the street, grading
the lot to drain toward the street, or grading perimeter swales to collect e lot runoff and directing them
into a component of the stormwater collection system. Lots t 1 to the system are
not required to provide the � al measures. V
S P 02 2011
BY. —
Form DRPC-3 Rev.2 kB3MfM09 Page 1 of 2

High Density Residential Subdivisions
Deed Restrictions & Protective Covenances
Sign ture:/`—/�V zl - Wes. � _Date: .--8 `� V / l t/
I, 6r° ' ,_a Notary Public in the
State of W D Irk rat-6 t 1 Vy6�— County of O #r eod O VV ,
do hereby certify that ffi a i1 0 , �Q V 1� rJGL� personally appeared
before me this the � % +'-\ day of ju-` l , 20 1) , and acknowledge
the due execution of the foregoing instrument. Witness
ce'w' .(�
Signature I My Commission expires ! A U v, E � (q
my hand and official seal,
SEAL
CELIA J. CLINKIIVBfARD
Notary Publfc
Onslow County
North Carolim �` 1q }` `
My Commission Expires "j
Farm DRPC-3 Rev.2 05Nov2009 Page 2 of 2

m
r

-ti
High Density Residential Subdivisions
Deed Restrictions & Protective Covenances
In accordance with Title 15 NCAC 2H.1000 and S.L. 2006-246, the Stormwater Management Regulations,
deed restrictions and protective covenants are required for High Density Residential Subdivisions where
lots will be subdivided and sold and runoff will be treated in an engineered stormwater control facility. Deed
restrictions and protective covenants are necessary to ensure that the development maintains a "built -upon"
area consistent with the design criteria used to size the stormwater control facility.
I, Mario Canepa , acknowledge, affirm and agree by my signature below, that I will cause
the following deed restrictions and covenants to be recorded prior to the sale of Halls Creek North Section I Lot
28:
1. The following covenants are intended to ensure ongoing compliance with State Stormwater
Management Permit Number as issued by the Division of Water Quality under the
Storm water Management Regulations.
2. The State of North Carolina is made a beneficiary of these covenants to the extent necessary to
maintain compliance with the stormwater management permit.
3. These covenants are to run with the land and be binding on all persons and parties claiming under
them.
4. The covenants pertaining to stormwater may not be altered or rescinded without the express written
consent of the State of North Carolina, Division of Water Quality.
5. Alteration of the drainage as shown on the approved plan may not take place without the concurrence
of the Division of Water Quality.
6. The maximum allowable built -upon area for lot 28 is 12,931 square feet. This allotted amount
includes any built -upon area constructed within the lot property boundaries, and that portion of the
right-of-way between the front lot line and the edge of the pavement. Built upon area includes, but is not
limited to, structures, asphalt, concrete, gravel, brick, stone, slate, coquina and parking areas, but does
not include raised, open wood decking, or the water surface of swimming pools.
OR, if the proposed built -upon areas per lot will vary, please REPLACE #6 above with the following:
6. The maximum built -upon area per lot, in square feet, is as listed below:
Lot # BUA Lot # BUA Lot # BUA Lot # BUA
This allotted amount includes any built -upon area constructed within the lot property boundaries, and
that portion of the right-of-way between the front lot line and the edge of the pavement. Built upon area
includes, but is not limited to, structures, asphalt, concrete, gravel, brick, stone, slate, coquina and
parking areas, but does not include raised, open wood decking, or the water surface of swimming
pools.
7. Each lot will maintain a 30** foot wide vegetated buffer between all impervious areas and surface
waters.
**50 foot for projects located in the 20 coastal counties.
8. All runoff from the built -upon areas on the lot must drain into the permitted system_ This may be
accomplished through a variety of means including roof drain gutters which drain to the street, grading
the lot to drain toward the street, or gra perimeter swales to ollect the lot off -and -directing them
into a component of the stormw system. Lots t to the system are
not required to provide rtr n mea ures.
�Egp$2912 92 Z011
Form DRPC-3 Rev.2 05Nov2009 Page i of 2

n
High Density Residential Subdivisions
Deed Restrictions & Protective Covenances
Signature: G Date: .2—S 3 v % / l
1� J
I, CAI n I<',in! t)pct a Notary Public in the
State of 111 D4k ra VZCL. , County of On S I o uy
do hereby certify that f a f-1 O rl , 'Ck n C CJG(-'-' personally appeared
before me this the DL day of U 1 20_and acknowledge
the due execution of the foregoing instrument. Witness my hand and official seal,
aw, SEAL
Signature
CELIA J. CLINY,INBEARD
V (
My Commission expires I V �V E l Notary Public
OnsIOW County
North Caroling; I ,Q 1
My Commission Expires
B,_ a
Form DRPC-3 Rev.2 05Nov2009 Page 2 of 2

).00" W 077' 09' 00.00" W 077- 08' 30.00" W 077' 08' 00.00" W 077' 07' 30.00" W
Z
�j�
9 •� I
4
1
Z
?S \
'
li
f`O')'
1
rail �
M
It
cis
x 1
1 �It I
p
" `*;
''
a °�
!
L•_
, '
v
\
1J
anepa
Residence
' %
i•//�' •t,
1� ;
(t
r 1�
(��,��, f
n
I .Y;
21 '•
•
o
``
Y•
11
r
pie
1 p r
F
I iA
A�
r `
C `
g
z
Ire
P'-
15
1�
Lig
Foul 1\ A A
i ���'
�
Q ': C
t C 2009MYTO
).00" W 077' 09'
00.00" W 077' 08' 30.00" W 077' 08' 00.00" W 077' 07' 30.00" W
Y
SCALE 1:24000
0 7000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 70
FEET

(PagL,2 of 2?
This instrument was prepared by:
GLENN O'KE(TH FISHER, ATTORNEY AT LAW
elin uent taxes, if any, to be paid by the closing
a or ey 10 the Onstow County Tax Collector upon
rsement o1 closing proceeds
lenn ith Fisher, Closing Attorney
This deed presence
The O 1 i Tait
,pate I
Doc ID: 002228330002 TYPe: ORP
Recorded: 01/17/2007 at 02:38:57 Pn
Fee Amt: $196,00 Page 1 of 2
Excise Tax: $t79.00
onslow County. NO
Mildred 11 Thomas RORlster of Deeds
BK2804 Pa144-145
NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL WARRANTY DEED
Excise Tax: $ i 79,00
Tax Lot No: Parcel identifier No: 1319C-39
Verified by County on the _,___ day of 20_
by —
]fail after recording to: Mario Canepa & Beth Falcon. 212 Pigeon Lane, Swamboro, NC 285M
This instrument was prepared by Glenn O'Keith Fisher, Attorney at Law
Brief Description for the index Lot 28 Sect l Ha11s Creek Noru't
THJS DEED made January 9, 2007, by and between ✓
GRANTOR GRANTEE
is & N DEVELOPERS, INC. MARIO A. CANEPA CE1 V F
A North Carolina Corporation and wife.
BETH S. FALCON 8 2012
BY:
The d"ignation Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties, their heirs, successors, aad assig.Y. snt';
steal! include singular, plural, masculine, feminine or neuter as required by context.
W'ITNESSETH, th::t the Grantor, for a valuable consid^ration paid by the Grantee, the receipt of which is :r:rehy
acknowledged, has and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell and convey unto the Grantee in fee simple. all that
certain Irn or parcel of land situated in the City of , Township, Onslow County, North Carolina and more pat lo0ar!L
described as follows:
Being all of Lot No. 28 as same is shown and delineated on a map of Hall's Creek North Section T, said map b6ns
recorded in Map Book 51, Page 4, Slide L1341 in the office of the Register of Deeds of Onslow County, reference to said
trap being hereby made for a more perfect description of said property.
This conveyance is made subject to those certain Restrictive Covenants recorded in Book 2664, Page 412 and the
Subdivision Street Disclosure Statement recorded in Book 2664, Page 209, in the ol`Fwe of the Register of Deeds ol'
Onslow County.
Notvith;ta%isng the provisions of paragraph 3(b) of the Rcsir-;:l::e Cnvrna.nls recorded in Book 2664, Page 412, nach
wsirt-rttiai local,— J rni the lors heerinabove describe:! aru conveyed shall contain no less than 4KC syua rc feer nt
hz: al, d n(Kir aw!t -md no loss [h r I ;Jf?;7 square leet of bea::r f!tvt :uea on the first from.
Th;r•_ izuiiders -.0irr construci residential dwcltings on Lets with swaic. In_•a(etl on ,he lot lirr_ !gr:e to sod the spanks of
the s'wAe (root t?-•e b+s[tor'.: -, :Ili s,va4 ten ( iC) feet pa:-t the top V tfe. hank of the Swale, such scxl sa be as prtr id.t if,
Ar*.i,a =5(1) tuf it.r RI-Nzricti%C rove !;: (er•)rdcd in Boot 2664, Page 1:17_ if a swsle is lk-cmcd aknrg a !v. !inc. Ise last
5',; ldlt' tp ropYrrl!L[ :! -esi;lerdill ds'ellittg, i7 5?Ile the SN'�i-: .Ii�li :ill it; tile sediment ttap N`it!lill 'hi, -vale, r'-.•i}!tvi ' Ih?
N.0 134,, j_kti. Fw^ No 7 is77
KOC
Book 2804. Pave 144. File Humber

(Page of 2)
check dam satisfactory to the Department of Environmental and [Natural Resources requirements and cover the sediment
trap with sod as above provided.
This conveyance is made subject to zoning ordinances affecting the property, utility easements of record serving the
property, road rights -of -way of record and ad valorem taxes for the current year, which taxes the party of the second part,
by acceptance of this deed, assumes and agrees to pay.
The property hereinabove described was acquired by Grantor by instrument recorded in Book 2666, Page 686.
A map showing the above described property is recorded in Plat Book 51, Page 4.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the aforesaid lot or parcel of land and all privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging to the Cmuttee in
fee simple.
And the Grantor covenants with the Grantee, that Grantor is seized of the premises in fee simple, has the right to convey the same in
fee simple, that title is marketable and free and clear of all encumbrances, and that Grantor will warrant and defend the title against the
lawful claims of all persons whomsoever except for the exceptions hereinafter stated.
Title to the property hereinabove described is subject to the following exceptions:
AS LISTED AFTER DESCRIPTION
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal, or if corporate, has caused this instrument to be signed
in its corporate tame by its duly authorized officers and its sal to be hereunto affixed by authority of its Board of Directors, the
day and year first above written.
C & N BUD DERS, INC
A Nonh Carolina Corporation
(SEA,.)
Hy:F f
NICHOLAS SEMANDERES. President —(SEAL)
i� cl - !
SEAL`Vtxnui STATE OF: L� COUNTY OF:
STAM�\ +n
L���t S. BIG''%'*,, 1 certify ttut the following person(s) personally appeared before the this day, each acknowledging to
Oq- PutmcO� that he or she voluntarily signed the foregoing document for the purpose stated therein and in the
a p low CountY rapacity indicated: NICHOL.AS SEMANDERFS Pre-si t f C N BUILDERS INC.
=My= Ctrstsdom exGtras_ 6;
11f2612011 e mate:, Notary Public
,yam
Mycatrtrrtissionexpires: r'l'?r'll,,r/
SEAL -STAMP NORTH CAROLINA, ONSLOW COUNTY
I certify that the following person(s) personally appeared before me this day, each acknowledging to
me that he or she volrurtarily signed the foregoing document for the purpose stated therein and in the
capacity indicated.
My commission expires: l 1
The foregoing Certificate(s) of
Public
islare certified to be correct. This instru rent and this certificate are duly registered at the date and time and in the Book and Page
shown on the first page hereof.
By
REGISTER OF DES FOR
COUNTY
DeputylAssistani-Register of Deeds.
N.C. Bar A&wc. Form No. 7 • 1277
R"M W AV� W+ma lac. e. A+
rum Book 2804. Paae 144. File Number

A
NC®ENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
October 6, 2010
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H, Sullins
Director
CERTIFIED MAIL #70081140000295619661
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Doyle Evans, President
Swans Realty, Inc.
PO Box 7287
Jacksonville, NC 28540
CERTIFIED MAIL #70081140000295619654
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Mario Canepa, Owner
Halls Creek North Section I Subdivision
212 Pigeon Ln
Swansboro, NC 28584
Subject: NOTICE OF INSPECTION & INQUIRY
Halls Creek North Section I
Permit No. SW8 040239
Onslow County
Dear Mr. Evans and Mr. Canepa:
Dee Freeman
Secretary
On August 30,2010, Angela Hammers of the Wilmington Regional Office of the Division
of Water Quality (DWQ) inspected Halls Creek North Section I in Onslow County to
determine compliance with Stormwater Management Permit Number SW8 040239
issued on August 12, 2005. The inspection revealed that the curb outlet swale (Swale
#5 adjacent to 212 Pigeon Lane) was observed to be reinstalled at a 5:1 or flatter slope
and had been vegetated (with sod) as requested in the Inspection Notice dated July 14,
2010. However, during the same inspection, it was observed that in addition to a
dwelling, garage, and porch, a circular driveway and linear driveway to the rear of the
house was installed at 212 Pigeon Lane.
On September 28, 2010, Wilmington Regional Office personnel received information
from the Town of Swansboro regarding the amount of impervious surfaces at 212
Pigeon Lane as part of the Halls Creek North Section I project. According to supplied
building permits for the single family dwelling, garage, and porch, a total of 3,549 square
feet (sf) was permitted. This does not include the driveways observed. The maximum,
allowable amount of BUA for this lot is 4,752 sf.
In order to determine if this project is in compliance, the following actions are requested
by this Office:
1. Submit a certification in writing from the Permittee to this office verifying
the stormwater controls, and impervious surfaces have been constructed
within substantial intent of the approved plans and specifications. Any
deviation from the approved plans must be noted on the Certification.
This should be submitted within 30 days of completion of the project,
(Permit Condition II. Schedule of Compliance, No. 7).
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, North Carolina 28405 One
Phone: [phone] l FAX: [phone] L Customer Service: 1-877-623-6748 North C arolina
Internet: tiwwv.ncwaterquality.org
An Fcual OQflorrunity l Affirmative Acton Emolover

Mr. Evans and -Mr. Canepa
Halls Creek North Section I
Storywater Permit No. SW8 040239
2. Submit verification that the impervious surfaces installed at 212 Pigeon
Lane are within the maximum allowed BUA of the lot.
Permit condition (11. Schedule of Compliance, No. 6) states, once the lot transfer is
complete, the built upon area may not be revised without approval from DWQ and the
responsibility for meeting the BUA limit is transferred to the individual property owner.
Therefore, if the maximum allowable built -upon area for 212 Pigeon Lane, as stated in
permit condition (II. Schedule of Compliance, No.6) and recorded in deed restrictions
(Bk 2664 Pg 412-448, Onslow County Register of Deeds) exceeds the allowable built -
upon area of 4,752 square feet, then it will be the responsibility of the individual property
owner to propose corrections to this Office.
Submit the requested information to this office by November 8 2010. Failure to provide
the requested information, when required, may initiate enforcement action including the
assessment of civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day.
If you. have any questions, please contact me at the Wilmington Regional Office,
telephone number [phone] or via email at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Angela Hammers
Environmental Specialist
Enclosure: Compliance Inspection Report dated 08/30/10
Copy of Building Permit, Town of Swansboro
GDSlakh: S:IWQSISTORMWATERIINSPECT1040239.oct10
cc: John Hen ii assji-NPS-ACOU
Amy Wang, Ward and Smith, PA
Jennifer Holland, Town of Swansboro
Georgette Scott; WiRO Files
p3oi-t'7 nr7

Compliance Inspection Report
Permit: SW8040239 Effective: 08/12/05 Expiration: Owner: Swans Realty Inc
Project: Halls Creek North Section I
County: Onslow Hammocks Beach Rd
Region: Wilmington
Swansboro NC 28584
Contact Person: Doyle Evans Title: President Phone: [phone]
Directions to Project:
US 17 and Hwy 24, take Hwy 24 East out of Jacksonville. Upon entering Swansboro turn right on Hammocks Beach Road. Site is
approx. 1/2 mile on the right.
Type of Project: State Stormwater - LD - Curb and Gutter
Drain Areas: 1 - (Queen Creek) (03-05-01) ( SA;HQW)
On -Site Representative(s):
Related Permits:
Inspection Date: 08/30/2010 Entry Time: 01:30 PM
Primary Inspector: Angela K Hammers
Secondary Inspector(s):.
Reason for Inspection: Follow-up
Permit Inspection Type: State Stormwater
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ■ Not Compliant
Question Areas:
0 State 5tormwater
(See attachment summary)
Exit Time: 02:00 PM
Phone: [phone]
Ext.7317
Inspection Type: Stormwater
Page: 1

Permit: SW8040239 Owner - Project: Swans Realty Inc
Inspection Date: 08/3012010 Inspection Type: Stormwater Reason for Visit: Fallow -up
Inspection Summary:
The swale (#5) adjacent to 212 Pigeon Lane was re -graded to 51 or flatter and the slopes were vegetated with sod. This
meets compliance. However, during this inspection, additional driveways have been installed at 212 Pigeon Lane which
questions the maximum amount of BUA installed versus allowed.
File Review
Is the permit active?
Signed copy of the Engineer's certification is in the file?
Signed copy of the Operation & Maintenance Agreement is in the file?
Copy of the recorded deed restrictions is'sn the file? .
Comment:
SW Measures
Are the SW measures constructed as per the approved plans?
Are the inlets located per the approved plans?
Are the outlet structures located per the approved plans?
Comment: Swale #5 was re -shaped to a 5:1 grade or flatter and was vegetated with
sod.
Operation and Maintenance
Are the SW measures being maintained and operated as per the permit requirements?
Yes No NA NE
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ Cl
®❑Q❑
Yes No NA NE
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
■❑❑❑
Are the SW BMP inspection and maintenance records complete and available for review or provided to DWQ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
upon request?
Comment:
Page: 2

Stormwater Treatment Narrative
January 12, 2012
Canepa Residence
Lot 28 Halls Creek North, Section I
Swansboro, NC 28584
Developed in response to the:
October 6, 2010 DWQ-Notice of Inspection & Inquiry (copy attached)
From Ms. Angela Hammers, Environmental Specialist
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Wilmington Regional Office
I{ECEIVED
FEB 0 8 2012
BY:
Parcel (Lot 28) currently included in Permit No. SW8 040239 Mod. (Onslow County)
Mr. Mario Canepa, owner of Lot 28 Halls Creek North, Section I, has exceeded the built -upon -area
allotted to him by the existing Low Density Stormwater Permit SW8 040239 Mod for Halls Creek
North. In order to permit the additional BUA, it is proposed that Lot 28 be removed from the original
Stormwater Permit and be permitted as a separate project. Since the removal of Lot 28 from the
original project area creates a slightly higher overall density for that project (25.5%, or an excess of
6,298 sf BUA), it is further proposed that the treatment system for Lot 28 be designed so as to
accommodate as much of that excess BUA as feasible.
The proposed collection and sand filter system for Lot 28 will be constructed to manage and treat the
runoff from all on -site impervious surfaces within this project, as well as the 6,298 sf of "excess"
BUA from the proposed modification of SW8 040239 Mod. Discharge from the sand filter, as well
as any bypass flow, will be directed to a proposed 50' x 50' level spreader /vegetated filter strip. The
volume to be treated has been determined in accordance with NCDENR direction as regards the
current and original (see existing permit) design storms. Please see the attached calculations.
Note, stormwater from adjacent property, specifically the "offsite" runoff from the "excess" 6,298 sf
BUA, enters the system via a proposed eight inch diameter pipe. Also, note that prior to installation
of existing piping, up -gradient (offsite) areas flooded regularly.
The project site is located within ''/z mile of SA waters in the White Oak River basin.
Since the total disturbed area is expected to be < 1.0 acre, no formal Erosion/Sedimentation Control
Permitting is required; however, it remains the owner's responsibility to ensure that erosion is
controlled / minimized and that sediment is contained onsite. In addition, owner shall prevent
sediment from entering level spreader / vegetated filter strip during construction (until entire site is
stabilized).

�.
���� �'
• �
�
� ,.
'
r.
- �
•
1
1
�
_ '
` �
� � � V
� � . �

205 ward Rd. # 3[
Swansboro, NC 28584
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
TO: Kelly Johnson
NC Division of Water Quality
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
From: Jeanie for John R. Freshwater
Ito Canepa Residence Date: February 8, 2012
(Lot 28 Halls Creek North, Section 1)
❑ Urgent ❑ For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle
Attached:
One (1) copy Narrative (wl attached copy of NOI)
One (1) original and one (1) copy Stormwater Management Permit Application
One (1) original Sand Filter Supplement
One (1) original Sand Filter O&M Agreeement
One (1) original Level Spreader Supplement
One (1) original Level Spreader O&M Agreement
One (1) original and one (1) copy proposed Deed Restrictions
One (1) color LISGS location map
One (1) original set of Design Calculations
One (1) copy Deed
RECEIVED
Two (2) sets plans
FEB 0 8 Zo1Z
One (1) check # 6965 in the amount of $505
BY:
Comments:
Submitted for review & approval.