Coastal Carolina Country Club- Master PlansDEXTER L. HAYES
Planning Director
June 24, 1997
Mr. Bill Grathwol
P.O. Box 3215
Wilmington, NC 28406
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
414 CHESTNUT STREET, ROOM 304
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28401-4027
TELEPHONE (910) 341-7165
FAX (910) 772-7868
Re: Coastal Carolina Density Calcs
Dear Mr. Grathwol:
Please be advised that the County Planning staff has reviewed the density calculations for
Coastal Carolina Development. Based on the data supplied by surveyor Carson and information
accumulated by the County, the attached development list along with the number of lots and
acreage dated June 19, 1997 is accurate.
If you have questions concerning this list, please contact me at 341-7165.
Sincerely,
S.A. Burgess
Staff Planner
cc: Arnold Carson, RLS
4. , i
DENSITY CALCULATIONS COASTAL CAROLINA DEV.
June 19, 1997
Subdivision Name
Lots Recorded
Acreage
Alamosa Place-1
97
24.75
Belmar Forest-1
59
23.71
Brittany Lakes-1, 2
56
18.10
Brittany Woods-lA
4
2.56
Brittany Woods-2
11
5.37
Brittany Woods-3
16
8.60
Brittany Woods-4
2
.96
Brittany Woods-5
22
10.79
Brittany Woods-6
11
6.18
Brittany Woods-7
11
5.16
Brittany Woods-8
20
10.57
Brittany Woods-9
15
7.57
Brittany Woods-10
52
28.88
Brittany Woods-11
16
10.25
Brittany Woods-12
13
6.13
Brittany Woods-13
19
8.84
Brittany Woods-14
13
5.23
Clearview @ Suncoast-1
15
3.05
Courtney Pines-1
63
20.25
Dove Woods
3
5.42
Gordon Woods-3
60
16.60
Gordon Woods-3A
18
5.33
Gordon Woods-4
71
19.95
Indian Wells @ G. Woods-1
19
5.97
Indian Wells @ G. Woods-2
29
7.88
Harkey Tract
2
12
Legacy @ B. Woods-1
67
26.98
Meadowbrook-1-14
294
86.83
Newbury Woods-1
51
18.4
(Open space recorded)
0
73.11
Newberry Woods: 1
51
18.40
Potomac Woods-1
16
6.31
Quail Woods-1
44
16.67
Quail Woods-2
13
4.75
Quail Woods-3
14
4.69
Quail Woods-4
20
7.2
Quail Woods-5
6
2.48
Quail Woods-6
12
4.06
Quail Woods-7
12
3.43
Subdivision Name
Lots Recorded
Acreage
Quail Woods-8
27
9.89
Quail Woods-9
11
4.22
Quail Woods-10
25
9.57
Quail Woods-11
25
9.68
Quail Woods-12
31
12.86
Quail Woods-13
58
21.53
Saratoga Place-1
85
19.82
Shenandoah Woods-1
2
6.30
Shenandoah Woods-2
9
9.22
Shenandoah Woods-3
16
14.02
Summers Glen-1
15
3.62
Summers Glen-2
29
10.26
Sun Coast Villas-1
5
1.16
Sun Coast Villas-2
29
6.14
Sun Coast Villas-3
21
6.31
Totals
1,705
698.01
Current Density = 2.44
DEXTER L. HAYES
Planning Director
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
414 CHESTNUT STREET, ROOM 304
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28401-4027
TELEPHONE (910) 341-7165
FAX (910) 772-7868
April 25, 1997
Mr. Bill Grathwol
Coastal Carolina Developers
P-o. Box 3215
Wilmington, NC 28406
RE: Coastal Carolina Master Concept Plan Update
Dear Mr. Grathwol:
In regular session on February 12, 1997, the Planning Board's Technical Review
Committee (TRC) approved the updated Master Concept Plan for Coastal Carolina.
Attending the meeting were: TRC members Wesley Nixon, Jim Wolle, Joyce Fernando
and Rodney Harris; Frank Black, Fire Marshal's Office; Adam Rahhal, County Engineering;
Arnold Carson, RLS; members of the Planning staff and you.
Contact me if you have questions at 341-7165.
Sincerely,
S. A. Burgess
StaffPlanner
cc: Planning Board
Adam Rahhal, Count Engineering
Frank Black, Fire Marshal
Ann Hines, Zoning Enforcement (map encl.)
Arnold Carson, RLS (map encl.)
DEXTER L. HAYES
Planning Director
February 13, 1997
Mr. Bill Grathwol
Coastal Carolina Developers
P.O. Box 3215
Wilmington, NC 28406
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
414 CHESTNUT STREET, ROOM 304
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28401-4027
TELEPHONE (910) 341-7165
FAX (910) 772-7868
Re: Coastal Carolina Master Concept Plan Update
Alamosa Place: Phase 2 (Performance Development)
Dear Mr. Grathwol:
In regular session on February 12, 1997, the Planning Board's Technical Review
Committee (TRC) approved the Master Concept Plan for Coastal Carolina and Alamosa Place:
Phase 2 for 93 lots. As noted in the review of both plans, the density level within the Coastal
Carolina Community has reached 2.5 units per net tract acre. Prior to the approval of any final
plats in Coastal Carolina, open space must be recorded to keep the density level below 2.5 units.
Alamosa Place will be served by County sewer. However, due to the limited capacity of the
County's wastewater treatment facilties, sewer capacity may not exist. DEHNR wastewater sewer
construction and operations permits and/or final plat approval of sections of Alamosa Place may
be withheld, if in the opinion of the County Engineer, adequate sewer capacity does not exist.
Attending the meeting were: Wesley Nixon, TRC chairman, Jim Wolle and Rodney Harris,
TRC members; Frank Black, Fire Marshal's Office; Adam Rahhal and Greg Thompson, County
Engineering; Arnold Carson, RLS; members of the Planning staff and you.
Alamosa Place: Phase 2 will be valid as a preliminary site plan for one year. The plan will
automatically expire if a final plat for all or part of the development is not recorded within twelve
months. Please note that it will be your responsibility to obtain other development related permits
as applicable. Contact me if you have questions relating to your project.
cc: Planning Board members Sincerely,
Adam Rahhal, County Engineering
Frank Black, Fire Marshal c�
Ann Hines, Zoning Enforcement (maps encl)
Arnold Carson, RLS (maps encl) S.A. Burgess
Jack Stocks, RLS Staff Planner
DEXTER L. HAYES
Planning Director
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
320 CHESTNUT STREET, ROOM 403
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28401-4027
TELEPHONE (919) 341-7165 _
March 12, 1992
Mr. Bill Grathwol
P.O. Box 3215
Wilmington, NC 28406
RE: Revisions to Master Concept Plan for Coastal Carolina
Country Club, a Performance Development
Dear Mr. Grathwol:
A revised master concept plan for the referenced project was
approved by the Technical Review Committee on March 11, 1992.
Attending the meeting were: Charles Howell and Wesley Nixon of
the Planning Board, members of the Planning staff and you.
The approval includes the annexation of 25+ acres and the
conversion of 61 acres originally targeted for mobile home
development to single-family uses. A preliminary concept plan
for this area (Sherbrook) was also approved.
This annexation coupled with a previous annexation to expand
Gordon Woods brings the total project acreage to 1707. The
maximum number of units now permitted will be 4268.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Sincerely,
61�
Walter Avery, Jr.
Staff Planner
DENSITY CALCULATIONS COASTAL CAROLINA DEV.
December 8,1997
Subdivision Name
Lots Recorded
Acreage
Alamosa Place-1
97
24.75
Alamosa Place-2A
60
9.88
Belmar Forest-1
59
23.71
Brittany Lakes-1, 2
56
18.10
Brittany Woods-lA
4
2.56
Brittany Woods-2
11
5.37
Brittany Woods-3
16
8.60
Brittany Woods-4
2
.96
Brittany Woods-5
22
10.79
Brittany Woods-6
11
6.18
Brittany Woods-7
11
5.16
Brittany Woods-8
20
10.57
Brittany Woods-9
15
7.57
Brittany Woods-10
52
28.88
Brittany Woods-11
16
10.25
Brittany Woods-12
13
6.13
Brittany Woods-13
19
8.84
Brittany Woods-14
13
5.23
Clearview @ Suncoast-1
15
3.05
Courtney Pines-1
63
20.25
Dove Woods
3
5.42
Gordon Woods-3
60
16.60
Gordon Woods-3A
18
5.33
Gordon Woods-4
71
19.95
Indian Wells @ G. Woods-1
19
5.97
Indian Wells @ G. Woods-2
29
7.88
Harkey Tract
2
12
Legacy @ B. Woods-1
67
26.98
Meadowbrook-1-14
294
86.83
Newbury Woods-1
51
18.4
(Open space recorded)
0
73.11
Newberry Woods-1
51
18.40
Newberry Woods-2
44
14.25
Potomac Woods-1
16
6.31
Quail Woods-1
44
16.67
Quail Woods-2
13
4.75
Quail Woods-3
14
4.69
Quail Woods-4
20
7.2
Quail Woods-5
6
2.48
5120
Subdivision Name
Lots Recorded
Acreage
Quail Woods-6
12
4.06
Quail Woods-7
12
3.43
Quail Woods-8
27
9.89
Quail Woods-9
11
4.22
Quail Woods-10
25
9.57
Quail Woods-11
25
9.68
Quail Woods-12
31
12.86
Quail Woods-13
58
21.53
Quail Woods-14
60
18.33
Saratoga Place-1
85
19.82
Shenandoah Woods-1
2
6.30
Shenandoah Woods-2
9
9.22
Shenandoah Woods-3
16
14.02
Summers Glen-1
15
3.62
Summers Glen-2
29
10.26
Sun Coast Villas-1
5
1.16
Sun Coast Villas-2
29
6.14
Sun Coast Villas-3
21
6.31
Sun Coast Villas-4
15
3.05
Totals
1,859
743.52
Current Density = 2.50
L
'44
►y 25
oP 5�a« (2/3/c,Q)
1
`�w�.Cc�.ot VJJ2� ow, ,C_en
�
4
AQw-or,o. P�� _ 3
- 10
CGLxt..c,� P�-eo
94
- 2q.87
- 2
/
p C_
S4 L CO40i �(.RQ 1-1 -5
�
• 28
?)Ato
y.97
�3
C7. 2)ti.
' 2.27
CCD Density2
SUBDIVISION NAME
LOTS
ACERAGE
Ma Book&Page
✓Alamosa Place Sec 1
�� °97 c°'
F�
�0`� 24.75
co-
36-064
✓Belmar Forest Sec 1
59
23.71
36-315/316
✓ Brittany Lakes Sec 1 a& 2
54 Six. sb (� _
`�..:F <) 18.1
34-032
✓ Brittany Woods Sec 1
25
14.14
27-141
✓ Brittany Woods Sec 1 a
4
2.56
27-163
✓ Brittany Woods Sec 2
11
5.37
28-032 �,�;Z 3 •�wr
✓ Brittany Woods Sec 3
16
8.6
28-065
✓Brittany Woods Sec 4
2
0.96
29-041
,,Brittany Woods Sec 5
22
10.79
29-098
✓Brittany Woods Sec 6
11
6.18
29-177
✓ Brittany Woods Sec 7
11
5.16
30-113
✓ Brittany Woods Sec 8
20
10.57
32-109
.i Brittany Woods Sec 9
15
7.57
32-110
Brittany Woods Sec 10
52
28.88
33-374
,Brittany Woods Sec 11
16
10.25
35-084
✓ Brittany Woods Sec 12
13
6.13
32-212
✓Brittany Woods Sec 13
19
8.84
36-003
✓Brittany Woods Sec 14
y�y�. 13 E:;5-+
i 5.23
t�
36-193
✓Courtney Pines Sec 1
63
20.25
36-098
. ✓Dove Woods
3
5.42
5.
33-382 °`
✓ Indian Wells @ G. Wds-1
19
5.97
31-277
v Indian Wells @ G. Wds-2
29
7.88
33-063 'j C" "` " "
Woods Sec 3
60
16.6
33-203
,/Gordon
/Gordon Woods Sec 3a
18
5.33
34-083 A`~''iY
✓ Gordon Woods Sec4
+4+ 71
19.95
�T
34-168
Harkey Tract
2
12
✓Meadowbrook Sec's 1-14
294
86.83
Composite
✓Newbury Woods Sec 1
51
18.4
36-192
N/OPEN SPACE
0
73.11
35-126 ��-•�« a ,� ��.
Quail Woods Sec 1
44
16.67
37-030
✓ Quail Woods Sec 2
13
4.75
27-152
✓ Quail Woods Sec 3
14
4.69
29-174
✓ Quail Woods Sec 4
20
7.2
27-017
✓ Quail Woods Sec 5
6
2.48
32-012
✓ Quail Woods Sec 6
12
4.06
32-013
Quail Woods Sec 7
12
3.43
32-392
✓ Quail Woods Sec 8
27
9.89
32-393 >` �•z,i� �'� 5~""" ^
✓Quail Woods Sec 9
11
4.22
34-253
,/Quail Woods Sec 10
25
9.57
34-254
/Quail Woods Sec 11
25
9.68
35-280
✓Quail Woods Sec 12
31
12.86
35-117
,/ Quail Woods Sec 13
58 �
21.53
�'��
36-114
.i Saratoga Place Sec 1
85
19.82
35-237
,/Shenandoah Woods Sec 1
2
6.3
34-193
Shenandoah Woods Sec 2
% • '9
9.22
32-113
,/Shenandoah Woods Sec 3
• 16
• 14.02
35-213
✓Summers Glen Sec 1
15
3.62
33-396
✓ Summers Glen Sec 2
29
10.26
✓Sun Coast Villas Sec 1
5
„1.16
35-203
✓Sun Coast Villas Sec 2
29
6.14
35-331
TOTALS
1558
651.1
Density
2.3928736
r- -
CCD Density 7'
SUBDIVISION NAME LOTS ACERAGE
MAP
Book&Page
Alamosa Place Sec 1
97
24.75
36-064
Alamosa Place Sec 2
40
10.52
37-131
Alamosa Place Sec 2A
60
9.88
37-238
Alamosa Place Sec 3
94
29.87
38-039
Alamosa Place Sec 3A
63
17.28
xx
Alamosa Place Sec 3B
74
20.4
xx
Alamosa Place Sec 4
215
64.26
xx
Belmar Forest Sec 1
59
23.71
36-315/316
Belmar Forest PHASE2 +++
51
26.47
{110} xx
Brittany Lakes Sec 1A& 2 x
54 Su
18.1
34-032
Brittany Lakes Legacy Sec 1
67
26.98
37-022
Brittany Lakes Legacy Sec 2
2
0.48
38-027
Brittany Woods Sec 1
25
14.14
27-141
Brittany Woods Sec 1A
4
2.56
27-163
Brittany Woods Sec 2
11
5.37
28-032
Brittany Woods Sec 3
16
8.6
28-065
Brittany Woods Sec 4
2
0.96
29-041
Brittany Woods Sec 5
22
10.79
29-098
Brittany Woods Sec 6
11
6.18
29-177
Brittany Woods Sec 7
11
5.16
30-113
Brittany Woods Sec 8
20
10.57
32-109
Brittany Woods Sec 9
15
7.57
32-110
Brittany Woods Sec 10
52
28.88
33-374
Brittany Woods Sec 11
16
10.25
35-084
Brittany Woods Sec 12
13
6.13
32-212
Brittany Woods Sec 13
19
8.84
36-003
Brittany Woods Sec 14
13
5.23
36-193
Courtney Pines Sec 1
63
20.25
36-098
Courtney Pines Sec 2
61
18.78
38-126
Courtney Pines Sec 3
24
8.36
xx
Dove Woods
3
5.42
33-382
Indian Wells @ G. Wds-1
19
5.97
31-277
Indian Wells @ G. Wds-2
29
7.88
33-063
Gordon Woods Sec 3
60
16.6
33-203
Gordon Woods Sec 3a
18
5.33
34-083
Gordon Woods Sec4
71
19.95
34-168
Harkey Tract
2
12
Meadowbrook Sec's 1-14
294
86.83
Composite
Newbury Woods Sec 1
51
18.4
36-192
Newbury Woods Sec 2
44
14.25
37-254
Newbury Woods Phase 2 +++
57
19.67
xx
OPEN SPACE MAP (2/3/98)
0
178.95
37-296
Y
Potomac Woods Sec 1
16
6.31
37-159
Potomac Woods Sec 2
58
32.69
xx
Potomac Woods Sec 3 +++
26
14
xx
Quail Woods Sec 1
44
16.67
37-030
Quail Woods Sec 2
13
4.75
27-152
Quail Woods Sec 3
14
4.69
29-174
Quail Woods Sec 4
20
7.2
27-017
Quail Woods Sec 5
6
2.48
32-012
Quail Woods Sec 6
12
4.06
32-013
Quail Woods Sec 7
12
3.43
32-392
Quail Woods Sec 8
27
9.89
32-393
Quail Woods Sec 9
11
4.22
34-253
Quail Woods Sec 10
25
9.57
34-254
Quail Woods Sec 11
25
9.68
35-280
Quail Woods Sec 12
31
12.86
35-117
Quail Woods Sec 13
58
21.53
36-114
Quail Woods Sec 14
60
18.33
37-222
Quail Woods Sec 15
42
15.3
xx
Quail Woods Sec 16 Bal. +++
76
30.53
xx
Saratoga Place Sec 1
85
19.82
35-237
Shenandoah Woods Sec 1
2
6.3
34-193
Shenandoah Woods Sec 2
9
9.22
32-113
Shenandoah Woods Sec 3
16
14.02
35-213
Summers Glen Sec 1
15
3.62
33-396
Summers Glen Sec 2
29
10.26
xx
Sun Coast Villas Sec 1
5
1.16
35-203
Sun Coast Villas Sec 2
29
6.14
35-331
Sun Coast Villas Sec 3
21
6.31
37-074
Sun Coast Villas Sec 4
15
3.05
xx
Sun Coast Villas Sec 5
16
4.97
xx
Sun Coast Villa Townhome-1
4
0.1
xx
Sun Coast Villa Townhome-2
4
0.28
xx
Weaver Woods
27
14.57
xx
TOTALS
Density
Unit Carryover
2775.325 1170.58
2.3708973
152.075
st
4*
TRC AGENDA
Wednesday, April 21,1999
The Technical Review Committee of the New Hanover County Planning Board will meet on
Wednesday, April 21, 1999 at 4:00 p.m. in the Conference Room of the County Planning
Department, Room 304 in the Annex Building, 414 Chestnut Street, Wilmington, NC to consider
the following items:
Item 1: Coastal Carolina Development (Updated Conceptual Plan)- Request by Arnold
Carson, RLS for developer William Grathwol to annex additional properties to the original
Coastal Carolina Development plan.
Zoning: R-15
Water: County
Sewer: County
Roads: Public
Acreage: 1,762 (last approved plan - Aug. `98 = 1,492 ac.)
Lots: 4,405 (last approved plan - Aug. `98 = 3,750 lots)
Land Class: Limited Transition
Previous TRC and/or Staff Actions: The original concept plan of Coastal Carolina
Development was approved by staff in June, 1986 for 3,850 lots and 1,649 acres. Since original
plan approval, the conceptual plan has gone through a number design modifications, land
acquisitions, and property sold to "other" parties (see attached development history).
Staff Concern(s): As noted in the development history of Coastal Carolina, there have been
several fluxuations in the total number of lots and acreage since the original approval by staff in
1986. To date, the County has approved 2,151 final plat lots and approximately 945 acres
resulting in a net density of 2.28 units per acre- density criteria for this project can't exceed 2.5
units per acre. While the density per acre is below the 2.5 unit threshold, staff is concerned about
the sporadic continuation of Coastal's boundary annexations deviating from the original
boundary approval in 1986.
Staff would like to recommend that the TRC accept the last conceptual approval of Coastal
Carolina (Aug, `98) for 3,750 lots and 1,492 acres. If these figures are acceptable and approved
by the TRC, it will allow the original portion of the project to eventually reach a terminating or
built -out point with density not exceeding 2.5 units. If the developer decides to expand the scope
via annexation of additional property to Coastal Carolina, staff recommends that a separate phase
be created and submitted for review.
s
TRC Agenda April 21 (cont'd)
2.
Item 2: Sedgley Abbey (Performance Residential)- Request by Joey Hill for David Greer to
consider approval of a 58 lot division located south and adjacent to Telfair Forest
development; west side of Carolina Beach Road.
Zoning: R-15 Residential
Water: Private (Fairways Utilities)
Sewer: Private (Fairways Utilities)
Acreage: 23
Road Network: Private
Lots: 58
Land Class: Limited Transition & Conservation
Previous TRC/Staff Action: None
Cl
COASTAL CAROLINA DEVELOPMENT HISTORY
x June, 1986: Concept master plan approved by Planning staff for 3,850 lots-1,649 acres.
Nov, 1986 : Revision (modifications to design) to master plan approved by staff for 3,850
in
lots-1,649 acres.
Nov, 1988 : Revision (modifications to design) to master plan approved for 3,850 lots-
1,649 acres.
Mar, 1990: Revision (modifications to design) to master plan approved for 3,850 lots-
1,649 acres.
X Feb, 1992 : Revision (annexation of Gordon Woods) to master plan approved fora total
of 3,873 lots-1,675 acres.
Y Mar, 1993 : Revision to master plan approved 4,089 lots-1,748 acres (annexation
Meadowbrook ?).
Y Jan, 1994 : Revision to master plan (reduction open space) approved for 4,089 lots- 1,748
acres.
x July, 1995: Revision to master plan (purchase of property to Harris) approved for 3,371
lots-1,348 acres.
Y Mar, 1996: Revision to master plan (design changes) approved for 3,371 lots- 1,348 acres.
x Feb, 1997 : Revision to master plan (annexation of add. property) approved by TRC for
3,730 lots-1,492 acres.
' Aug, 1998: Revision to site plan (design changes) approved by TRC for 3,730 lots- 1,492
acres.
_
11
: I M4 , i , , ,; I 11
. --i - * .. ,7,5-- . /_NAll � :'. �: .."i I ..
. '. '. . itir , 1 $ I., . 3,W ��,` OR,,, - I I .
. *.-, , . ... - * I :_ .1 , k , % , � , . " .,- .� A " . 7, el ;�r, ,.',.L—' .:', � �. '. . Qlt" " , � — ,. , ." .. 11— � 1. I
\ ... I ..... " - . � ,-V , . - - ,,/� N �M,l, W / � I
\ - , 1, , >... i �: - . ,, . , No I , - (141VI.-I .. \ . .. ...-F.. r - ` 'K. - - "A I �, "', ".;;j. ;--I 1jl-,,',.' ,*..' -.....
I . " ,� .
k�� - , ,
. L .11 L , - I - N I
.. .11-1.1'.-
. - i ,
.'- -'A
�'�,�.
. . - - - , �/ .�, -
- '� I
L , " . " "N.
"I � �� X
I 62
. , I '. -, ,--.,�;;l < ,.,/, - . 'y ,\' -, �,,� , .", — . ..
.
- _ _ a>•ae eaT•
- - - _ rOF anon rAIN,L_ .ou3 oas ,11E
� {o
�NOTE
�
1 ............ — 1 __ {A ] ar �_� ** NOTE ** UPDATED SITE PLAN DISPLAYS
o, i ,.. L I] Wr /
f! {.r fR IEC7
1.1 1 1 w .. ar r
a, o 53 LOTS i i 1 ATE
• ,m,o s� j -. _YC4F1- a, ,:. R, ,s , c 2 !
t a 11 , I I
11 > A l.rro✓ [ • xnRt R r••,°"
tfcs_-f{f1YVb- � zs ie < IJ 1 J I .tad-ao IJ_ ----
�, e3 0 ,., v a er•rl •., • a•
I war,aw
.WRrr, Rr�. I man.. a• _.1_. (
A,OMIO -IN' SU yKX CATCH BASIN Iry ,Ip.•x Ir-pp•afa ,11 p ra _ .. - - - ' �ID
a M •, .Ivan �•ce
x•F 12 1 Tlo••'�:pa ax -000 ,, f -11y/�' ~'! ~"� +f ll, . BRpvv ••� oo-To°z. ore LocArCw MAR
ara 13 y,K ra[[� a eM.,r. •R•••• °' OaIB•rI✓I 1 wwrii.Re' puo*
1 .foe-0p0.0P. R'^p,.r-roo ,nRrrl „°.00J-o:,°°
� R••, r.r rent• m o
[x•+[, ,,,,,,,,.ma n.r, > rt „ n ` 35 . 8 fa
37 fl 36 FI
38
39
41
:r°>- a> ••..-. �• .-y ll� �,{-..� ° .♦.• LLONIRO .Lf[M
•11 -- �- -= a•'• a �.,.. ..�" fB 11 `r RcvoE f n 4...
.r I •°' irn -- °' PMILIP a p' , �'i�OrQss oul I ,rf ,i fit. \\•aB
47 1249.
``^ /�' ra"--_-9 9 1' I �1„>,p' •�' `Ea �$1 58 I39 @I
B� L_J a�/ ••.��. S� _� •.° GC 57 n^• M KFAW
7! 1 1 Rini1 - •••' ,ol _. R 5Y•%~ qJ f •/ p•R,ram+fin onnl a 33. eM-1. °'n!•a.
tr I:J w•u .', �,.nR nfn '•A 1 �.laf 55 71 �p a• w•:ss' •fl
@'Y 1,arw •a� .e s �fI ,�,••sf / I K r.o.. •! I ed•
+ I 48 ` .`; arRt 'fa ,.y ( .t 53 54
I ", 1 1 e S2 (` /f eo. , I r.v f • r Ba° p �]}�!(yj�
•`•': ^[_n� Roar lel wli 51 \ = e'r i ,.. ,�V. oft �1{•. a f'•' `• , `!f
�(��
° °�`— 1 a '' 7L -� � � �M iwE ° M --�•.' , ,a—w•�"•ft s' • a•B R. �,.ox I' d ._I R•'i iJl: 1
I- i .A • q'• ,i, R'n —' 1 w`rwar ..w 1 'a '�'I• Je
zz
o I • ,49 '2 A a. a-- p ,°�, .v,*,'� le••,"°'R. 1 IA . • `.
I •� e r Q • (AJ rnmo[� . s ee• rA t ` I 3 32' • I� �! F
- 1
war � _ ��• it
M wu+lo nl � .�•• ..,oe •" °' m 10 I� A -:,.° I it '.� 1 ■ I'
• 1 � + i0 p :: � , � ,,t ....... ! t 29
�1 �� ,. l rr: l—� , f° ✓lll ,�, lnovar' bfn'. °, -- ; �- i
26
�aN r o:.•c 2fr.Vi ,. : • S 24 el 27
25 1 •a.n „ ..J r,Tml • ' '-° ''
« 1 sei
22
'..�� fl : _ 2Q _ I 1' Mi '' O__— ���i�•�--•f>—`�_�11tt 'y[i
19 a •I �l.0 !�:"' _/ • • _ ,:
��: p� •� ' ••..� 1 I (a:• • Ifr 8 • � aB.r >-.�:+o n R. �.R : I' i {.a ...
_ it Ra• _i� —� s 1 r p PI;.
�w•® • ��'-.__•�-•�_' -s•M _. np/na [ %� WIN=
,••�IB: i .\ „•w.°a- \ Rv.. .00u �"!? -,..-� ,R,.r•.. _ o r-i.e•w r[r 'r '•••,•I,v.' .nr oosnll°cuu
r• I 2 / � :r'p.'rn •.69 1,,.� .d Z •c. •:�.�rve •.• 1 x. ��I: nN>N a.•u
I`� B a,,>� -L Q : o . ' °•rRn,:.x°° 2 £ '•$] M. �: I -•M-•- resnNc mina:f
IK I .°� \ ��f J� �_ Q.a L.'.;f> {� 6� •' l,a -- 3 'i • �'• -- '1' I4; -w— w6H caBmlR
1 c l ip a° .�� .+' ar-•d°,—t11 ,ns I a 1 naa[i •r Rry 5 -• ,'I. 1,%!. ; I p -_. -. IRrI]y]WNF
tA 6. a e,°,„!•� 1 1 6 •a • >II '4 1' ., -s--. R.,o,r.swei
' >a � �''.r+' BB o. �a�y�e.p,ox' •.: w 6 1 & 1 7
,^°� r� 'e 17 1. .+� f/v-e'- / tw,na' ,.r«B• ,.v.�.w ; rB.R.� p 91$ 1 • '0 i �p�pp! +,. o sEwwservx.
-,w • rio°• o` •° s `, �/i j ,l•nrr , e. I-xaR••nl 4 $I .. -,=.- i a °i;, s e w*a mvaT
.n r• 1 13 12 I $ ` 1 1 11 4 , / •rp,,:r,n r-,,•..--'L-:•� •'mot a:1,o w°u"°'R�
a ur3e 1
f5 / of I 1 '` ��acr�l,.nr.� ,1 ,r, .. n.i •eA> ,• .>a3..,f,, �@{ ? NN,•wr
r � ,,,. iR --r- ,.• : K I R M. t. R I � so , � a •r« ,x,xa,f
'A t� —°f•f �fv M.•• V_ I fan ' ' y� �e [ —_ .�.� � C +, ,I: , 4•'{ I<W wr[ ' i C � (AZ IMI4�,F�1
16 ' \ g Rlan u• '> ! 1 9M715T CHUMN
"' �' ` • I fa' R Bf' tR �f� ° MT NLGII � PG 339 • o u,ol ewrl
(e 13 -- �� �- r.•'•.p a'a"'t if tsW 0. ,T'lwnn 'I BK,sm oof-of.-wi +--�•-• SRT r41¢
•Ir h. fRIL[ �•n•, .t• {• M.'> l9e M 1 .r f $�,1 I
I -� r� ,�' ! 0� ,a• O N If' 2T'tf p{,ALE l 1
�R dt ` �- ,'''�'_- > '>• l'a.•.., PLENA PANE FREE I tiN4 PANE g1�a1AN y8 --•��_ �es•re'n'6 SEDGELY ABBEY
.fw-av-an- eR P73. K• e-
r \ ,v N Rf• 17 d • i -y al. u°u-aUO[, -°°� I — �� ��. tl 17 Y ALFREU wAL� °+° „i ' ,aa,a•°rq ,a
/.NFR• i BK 85, PG MB .. , � 'f►wnomo
_ -T 76 N BB•:t .nr ; Ar f, �4.IAS fVf: I
�' PRELIMINARY PLAN
, _IRNQn Wa—ATE.
Ir O `' 0 • . L •�• L •IL gals •se t,Am f0•rRe r la In I3lIeTRUtlfpa SNNl rnlaen -
,____� •'.—°' FrP'�i „I 'I^ RIIn.rL � Nvo�, mul°"in s�°a s low.
famda R Tmr+a�,a,fm.a wa •, ,�,� • .. .- - JOSEPH S. HILL. R Wd ASSOCATES
MAIWGE (DR) SRWLE CRO55•SEC7K.IV �^ •. IOrK •afs dTr•cT•u. r/mas,°Nw>•ru Rra•¢w-. 0%f[.1WG [BONtaRs w a.u«rRs
R LSf IC M4 N LOLLS Ian1oIM1) 1]. • ) eml°w. x°IN¢
-�I Y I __ ie �� '-- OeefAT®K0®,vTa19,12 Il A Ka6 •I1dYg1E fWrQS R•R••10i•� � �•0i
{� t aat..•la. ,s r"''.wl.., jl �•""= Recn n' i ww�rta e°om plane IM A 1 I M1R�iuw) ,w•ua nnm nam-n« r•
r..•-.-rl by ^ I 1 ]r AYMS TO E} tp IN Tlt'w fMll r,vl(t n ,Mwvf ,RR]f!S u. 9Nrt,4 Na° •.Y:. 5• I 1�' - •-
i : • I r I 1,P'•saR,aei°'� [r —'I 1Ea,w.Jr,tr ]LGLT•iF,, {. wTa >alvv of ,.Ma.a Ina+•, trig •�
m. slmf sefR•of acTwn. s,ucTu,s
• '•. • R,"
• • 1 i mil a airi +"^'^ •••• t p °Tr >o �Tnt.Tnly nNv Iwwvaus sw.� ,°. iiR,oa ral wew ww.e, md.r ,,. w ]o•
•-- BE s
�i u�o,axso°o ��p` ass•o�'t,�` •.
K• , ; • Il f�w.A[.-.,/• z swNES To ]L[m WRN i LRLK 6 TML IpgUW 11�6, Ji. gun
' • •• • •. •' ♦ • a axa • % ,1C (-!e'�I IRMIlIX1 ]I. f} NTl1 iN1,E9]E. MD IPD 1t.5/LYBf1IlF0 • • - '•• ��•- �/ri •..rt „wv. � 9ENaRss(gaTuMyt isl. Tslea/,S wu[p eLRN,lon u: AMR �ao. 3>��
t.r.- Ts ,eLK T,LL ,tso,L IpNlflOcv ,1 (Man ss 1z loos nor „IRus,urnme r�se.x. �,'E�\B?/+�
tLO-Cq%yrff CLRB B GUTTER STREET CROSS' SECTION STg4MRM TER TREATME,/7 (SwT) SFYRr�I Yt BIOS,ON ppMllpl 9tO1KA]ipr6 fi
31KLE cRass-SECTIpV ��•°�t= •�,PPEK,Ri y T R °�•`�r '� • j. S .
.r.ov. u. atvTcla M[ IeRpa, ro rm INS
RII ILVBt 'yl 1e149 -
DEXTER L. HAYES
Planning Director
August 13, 1998
Mr. Arnold Carson, RLS
6607 Red Cedar Road
Wilmington, NC 28405
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
414 CHESTNUT STREET, ROOM 304
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28401-4027
TELEPHONE (910) 341-7165
FAX (910) 772-7868
Re: Coastal Carolina Concept Plan Update
Dear Mr. Carson:
In regular session on August 12, 1998, the Planning Board's Technical Review
Committee (TRC) approved the minor road design modifications in the Coastal Carolina
Concept Plan. As you know, the project was originally approved by the Planning staff for 3,730
lots. To date, 2,064 have been recorded.
Attending the TRC meeting were Jim Wolle, TRC chairman; Rodney Harris, Kirk Davy,
and Ken Dull, TRC members; members of the Planning staff and you.
Contact me if you have questions. I can be reached at 341-7165.
Sincerely,
S , a. (�j w. �� Q, D
S.A. Burgess
Staff Planner
cc: Planning Bd. members
Ann Hines, Zoning Enforcement
Adam Ralihal, County Engineering
Bill Grathwol, Developer
fi
s;
jt NEW HANOVER COUNTY
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
414 CHESTNUT STREET
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28401-4045
TELEPHONE (910) 341-7139
WYATTE. BLANCHARD, P.E.
County Engineer
July 27, 1995
Bill Grathwold
G&F Utilities
P.O. Box 3215
Wilmington, N.C. 28406
RE: Water and Sewer Capacity
Dear Mr. Grathwold:
Pa,-'v
Based on action by New Hanover County Water and Sewer
District, Coastal Carolina Developers was granted sufficient water
and sewer capacity to allow for the—eon-struct-ion—of—up to.-300_ to
400 houses per year in tpe—Brl tan_y,.�Woods_ and Gordon Woods area.
As with all available sdwer ac pacity, a moritorium by`NCDEM`would
suspend additonal connections. In the event there is a moritorium,
the District owns a 100,000 gallon wastewater treatment plant
(donated by CCD) which can be reactivated if necessary.
If you have any questions feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
WyatKE. Blanchard
County Engineer
New Hanover County
WEB/ab
cc: Dexter Hayes, Planning
n
DEXTER L. HAYES
Planning Director
August 8, 1996
Mr. Bill Grathwol
Coastal Carolina Development
P.O. Box 3215
Wilmington, NC 28406
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
414 CHESTNUT STREET, ROOM 304
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28401-4027
TELEPHONE (910) 341-7165
FAX (910) 772-7868
Re: Coastal Carolina Development Density
Dear Mr. Grathwol:
Please be advised that with the New Hanover County approval of the Courtney Pines final
plat, density for Coastal Carolina Development currently stands at 2.503 units per acre. As you
know, density limits for the Coastal project were approved at 2.50 units per acre. With the
County continuing to anticipate final plat submission for projects within the Coastal Carolina
Development community, you may want to consider recording additional open space soon to
maintain a density 2.5 units or less per acre.
If you have questions, concerns or want to discuss recording additional open space in the
near future within the Coastal Carolina project, contact me at 341-7165.
Sincerely,
5,0' - B"IQ;)b
S.A. Burgess
Staff Planner
cc: Arnold Carson, Stocks Surveying
Sherwin Cribb, RLS
NEW HANG VEIL COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
320 CHESTNUT STREET, ROOM 403
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28401-4027
TELEPHONE (919) 341-7165
DEXTER L. HAYES
Planning Director
July 22, 1993
Mr. Bill Grathwol
P.O. Box 3215
Wilmington, NC 28406
RE: Revisions to Master Concept Plan for Coastal Carolina Country
Club, a Performance Development
Dear Mr. Grathwol:
A revised master concept plan for the referenced project was
approved by the Technical Review Committee on July 21, 1993.
Attending the meeting were Charlie Howell, Bob McDonald, and Wesley
Nixon of the Planning Board, you and me.
Their approval permits the annexation of 14.86 acres, the
realignment of several roads, and the elimination of two multi-
family areas and replacement with single-family uses. The approval
also stipulates that the plan be revised showing the connection of
the long cul-de-sacs in the southwest corner of the site. More-
over, the approval stipulates that the site notes be updated to
reflect current conditions and updated density calculations.
This annexation coupled with previous annexations brings the
total project acreage to 1,721.86. The maximum number of units now
permitted will be 4,033 [total site acreage: (1,721.86) minus Class
IV soils (108.8) equals 1,613.06 net buildable acres. (1,613.06 x
2.5 (density factor) = 4,033 units].
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Walter Avery, Jr.
Senior Planner
DEXTER L. HAYES
Planning Director
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
320 CHESTNUT STREET, ROOM 403
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28401-4027
TELEPHONE (919) 341-7165
TRC Agenda
July 21, 1993
The Technical Review Committee of the New Hanover County
Planning Board will meet on June 21, 1993 at 4:00 p.m. in Room 501
of the County Administration Building to consider the following
items:
Item 1: Coastal Carolina Country Club, Master Plan Revisions
The applicant is requesting that revisions be made to the master
plan for the referenced project. A copy of that plan as revised is
attached hereto.
Revisions include:
1. The annexation of 14.86 acres south of Indian Wells and north of
Gordon Road.
2. Several road realignments.
3. The elimination of the multi -family area north of Indian Wells
and west of Meadowbrook and replacement of it with single-family
uses.
4. The elimination of a previously approved road connection.
Master Plan Summary
Coastal Carolina Country Club is a performance residential
development approved by the County on June 17, 1986. It was
initially approved for 3850 housing units, but subsequent revisions
to the plan increased the maximum number of units to 4268. To
date, the plan has been revised four times. On two occasions, the
revision involved an expansion of the project boundary. The
attached plan delineates the major revisions approved to date.
Other previously approved revisions, such as minor changes in road
alignment or design are not highlighted on the plan.
Portions of the project that have been developed so far are
serviced by community water and sewer and public roads.
Developments in the project that are in various stage of
construction include: Brittany Woods, Brittany Lakes, Shenandoah
Woods, Quail Woods, Indian Wells and Meadowbrook. Approximately
419 lots have been recorded since the original approval.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
320 CHESTNUT STREET, ROOM 403
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28401-4027
TELEPHONE (919) 341-7165
DEXTER L.HAYES
Planning Director
June 29, 1993
Mr. William Grathwol
P.O. Box 3215
Wilmington, NC 28406
RE: Land Use Concept Plan, Coastal Carolina Country Club
Proposed Revisions
Dear Mr. Grathwol:
The Planning staff has completed its review of the proposed
revisions for the above referenced project. The following comments and
observations are offered for your consideration. It should be noted
that the number of changes proposed, particularly the changes in the
circulation patterns and interconnections will require approval by the
Technical Review Committee. The areas of concern discussed below are
highlighted on the attached map.
1. The site plan legend indicates revisions in November 1988, March
26, 1990, and March 1, 1993. One other revision occurred in
February, 1992. This should be duly noted on the plan.
2. The new cul-de-sac in the southwest corner (marked 2 on the map)
far exceeds the maximum length prescribed for this type of road
design. (Maximum 1000 feet, proposed is 1950+ feet). Perhaps the
two cul-de-sacs at this end of the property should be connected.
3. Because the area designated for multi -family (attached dwellings)
in the southeast corner of Harris Road and the CP&L right-of-way
has been replaced with single-family units, previous sought road
connections have been undermined. For example, no connection to
Meadowbrook was made at this point primarily because of the
proposed multi -family units.
4. Other connections and realignments appear to be functional and
suited for this size project.
Please look over these comments and let me know how you wish to
proceed. We can take this to the TRC in late July if you so choose.
Sincerel ,
Walter Avery,
cc: Jack Stocks Senior Planner
PID
R03512-001-001-000
R03510-004-099-000
R03512-007-003-000
R03508-003-003-000
R04307-001-011-000
R03519-006-021-000
R03511-004-066-000
R03500-005-352-000
R03511-004-065-000
R03500-004-030-000
R03512-007-049-000
R03500-005-354-000
R04300-002-031-000
R03507-003-016-000
R03508-004-034-000
R02700-001-004-014
R03500-005-353-000
R03500-005-672-000
R03500-005-705-000
R03500-006-007-000
R03500-005-014-000
R03500-005-355-000
R03500-005-433-000
R03500-005-357-000
R03500-005-356-000
R02700-001-004-012
R04300-002-030-000
R03511-003-015-000
R03600-003-097-000
R02800-004-029-000
R02800-004-031-000
R02800-004-013-000
R03500-003-002-000
R02800-004-028-000
R03600-003-003-009
R03500-003-001-000
R03600-003-003-004
R03500-003-004-000
R03500-003-111-000
R03600-003-003-006
Property Owner
BARNHILLTHABLE ROBERTS HRS
BROOKSIDE GARDENS HOA INC
CAPE FEAR PUBLIC UTILITY AUTHORITY
CAPE FEAR PUBLIC UTILITY AUTHORITY
CAPE FEAR PUBLIC UTILITY AUTHORITY
CASCO CRAFTERSINC
COASTAL CAROLINA DEV INC
COASTAL CAROLINA DEV INC
COASTAL CAROLINA DEV INC
COASTAL CAROLINA DEV INC
COASTAL CAROLINA DEV INC
COASTAL CAROLINA DEV INC
COASTAL CAROLINA DEV INC
COASTAL CAROLINA DEV INC
COASTAL CAROLINA DEVEL INC
COASTAL CAROLINA DEVELOPERS
COASTAL CAROLINA DEVELOPERS
COASTAL CAROLINA DEVELOPERS
COASTAL CAROLINA DEVELOPERS
COASTAL CAROLINA DEVELOPERS IN
COASTAL CAROLINA DEVELOPERS IN
COASTAL CAROLINA DEVELOPERS IN
COASTAL CAROLINA DEVELOPERS IN
COASTAL CAROLINA DEVELOPERS IN
COASTAL CAROLINA DEVELOPERS IN
COSWALD LLC
GORDON ROAD OWNERS ASSN
HAMERSKI DOUGLAS A DANA L
HANOVER LAND LLC
HANOVER LAND LLC
HANOVER LAND LLC
HANOVER LAND LLC
HANOVER LAND LLC
HANOVER LAND LLC
HANOVER LAND LLC
HANOVER LAND LLC
HANOVER LAND LLC
HANOVER LAND LLC
HANOVER LAND LLC
HANOVER LAND LLC
Address
113 BROOKFIELD DR
1422 BROOKSIDE GARDENS DR
235 GOVERNMENT CENTER DR
235 GOVERNMENT CENTER DR
235 GOVERNMENT CENTER DR
PO BOX 135
1030 WENDOVER AVE E
1030 WENDOVER AVE E
1030 WENDOVER AVE E
1030 WENDOVER AVE E
1030 WENDOVER AVE E
1030 WENDOVER AVE E
1030 WENDOVER AVE E
1030 WENDOVER AVE E
1030 WENDOVER AVE E
1030 WENDOVER AVE E
1030 WENDOVER AVE E
1030 WENDOVER AVE E
1030 WENDOVER AVE E
1030 WENDOVER AVE E
1030 WENDOVER AVE E
1030 WENDOVER AVE E
1030 WENDOVER AVE E
1030 WENDOVER AVE E
1030 WENDOVER AVE E
PO BOX 3403
2905 MARKET ST
1231 SHERMAN OAKS DR
2905 MARKET ST
2905 MARKET ST
2905 MARKET ST
1030 WENDOVER AVE E
2905 MARKET ST
2905 MARKET ST
PO BOX 3215
2905 MARKET ST
2905 MARKET ST
2905 MARKET ST
2905 MARKET ST
2905 MARKET ST
City, State, Zip
WILMINGTON, NC 28405
WILMINGTON, NC 28411
WILMINGTON, NC 28403
WILMINGTON, NC 28403
WILMINGTON, NC 28403
WILMINGTON, NC 28402
GREENSBORO, NC 27405
GREENSBORO, NC 27405
GREENSBORO, NC 27405
GREENSBORO, NC 27405
GREENSBORO, NC 27405
GREENSBORO, NC 27405
GREENSBORO, NC 27405
GREENSBORO, NC 27405
GREENSBORO, NC 27405
GREENSBORO, NC 27405
GREENSBORO, NC 27405
GREENSBORO, NC 27405
GREENSBORO, NC 27405
GREENSBORO, NC 27405
GREENSBORO, NC 27405
GREENSBORO, NC 27405
GREENSBORO, NC 27405
GREENSBORO, NC 27405
GREENSBORO, NC 27405
WILMINGTON, NC 28406
WILMINGTON, NC 28403
WILMINGTON, NC 28411
WILMINGTON, NC 28403
WILMINGTON, NC 28403
WILMINGTON, NC 28403
GREENSBORO, NC 27405
WILMINGTON, NC 28403
WILMINGTON, NC 28403
WILMINGTON, NC 28405
WILMINGTON, NC 28403
WILMINGTON, NC 28403
WILMINGTON, NC 28403
WILMINGTON, NC 28403
WILMINGTON, NC 28403
R03600-003-003-001
HANOVER LAND LLC
2905 MARKET ST
R03600-003-003-003
HANOVER LAND LLC
2905 MARKET ST
R03500-003-005-000
HANOVER LAND LLC
2905 MARKET ST
R03600-003-066-000
HANOVER LAND LLC
2905 MARKET ST
R03600-003-003-005
HANOVER LAND LLC
2905 MARKET ST
R03600-003-053-000
HANOVER LAND LLC
PO BOX 3215
R03500-006-357-000
HEDGEPETH ELIZABETH RAMSEY
482 GROUSE WOODS DR
R03510-008-009-000
LEBER TODD S
5232 GREENVILLE LOOP RD
R03500-006-001-000
LEGACY GROUP OF NC INC (THE)
2905 MARKET ST
R04300-001-004-000
LEGACY GROUP OF NC INC (THE)
2905 MARKET ST
R03507-004-013-000
MIGLIARA ANTHONY GAILJ
7025 MURRAYVILLE RD
R03507-004-012-000
MIGLIARA ANTHONY GAIL J
7025 MURRAYVILLE RD
R03507-001-050-000
MURRAY FARMS HOA
6726 SPEAROW LN
R03500-006-003-000
NC DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
3113 KERR AVE N
R03511-002-005-000
P R CHRISTMAS CONSTRUCTION CO INC
1208 WILLIAMSBURG CT
R03511-002-002-000
P R CHRISTMAS CONSTRUCTION CO INC
1208 WILLIAMSBURG CT
R03511-002-008-000
P R CHRISTMAS CONSTRUCTION CO INC
1208 WILLIAMSBURG CT
R03511-002-004-000
P R CHRISTMAS CONSTRUCTION CO INC
1208 WILLIAMSBURG CT
R02800-004-012-001
PARKER KENNETH R SR ELOISE T
937 GREENHOWE DR
R03500-005-365-000
SANDERS NATHAN S JUDIA B
PO BOX 3167
R03500-006-361-000
SARATOGA PLACE @ HIDDEN PT HOA
2905 MARKET ST
R03600-003-116-000
SAVANA LAND COMPANY LLC
219 LEES CUT LN
R03500-004-004-000
STEELE ANGELA W LIFE ESTATE
6524 MURRAYVILLE RD
R03510-008-006-000
SUN PHALLAJIANHUA
6228SHIRE LN
R03600-003-065-000
THORNTON FOY S TRUST B ETAL
1323 GOV MOORE RD
R03600-003-003-008
TROUT MYTH[
1549 GLENS BAY RD
R02800-004-012-000
WHALEY HOBART G ALENE R
3734 NEW COLONY DR
R03511-003-016-000
WINES FAMILY LIVING TRUST
1310 STONEHAVEN CT
WILMINGTON, NC 28403
WILMINGTON, NC 28403
WILMINGTON, NC 28403
WILMINGTON, NC 28403
WILMINGTON, NC 28403
WILMINGTON, NC 28405
WILMINGTON, NC 28411
WILMINGTON, NC 28409
WILMINGTON, NC 28405
WILMINGTON, NC 28405
WILMINGTON, NC 28405
WILMINGTON, NC 28405
WILMINGTON, NC 28411
WILMINGTON, NC 28405
WILMINGTON, NC 28411
WILMINGTON, NC 28411
WILMINGTON, NC 28411
WILMINGTON, NC 28411
WILMINGTON, NC 28409
WILMINGTON, NC 28406
WILMINGTON, NC 28403
WRIGHTSVILLE B., NC 28480
WILMINGTON, NC 28411
WILMINGTON, NC 28411
CLINTON, NC 28328
SURFSIDE BEACH, SC 29575
WILMINGTON, NC 28412
WILMINGTON, NC 28411
CCD DENSITY CALCULATIONS-11/27/02
BY MAP BOOK/PAGE NUMBER
SUBDIVISION SECTION LOTS ACRES MB / PG
QUAIL WOODS
4
20
7.19
27/017
QUAIL WOODS
1
44
17.12
27/030
BRITTANY WOODS
1
25
16.47
27/141
QUAIL WOODS
2
13
4.76
271152
BRITTANY WOODS
1A
4
2.54
27/163
BRITTANY WOODS
2
11
5.73
28/032
BRITTANY WOODS
3
16
8.41
28/065
BRITTANY WOODS
4
2
0.96
29/041
BRITTANY WOODS
5
22
11.07
29/098
QUAIL WOODS
3
_ 14
4.88
29/174
BRITTANY WOODS
6
11
5.93
29/177
BRITTANY WOODS
7
11
5.17
30/113
INDIAN WELLS AT GORDON WOODS
1
19
6.20
31/277
QUAIL WOODS
5
6
2.46
32/012
QUAIL WOODS
6
12
4.14
32/013
BRITTANY WOODS
8
20
10.71
32/109
BRITTANY WOODS
9
15
7.52
321110
SHENANDOAH WOODS
2
9
7.76
32/113
MEADOWBROOK
2
17
5.49
32/288
MEADOWBROOK
2
19
6.54
32/338
QUAIL WOODS
7
12
3.68
32/392
QUAIL WOODS
8
27
9.99
32/393
MEADOWBROOK
3
21
5.07
33/022
INDIAN WELLS AT GORDON WOODS
2
29
7.84
33/063
MEADOWBROOK
4
25
8.30
33/162
GORDON WOODS
3
60
16.56
33/203
MEADOWBROOK
5
29
8.24
33/352
BRITTANY WOODS
10
52
28.86
33/374
DOVE WOODS
3
5.38
33/382
SUMMERS GLEN
1
15
3.76
33/396
BRITTANY LAKES
1A & 2
54
17.54
34/032
GORDON WOODS
3A
18
4.92
34/083
MEADOWBROOK
6
25
6.37
34/087
GORDON WOODS
4
71
19.96
34/168
SHENANDOAH WOODS
1
2
8.15
34/193
QUAIL WOODS
9
11
4.22
34/253
QUAIL WOODS
10
25
9.56
34/254
MEADOWBROOK
7
21
5.94
34/255
MEADOWBROOK
8
18
5.06
35/023
BRITTANY WOODS
11
16
7.57
35/084
SUBDIVISION SECTION LOTS ACRES MB / PG
QUAIL WOODS
12
31
12.86
35/117
SARATOGA PLACE
85
19.82
35/127
MEADOWBROOK
9
24
6.99
35/135
SUNCOAST VILLAS
1
5
1.16
35/203
BRITTANY WOODS
12
13
6.13
35/212
SHENANDOAH WOODS
3
16
14.03
35/213
SUNCOAST VILLAS
2
29
6.12
35/228
MEADOWBROOK
10
12
3.51
35/245
SUMMERS GLEN
2
29
10.26
35/253
QUAIL WOODS
11
25
9.67
35/280
MEADOWBROOK
11
26
8.37
35/362
BRITTANY WOODS
13
19
8.85
36/003
MEADOWBROOK
12
22
5.72
36/048
ALAMOSA PLACE
1
97
24.27
361064
COURTNEY PINES
1
63
20.33
36/098
QUAIL WOODS
13
58
21.53
36/114
MEADOWBROOK
13
2
1.41
36/124
NEWBURY WOODS
1
51
18.40
36/192
BRITTANY WOODS
14
13
6.13
361193
MEADOWBROOK
14
29
9.48
36/239
BELMAR FOREST
Ph 1
60
24.60
36/315 & 316
ALAMOSA PLACE LOTS 84A & 85A
1
2
0.61
37/015
LEGACY AT BRITTANY LAKES
1
67
26.47
37/022
SUNCOAST VILLAS
3
21
6.20
37/074
ALAMOSA PLACE
2
40
10.52
37/131
POTOMAC WOODS
1
15
6.02
37/159
QUAIL WOODS
14
60
21.79
37/222
ALAMOSA PLACE
2A
35
9.88
37/238
SUNCOAST VILLAS
4
15
3.44
37/248
NEWBURY WOODS
2
44
14.34
37/254
LEGACY AT BRITTANY LAKES
1A
2
0.49
37/320
SUNCOAST TOWNHOMES Phase
1
4
0.53
38/006
COURTNEY PINES
2
60
18.78
38/026
ALAMOSA PLACE
3
93
29.87
381039
SUNCOAST TOWNHOMES Phase
2
4
0.28
38/128
SUNCOAST VILLAS
5
16
4.98
38/159
ALAMOSA PLACE
3A
63
17.28
38/229
QUAIL WOODS
15
40
14.58
381299
NEWBURY WOODS
3
57
19.66
38/331
SUNCOAST TOWNHOMES Phase
3
4
0.30
38/336
ALAMOSA PLACE
3C
32
10.35
39/082
SUNCOAST VILLAS
6
27
6.15
39/106
ALAMOSA PLACE
313
38
11.77
391125
COURTNEY PINES
3
23
7.79
39/144
SUNCOAST VILLAS
7
22
4.47
39/186
SUBDIVISION
SECTION
LOTS
ACRES
MB / PG
SUNCOAST TOWNHOMES Phase
4
22
3.37
39/229
ALAMOSA PLACE
3D
4
1.37
39/371
SUNCOAST VILLAS
8
15
4.76
40/287
WHITNEY PINES
1
70
20.38
40/371, 41/179
QUAIL WOODS
16
84
30.42
41/115
POTOMAC WOODS
2
23
10.98
41/314
POTOMAC WOODS
3
36
18.38
41/316
BROOKSIDE GARDENS
77
30.88
41/322 & 323
POTOMAC WOODS
4
3
1.32
42/029
PARKWOOD EXTENSION
11
3.70
42/175
WHITNEY PINES
2
2
0.61
42/177
POTOMAC WOODS
5
26
13.43
42/179
WEAVER WOODS AT LAKE EMERALD
27
17.45
42/181
WHITNEY PINES
4
44
13.23
42/259
WHITNEY PINES
3
15
5.06
42/257
COTTAGES AT SUNCOAST, THE
N/A
25
6.54
43143
COURTNEY PINES
4
57
18.80
43/127
HARKEY TRACT
2
12.00
DB 2030,PG 0008
BELMAR FOREST (Preliminary)
Ph 2
47
25.58
N/R
SUNCOAST CONDOS
200
17.49
N/R
Total
3127
1069.96
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE "REVISED"
3127 _ 2.5 =
N/A
1250.80
- 1069.96
180.84
293.06
- 180.84
112.22
lotus/business/miscellaneous/CALCS1127.123
293.06 38/300 & 301
(REQUIRED ACRES)
(RECORDED ACRES)
(REQUIRED OPEN SPACE)
(RECORDED OPEN SPACE)
(REQUIRED OPEN SPACE)
EXCESS OPEN SPACE
11/27/02
3
CCD DENSITY CALCULATIONS - 06/14/04 SA�a
BY MAP BOOKIPAGE NUMBER
SUBDMSION
SECTION
LOTS
ACRES
MB 1 PG
QUAIL WOODS
4
20
7.19
27/017
QUAIL WOODS
1
44
17.12
27/030
BRITTANY WOODS
1
25
16.47
27/141
QUAIL WOODS
2
13
4.76
27/152
BRITTANY WOODS
1A
4
2.54
27/163
BRITTANY WOODS
2
11
5.73
28/032
BRITTANY WOODS
3
16
8.41
28/065
BRITTANY WOODS
4
2
0.96
29/041
BRITTANY WOODS
5
22
11.07
29/098
QUAIL WOODS
3
14
4.88
29/174
BRITTANY WOODS
6
11
5.93
29/177
BRITTANY WOODS
7
11
5.17
30/113
INDIAN WELLS AT GORDON WOODS
1
19
6.20
31277
QUAIL WOODS
5
6
2.46
32/012
QUAIL WOODS
6
12
4.14
32/013
BRITTANY WOODS
8
20
10.71
32/109
BRITTANY WOODS
9
15
7.52
321110
SHENANDOAH WOODS
2
9
7.76
32/113
MEADOWBROOK
2
17
5.49
32288
MEADOWBROOK
2
19
6.54
32/338
QUAIL WOODS
7
12
3.68
32/392
QUAIL WOODS
8
27
9.99
32/393
MEADOWBROOK
3
21
5.07
33/022
INDIAN WELLS AT GORDON WOODS
2
29
7.84
33/063
MEADOWBROOK
4
25
8.30
33/162
GORDON WOODS
3
60
16.56
33203
MEADOWBROOK
5
29
8.24
33/352
BRITTANY WOODS
10
52
28.86
33/374
DOVE WOODS
3
5.38
331382
SUMMERS GLEN
1
15
3.76
331396
BRITTANY LAKES
1A & 2
54
17.54
34/032
GORDON WOODS
3A
18
4.92
34/083
MEADOWBROOK
6
25
6.37
34/087
GORDON WOODS
4
71
19.96
34/168
SHENANDOAH WOODS
1
2
8.15
34/193
QUAIL WOODS
9
11
4.22
34253
QUAIL WOODS
10
25
9.56
34254
MEADOWBROOK
7
21
5.94
34255
MEADOWBROOK
8
18
5.06
35/023
BRITTANY WOODS
11
16
7.57
35/084
lotus/business/miscellaneous/CALCS61404 1 06/14/2004
SUBDIVISION
SECTION
LOTS
ACRES
MB ! PG
QUAIL WOODS
12
31
12.86
35/117
SARATOGA PLACE
85
19.82
35/127
MEADOWBROOK
9
24
6.99
35/135
SUNCOAST VILLAS
1
5
1.16
35203
BRITTANY WOODS
12
13
6.13
35212
SHENANDOAH WOODS
3
16
14.03
35213
SUNCOAST VILLAS
2
29
6.12
35228
MEADOWBROOK
10
12
3.51
35245
SUMMERS GLEN
2
29
10.26
35/253
QUAIL WOODS
11
25
9.67
35/280
MEADOWBROOK
11
26
8.37
35/362
BRITTANY WOODS
13
19
8.85
36/003
MEADOWBROOK
12
22
5.72
36/048
ALAMOSA PLACE
1
97
24.27
36/064
COURTNEY PINES
1
63
20.33
36/098
QUAIL WOODS
13
58
21.53
36/114
MEADOWBROOK
13
2
1.41
36/124
NEWBURY WOODS
1
51
18.40
36/192
BRITTANY WOODS
14
13
6.13
36/193
MEADOWBROOK
BELMAR FOREST
14
Ph 1
29
60
9.48
24.60
36239
36/315 & 316
ALAMOSA PLACE LOTS 84A & 85A
1
2
0.61
37/015
LEGACY AT BRITTANY LAKES
1
67
26.47
37/022
SUNCOAST VILLAS
3
21
6.20
37/074
ALAMOSA PLACE
2
40
10.52
37/131
POTOMAC WOODS
1
15
6.02
37/159
QUAIL WOODS
14
60
21.79
37222
ALAMOSA PLACE
2A
35
9.88
37238
SUNCOAST VILLAS
4
15
3.44
37248
NEWBURY WOODS
2
44
14.34
37254
LEGACY AT BRITTANY LAKES
1A
2
0.49
37/320
SUNCOAST TOWNHOMES Phase
1
4
0.53
38/006
COURTNEY PINES
2
60
18.78
38/026
ALAMOSA PLACE
3
93
29.87
38/039
SUNCOAST TOWNHOMES Phase
2
4
0.28
38/128
SUNCOAST VILLAS
5
16
4.98
38/159
ALAMOSA PLACE
3A
63
17.28
38229
QUAIL WOODS
15
40
14.58
38299
NEWBURY WOODS
3
57
19.66
38/331
SUNCOAST TOWNHOMES Phase
3
4
0.30
38/336
ALAMOSA PLACE
3C
32
10.35
39/082
SUNCOAST VILLAS
6
27
6.15
39/106
ALAMOSA PLACE
313
38
11.77
39/125
COURTNEY PINES
3
23
7.79
39/144
SUNCOAST VILLAS
7
22
4.47
39/186
lotus/business/miscellaneous/CALCS61404 2 06/14/2004
V
SUBDIVISION
SECTION
LOTS
ACRES
MB / PG
SUNCOAST TOWNHOMES Phase
4
22
3.37
391229
ALAMOSA PLACE
3D
4
1.37
39/371
SUNCOAST VILLAS
8
15
4.76
40/287
WHITNEY PINES
1
70
20.38
40/371, 41/179
QUAIL WOODS
16
84
30.42
41/115
POTOMAC WOODS
2
23
10.98
41/314
POTOMAC WOODS
3
36
18.38
41/316
BROOKSIDE GARDENS
77
30.88
41/322 & 323
POTOMAC WOODS
4
3
1.32
42/029
PARKWOOD EXTENSION
11
3.70
42/175
WHITNEY PINES
2
2
0.61
42/177
POTOMAC WOODS
5
26
13.43
42/179
WEAVER WOODS AT LAKE EMERALD
27
17.45
42/181
WHITNEY PINES
4
44
13.23
42/259
WHITNEY PINES
3
15
5.06
42/257
COTTAGES AT SUNCOAST, THE
N/A
25
6.54
43/43
COURTNEY PINES
4
57
18.80
43/127
HARKEY TRACT
2
12.00
DB 2030,PG 0008
BELMAR FOREST (Preliminary)
Ph 2
47
25.58
43/111
SUNCOAST CONDOS
200
17.49
N/R
WHITNEY PINES
5
46
13.33
44/007
WHITNEY PINES
6
29
9.14
45/126
MAP OF DEDICATED OPEN SPACE
N/A
0
7.53
45/128
HIDDEN POINTE
1
25
9.81
44/331
HIDDEN POINTE
2
81
32.40
46/029
I[- - Total
i 3308
1142.17
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE "REVISED" N/A 0 293.06 38/300 & 301
-7.53 45/128
-1.42 46/029
( was now)
-(53.46 - 45.10) : -8.36 (Tract "H" Reduction) recordation pending
-17.81 (Tract "G" Deletion) recordation pending
257.94 (Total Private Open Space)
3308 + 2.5 = 1323.20 (REQUIRED ACRES)
- 1142.17 (RECORDED ACRES)
181.03 (REQUIRED OPEN SPACE)
257.94 (PRIVATE RECORDED OPEN SPACE)
- 181.03 (REQUIRED OPEN SPACE)
76.91 EXCESS OPEN SPACE
lotus/business/miscellaneous/CALCS61404 3 06/14/2004
K
� a. . s PANE EN DR
KNOW NEW HAV
Q��P,( F • Rp t._ 0
��'� CANDLEWOOD DR
03
271
O
�t
2
n� FiycOy� NORTHSHORE pR . N 7 'POD Q
2
�2
O�
OG
A�
_ �O � Oq
Oa �O,Q
Yo
0
— BI G GUM RD
v
�. TUPELO DR , �P1
132 Q \QQ-
132
AZ
f qcR ir SS At
F C0
o SHAVV SCR O
z
j O i Z
w m W W O CD 'BUT Q
�- 0 2 o UMH
a (ODc4 ir
Q Q CO CO VFS CT
� �•• a G 2 Y O Q 6 ROONy,00
` ORpONRp S CANT1,yE gye�0 OSRO
ORT OiQ
k � f �p N�HGTOH �q y
a
1-40
Q�
wru AAL PINE KNOLL RD AL
S
UD �Q�
A
WPO
CANC LE4 WOOD DR WPO
U
RNA RIDGE RD
co
ULT
gH�RE �N
GXi
1-40
OZ
NORT� APP
ULT
r—
2
HSHORE D% yy
WPO
1
Z
�c
WSF
L
2 O)
9lJI
O
P
N D
�z
r
O Z
00
L
cP
WPO Op
AS
8jG G
M Rp
MID
41
132 ULT
a
ULT
o
w TERM
Cl) OSS
o
l SHA W DR
0 4� v
ASL 2
q P 0
O O
W
OO��O
Q
UD j
WPO C9 cn
a
U 00
q
GORDON RD
I SRO
AAL
Q ULT P
ULT L wpn
La WPO O
V �
P
UD
ULT
WP ASL
Burgess, Sam
To: Chris Glover
Cc: O'Keefe, Chris; Daughtridge, Jane; Burpeau, Kemp; McDaniel, Jim
Subject: Swain & Associates Survey
Chris,
Please note the following comments regarding the above referenced survey:
• Several Eastern property lines don't match up with the approved CC Master Plan of'02 (near Tupelo & Big
Gum)- please clarify,
Vo Tracts 3 & 4 should be combined to comply with the County's access requirements, '�_.._..
J• The 60' access easement should include the word utility (at end of Tupelo),
,/• Label the beginning and end of the public & private road portions of East Lake Emerald Drive for clarification
• Remove Certificate of Approval —County has stamp
;� • Update the Water/Sewer Disclaimer language to reflect the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA) — see Sub
Regs
• Recorded copy of survey will be attached to existing Master Plan of Coastal Carolina, March 2002
Contact me if you have questions or need clarification,
Sam Burgess
Swain Survey Observations pr.?, ��,j—e May 24, 2011
4c1 OC111 31 S wou
• Several eastern property lines do not match up with approved CC Master Plan of'02 (near
Tuplelo & Big Gum)
• Correct Water Sewer Disclaimer to reflect Cape Fear Public Utility Authority, not NHC
• A new M ster Plan will need tVreflectsubtraction of acres and lots after purchase (370
lots, 148.8 c)
Based on upo greed notes f (Dec,'10)
Presently;/4421 (sits Acres: 4,768
Modified 4051196 Acres: 1, 19.2
• Each new preliminary submittal would be reviewed based on its own merit (R-15 at 2.5 units)
• Note on plat must state that Tract 1 is to allow access to Tract 4 (in the event of change of
ownership) 7
• Remove Certificate of Approval: this plat has been deemed a recombination or exception
based on Sub Regs
✓ • Correct Surveyor Certificate reflect above
• Title Block should read: Recombination Survey of Coastal Carolina Property for Swain &
Associates
• Create larger note regarding public & private designation of East Lake Emerald
QQ � 'C�-c�c� j �� � •.vcu�.� �.�v e,�.�. � ce:ay.SZ '�-t�,� -�- i
Ca.- In t-4 c ) ,-0- QRK/�R QC C iJ J) t u2
c cam, TIvL ,V- I
�11'�'"fv"-.�R
Burgess, Sam
To: Chris Glover
Cc: O'Keefe, Chris; Coudriet, Chris; Burpeau, Kemp
Subject: Swain & Associates Survey
Chris,
I have had the opportunity to perform a cursory review of the above referenced survey now or formerly owned by
Coastal Carolina Developers (148.8 ac). As you know, the property is anchored between Gordon Road to the South and
Lake Emerald to the North. My initial findings include:
• That legitimate/legal access may be a concern for Tract 4 if sold later as a separate parcel of land and
• That density & acreage calculations will need to be adjusted based on the last approved Coastal Carolina Master
Plan after the survey is closed this coming Thursday afternoon.
County staff will be holding a meeting this afternoon to discuss and put the finishing touches on the survey. I will contact
you by e-mail or phone after our meeting.
Contact me if you have questions,
Sam Burgess
Subdivision Administrator
New Hanover County
Burgess, Sam
From:
Burpeau, Kemp
Sent:
Tuesday, May 24, 2011 8:21 AM
To:
O'Keefe, Chris
Cc:
Burgess, Sam
Subject:
RE: plat review and recording
My thinking was that tract 4, while not presently having road frontage, is designed with a 60 ft. wide access to adjoining
parcels. A prudent subdivider will insure access before closing on the parcel. This is a large acreage exempt from
subdivision requirements, so it is not like an individual building lot where we would need to proactively protect the
perspective buyer by insuring present access.
I have no legal objections to plat approval.
Kemp
From: O'Keefe, Chris
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 5:22 PM
To: Burgess, Sam; Burpeau, Kemp
Subject: RE: plat review and recording
And Kemp....
From: Burgess, Sam
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 12:55 PM
To: O'Keefe, Chris; Burpeau, Kemp
Subject: FW: plat review and recording
Chris & Kemp:
The Swain & Associates recombo on the Grathwol property is attached for your immediate review. My cursory thoughts
are as follows:
1) Technically, survey would be exempt under Section 20 of the County's Subdivision Regulations. However, Tract 4
if sold separately would legally not have access or meet access requirements. As you know, 1-40 is a limited
access freeway. Any thoughts?
2) Knowing these parcels are changing ownership, the total acreage (148.8) would need to be subtracted from the
most recent approved Coastal Carolina Master Plan. This subtraction may have a rippling effect on the balance
of Coastal's remaining property for density purposes. An update to the Master Plan is in order to justify the
remaining acreage and lots.
Please let me know if you think we should meet and discuss. I understand that a closing on this property is rapidly
approaching.
Thanks,
Sam
05/23/11
From: Chris Glover f mailto:cigloverco yahoo.coml
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 12:33 PM
To: Burgess, Sam
Burgess, Sam
To: O'Keefe, Chris; Burpeau, Kemp
Subject: FW: plat review and recording
Attachments: Legacy -Swain Division.pdf; 46-108.pdf
Chris & Kemp:
The Swain & Associates recombo on the Grathwol property is attached for your immediate review. My cursory thoughts
are as follows:
1) Technically, survey would be exempt under Section 20 of the County's Subdivision Regulations. However, Tract 4
if sold separately would legally not have access or meet access requirements. As you know, 1-40 is a limited
access freeway. Any thoughts?
2) Knowing these parcels are changing ownership, the total acreage (148.8) would need to be subtracted from the
most recent approved Coastal Carolina Master Plan. This subtraction may have a rippling effect on the balance
of Coastal's remaining property for density purposes. An update to the Master Plan is in order to justify the
remaining acreage and lots.
Please let me know if you think we should meet and discuss. I understand that a closing on this property is rapidly
approaching.
Thanks,
Sam
05/23/11
From: Chris Glover Imailto:cigloverco yahoo.coml
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 12:33 PM
To: Burgess, Sam
Cc: jay@swainassociates.com
Subject: plat review and recording
Sam,
Here is the plat for review that we talked about last week. All tracts are greater than
10 acres and should be considered exempt. I am told Chris O'Keefe is aware of this
division if you need to consult him. As usual this is an urgent matter. Please contact
me regarding any corrections or additions you may need as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Chris Glover 471-4091
Total Control Panel
To: sburgess0nhc ov-com
From: cigloverco(@,yahoo.com
Message Score: 1
My Spam Blocking Level: High
Block this sender
Block yahoo.com
This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filler level.
High (60): Pass
Medium (75): Pass
Low (90): Pass
Loein
Burgess, Sam
From: Chris Glover [cigloverco@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 12:33 PM
To: Burgess, Sam
Cc: jay@swainassociates.com
Subject: plat review and recording
Attachments: Legacy -Swain Division.pdf; 46-108.pdf
Sam,
Here is the plat for review that we talked about last week. All tracts are greater than
10 acres and should be considered exempt. I am told Chris O'Keefe is aware of this
division if you need to consult him. As usual this is an urgent matter. Please contact
me regarding any corrections or additions you may need as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Chris Glover 471-4091
Total Control Panel
To: sburgcss e ,nhcgov.com
From: ciglovercona,yahoo.com
Message Score: 1
My Spam Blocking Level: High
Block this sender
Block yahoo.com
This message was delivered because the content filter scare did not exceed your filter level.
High (60): Pass
Medium (75): Pass
Low (90): Pass
Lo in
I NEW HANOVER COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE - NEW HANOVER COUNTY FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL OF THE
L CHRISTOPHER 1. GLOVER. CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT WAS DRAWN UNDER MY I (WC) HEREBY CERTIFY THAT PRIOR TO ENTERING ANY AGREEMENT OR ANY CONVEYANCE WITH A PROSPECTIVE BUYER, 1 NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
)•r. SUPERVISION FROM AN ACTUAL SURVEY MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION (DEED (WE) PREPARE AND SIGN, AND THE BUYER OF THE SUBJECT REAL ESTATE SHALL RECEIVE AND SIGN. A STATEMENT WHICH 1 /
DESCRIPTION RECORDED AS SHOWN IN TITLE BLOCK); THAT BOUNDARIES N07 FULLY AND ACCURATELY DISCLOSES THAT THE SUBJECT REAL ESTATE, OR A PORTION OF THE SUBJECT REAL ESTATE. IS
SURVEYED ARE CLEARLY INDICATED AS DRAM FROM INFORMATION FOUND AS LOCATED WITHIN A FLOOD HAZARD AREA AND THAT THE BUYER MUST SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW HANOVER DATE PLANNING DIRECTOR
W SHOWN HEREON; THAT THE RATIO OF PRECISION AS CALCULATED IS 1: 10000+: COUNTY FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS PRIOR 70 THE ISSVANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PERMITS. MB 34, PG 263
THAT THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CS. 47-30 AS AMENDED.
I/•h°• WITNESS MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE. LICENSE NUMBER AND SEAL
hy1y THIS DAY OF A.D.• 20 ' {/�
THIS PLAT IS OF A SURVEY THAT CREATES A SUBDIVISION OF LAND DATE OWNER(5) / ` \Bb
O MTHIN THE AREA OF A COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY THAT HAS AN
I\ 3 ORDINANCE THAT REGULATES PARCELS OF LAND. / / 6� OO \ 'Gl i �G/
J Apo PRELIMINARY �� -_�\i- T /1- / �/ 1
ti I y CHRISTOPHER I. CLOVER, PLS / / / - I, of PA(t\KSWO SLMtS I�
N.0 LICENSE N0. L-4090 GQUN� 6 / / / \f' \ \/ -8R 19, PG160 I //III y / /
51I456619•W NgOOKo58, PPGE 54 3479?� / / / z 81e\ \ / L L
N 1 / / 60- INGRESSIECRESS \ o / pR1\lE _
l 5T655'OS`E \ / -T ��1L /
IDI.oY / EASEMENT _\ 4E5 /c�/ -I
p NEW HANOVER COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA / DQ bQQ Es
' \o FILED FOR REGSMA71ON ON 7H�DAY OF 2 AT AM/PM / / /
AND DULY RECORDED IN MAP BOOK AT PAGE_. / / / 8 9 5 / i799A 5��1 / {�� It J
2 I �/J fpLL 6 I
REGISTER H. DEEDSMACNE1H .E / / - �I y ✓,j45A E V
REGISTER OF DEEDS 57y�54, / 8 579 n( 127 v p
QEVELCPER$ 1 I / 20.00 ACt b 40
II i �/h M1 QDA$SAL µg 46? PG.1p8 i / / / / \ t i24)
4 /
I Ilvm j `L` TRACT,1 jr 1 1� NOTES:
LEGEND
B7 CONCRETE MONUMENT (CONTROL POINT)
O SET REBAR
D.E. DRAINAGE EASEMENT
1J02'58'15'E �Oy� _
I \1 ' SI TaS'4o'w - 85:00 ACt v-r-- 1 y 1. TOTAL AREA ALL TRACTS = 14880 ACt
94.69' 107.49' i Ao /� 1. EAST LAKE EMERALD DRIVE IS PUBLIC FROM THE EXTENDED
NORTHERN R/W LINE OF SHAW DRIVE TO GORDON ROAD AND
1 103 )) \ 10Y' / \/ IS PRIVATE FROM SAID EXTENDED LINE TO THE NORTH.
60' INCRESS/ECRESS I �'\ r y /1 J. TRACTS 1, 3 AND 4 ARE LOCATED IN ZONES X AND AE
EASEMENT
_ ACCORDING TO THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
AC-ENCYS FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP PANEL 3149,
o. 490EFFECTIVE
�w 50' DRAINAGE N0952'o2'w =O SAID
9 o EASEMENT CH.173.D8' / / ✓ (105 7 /
s\\ S65'at'59'E 48.S.6b' / I i 75°9 �, w 3\7� 30 TRACT T S LOCATED IN ZONE X ACCORDING TO SAID PANEL
_ _ _ - T •` I 30' UTILTY EASEMENT y, R-t o5o' �!5-pfl�W �.o x,P.. �� ¢ / m LINES
`V Sll-58'42`W \
`TOXJ• 90.5a' 4\ N 4. ORIGINAL BOUNDARIES AS SHOWN R MAP BOOK 46, PACE LINES.
MB 38, PC 215 `� '$.'/• 1,�- y \ /\ ARE NOT RE SURVEYED AND ARE REPRESENTED AS GASH
ss �I I I �.�'},37 EXISTING ENCROACHMENTS, IF ANY, ARE NOT LOCATED
\ 1 SEE SHEET 3 OF B w �A� '•r, 'C'h 1,>•\ 1 INo 1- ¢ r
AS A RESULT OF THIS SURVEY.
\ I CPN N \l
SANITARY SEWER RUN PRO ERA U E / / / �`S�oN%< (34)S;"C� �/ / / / 5. THERE IS A 50' DRAINAGE EASEMENT ALONG THE CANAL FROM
I I OUTFALL EASEMENT iNE �' �' DRIVE ` \ A" TO V AS SHOWN ON MAP BOOK 18, PACE 28. DIMENSIONS
\ P\\ 7,2 �9'C'J• I `\ \\ MB 42, PG 340 1$ [./ fi\ ~ ¢� �•3B33S `Y �`P Q�PG ACRE \T ARE 30' NORTH AND 20' SOUTH OF THE CENTERUNE.
S201 '56'W _ /\ \� _ S \ 7567._ PP
I \ ,A ♦^Il¢�' �ryt4 (, 7,)
Q
31.66 ACt "'o'`.m. �? ` hti �N FQZ ♦ '`
��
5.02'� 9SvP�QNa
08¢•2n F „ 5840.02'-� � /"'l -ro `•� = / P 0\ / G1 / \ \� N r^f ` / \ /� \ \ \ \
_ nT Ta
TRAVERSE FROM 1
K' TO
NO3'J8'28'E 95.93' \ 1
N17}1'05"W 99.47'
E 0'
NO0 00 39 90. 1
N09'43'33'E 92.36'
N1S'04'34'W 111,21'
TRAVERSE FROM
N28'56'05"W 60.50'
"A' TO `B"
N04'44'56"W 38.42'
N2423'19'W 97.52'
N2324'15"E 62.44'
N4243'14'W 75.26'
N38'51'35'E 61.52'
N7759'05'W 114.21-
N35'52'38'E 48.75'
N81'00'23"W 91.31'
N78'03'04`E 53.36
N86'49'16'W 40.65'
N4426'28"E 81.48'
N8310'33"W 107.48'
N24.52'13'E 94.84'
N78'34'39'W 36.04'
N12'31'30'E 90.66'
N83T)5'37"W 219.35'
N24'02'1 ST 100.29'
N852439'W 51.65'
N42-31.41'E 52.07'
S88.08.22`W 35.83'
N50'10'53'E 52.55'
S84'01'41"W 32.49'
N27'41'33E 25.02'
S67'08'46'W 41.90'
N.0 DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
BK 1192. PG 1820
TRAVERSE FROM
S35-52'38'W 84.71'
538'51'35"W 72.48'
S2324'15`W 101.08'
SO4'44'56'E 84.92'
S28'56'05"E 70.65'
S16'04'34'E 77.12'
S09'43'33'W 77.95'
S00'00'39"W 113.63'
S1711'05"E 96.21'
S03'38'28'W 64.61'
S2923'24`W
51.31'
01\1 /tea 7777 �
N51'32'S1' 6}4-12'W7%/
,CH.30.32'\ CH.48.93'
R=55- \ 9 R-74'\
tl2.aa \ N2158'S8'E -D_ / I ♦ / - (/Nk
/,.,rfT`` o\ \ \ \`` �L� �R1� i / \ \' i \� / \ \ \ \ \ ` ` \
7267' 1Nim \ �. N 32 0
0.^
N39T)6'41'E I 1 ' • - �w- \�
30' U11UTY EASEMENT - ` m
n.zD'\ i 15
SMB
EE SHEET 320F6�N`;
mp s i SANITARY SEWER // )
o`I I OUTFALL EASEMENT _�/ ../ `� N�9-39 �-p
MB 42, PG 340 , �_•E• J\ ST
CERTIFICATE DISCLAIMING WATER AND SEWER SUITABILTY h J•.��
WATER AND SEWER AVAILABILTY:
wo ` �NNG2 \ , / / \ N0TW1)HSTANOING NEW HANOVER COUNTY APPROVAL OF RECOMBI NA TION & DIVISION
rj 71' n , m ` BK 7\ \ m \ THIS PLAT. LOTS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT MAY NOT RECEIVE
9 1 3r2E W 3 'F" PG/ p\ / /\ HEALTH DEPARTMENT APPROVAL FOR ON SITE SEWAGE / \ \ \ OF PROPERTY
o(�N75' \ \ `vim BRIGGS \ G /\/ DISPOSAL SYSTEMS NOR FOR INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLY / r'
upjN z BK 50 fi4 ?, / / SYSTEMS. NOR DOES SUCH APPROVAL GUARANTEE THE AT COASTAL CAROLINA DEVELOPMENT
AVAILABILTY OF WATER OF SEWER SERVICES FROM I /
s CLAY m- tFR \ ��� W� Y ` FOR
m \ \ SK 4797, PC 397 m` gPGK
�oA SWAIN & ASSOCIATES
N /
'K 12531 \
57439
By
\
78
\ N
/
TRAVERSE FROM
c" To ^D'
N84'07'48'W 28.22'
\\ \>rm
/
-�
N70'42'58`W 19.48'
S89.33'27"W 39.54'
` GGpiRG�U
p-�/I y �D
TRAVERSE FROM ,�
•
N759 g6' W N
5
S59'2059'"W 59.449'
S73D6'38'W 68.54'
S737 00 W 61.46'
S68'00'17'W 61.68'
/
\ \ \y
S6412'17`W 30.98'
S42'49'13'W 33.44'
S86'20'40"W 41.76'
N79'0454`W 51.61'
CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP, DEDICATION AND JURISDICTION:
I (WE) HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I (WE) ARE THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY SHOWN AND
DESCRIBED HEREON AND THAT (WE) HEREBY ADOPT THIS PLAN OF SUBDIVISION WITH MY
(OUR) FREE CONSENT ESTABLISH THE MINIMUM BUILDING LINES AND DEDICATION OF ALL
STREETS. ALLEYS WALKS, PARKS. CONSERVATION SPACE AND OTHER AREAS TO PUBLIC
OR PRIVATE USE AS NOTED. ALL ROADS AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS ARE DEDICATED FOR
PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. FURTHER• I (WE) CERTIFY THE LAND AS SHOWN HEREON IS
LOCATED WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION JURISDICTION OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY.
DATE OWNER(S)
NEW HANOVER COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA
I. REVIEW OFFICER OF NEW HANOVER
COUNTY, CERTIFY THAT THE MAP OR PLAT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATION IS AFFIXED MEETS
ALL STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR RECORDING.
REVIEW OFFICER DATE
1121-P MILITARY CUTOFF ROAD
WILMINGTON, NC 28405 _
TRACTS RECORDED IN DEED BOOK 4371, PAGES 172 AND 175
OF THE NEW HANOV£R COUNTY REGISTRY
HARNETT TOWNSHIP NEW HANOVER COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA
SCALE. 1' = 200' MAY 14, 2011
PREPARED BY.
PRELIMINARY
C. 1. GLOVER COMPANY, PC
426 RIDGE ROAD
WILMINGTON, NC 28412
(910) 792-1071
200' 100' 0 200' 400, 60V Boo'
\ _
\
CEk71FICA TE OF O'/JNERSHIP, DEDICATION AND JURISDICTION:
W_)) HEkE'61Y ^ERTIY MAT ! (W- ARF THE OWNERS' OF TITHE PROPERTY SHOWN AND
HER Y ADOPT 7WS LAN OF' SUBDIL siav WITH MY
- - NORTH CAROLINA NEW NANOuLR COUNTY
1. ARNCLll'W. CARSCN. CCR'DFY ThATF'IS PLAT WAS DRAWN' UNDER MY °UPER\TSION
FROM AN ACi UAL SURYLY VAOE UN )ER MY SUPF:4"J;SION [DEED U£SCRIV TIOV
RECORDED IN BOOK 2069, PAGE 802)' THAT BOUNDARIES 70T SURVEIED
p
/ ` \ y'L
/
�/\
(OUR)) REC CONS_,NT TY3LI571 TIIC MINIMUM BUILDING UNES AND DEDICATION OF ALL
STRCC'S ALLEYS, WALifS, 'PARKS, CONSERVATION .SPAC.. AND OTC AREAS TO PUBLI{
ARE CLEARLY INDICATED A5 DASH_D LINES DRAYVN FRO" INFOitNATtON FOUNp AS SH O'hN
I: t0000�r:
\ /
X T'7 -T'C
\
� \
f \\
OR PRIVATE USC /S NOTCO. ALL ROADS MIO DRAINAGE EASGI+LVTS AR OEDICATZD OR
PUBLIC UTILIN PURPOS-5, FURRIER. 1 (WE) CCRTfrY TF/E LAND AS SHOWN HEREON IS
LOCATED WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION JURISDDICiTION OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY.
HEREON: THAT THE RA 710 OF PRECISION AS CALCULATED 15
THAT hN5 PLAT wA5 PREPARED IN CGORDANt<E Wr FH G.S. 47-30 AS
AMEh'D''O. 'M NESS yY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE. REGISTRATION NUMBER AND SEAL
v/ 1 I I
/ /
\
/THISJLT�_OAY
io ^�` (� FJ�rF��f_%.-,J(�y _I -
OAT., O E'
OF l'•I.Ic A.D.. 20�.
THIS PLAT 15 OF A PARTIAL RCCOMBINATION `-URVEY OF VARIOUS TRACTS
OF LAND IW 7HI.V THE AREA OF A COUNTY M.,T HAS IN ORDINANCE
y x / \ /x I _�+5I
-� VVV/// ?"r�- /
\
,g� y
Iy`
!0- (� - �LI •�y�.% 1,_-,-y I yy�` .
DATE
THAT REGULATES PARCELS OF AND. AND IS AN EXCEPTION TO .HE DEFINITION
OF A SUBDIVISION ACCORDING TO GS. 153A-335(2). J
;5
J/// `� •
/ \ \ / \ /
\,v/( //\ /� l .I /
��•
\�
�' `\ \\ DATE _.~\ �l OWNERS
AR"OLD 'N. CARSON. PL
N.C. REGISTr:A -ION• NO. L.-3267
«RwN a0^\\BENT
TREE�-
LOCAT/ON MAP
��/
+ ,� %/ \ J ! \ C
CNOL"G"�Ir_ !% \ rI -�
\\ �I ��-•� `J-_L-
AD!'/DSGL^
\ \ J /
'\\' :O`
/' / Tp491._LV101IM1
a "1
/
C. '/ /\\ _ _, t`
/la
NEW HANOVER COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA
1�'�X7 REVIEW OFFICER OF NrN NANOV'R
/1 •� .S
�CLL
Y'?4
STATU ORY )MAI�H MAP OR PLAT TS WNI CH T7"15 CERTIFICATION IS AFFIXCD MEETS
ALL STATUTORY FEOUR M-\TS FOR RECORDING.
�=\
AO
CERTIFICA T OF APPROVAL OF THE �•^ �J 2,yC Y m y%� \ i I /\ \ y Qy e ` A.,-; / / l! / / \ \ J JJ ? _ l j l Y I I !
'+VDEPARTMENT
NEHANOVERCOUNTYPLANNING 6 • / V ,y \ y 1� / \ T -I ,
/ Av4 565 zy3 ♦"Z �' �' \ 1 \ (� ` \:. J - D, ^" i , / �/
�1,(/ s41m'zo•W /Al
-/ �Y I _ ! �� I_J L %L
D 1'LA fNG DIRECTOR / \ y7� zo,.07' V�Q 6' ,/ !J \/�� l / / ! \ 1•, }� kiI�DET1;Pfl r_�I �/ /T� \ �� j I �.��j,E�IJrAn't'C(=0R¢:Ii"; %-'L'-�- -•( i/ / /
Y ti s8roG'a9X\J`/ ! �; ` \� �T� 1 / c L._�r`� �t / �\ ��\ l� �1, y� �\ / �(- i 1/ \ /
LEGEIVO / II tio� St6'S5C'E 7r� !7�? \/��.
C •. SET IRD.vr RUN OF SMfiH COCK \\ / 1 \ %-1 ICI t� \ �� r\ 11 / /� / 1\I\ \\ i' /.�\• / ,�\/ ,� 1 ! i\7 /
■ .. SET CONCRM ETE MONUET Is (NE P.
N
(CONTROL POINT) " ' , . \\ ,,J---!J=! L-- x
`"';� ``i !--�- `--'�-- _ -� \� \\ \ten \� /YY1 1 r� 1" �� ('-� 1 ,
J e F(COV TG C NC.NTE MONUMENT / rcy�m �-,
N
O + EXISTING IRON Ne'"NN raer Or rNACT'N• \'Cv �T LTJ 1!•-_y� 1_ I 1--- ` -
\ :n ,.I�,NLL1!tlUR`�' �14'AY� L v
wu1 nor a{s.lecr rO NEW�HANWp1 I$< 189.78' M1 Jc� y \; / �p' ,, \ \ `' \ , j '7V.f - i I -7` �``
caxrr oO1 6i 1*7.49' n^+/ / 1\ /
,D7.49' ;P:. /� % r �Tr•i` \\\ \ / /X� y lil ._(_ / \
DME 'fIf/1IM1N0 DrEq=
LLL
S79T`„'40.0 r ! Izl 1 ✓
I \\ s 52.23 r ` T i\°� rT
/ r , ,v\ >�
3i ICI I 1 \\\\ / m *as•S9� ?. / `.- -_ s,9ns<G.E J/
MURRAYVILLESTATION n /:• //.', --• .,iri::.> \ /'\ �s -L / T \�--
BUSINESS ?ARK 60' IN0 E55/T_( zE55 W�~ H C i n �c,� % \ / < /T�
N2274.1 �M1'W EAS'cAIENT V r` •-.�� l %�� / j.
/1~
BASE CDVTiOL POINT ,• I 171.81'(ilE) . _ �8�. , 1 -� 1 �• 1
1 T T \ N22'40'35"19 �/ TRACT "8" �G f Il �L� - l �/
Y� gb. 205.:3' 2 `' I 138.59 ACf a 7 !� : \ ! % 7 j�
NboOoaz ag1 II'Y���-Y•(�iP��.///�/,✓ S'J 4Zy Z'1 !
M639oc
.Y 00•G•Ia-D1
13CI T(j
Qi'~lam RI
\/ '6X' lB72*06'E
347565G130 83' .. sy', �.`I m^ I T i'Vwgt U\ \.n,� / �. /I/✓(�/ S�,VJ���i✓/^)\`�{C r
71M �/GO,� tY� �1 ,.c •, V.,y ; saNrtur. v_wtz el:rrul E�;eMwr
1 1 " •- / 7 1:5 i2. PG S<O ¢3� 2:\ M
IRUHMtt LINE
THE CANAL '- S� J� �\ / rf \ % , L
/ I Ss<•2637'W IS :HE PRERHE
--T y H0422'27'W J J / N8M1'3C'S5"II - �'�
�N86'I<'431Y _ �^�1`/0•�`�, 7b`
J;' S77'41'72'E 75.19' S) f/-68.12' .3 \� 1 '1"A;v XW, �D
/BRERWOOD _r 7 46.5 --LI_ IW IO`�l"�,.- 5736'<2"N S6313'11"a > th
�!+..-- d6S6dd111 2 a.r' 0.w' - a �•y /,^J ''� / / \✓ �\ iV_
�\ 'IA• "-/ ... o_...� R \i
e, 1\t\ �� •. C -y,\ �3\ i'�%r ••1��'` �\r
/ ry WZ\� / C,j ,7 1 \c 9s%ss2a'•,Y./ R
III- K1Ac, �: H :<• € l �`, t}4.9' - 3.�_, 3:\ N7anr Ir:^,4`0 7 _l ! \ !.(•��!
/� ��-: g -/� �,-nn��,/ �/- 5'1 53S ail aa9•W _I; ��Q �t J %'-�
r �- f Ncru•azE-; t �: ,� ^?o.,, lr' s5ss'' -� 1 '
N517251',V/ sB: _ \� I'. a fvY•. Il I T 1 / / Y
/\ / I I I r / 9<., 7' 1 s6.2$` "�""i �.-.yM�=C:• 17SO0�L `-+ r 6 /�
\/ L_1.J.-1�_J I 317.ry.YJ-F` ii llso.o'Z R=ss'1 1~1��1 1 f ��-L ) �s.\ - I '$ 5<���1�^ 7�1�=s':sISli~f--1!,_-( �/-J��
/ 4 fi(Isae'
-74' 1 .ai-1-4
` ,
135.50' % o zig=3 a ! I 1 1 Rn74' 1 ! r 1 ~ 1 _� t N 10441<.a66o / !, {z l t•, jz rc l�s ! y�l� f r - r � - r 1 / -[ /
1� 1 1I.
\/ r! N66Z33';2'W/ ^ ,s•.`.'Ii I�•�'I�coa_i �,�!s,,gty 1J (! 1! 1! ! 11 Ic._a�'osso.�,},;.?'I ��
Lt-tJr1 ( -I /' m! a, W g:•:�: J.yL_ T'���� NZF3 t r 1 ; i
-J_1_� l�� j _! n °:• tslc a = If `l!/ `� T `�tE (
i r
5LIRVEY REFERENCE5;
! r
' C I
rRACr "A" TRACT "B" TRACT °rl-R'
CB 2613.'G 125 Do 2069. PC 502 DO 2CG2. TG G27
!
L J 2360. rG 137 D3 2C69. G ODa F'A 3d. PG 300 1 30'
1 G cN
D523:0,m I.0 D522_2. PC 3%
pH yr"•tl9, rG 293 Dtl 2222, PG -tOD
V99S, YG 30C <301
L``ti
NOTES:
N72T)2'21'ty
S9.56'
-N119.94!'E
L. TOTAL S/TIE AREA ALL iRFlCTS - 1193.90 AC=
J
2. EAST LAKE EMERALD DRIVE IS PUBLIC FROM THE EXTENDED
19'ya
NORTHERN R/W LINE OF SHA'W DRIVE TO CORDON ROAD AND
IS PRIVATE FROM, SAID EXTENDED LINE TO IHE' NORrY..
N7725'S5A"
J. THIS TRACT IS ' OCATED IN ZONES "A -a-. 'B" '• "C' ACCORDING
123.58'
TO THE FEDF.RAL EMF,RCENCY MANAGEMENT AGEJC.S
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP COMMUNITY -PANEL NUMBER
3701-8 0045 E DATED 9-3-92.
4. GRID COORDINATES AS SHOWN HE'RFON ARE RCLATIVC TO
NODS GRID MONUMENT-SUNOCO' (NAD•83)
5. THIS MAP SUPERSEDES TRACTS 'G" h "H" AS RECORDED
IN MAP BOOK 38. PAGES 300 dr 301 OF THC NEW HANOVER
COUNTY RCGISTRY, TRACT "G' PRIVATE OPEN SPACE IS DE.ErEO
X TRACT -H" PRIVATE OPEN SPACE AREA IS REDUCED TO 45.',0 AC-
6. EXISTING ENCROA.C,HMENTS, IF ANY, ARE NOT LOCATED
AS A RESULT OF THIS SURVEY.
I - l� F 1
_WEAV R.- 'ACRES _�5= ,Iy z'I,I „s;?'� r` DI'v"✓c ! 1 --1 a9tF'-I
T-7
sG•E ¢'�N x".,;Ifivr,,'2.1,�1 C_,?�ii 1 •�1�`-;r_� 1r21 r_ :�I�_�__ r / �` -S._.-4
L-_1'� Ir1T- kT ` i
r-_� lr'` -1 !c'1 _1_y�I !'`--1' �a�l/w _ 1 L ? rr-.wt:,DKTROA_D_J 11\\�j ,�'`/
I o7o°Tw "^ J L~ ` r '1` -y` 1 ~J>I
T>> ' i'_ 1Q1 ` 1 _ l!i3- _ IoL ~7
_
-.l l� yJ j- ! 1 i ^ / !' Jam:' j ,r �Ol;
E 2343906.2220 ! `J-� ! ! _ ` f0- ��1.Pi'1 t 1
1 r r l _
CERTIFICATE DISCLAIMING WATER AND SEWZR AVAILADIJTY
NOTV/ITHSTANOINC NEW HANOVER COUNTY APPROVAL OF
T'I PLAT. LOTS SfiOWN ON SAID Pi.AT MAY NOT RECEIVE
HEALTH DEPARTMENT APPROVAL. FOR ON SITE SEWAGE
DISPOSAL SYSTEMS, NOR FOR INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLY
SYSTEMS.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA
'•ICED FOR RCGIS:RIATlON ON THE I S DAY O�'_S 10 00� AT IZ30A 1/PM
AND FOR
RECORDCO IN .MAP BOA. A• AGL
REBECCA 7. CilMSTIAN
RER.GI' R OF D''EDS
6. 1s_U,�
RE1rtEVJ OFFIC DAT
TRAVRSE OF
CANAL
[RAWERSE 50' PAPKALLL TO
Ij).14 -A• -0 1-
M!1H cnn! FRf�u
02<Z3'19"W
97.52'
S35'52'36"W
54.71'
Na2.43'14•W
7.1.26'
S3B31'JS"W
72.48'
N77, V05'W
11<.21-
623Zt'15•W
101 OW
N61L0'23'W
91.31'
$04.44'56'E
84.92'
1196'49'16`W
40.65'
S28S5'05•E.
73.61'
14631C'33'W
107,19'
S16ro4'34'E
77.12'
k?8'Y: 33"W
36.04'
539.43'33-X'
77.95
N83'05'37'W
219.36'
SOOV039'W
,13.63'
HBSZa'39'Yl'
S1.65'
51711'Cs'E
26.21,
583n5Z2'tr
35.83'
SO315'25"h•
6a.61'
Ssi'Jl'a11Y
5249'
SG 7'05'46'W
41.90'
TRAVERSE 50' PARRALLEL TO
9,,, rR::Y m- 'Y. :•0 -
TRAVERSE OF
CANAL
NGS3W28'E
9593'
FROM 'C' TO
1'
N171106il
99.47'
N84ro7'48"W
28.22'
NGOroO'3B`c
90 DI,
N7lD'12'S8'1•I
19.48'
N09'4y33a
3236'
S89'3Y21'W
39S-F
N16'G4'34'W
:1,.29•
ST376'49-W
2049
N2H56'O5`W
40.51'
559Z0'39"F
59.G,
N0a•<4.56-W
38, 12,
573ro538'W
66.54
N23Z6'15'E
.YJ.98'
II3T-2'25-E
110.23'
54Y4513'W
33.<•Y
N78W'p<•E
33.36•
N4aZ6'28"E
at.46'
N24MZ'3'E
94.e.
TRAVERSE OF CANE i4iANCH
N127130E
90.08'
Fl{9'4-.S�iO_L
N24ro2'15•E
1CO29'
S7-119'00`W
61'a.
N,2010,41"E
5201'
S6&W'17'Y
SO.3Z0'<C'N
61.68'
41?6•
N,5010'S3'E
N2i11,zye
2502'
N]9'OX54-W
51.61'
;LiAILEE3,,,,LRQA1 'H" TG -1�
S33^v5.34'C 2d,.52'
53519'38'W 3r,4.55'
569 Z1'19'W 12b.a2'
s1Dror35'W 1c6.4a'
548'<2',2'E Ia0.46'
5IS'JE'26'E d1.93'
579T).54'E 46.tl6'
N3d20'<C'E 33.OB'
N56'JO'17'E SG2J•
N731WOC'E 60.06,
N62-45'DI'E 27.23'
S27'14'59'E 30.00'
N6.45.01'E 117.05
N72?7'O8'E 32.22'
1169V0'07E 92.38'
NGD56'38-E 62.08'
COMPOS/TE MAP * PARTIAL SURVEY
OrA
RECOMOINATION RECONFIGURATION
c� rdG
qL CAROLINA L7fVfZOf E95,
/NC.
RfAVf5 JORDAN, PfOlOZ 5 � GRffN 1;�467,51
AS RECORDED IN THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY REGISTRY
RECORDED REFERENCES AS SHOW HEREON
INORT.L1 CAROLINA
JUNE 11, 2004
POR
COASTAL CAROLINA OEVFLOPERS,
2QosJ✓ R,c, 5'well
149,•,rfiPlST DN. h'C 22.50.i'
4EX NORP7 T.lRO= )7CEI-
YR:f�!INvTO.'1, A'v 2!340J
•"'0.1.-.'.- (9 JC: 772-91 13
,'AX,i9!0J 772-912e
1 Gi' 0 500' 10gq' 15C0' 2C0t1'
ncnnnnLn OV
.F
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
414 CHESTNUT STREET, SUITE 304
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28401-4027
TELEPHONE (910) 341-7165
FAX (910) 341-4556
DEXTER L HAYES
Planning Director
March 14, 2002
Mr. Chris Glover
Office of Arnold Carson
406 North Fourth Street
Wilmington, NC 28401
Re: Coastal Carolina Country Club (Conceptual Update)
Jordan Tract Townhomes @ Coastal Carolina (Performance)
Mr. Glover:
In regular session on March 13, 2002, the Planning Board's Technical Review Committee
(TRC) approved the updated conceptual plan of Coastal Carolina Country Club and Jordan Tract
Townhomes for 18 units. The Coastal Carolina conceptual plan changes included 2 additional
acres to the plan and display of a new proposed development: Suncoast Extension.
Attending the meeting were Frank Smith, Acting TRC Chairman; David Girardot, and
Walt Conlogue, TRC members; Wayne Burns, County Fire Marshal; Molt Moore, County
Attorney; Bill Grathwol, developer; members of the Planning staff ( Burgess. Stewart) and you.
Jordan Tract Townhomes will be valid as a preliminary site plan for two years. If a final
plat for all or part of the project is not approved by the County within 24 months, the plan will
becorne null and void. Extension requests may be permitted. In the future, this subdivision may
be served by County sewer. However, due to the limited capacity of the County's wastewater
treatment facilities, sewer capacity may not exist. DEHNR wastewater sewer construction and
operations permits and/or final plat approval of sections may be withheld, if in the opinion of
the County Engineer, adequate sewer capacity does not exist. Finally, please note that all Federal,
State. and local regulations may be applicable to your project.
Please share this information with your client. Contact me if you have questions. I can be
reached at 341-1765.
Sincerely, cc: Planning Bd. Members
Ann Hines, Zoning Enforcement
Adam Rahhal, County Engineer
S.A. Burgess Donnie Hall, Fire Services
Staff Planner Beth Easley-Wetherill, Engineering
Burgess, Sam
o�
From: O'Keefe, Chris
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 3:39 PM
To: Burgess, Sam; Huffman, Sharon
Subject: FW: Hanover Land
Attachments: Hanover Land Request to Burgess & O'Keefe.docx; EXHIBIT MAP 10-14-13.pdf;
CONCEPTUAL PLAN update.pdf
Sam and Sharon — Sam and I reviewed this letter in detail and wanted to reply with the following questions and
comments.
Dear Robin —
Thank you for forwarding your questions and comments to us. I think it is helpful to have this in ormation in writing.
,/.Fj at, after reviewing your comments and considering information in the file we believe that the 2002 plan is still a valid
plan. cru a �t..;t of y�,to5,, ��i c�:_tia i,-7 aL^1� Lx_Lcw��fi..�att
Second, wetland resource protection and the performance residential section in the ordinance allow clustering but it
also sets an overall density at 2.5 units per acre. In fact, the land use plan utilizes the wetland resource protection
classification to suggest that development protectg wetlands by clustering development on land that does not contain
wetlands. In determining that the 2002 p('an lva]%Awe are acknowledging that density can be clustered in the areas
that are classified as wetland resource protection but that the overall density of the project cannot exceed 2.5 units per
acre. This point leads us to enquire as to plans for the Coswald tract. We understand the 95.15 acre tract has been put
into a permanent conservation easement for wetland banking. Can you confirm this? This would not impact the overall
density remaining in the CCD/Hanover Lands development.
/ Third, in the proposed conceptual plan that you have included, the property denoted as Swain and Associates has been
divided and sold to New Hanover County, Warshaw and Gordon Road Investments at an undiscounted rate. The sale
included all development rights to the property and therefore your figures in the Conceptual plan should show a
reduction of 148.94 acres and 372 units as indicated in the Conceptual Plan. This correction should be made to any
document that will be considered in the future. Aeon; V4 �00--st-1 0� w'' 1yu Av.zn ko 0" VQ, i'&"
Final, it is not clear what you intend to do with the 47 acres that you indicate are outside the 2002 plan. Do you plan
to spread the CCD/Hanover density among those properties or treat them as new eve lopment projects?
Understanding your plans for those properties will help us determine if we can ap rove an amended conceptual plan
administratively or if we need to go to TRC for consideration.
Again, thank you for providing your comments in writing.
Please feel free to call me or Sam if you have questions. Jam`
Sincerley...
Chris O'Keefe I Planning/Inspections Director
Planning & Inspections I New Hanover County
230 Government Center Drive, Suite 110
Wilmington, NC 28403
(910) 798-7164 p 1 (910) 798-7053 f
From: rdgrathwol(&gmail.com [mailto:rdgrathwol(&gmail.com] On Behalf Of Robin Grathwol
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 2:51 PM
To: O'Keefe, Chris; Burgess, Sam
Subject: Hanover Land
a4.c,—, ...) .-, Pk Lkj�,. r— t,n !w.-o.,,,.,i.
ka'12, U-0"r
Chris and Sam:
Please see attached letter from me, with 2 maps. Call me at (970) 209-9285 with any questions.
Thank you,
Robin
Total Control Panel
Login
To: cokeefe@nhegov.com Message Score: 10 High (60): Pass
From: rdgrathwol(a,gmail.com My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass
Low (90): Pass
Block this sender Custom (50): Pass
Block gmail.com
This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level.
FN
�2 cog
G f f �.,1, ,/ r.4 C.- a
October 14, 2013
To: Sam Burgess and Chris O'Keefe via email
Re: Hanover Land Parcels
Gentlemen:
On June 16, 1986, the New Hanover County Planning Board, at the request of Coastal
Carolina Developers ("CCD"), approved its Conceptual Plan for R-15 Performance Residential
zoning for its 1,649 acre tract in the Ogden area of the county. Performance Residential, as you
know, was a provision of the county which would allow the developer to move the allowed
density, in this case 2.5 units/acre so as to allow the clustering of housing units, create larger
open spaces, and in general develop the property in such a way as to create a better living A..A
environment.
Since 1986, CCD has been actively developing subdivisions within its Performance
Residential tract, acquiring adjacent properties into the tract, and selling off parcels within the
tract to other developers. From June 16, 1986, through 2002, CCD's R-15 PR Conceptual Plan
was amended and approved by the county Planning Board some 20 times. The last acquisition
of property brought into the CCD tract was done so by a Conceptual Plan approved on March
14, 2002.
On April 27, 1999, the Hanover Land property was annexed into the CCD tract with the
approval of the New Hanover County Planning Board. In 1999, a Conceptual Master Plan was
approved by the county showing 355 units on the 123.16 acres comprising Hanover Land for a
density of 2.88 units/acre. '- -7 x 2 5 = 3 C,?,
Between March 2002 and 2011, no new property was added into the CCD tract and no Aafc,,
bulk property was sold. There were however, numerous subdivisions within the tract permitted r,
5*ft—A by TRC and subsequently developed. They include Whitney Pines, Courtney Pines, Alamosa .24.:.,,..,7
7 Place, Suncoast Villas, Brookside Gardens, Hidden Pointe, and Saratoga Place Extension, most of
which had multiple phases. All of these subdivisions then had to go through a Specific Site plan
approval from the TRC, but no Conceptual Master Plan was required, as was done previous to
2002.
In January of 2004, two isolated open space parcels held in the CCD tract were
dedicated and recorded. In, lieu of,updating the Conceptual Plan at that time, Staff was now
having us reconcile density calculations' and record the equivalent open space to equate to 2.5
units for the tract. At that point and moving forward each Subdivision within the PR Tract had
to record the open space to equal 2.5 units per acre (overall) and no longer refer to the old 16
open space map . We maintained connectivity and density calculations per recordation as the
•I i
overall boundary did not deter from the 2002 Conceptual.
Page 2
Since 2002, CCD has gone to great lengths to insure that its development approvals
remain current. We met frequently with the county Planning Staff to carefully review the
connectivity, open space, and density to insure that all our vesting rights remained intact, and
that the density could be allocated to any of the parcels remaining within the original CCD
Master Plan tract. There is no question in my mind that everyone participating in these
meetings (Staff and owners) believed that this was a valid plan and that we were taking any and
all steps to guarantee that.
In 2011, as a result of the Legacy/Swain/County transaction, I participated in a number
of meetings with Staff concerning the CCD density issue, where all agreed that CCD had
17OLD act V.- remaining and transferrable density within its project tract. Also, in the 2009-2012 time period,
200% there were a number of meetings between Staff and potential purchasers of CCD's remaining
assets, including Hanover Land, where assurances were given that the density was available and
there were no development issues.
The last of these meetings was held in 2012 when I, along with John Elmore who had a
potential investor for the Hanover Land parcel of CCD, had several meetings with Sam Burgess
and other Planning Staff so that he could complete the due diligence for his investor. We were
told in three different meetings that there were no obstacles to development, and that Chris
Glover, our surveyor, merely needed to confirm with Staff the final calculations of density and
open space, so that we could confirm the number of units that could be developed on this
property. Based on assurances given at these meetings, John was able to get his investor the
necessary assurances to make the deal and move forward. Chris and Sam subsequently agreed
on the amount of density that was available, which was 441.
The only issue remaining was whether these units had to be used specifically within the
boundaries of the 2002 Conceptual Plan or whether they could be used on some adjacent
`Jt0` properties that had been acquired separately by me and Hanover Land, but had never been
incorporated into the CCD tract plan.(The thought at that time was that with a final accounting
of CCD units in place, a last Conceptual Plan would be produced that allowed the current ... .
densities under CCD's entitlement to be spread across the adjacent properties, and CCD would
be closed out once and for all.) Hanover Land would be a stand-alone community.
As we were trying to finalize this last step, we were informed by Staff that, after further
review, this property was now subject to the Wetlands Resource Protection section of the 2006
Land Use Plan, which sets a density of 2.5 units/acre and prohibits clustering. Thus the
property was in essence, de facto, down -zoned. ? - �%A" e•. L -A c-O—Aa
C'b-arut.--t..- 1 do not believe that there is any question as to the validity of our R-15 Performance
L.," vec Residential zoning on the Hanover Land property today; but without question, under any
?L66 ,, interpretation, in 2006 there was a valid Conceptual Master Plan. Therefore, I believe there is a
serious question as to the legality of changing the use/density of this property via the 2006
Page 3
,qq L_ue L L.1MtTC0 T0.At�t3�fioN ( ct,,.,a.. Qvo'e)
CAMA Land Use Plan. Further, there are adjacent tracts that we do not own, that were zoned
R-10 prior to 2006 and likewise were made part of the Wetlands Preservation Section of the
CAMA plan and are currently being developed at greater than 2.5 units/acre. In fact, one such
property just received subdivision approval in September. W toy Sol ?
As part of the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan update, did anyone from the county Staff
review the zoning and approvals in place for properties being affected? Did anyone contact
any of the owners of the properties being affected to let them know what was happening? P N Fw�O
This property contains almost no wetlands and according to a detailed analysis done by Land
Management, could not be made wet because of the hydrology now in place.
I would request that we go back to what is fair and what we requested earlier, and that
is to transfer all but 18 units of the remaining CCD density units to Hanover Land, allocate the
18 units to the few parcels that would then become isolated for future development in CCD
(see attached Conceptual with density table). At that point we can record the equivalent open
space in CCD to reconcile the density. This would allow us to put CCD to rest and make
Hanover Land a stand-alone separate entity under its own Master Plan incorporating the
leftover density.
V P d4{s In addition we are requesting approval to incorporate the additional parcels that were
acquired after the 2002 approval and the 2.5 units/acre density that goes with them. This
My�N
would then allow both segments of Hanover Land to be combined and the density spread
across the entire parcel (170 acres) and become a stand-alone community.
I sincerely believe it is in all parties' best interest to "close out" this 28-year-old
community and move forward with a new start.
I would appreciate hearing from you before any final decision is made.
Sincerely,
Robin D. Grathwol (via email)
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
414 CHESTNUT STREET, SUITE 304
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28401-4027
TELEPHONE (910) 341-7165
FAX (910) 341-4556
DEXTER L. HAYES
Planning Director
July 22, 1999
Mr. Bill Grathwol
PO Box 3215
Wilmington, NC 28403
RE: Coastal Carolina Conceptual Plan (Updated Site Plan)
Dear Mr. Grathwol:
In regular session on July 21, 1999, the Planning Board's Technical Review Committee (TRC)
approved the conceptual plan update of Coastal Carolina Country Club. As you know, this
project contains 4,405 lots and 1,762 acres. The TRC approved several minor road design
changes and added several temporary cul-de-sacs at the eastern end of the property.
Attending the meeting on July 21, 1999 were James Wolle, TRC Chairman; Joyce Fernando, and
Mike Keenan, TRC members, Arnold Carson, RLS; members of the Planning staff and you.
Contact me if you have questions relating to the information above. I can be reached at
341-7165.
Most sincerely,
S.A. Burgess
Staff Planner
cc: Planning Board members
Ann Hines, Zoning Enforcement
Adam Rahhal, Engineering
Arnold Carson, RLS
OR
Chris and Sam:
Please see attached letter from me, with 2 maps. Call me at (970) 209-9285 with any questions.
Thank you,
Robin
Total Control Panel
To: cokeefeAnhcgov.com Message Score: 10 High (60): Pass
From: rdgrathwolAgniail.com My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass
Low (90): Pass
Block this sender Custom (50): Pass
Block gmail.com
This message was delh,ered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter lei,el
Login
Burgess, Sam
From: O'Keefe, Chris
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 3:39 PM
To: Burgess, Sam; Huffman, Sharon
Subject: FW: Hanover Land
Attachments: Hanover Land Request to Burgess & O'Keefe.docx; EXHIBIT MAP 10-14-13.pdf;
CONCEPTUAL PLAN update.pdf
Sam and Sharon — Sam and I reviewed this letter in detail and wanted to reply with the following questions and
comments.
Dear Robin —
Thank you for forwarding your questions and comments to us. I think it is helpful to have this information in writing.
First, after reviewing your comments and considering information in the file we believe that the 2002 plan is still a valid
plan.
Second, wetland resource protection and the performance residential section in the ordinance allow clustering but it
also sets an overall density at 2.5 units per acre. In fact, the land use plan utilizes the wetland resource protection
classification to suggest that development protects wetlands by clustering development on land that does not contain
wetlands. In determining that the 2002 plan is valid we are acknowledging that density can be clustered in the areas
that are classified as wetland resource protection but that the overall density of the project cannot exceed 2.5 units per
acre. This point leads us to enquire as to plans for the Coswald tract. We understand the 95.15 acre tract has been put
into a permanent conservation easement for wetland banking. Can you confirm this? This would not impact the overall
density remaining in the CCD/Hanover Lands development.
Third, in the proposed conceptual plan that you have included, the property denoted as Swain and Associates has been
divided and sold to New Hanover County, Warshaw and Gordon Road Investments at an undiscounted rate. The sale
included all development rights to the property and therefore your figures in the Conceptual plan should show a
reduction of 148.94 acres and 372 units as indicated in the Conceptual Plan. This correction should be made to any
document that will be considered in the future.
Finally, it is not clear what you intend to do with the 47 acres that you indicate are outside the 2002 plan. Do you plan
to spread the CCD/Hanover density among those properties or treat them as new development projects?
Understanding your plans for those properties will help us determine if we can approve an amended conceptual plan
administratively or if we need to go to TRC for consideration.
Again, thank you for providing your comments in writing.
Please feel free to call me or Sam if you have questions.
Sincerley...
Chris O'Keefe I Planning/Inspections Director
Planning & Inspections I New Hanover County
230 Government Center Drive, Suite 110
Wilmington, NC 28403
(910) 798-7164 p 1 (910) 798-7053 f
From: rdarathwol gmail.com [mailto:rdarathwol('Ogmail.com] On Behalf Of Robin Grathwol
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 2:51 PM
To: O'Keefe, Chris; Burgess, Sam
Subject: Hanover Land
1
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
414 CHESTNUT STREET, SUITE 304
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28401-4027
TELEPHONE (910) 341-7165
FAX (910) 341-4556
DEXTER L. HAYES
Planning Director
October 2, 2000
Mr. Arnold Carson, RLS
406 North Third Street
Wilmington, NC 28405
Re: Coastal Carolina (Conceptual Plan)
Dear Mr. Carson:
In regular session on Wednesday, September 27, 2000 the New Hanover County Planning Board's
Technical Review Committee (TRC) reviewed your updated conceptual plan. No action by the TRC was
required. However, the members of TRC listed for the record that they would like to see several major
collector roads and better connectivity through the project to be incorporated into future preliminary plans.
Attending the meeting on September 27, 2000 were TRC Chairman Ken Dull, Ernest Puskis, and
Frank Smith. Others attending the meeting were; Mr. Holt Moore from the County Attorney's office, Baird
Stewart and Dexter Hayes from the County Planning Department, *m+yett► Revlsc-A his %/Do
If you have any questions relating to the above information please contact me at the Planning
Department 341-7165.
Sincerely,
Baird Stewart
Senior Planner
cc: Planning Board Members
Bill Grathwol
DEXTER L. HAYES
Planning Director
April 27, 1999
Mr. Bill Grathwol
P.O. Box 3215
Wilmington, NC 28406
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
414 CHESTNUT STREET, ROOM 304
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28401-4027
TELEPHONE (910) 341-7165
FAX (910) 772-7868
Re: Coastal Carolina Conceptual Plan Update
Dear Mr. Grathwol:
In regular session on April 21, 1999, the Planning Board's Technical Review Committee
(TRC) approved the conceptual plan update of Coastal Carolina Country Club. This approval by
the TRC brings the total number of lots to 4,405 and 1,762 acres. The increase in the total
number of lots and acres is based on the acquision of additional property to the Coastal Carolina
project. Please be mindful that the boundaries to the project will expand no futher with this
updated plan (see latest approved plan). However, the TRC did stipulate that the borrow pit
(lake) could be added if purchased. Also note that the general road design is not cast in stone and
most likely will be subject to modification due to the possible extension of Military Cut -Off from
Market Street north into your project.
Attending the meeting on April 21, 1999 were James Wolle, TRC Chairman; Joyce
Fernando, Rodney Harris, Mike Keenan, and Ken Dull, TRC members, Arnold Carson, RLS;
members of the Planning staff, and you.
Contact me if you have questions relating to the information above. I can be reached at
341-7165.
Cc: Planning Board members Most sincerely,
Ann Hines, Zoning Enforcement 0,
Adam Rahhal, Engineering
Arnold Carson, RLS S.A. Burgess
Staff Planner
Coastal Carolina Land Development
CG�'/J I+Q CGwC�W
w c?—tk rn
VIRR, ('s
Cow
0 2,000 4,000
Feet
N, /
es✓
b �
.kgend
Parcels on Unused Land
CCD Boundary
CCD Property Owners
A-
'N
\NN e
NN
"4
.1' A
< i y .3 % , "
1A
r r*,r" A
V�� V r
;JA
L
t �A
FFT
a
NN,
MAP
SUBMITTAL)
I A, lk
%'L" A /-'KA.Y Ckl Vo.
N
> A-
A
't{ A
32,
'v
COASTAL CAROLINA DEVELOPMENT HISTORY
t a
X June,1986: Concept master plan approved by Planning staff for 3,850 lots-1,649 acres.
* Nov, 1986 : Revision (modifications to design) to master plan approved by staff for 3,850
lots- 1,649 acres.
x Nov, 1988 : Revision (modifications to design) to master plan approved for 3,850 lots-
1,649 acres.
x Mar, 1990: Revision (modifications to design) to master plan approved for 3,850 lots-
1,649 acres.
X Feb, 1992 : Revision (annexation of Gordon Woods) to master plan approved for a total
of 3,873 lots- 1,675 acres.
Y Mar, 1993 : Revision to master plan approved 4,089 lots-1,748 acres (annexation
Meadowbrook ?).
x Jan, 1994 : Revision to master plan (reduction open space) approved for 4,089 lots- 1,748
acres.
x July, 1995: Revision to master plan (purchase of property to Harris) approved for 3,371
lots-1,348 acres.
X Mar, 1996: Revision to master plan (design changes) approved for 3,371 lots- 1,348 acres.
x Feb, 1997 : Revision to master plan (annexation of add. property) approved by TRC for
3,730 lots-1,492 acres.
x Aug, 1998: Revision to site plan (design changes) approved by TRC for 3,730 lots- 1,492
acres.
Burgess, Sam
From: CWolf <cwolf@lobodemar.biz>
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 9:28 AM
To: Burgess, Sam; O'Keefe, Chris; Ralston, Shawn
Cc: 'Will Bland'; Robin Grathwol 1; Robin Grathwol 2; 'Johnson, Thomas H. Jr.'
Subject: Hanover Reserve Tracts
Attachments: Corps Wetland Rating.pdf; Greenview Ranches Eval.pdf, Mitigation Notice.pdf,
Mitigation Map.pdf, Land Mgmt Mitigation Memo.pdf, Wetlands Approval.pdf;
WetlandsMap.pdf
Thank you all for meeting with us yesterday. I have attached the various documents from the Land Management study
& the Corps response for the evaluation that was done over the extent of the property. We would appreciate any
insight, comments and/or recommendations you might offer as to a request for a CAMA plan amendment. We strongly
believe that development that has occurred over the past several years, changes that will occur to the area based on
the Military Cutoff & Murrayville Road extensions, and the actual physical character of the land, having been recently
documented, all suggest that the land classification overlaid during the 2006 plan might not have been, but certainly is
no longer appropriate. A change from Wetland Resource Protection to extending the existing Urban classification area is
justified.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions or need additional information.
irk ��I
Ctndee wolf '
I?ess, n uAgns
Telephone: 910-620-2374
Email: ewolf@lobodemar.biz
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 7221
Wilmington, NC 28406
Office Address: 107 Stokley Drive
Unit 104
Total Control Panel Login
To: sburgess(rbnhcgov.com Remove this sender from my allow list
From: cwolf0,lobodcmar.biz
You received this message because the sender is on your allow list.
NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Kaung
Gaicuiaior Version 4.-1
Wetland Site Name
Greenview Ranches East Tract - AA6
Date
2/13/12
Wetland Type
Pocosin
Assessor Name/Organization
Corey Novak / LMG
Level III Ecoregion
Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain
Nearest Named Water Body
Smith Creek
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
03030005
❑ Yes ® No
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Latitude/Longitude (deci-de rees)
34.299870 /-77.826609
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ❑ Yes ® No
Regulatory Considerations (select all that apply to the assessment area.)
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWQ riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, If any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
❑ Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ❑ Yes ® No
1. Ground Surface ConditionNegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in
the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the
assessment area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
®A ®A Not severely altered
❑B ❑B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration
(Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. Refer to the current NRCS lateral effect of ditching guidance for North Carolina
hydric soils (see USACE Wilmington District website) for the zone of influence of ditches in hydric soils. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered
to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding
regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
❑A ❑A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
®B ®B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
❑C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (answer for non -marsh wetlands only)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT),
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
®C ®C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑D ❑D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ®A Sandy soil
❑B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
El Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ®A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
❑B Soil ribbon i 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
❑B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment
area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10% impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B El < 10% impervious surfaces
❑C ❑C ❑C Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
❑D ❑D ❑D >_ 20% coverage of pasture
❑E El ❑E z 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
❑F ❑F ❑F a 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑G ❑G ❑G >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
®H ®H ®H Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from hydrologic alterations
that prevent drainage or overbank flow from affecting the assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer —assessment area/wetland complex condition metric
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
❑Yes ®No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? Descriptor E should be selected if ditches effectively bypass the buffer.
❑A >_ 50 feet
❑B From 30 to < 50 feet
❑C From 15 to < 30 feet
❑D From 5 to < 15 feet
❑E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
❑<_ 15-feet wide ❑> 15-feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
❑Yes ❑No
7e. is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
[]Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed — adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area —wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Check
a box in
each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT)
and the wetland
complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT
WC
®A
®A
Z 100 feet
❑B
❑B
From 80 to < 100 feet
❑C
❑C
From 50 to < 80 feet
❑D
❑D
From 40 to < 50 feet
❑E
❑E
From 30 to < 40 feet
❑F
❑F
From 15 to < 30 feet
❑G
❑G
From 5 to < 15 feet
El
❑H
< 5 feet
9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
❑A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
®B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
❑C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A >_ 500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to < 50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to < 25 acres
❑F ❑F ❑F From 5 to < 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to < 5 acres
®H ®H ❑H From 0,5 to < 1 acre
❑1 ❑I ❑i From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
❑J ❑J ❑J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
❑K ❑K ®K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (Z 90%) of its natural landscape size.
®B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be chocked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A
®A
z 500 acres
®B
❑B
From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C
❑C
From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D
❑D
From 10 to < 50 acres
❑E
❑E
< 10 acres
❑F
❑F
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes ❑No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands,
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas Z 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass.
❑A No artificial edge within 150 feet in all directions
❑B No artificial edge within 150 feet in four (4) to seven (7) directions
®C An artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in more than four (4) directions or assessment area is clear-cut
16. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
®B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
❑C
Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition. Expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -characteristic
species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species). Exotic species are dominant in at least one
stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
❑B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b, if No, skip to Metric 18,
17b, Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
❑A z 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
o ❑A ❑A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
�
❑B ❑B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
0 ®C ®C Canopy sparse or absent
o ❑A
❑A
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
❑B
❑B
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
®C
®C
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
❑A
❑A
❑B
Dense shrub layer
Moderate density layer
❑B
®C
shrub
Shrub layer
®C
sparse or absent
n ®A
®A
Dense herb layer
_ ❑B
❑B
Moderate density herb layer
❑C
❑C
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric
❑A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
❑B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
®C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C ❑D
dl`s n U�{'";tttl{t; i ���} ldA t�r.'',.^:�e.la�iF>
Lt r a rlv nLt tc�j it
!
��nty{
%c, f b �l 1 ti 5 Y � N 1� t\{' i� i��t $'•�
s.> � t1 .kq,�'�il z} Y�li aa' •�....:`r ; t rlli }
• a f C;t IrJi r-'"t' • � i
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization,
diversion, man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision.
❑A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
❑B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes
Assessment area appears to have reduced hydrology from abutting ditch and nearby ditches. These ditches are non -jurisdictional, so they are
not considered to be tributaries for NC WAM purposes. Area is near the upstream end of its watershed; the area upstream draining to the
watershed is relatively undisturbed. This assessment area is surrounded by non -forested uplands. Pocosin is less than 10% of its natural size.
Canopy is absent; shrubs are sparse. Soils are mucky modified mineral.
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland Site Name Greenview Ranches East Tract - AA6 Date of Assessment 2/13/12
Wetland Type Pocosin
Corey Novak /
Assessor Name/Organization LMG
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (YIN) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Rating Summar
Function
Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Sub -surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Particulate Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Physical Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Pollution Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Physical Structure
Condition
HIGH
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Ratina Summar
Function
Metrics
Rating_
Hydrology
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Condition
MEDIUM
Overall Wetland Rating MEDIUM
I'�.L�c' t.a_s • ..A�
— S- n Creex
-- E..W9 D.tch--23,585 linear feet
- - - Potential Z—Order Stream Restoredo" -1, 137 1-ar feet
- Potential Rip— Wed— Restoratlon -4
_ PoWmM Non -Rip— Wedano Restoratg -76 saes
- Potenbai Non-Ripanan Wetland Enhancernera -1 acre
Potential Upl-d. (Non -Restorable) -79 acres 'Boundaries are approximate and are
O,tparcel -.saes not meant to be absolute. '
Map&mree: 2t106Aerial Photography. SCALE 1" = 400' (at 11X17")
Coastal Carolina Dev. Co.
Tom Wilson www'LMGroup.net
Smith Creek - Mitlgabon Bank LMG Phone: 910.452.0001 "1.866.LMG.1078 Mitigation Feasibility
New Hanover County, NC wemwrausrcaucI ., Fax: 910.452.0060 Greenview Ranches East
July 2011 ""`"' °"'""""' P.O. Box 2522, Wilmington, NC 28402
t-t
\�X, xy��< / >'\ �"Sb:..,,o.,,..,.. r SITE ,
i i /,\a� i ?
\ - r LOC674Pl «MAP
TABLE -LINE A F
1.42 AM
Moil A"S
umv
I 11J-
404 JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARY MAP
«
TRACTS OF HANOVER LAND, LLC &
COASTAL CAROLINA DEVELOPERS, INC
COASTAL CAROUNAA D n� OPERS. INC
Q FEss/'
7.
L 4090
`` AAAA/ll1111111``
1
Army Corps of Engineers
Wetland Data Package
Greenview Ranches — SCMB — Coastal Carolina Developers
New Hanover County
Property Owner: Tom Wilson
Coastal Carolina Developers
1030 East Wendover Ave.
Greensboro, NC 27405
Applicant: same as above
Site address: 7418 Murrayville Rd.
Wilmington, NC
Subdivision name: Greenview Ranches
Parcel ID number: various
Directions: From the Wilmington Corps office, go north on Darlington Ave.
Turn right on Market St. Merge onto NC132 North / North
College Rd. Turn right on Murrayville Rd. The two tracts are
located at the end of the paved road on both sides of the road.
Nearest water body: Smith Creek
Name of watershed: Cape Fear River Basin
Coordinates of site: Latitude: 34.299069°N
Longitude:-77.829510°W
USGS Quad: Scotts Hill, NC
Total size: — 262 ac
Total size of Wetlands: — 44 ac
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Greenview Ranches (East Tract) City/County: New Hanover
Applicant/Owner: Coastal Carolina Developers stale:
Invesligator(s);
Corey Novak / Donnie Beale - LMP� 9
G Section, Township, Range:
Landforrn (hillslope, terrace, etc.): depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 1
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR T Lat. 34.29957 Long:-77.82686 Datum. NAD8:
Soil Map Unit Name:
Mu - Murville fine sand NWI classification: PSS3/4Bd
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes 0 No = (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil. =., or Hydrology _L__I_ significantly disturbed? Are -Normal Circumstances` present? Yes FZI No Q_
Are Vegetation n, Soil =, or Hydrology = naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -- Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Sampling Date: 617/11
NC Sampling Point: A -hole Wet
Hydrophylic Vegetation Present? Yes t® No _ 0 is the Sampled Area
Hydric Sall Present? Yes L!C—I No IJ within a Weiland? Yes � _ No �_
Welland Hydrology Present? Yes �m: No =
Remarks:
HYr)RC)l C)GY
Primar Inds; alor�,Nmum of one is required. cheok all that aunlY)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (813)
R] Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Marl Deposits (615) (LRR U)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Hydrogon Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (816)
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Rools (C3)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132)
❑ Presence of Reduced iron (C4)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (CB)
❑ Drift Deposits ((33)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C13)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mal or Crust (64)
[] Thin Muck Surface (C7)
m Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (133)
F1 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67)
m FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑ Sphagnum moss (DB) (LRR T, U) —
Field Observations:
I
Surface Water Present? Yes -1 No 9r Depth (inches); N/A
Water Table Present? Yes -1 No.L Depth (inches): >40"
Saturation Present? Yes El No.L Depth (inches); >40" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓- No El
(indludes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, inonllofing well, aerial photos, previous inspeclions), if available:
FAC-Neutral=4 Wet:O Non -wet; some sparsely vegetated microdepressions
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0
VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: A -hole W
Absolute Dominant Indleator Dominance Test workshaol:
Tree Stratu (Plot size:
30' rad. ) °o Cover Svecle Status
Number of Dominant Species
4
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
1, none
2,
Total Number of Dominant
4
3
Species Across All Strata: (e)
4,
Percent of Dominant Species
100
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7,
Total % Cover of: multiply by`
8.
OBL species x 1 =
= Total Cover
FACW species Y. 2 =
501A of total cover: 20% of total cover:
FAC species x 3 _
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30' rad. )
FACU species Y 4 =
1. Cvrilla racemiflora
-10— Y — FM
UPL species x 5 =
2. Persea borbonia
2— N FACW.
Column Totals: (A) (B)
3
4.
Prevalence Index = BIA=
5,
Hydropliytic Vegetation Indicators:
8
❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7•
2 - Dominance Test is 150%
❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
8,
12 = Total Cover
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover: �_ 20% of total cover: ?_
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
30' rad. )
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetiand hydrology must
Y fAC W
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
1, f yrilla raomiflora
2_ _
40_ Y FACW
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
2. I zinnia h cida
__, ,
3. Woodwardlayiralnica
- 25 — -�- -OBIL—
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
4
height.
5.
6
SaplinglShrub - Woody plants, excludingvines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
7.
8,
Herb -AII herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.26 ft tall.
9
10.
Woody vine -AII woody vines greater than 3.28 ti in
11
height.
12.
R5_ = Total Cover
5o% of total cover: 49 .r, 20% of total cover: 17
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' rad. )
1. none
2.
3.
4.
5 Hydrophytic
= Total Cover Vegetation
Present? Yes ✓] No
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover.
Remarks: (If observed, lisl rnorphologicai adaptations bulvN).
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point: A -hole W
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document tho1ndicalor or confirm the absence of Indicators,)
Depth Matrix Redox F€ 6tures
(niches) Color (moist) _ °/u Color (moist) % Type Loc` Texture Remarks
O-'r2 10YR 2/1 100 ML
12->18 10YR 2/1 100 MFS
'Type: C=Concentration D=Depldtion RM=Reduced Matft MS=Masked Sand Grains,
`Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix,
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted,)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
0 Histosol (Ai)
❑ Pdyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A1o) (LRR S)
M Black Histic (A3)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodpiain Soils (F19) (LR R P, S, T)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑
Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Solis (F20)
❑ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 153B)
R] 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Muck Presence U)
❑
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
® Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
(A8) (LRR
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Marl (F10) (LRR U)
0 Other (Explain in Remarks)
'Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Q
Depleted Ochric (F11) (M LRA 151)
LJ Thick Dark Surface (All 2)
Iron -Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR 0, P, T)
91ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) Q
Umbric Surface (1713) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (81) (LRR 0, S)
Q
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (84)
Q
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 15013)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Q
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (36)
0.
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA
149A,153C, 153D)
Dark Surface (37) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Type;
Depth (inches):
Hydric Sol Present? Yes In/ No =
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
tvs't Greenview Ranches (East Tract) City/County: New Hanover
Sampling Date: 6/7/1 1
Prolec i e.
Applicant/Owner: nUOwner; Coastal Carolina Developers State: NC Sampling Point: A -hole Up
Avesta t/Ow): Corey Novak / Donnie Beale - LMG Section, Township, Range:
hillslo e convex Sloe % : 1 %
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): p Local relief (concave, convex, none): P ( )
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR T 34.29958 Long:-77.82729 Datum: NAD8'
Lat:
Soil Map Unit Name:
Le - Leon sand WWI classification: PSS3/4Bd on map
_
Are climatic! hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes 0 No y (It no, explain In Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil �_, or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes,7_ No _F-1
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology = naturally problematic? (if needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
cr 11UMAPY ni: t=1NlD!Nr;9 — Attach site man showinq sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophylic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the sampled Area
Hydric Sall Present? Yes L-1 No 1Z0_ within a Wetland? Yes 0 No
Welland Hydrology Present? Yes No WF
Remarks:
wvr]Rr11 rSr;Y
nr ar Indicalrirs (miilinwin of one is reciuired' check ail ihal'>pfy)
n V
❑Surface Soil Cracks (Be)
--
❑ Surface Wafer (At)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (813)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
[] High Water Table (A2)
❑ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
❑ Water Marks (61)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132)
Deposits
❑ Presence of Reduced iron (C4)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction In Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (CB)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (CO)
❑ Drift (133)
[] Algal Mal or Crust (B4)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
[] Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87)
m FAC-Noutral Test (D5)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
J
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
_
Yes y No ja Depth (inches); N/A
Water Table Present?
Yes F-I No,F,71_ Depth (inches): >24rr
Yes No✓
Saturation Present?
Yes _ELNo.W. Depth (inches): >24" wetland
Hydrology Present?
(includes capillary frinael
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
emadw
FAC-Neutral=1 Wet:O Non -wet
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants,
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' rad.
1. none
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Sampling Point: A -hole U
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
% Cover Species2 Status- Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30' rad. )
1. Pinus taeda 2_ Y - EAG -
2, Persea borbonia 2 Y FACW
3.
4.
5.
6,
7,
8.
4 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 2_ 20% of total cover: ,0.
Herb Stratum (Plot size 30' rad. )
1. Aristida stricta 70 yL- SAC_._
2-Sarracenia flava 2- _Nl -__- ()RI
3. Persea borbonia I NN .FAM
4, 1 yonia lucida 15 N FAC
5. Andropognn virvirginictis 2 N FAC
6.
7.
8,
9,
10.
11.
12.
Total Cover
50% of total cover: dq 5 20% of total cover: 19 R
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' rad. )
1. none
2.
3.
4.
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
Prevalence Index Worksheet:
Total %. Cover of:
Multiply by:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x 2 =
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
x 4 =
UPL species
x 5 =
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A=
Hydropityllc Ve.golatign Indicators:
❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is _<3.0'
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Dofinlllons of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 In. (7.6 cm) or
more In diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
SaplhtglShrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tell.
Herb -Ail herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3,28 ft tell.
Woody vine -All woody vines greater than 3.28 it in
height.
5. I Hydrophytic
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 201/6 of total cover: Present?
s
Yes ✓� No _❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic, and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0
sampling Point: A -hole U
SOIL
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the
absence of Indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moistl % Color (molst) % TVp�e ccoL
Texture Remarks
0-6 10YR 4/1 100
LFS
8-14 10YR 2/1 100
FSL
14->20, 10YR 3/2 100
FSL
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Deplelion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix,
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sells':
Hydric Sell Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
❑ Histosol (Al)
�f Polyvalue Below Surface (SB) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
17 Hlstic Eplpedon (A2)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (89) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
❑ Reduced Verttc (1`18) (outside M LRA 150A, B)
L] Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplein Soils (1719) (LRR P, S, T)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
❑ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Q Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑. Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
(M LRA 15313)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑ Redox Depressions (178)
® Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
0
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
M Marl (F10) (LRR U)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_❑
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
M Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑. Iron -Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR 0, P, T) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (Al6) (MLRA 150A) ❑- Umbric Surface (F13) (t.RR P, T, U)
welland hydrology must be present,
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR 0, S)
❑ Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Q Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
n Sandy Redox (85)
❑ Piedmont Floodplein Soils (F19) (M LRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (86)
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Solis (F20) (MLRA 149A,153C, 153D)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric SohPresent? Yes No.
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Greenview Ranches (East Tract) City/County: New Hanover Sampling Date: 6/7/11
Applicant/Owner: Coastal Carolina Developers State: NC Sampling Point; Up 1
p
Invesligalor(s); . g
Corey Novak / Donnie Beale - LMG Section, Township, Ran e:
Lendforin (hillslope, terrace, e10.): drained flat Local relief (concave, eonver., horn): none Slope (%): 0%
Subregion.(I..RR or MLRA): LRRT I,al: 34.296754 Long;-77.826450 Datum: NAD8,
Soil Map Unit Name, Mu - Murville fine sand _ NWI classification: PSS3/4Bd on map
Are cilmalic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for (—� this time of year? Yes t v r No � (If no, explain In Remarks.)
Are Vegetation =_, Soil �_, or Hydrology_ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances` present? Yes 71. No n_
Are Vegetation =, Soil , or Hydrology Ll naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers In Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Tm No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ry ' No l�J within a Wetland? Yes _Q No_2—
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes �— No
Remnrks:
HYDROLOGY
Primary IndicatWs (minimum of one is required' check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (66)
❑ Surface Water (At)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (1313)
[] Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
Q High Water Table (A2)
❑ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saluralion (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
❑ Water Marks (B1)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (CB)
❑ Drift Deposits (63)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (06)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (Cg)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
[] Thin Muck Surface (07)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ iron Deposits (135)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
® FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
[� Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Surface Water Present? Yes = No 2L Depth (inches): N/A
Water 1 able Present? Yes= No Depth (inches): >36"
Saturation Present? Yes El No Depth (inches): >36" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Q No ✓�
(includes capillary fringe)
De:srribe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring, well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
FAC-Neutral=2 Wet:O Non -wet
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0
VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. sampling Point: UPI
Absolute Dcminnnl Indicator
Dominance Test worksheot:
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
30' rad. ) % Cover Species Etatus
Number of Dominant Species
2
1, none
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
2
3
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4•
Percent of Dominant Species
100
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
6.
Provalence Index worksheets
7.
Total % Cover of: Multiply lay_
8.
OBL species x 1 =
= Total Cover
FACW species >; 2 =
5o% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
FAC species Y. 3 =
Sepling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30' rad. )
FACU species x 4 =
1. Cvrilla racemiflora
20 Y-- EAC;W
UPL species x 5 =
2
Column Totals: (A) (B)
3.
4•
Prevalence Index = B/A=
5,
Hydroph' Ic Vegetation Indicators:
6
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7_
Z 2 - Dominance Test Is >50%
8,
n 3 • Prevalence Index is 53.0'
20_ = Total Cover
ElProblematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover: 10 20% of total cover: 4
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
30' rad. )
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
FACW
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
1. Ilex alabra
�_ Y
N--- AG
'Dofiniltons of Pour vegotatlon strata:
2. Andronoaon virninirus
$_
3. 0smunda;cinnamomea
5 N—EA
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 In. (7.6 cm) or
4. Pteridium aouilinUM
10 N F C
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
5,
6
Sapling/Shrub —Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in, DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
7.
8,
Herb —AII herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less then 3,28 fl tell,
9
10,
Woody ulna —All woody vines greaterthan 3.28 ft in
height.
11
12.
$�_ = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 44 20% of total cover: ALE —
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot
size: 30' rad. )
1. none
2.
3.
4,
Hydrophytic
5
=Total Cover
Vegetation RI/ No
Yes JL
50% of total cover: 201/6 of total cover:
Present?
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point: UP
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.)
Depth Matrix
'(Inches) Color (moist) %
Redox Features
Color (molst) % Type LOCH
Texture Remarks
0-12 10YR 2/1 100
FS
12->18 10YR 4/1 100
FS
'Type; C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix,. MS=Masked Send Grains.
16nlion: PL=Pore Lining, M=Malrix.
Hydric Soll Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydrlc Soils':
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑. Polyvalue Below Surface (88) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
❑ Hlstic Epipedon IN)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 2 cm Muck (AlD) (LRR S)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
❑ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A, B)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Q Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodpleln Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
[] Stratified Layers (A5)
Q Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
n Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T. U)
Q Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(M LRA 15315)
Fj 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
® Very Shallow Dark Surface
[� Muck Presence (A6) (LRR U)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
(TF12)
0
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Mari (F10) (LRR U)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
r�f
I —I Depleted Ochric (F11) (M LRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR 0, P, T) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) Q Umbdc Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (31) (LRR 0, S)
Q Delta Ochrlc (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic,
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (84)
❑ Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Q Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (M LRA 149A)
Q Stripped Matrix (S6)
Q Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A,153C, 153D)
_m Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
f ds, Fictive Layer (If observed):
Type:
Depth (Inches):
Hydrlc Sol Present? Yes M No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2.0
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U,S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section 1V of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Grecttview Ranches - SCMB - Coastal Carolina Developers
State:NC County/parish/borough: New Hanover City:
Center coordinates of site (tat/long in degree decimal format): Lat, 34.299069' N, Long.-77.8295100 W.
Universal Transverse Mercator: 18S 239603.60 mE 3798925.35 tnN
Name of nearest waterbody: Smith Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TN W) into which the aquatic resource flows: NE Cape Fear River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Cape Fear River Basin
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
❑ Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
❑ Field Determination, Date(s):
SECTION ll: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Appear to be no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in
the review area. [Required]
❑ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
❑ Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Requireefl
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): t
❑ TNWs, including territorial seas
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
❑ Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non -wetland waters: 60,000 linear feet: 4 width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: 44 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2, Non -regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
❑ Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section Ill below.
For purposes of this forn, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
Supporting documentation is presented in Section 11I.F.
complete
NAI,I'SIS uatic resource a Sections,vjSNN�lll.A•1 ant"
I11: CW.A 1 O vNNVS oTNVI's. If the act comp
S{,C•{'1C)N At)JpCr;NT �centt
WG1 TN�ys and Wcth►ntls lttl a �yctlantl adjnceni to a T
A 'VN\Ns'AND n1►tic rCspurce
uristlicilOU o�'e! it the aqua.
,ei►Ctes Nvill assert Itir lll:lf,l. only,
tihe a}, I and section tivisC; scC 5cctian tl1•B U
Section 111.A• l7•i„ otltcr
1t11d Se'Will Ill•
lt�cntlly orl'It7g dcte"Illnatlon:
tit 7
that.Netland is "adjacent':
Sun7mari'ic ratiunole : 1)S (IF ANY),
t1,1►Cent`taTNw , c,onclusion C EN"f wrl'VAN
wetiliOd a i ,arlini, ' Np (T5 Ai7•IA ' and it helps
2• A'yNW) A wetlands, if any,
Stutitt7lirize ratiU171,1C SttP f iS.l`lU'1 d'acent
(-f w anti its a d
h Tlill3 tit iLc.trlbutarl jeritial%cut
1tIS'i 105 or,
, el►arlletcrit tics t! till
have llcen u►c ' 'crciativCly 1
YZAC'r alrtiinl, les 1u'e C. , t`,Piclltly 3
p, CiiA ► ltion reg nfistliciloneSiaUllslicd t► ►tlpr i i►Cre the triUttta►
ri'1CS" nfoi'n t 01 fNWS at least SCasonail. (1 ut has year^r ou"d
tion,ntaof the slslnti�► als foY notls iltl7v
this secttcinv►tcther or n 1►nvi ablC trii)tttarles N`•iti! PC►Cnn1�1 t1avv,
ttelorn i►tc a ver non' car_%.Outttl Or havV Conlinvatic !'CSOUTCC Is siOWiltary
t t' ►icn►ly llo,a y 1tl. If the aq cctly abutting
will assert jnt'istlictiOti l iso luristliction.
'five u �ucicS i e irlbil 'A fe'' i at ulsiatt Ri'w is g;;t►lrcc.is a ►►'etiand tlir ' Corps districts and
C►s,+ {I2Pws)+ 2 if the aquatic Ye evaluation• een a
Wat tlantl .thnt:directil'.1►1.13• nif.cant neXUS flcant nexus betty
A NNI C tOSCCkiall' ►►il•Cs it Sig of a sign', le W stet, even
ri onil►s)• ONV I'slap r Y�q existenceavi ab
(liorcl►nial)'. tlirCclly' 1100t an, that documents the a traditional n 6
skip to Scctloll lil:l).4 oes wok' ewinds if any) and
Kent to, tttliat d litatlable lnturmntto>Y
tbt .rccoe(I any h►►ti its atijaceni w
A„eilhnd that is,adj/ Writ pa rOUlllai { tttlitianal dgtn to tictei'iuipc it the
�lon5 w111►llcludetn ihat tti tltYetl ub,i►,n�akicr tif:ll►w• ill retNirc �t cvah►atiun must
r,l'A re12 Cllt trib I ' is'not req s a 1D �'' the t,sg►►ific•int nexus, es fpr
ti'maU ►buttinl,l►n Iti' In.retluest is
YGlntiv'cly P ,l►I►icunt'»clus,iisitlint Isis adjacent ivetlslrids, ,
blocs,
ihoti h U silo or a WCti/ind'dil cctl it ibuiat Y' vhis %,fillflci�nk ncxusitrea idell iiictl u ec
hW,. w.lfthe ds, rC '
the VICw
t is not all, �viill a TN all of lth adjilccnt ►vetlan pcent ivettauds, COntplet. a . y ►til on
site
'B or
ll'tltC'vaterbodY n.ificant n �; r `vith a, w.etlatt(Is is used ►'1 Wit adj udj
that trio tar , bt site
tributary acelli to
7Yaiorbotiy,l►as .► 5+b.. in cnmUluati 1� t ait'nt its atllaCe°t ,C belOw-
iribut:►ry t tt'� bath. li:tire 31) cclYct s a for n11 wetlands
Bidet' tiro U►C trihu a taa gCction111..
can, alrposCs, vvctllulds+ etlal►ds, n►ul section tieYntinetl in
iicai P scent I C . US exists is '
S1na1v 13.2 fui atny o►►sll1. Wetlands
the tYtbntar),
tlr Its ad r IficlUlt
Section 111. wlaethe+' a s}I u into
TN N'
tltc tributa►'Ti,a dctern►i►iatian tlireclly or iUtliTectly
and offSite. CN'S'�'s that flow
i• C1►araeteristita of non-
C►ul Are11 Conditions:
{i) Gen 140C3t)'n !es
11teI'ShCd Size ��errs
tlbil 5'� ir,chCs
f)rftinag�.ct� �tlul rainfall', - ,
pvcrag� innual strowfall; 0 n,cllcs
Avei'ag t
I► , ysicaICharacterstics: TNW•
{) 1 h Ali 7 wlthctly into rNw' before entering
w
(a) R`�1 riUuttiry flos tltt'ough
tributaries
i rlliittary flaN
's front TNW'.
5 river mile,
wt waters lire 1�=:1. , . river' miles tiam�'`r
1 rot" are :Ntr'i`s`) titraiphi) �nilcs fromTNw
project waders ip:acrial ( �traibtit) miles frOnr 1ZP�r
c t l waters ILt inl (; x 1 tin: N6.
pt'ol •' ds less) a ' baitntlalies. p 1 Cu 7c feav River.
W1det's ilrV 1 { gel'VC aS'State
17.roject cross t?r r Stnitil Creek --' 1dp 1
project v1ater. ; an -site ILplr, s __.
how routC
if 1,11oNvtl; ocncrcdiy auS in the nt'id
lticniify Spotinl order'. uttd erusinnall'catures
Tribttary wales ditches, washes.
�tdinb • whiela then Clnas into'fNW.
-- tt�icw area• to Iluwinto ttibutw'y b.
antatns additinnnt intnrmatioti t'et=` {t the .,'
Gtlidebnt)l c L b tt�lxtla+} 1t, which Ilciws tlnoula
...,1,nttiletnsu'uctionut ttic.nttiYtnb
�tiurilledby ,clay x tlaw
ndccan be d' ' , „ulow [lie beak,
_...
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
❑ Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
❑ Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
❑ Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas, Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain findings:
❑ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(1) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size:44 acres
Wetland type. Explain: pocosin.
Wetland quality. Explain: moderate,
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: no.
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW;
Flow is: No Flow . Explain:
Surface flow is: Not present
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Unknown, Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
® Directly abutting
❑ Not directly abutting
❑ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
❑ Ecological connection. Explain:
❑ Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are 10-15 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 5-10 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: No Flow.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the 500-year or greater floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain: no water at time of observation.
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
❑ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
® Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: pocosin 80%.
❑ Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas, Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain findings:
❑ Aquatic/wildlife diversity, Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: 2
Approximately ( 44 ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Y 44
VA
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: potential wildlife habitat, pollutant
removal, stonnwater retention.
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
❑ TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial:
® Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally: flow has not been observed during multiple site visits but tributaries display OHM Ws.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: 60,000 linear feet4 width (ft).
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section IiI.C.
Provide estimates forjurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
❑ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section IIi.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
® Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section 111.13 and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW: On the eastern tract, the wetland abuts a potential seasonal RPW. On the western tract, all of the
wetland pockets appear to be part of a larger wetland which converges off -site. The wetland appears to abut multiple
RPWs off -site..
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 44 acres.
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly Into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW arc jurisidiclional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres,
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
❑ Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
❑ Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (I-6), or
❑ Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see F below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):10
❑ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
❑ fi•om which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
❑ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
❑ Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
'See Footnote 9 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section Iil. D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the actlou to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction FoUmving Rapanos.
❑ Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
El Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
NON -JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not nnect the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
❑ Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
(� Waters do not ineet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
❑ Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non -jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using hest professional
judgment (check all that apply):
Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
El Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non -jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
❑ Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
❑ Lakes/ponds: acres.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicall t/consuitant:
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 7.5 minute Scotts Hill.
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: New Hanover County Soil Survey.
❑ National wetlands inventory inap(s). Cite name:
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date): NAPP 1998 infi-ared and 2008 true -color digital orthophotography.
or ❑ Other (Name & Date):
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Applicable/supporting case law:
❑ Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
❑ Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
From: Rob Moul [mailto:rmoulNmaroup.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 3:11 PM
To: Johnson, Thomas H. Jr.
Cc: wjbland(a)gmail.com; robin(a)legacygroup.cc
Subject: FW: Hanover Land East
Tom: I have been asked by Robin Grathwol and Will Bland to send to you information about the
soils and wetlands on the Hanover Land East tract that you are assisting with the rezoning
request. LMG examined 2 tracts of land Robin and her partners owned within Greenview
Ranches to see if they could be candidate sites for wetland mitigation. The west site (CCD)
turned out to be suitable for this purpose while the east site (Hanover Land) had too many
impediments for successful mitigation and restoration activity. There were 4 reasons we dropped
this east site for wetland restoration work.
(1) Once we delineated its existing condition and obtained Army Corps JD approval
(attached) we noted that it was a very dry site due to historic drainage. The ditches were
often 6-8 feet in depth which went thru hard pan layers and restrictive horizons which
meant that large clay plugs or expensive ditch clay would be needed to bring back
ground water levels. The Army Corps did not even call the interior ditches "relatively
permanent waters" RPWs since there were no signs of an ordinary water mark during
even the wettest times of the year.
(2) The second concern was the large incised Smith Creek canal and associated lateral
stream ditch that cuts along and into the tract thereby effectively draining a large portion
on the southern third of the site. This was a county project and could not be messed with.
(3) The third concern involved the boundary ditches which could not be modified due to
hydrologic trespass issues. We cannot fill in jointly owned ditches around the perimeter
of this parcel if they have the potential to raise water tables on neighboring parcels. Using
drainage models we had to set aside wide swaths of property in the mitigation plan
(yellow color) that would remain as uplands with no mitigation credits.
(4) Finally the tract has 2 major outparcels that restrict what can be done around them and
still effectively raise water tables. Again the hydrologic trespass issue and road access
became a real obstacle to wetland mitigation of this site.
I have enclosed the preliminary mitigation plan, the COE approved wetland map, and our NC
WAM form for the small delineated 2 acre wetland pocket. The rest of the property was
considered uplands by the Corps. It should be noted that we are still pursuing wetland mitigation
plan approve of the west tract since the Army Corps and LMG staff felt that it has a greater
chance to be successful in restoring wetland hydrological functions than this east site.
Should you have any other questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.
Best regards,
Rob Moul
Environmental Consultant
Land Management Group, Inc.
PO Box 2522
Wilmington, NC 28402
Office: 910.452.0001
Mobile: 910.471.0501
Burgess, Sam
To: Robin Grathwol
Cc: Chris Glover (cigloverco@yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Conceptual plan 2
Robin,
Thanks again for coming in this morning to talk about CCD et al things. I just received a voice mail from Leon but have
not returned the call .... yet.
Chris,
As mentioned this morning, the updated conceptual plan looks good and displays a good depiction of CCD along with
the Swain property & Hanover Lands. Based on our last meeting, I believe the decision was made to include the Swain
property into CCD based on the title block depiction. This then would place our focus on the Swain tract but more
importantly the Hanover Tract(s) which Robin wants to pursue and maintain focus on.
With that said, proceed with crafting a matrix table with the following attributes:
• Total number of conceptual lots and acreage approved by the County: 4,405 lots& 1,764 ac (March'02 approval
— last County approval)
• Based on above data, determine the total of recorded lots to date with associated recorded acreage to
determine present density per acre (should be no more than 2.5 units per acre) — additional open space may
need to be recorded to satisfy performance requirement
• Then, based on the new/updated conceptual, determine the total number of additional units and acreage that
have been annexed since'02 without the County's blessing (Hanover Land)
• Based on the figure noted above, the County (Planning staff) can make a decision whether to allow the annexed
property into CCD or allow it to be a stand- alone project under the CCD name
As a side note, Robin has shared with me a few abandoned utility sites on CCD land that we may be able to incorporate
into CCD or as a separate entity. The citation on whether these abandon sites may qualify is under our Zoning
Ordinance, Section 50.4 (Special Density Exception for Pre -Existing Utility Parcels) — page 38 (July,'12 Zoning Ordinance).
Please let me know if you have questions as we proceed in resolving the CCD past and moving forward into the future.
Sam Burgess
12/12/12
From: Robin Grathwol[mailto:rdgrathwoli(abyahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 8:37 AM
To: Burgess, Sam
Subject: FW: Conceptual plan 2
Importance: High
Sam I wanted to make sure you received this -I sent it to you a little over a week ago and tried to call. Please confirm you
received this and I need to talk to you about timing on approval asap. Thanks
3:7:illi
From: Chris Glover [mailto:cialovercoCa)yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 12:29 PM
To: Robin Grathwol
Subject: Conceptual plan 2
Ok Robin see how this looks. Pass it on to Sam if you are ready.
I'll change it again if you're not. -C
Total Control Panel
To: sburgess@nhcgov.com Remove this sender from my allow list
From: rdgrathwol I yahoo.com
You received this message because the sender is on your allow list.
Lo in
2
OTALL STNEE TS SHALL BE BNLI 10 NO
HIGHWAY STANDARDS,
11TH 10 x V SIGHT DISTANCES AT INTEFSECTONS
1 ALL LGIS ARE GOOD SWARC FELT PLUS
J. TOTAL ACREAGE u! DEAL —ENT 4 1.779 A —
TOTAL NUMBER CC LOTS - H18
TRACT SERVED BY NEW MANDAI COUNTY ATER
6 TRACT SE AD BY NEW HANDKR CWNTY
SANITARY SE"'
T '
UM BUILDING LILACS SHALL BE AS ALLOx£0
BY PERFORMANCE NESrOC — DEKLOPUENT.
ARCH —1. R-N,
9. DRAINAGE SHALL BE INSTALLED AS PER SCL
C-1—ATIO11 SCRNCE CRITERIA.
10. NO CONSTFUCNON SHALL COMMENCE UNTIL A PER- 15
DBT.MN'ED UNDER THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY SOL EROYON
AND SCO.1-1. ORpNu2E
TOTAL (PRIVATE) WEN SPACE AREA . 29506 A -
AS IN IAP BECK 38. PAGES JOD d JO1
W THE NCW MANDKR COUNTY RCGISiRY
12. PLAN REISED 11/19/12 TO REFLECT THE ADDHION OC TWO
INTERIOR TRACTS AND BROptSIDE GARDENS PHASE 1
IJ CURRENTLY THCRC ARE J.616 Urn TS (LOTS) RECORDED TIE
R(uuI,ING BJ2 WI1 BE p51RIBUI1D AS SHOWN
OPEN SPACE
0 UNITS
c�N
of
eF 1
UNITS
460 UNITS
CONCEPTUAL PLAN
W
COASTAL CAROLINA DEVELOPMENT
IVFNER to. P NEW HAND— C Nw NORM CMgINA
SCALZ 1, . BOB, NOKMBER 19. 20T2
TCB
COASTAL CAROLINA DEVELOPMERS, INC.
IDW E. W£NDOVER AVENUE
DREFN—,, NC 21—
PPEPARm B,
PRELIMINARY. REVIEW COPY
KR COMP NY
.G.ILKiNSE N0. C-2BSS
HOS JA._ COK WAY
WOR(GttW, NC 28112
910) 292-1BIT
NOTES:
1. ALL STREETS SHALL BE BUILT TO NC HIGHWAY STANDARDS,
WITH 10' X 70' SIGHT DISTANCES AT INTERSECTIONS.
2. ALL LOTS ARE 6,000 SQUARE FEET PLUS.
3. TOTAL ACREAGE IN DEVELOPMENT IS 1,779 AC.t.
4. TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS = 4448.
5. TRACT SERVED BY NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATER. '
6. TRACT SERVED BY NEW HANOVER COUNTY
SANITARY SEWER. '
7. MINIMUM BUILDING LINES SHALL BE AS ALLOWED
BY PERFORMANCE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
B. AREA ZONED R-15.
9. DRAINAGE SHALL BE INSTALLED AS PER SOIL
CONSERVATION SERVICE CRITERIA.
10. NO CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMMENCE UNTIL A PERMIT IS
OBTAINED UNDER THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY SOIL EROSION
AND SEDIMENTATION ORDINANCE,
11. TOTAL (PRIVATE) OPEN SPACE AREA = 293.06 AC.3
AS RECORDED IN MAP BOOK 38, PAGES 300 & 301
OF THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY REGISTRY. ,
..ONE 16, 1986 (ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL)
REVISED: NOVEMBER 18. 1986
REVISED: NOVEMBER 28, 1988
REVISED: MARCH 26, 1990
REVISED: FEBRUARY 27, 1992
REVISED: MARCH 1, 1993
REVISED: JANUARY 7, 1994
REVISED: JULY 26' 1995
REVISED: MARCH 5, 1996
REVISED: FEBRUARY 12, 1997
REVISED: APRIL 23, 1997
REVISED: AUGUST 12. 1998
REVISED: DECEMBER 31. 1998
REVISED: APRIL 3D, 1999
REVISED: JULY 16. 1999
REVISED: JANUARY IP, 20DO
REVISED: SEPTEMBER 13, 2000
REVISED: AUGUST 8, 2001
REVISED: FEBRUARY 27. 2002
Rq�R
12. PLAN REVISED 11/19/12 TO REFLECT THE ADDITION OF TWO
INTERIOR TRACTS AND BROOKSIDE GARDENS PHASE 2.
13. CURRENTLY THERE ARE 3,616 UNITS (LOTS) RECORDED. THE
REMAINING 832 WILL BE DISTRIBUTED AS SHOWN.
OPEN SPACE
0 UNITS
2 0NN5 AL 0�L
460 UNITS
Bq ��
G7
N�No
NCB
372 UNITS
CONCEPTUAL PLAN
OF
COASTAL CAROLINA DEVELOPMENT
HARNETT TOWNSHIP NEW HANOVER COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA
SCALE: I' = 600' NOVEMBER 19, 2012
FOR
COASTAL CAROLINA DEVELOPMERS, INC.
1030 E. WENDOVER AVENUE
GREENSBORO, NC 27405
PREPARED BY:
PRELIMINARY. REVIEW COPY
C. I. GLOVER COMPANY
N.C. LICENSE NO. C-2855
4405 JASMINE COVE WAY
WILMINGTON, NC 28412
(910) 792-1011
IDOO' 0 10o0' 2000'
Final distribution of units
for Coastal Carolina Development
as shown on accompanying map
49.45 ac. = total area west of Crooked Pine Rd. within the development
49.45 ac. X 2.5 units per acre = 124 potential units for the area west of
Crooked Pine Rd.
The area west of Crooked Pine Rd. shall remain undeveloped and the units may
be transferred to the Legacy Group, Inc. tract which is also within the development
372 units = total number reserved for the Legacy Group, Inc.
372 units + 124 units = 496 units (new total number of units reserved for the
Legacy Group, Inc. tract)
Ilost////
••CAR0��/�'�
SEAL < •,
= L-4090
•o��SUR;�.• `�•
�/ ,JJG jo �� ���
(sot(
j t
page 2 of 2
d2 Company
Philip T. Triece
P.O. Box 7777 (910) 452-2004
Wilmington, NC 28406 Cell 520-8947
L-L-J�4
L7
CIA
-- ---- - --- --------------
- ------ - ------------------
C-"2� C-L
- --- -- ---------------------- ---------
------------
at I
P---'LT -------------
1.7
k 2-2-t,2
-- ----- ---—j� — ---
---- —
----------- --------�Lz.¢r3 j �-�c
a_2Ccti., b.x A. �
C 1) _xo c�—kf)
C. I. Glover Company, PC
426 Ridge Road
Wilmington, NC 28412
January 17, 2011
Coastal Carolina Developers, Inc.
2905 Market Street
Wilmington, NC 28403
Office: (910) 792-1011
Fax: (910) 792-0065
Cell: (910) 471-4091
e-Mail: cigloverco@yahoo.com
Calculation for determining the new boundary line
and the balancing of areas for Coastal Carolina Development
1,767.81 ac. = total area in Coastal Carolina Development per NIIC Planning Dept,
approved map dated February 2002 (includes additional area for
4 14v Ow� completion of Brookside Gardens subdivision)
3,616 units = total number recorded in all of Coastal Carolina Development
372 units = total number reserved for the Legacy Group, Inc.
ti,C'Ata
3,616 units + 372 units = 3,988 (number used for this calculation)
.,,' 3,988 units / 2.5 units per acre = 1,595.20 ac. (area required to support 3,988 units)
1,767.81 ac. — 1,595.20 ac. = 172.61 acres remaining in the development
ir7ULf - 1r5(15
The accompanying map shows 123.16 acres east of Crooked Pine Rd. and 49.45 acres
west of Crooked Pine Rd, for a total 172.61 acres.
Please note that for this calculation all well sites are considered as open space and are
not counted as units.
�C� {wee4Y-ol ptf2s� i1
Cze.,
page 1 of 2
I
Burgess, Sam
To: O'Keefe, Chris; Daughtridge, Jane
Subject: Coastal Carolina Bio
Chris & Jane,
The following information may be useful for our meeting tomorrow at 2:00 p.m. with Robin Grathwol, Tom Wilson, and
Leon Skinner of CCD.
June 1986: Master Concept Plan Approved by County for 3,850 lots, 1,649 acres (2.5 units per acre)
March 2002: Master Concept Revised approved by TRC for 4,405 lots, 1,764 acres (2.497 units per acre)
January 2011: Meeting with CCD folks & surveyor revealed adjustments to 2002 plan reflecting 4421 lots, 1,768 ac (2.5
units per acre).
Planning staff accepted new figures but requested that a new updated Master Concept Plan be submitted to bring plan
up to date and that no more annexations of land take place. To date, no updated plan has been submitted to County.
Since January 25,'11 (mtg w/ Robin, Tom, Leon, Eliza, Jane, Chris, Sam & Phil Triece)
Swain and Associates have purchased (presumed) a good deal of what was known as the "Legacy" property near County
park and north of Gordon Road. Plat approved by County in May,'11.
Discussion tomorrow may be centered on what land CCD now owns, the distribution of recorded open space to the
respective POA's, corridor protection of Military, and Titan's interest in mitigating 404 areas of Holly Shelter property
with property owned by CCD (north Murrayville Road) along with recording additional open space to keep density
steady at 2.5 units.
Sam
Coastal Carolina Development Information
December 17, 2010
• June, 1986: Master Concept Plan approved by Planning staff for 3,850 lots & 1,649 acres
• March, 2002: Revised Master Conce t Plan approved by TRC 4,405 lots & 1,764 acres
1-4 �l
Notes From Surveyor Glover on Coastal Property
• December, 2010: Master Plan = 4421 lots on 1,768 acres 7 V,.cb c cceq kid .Cz,
• Discrepancies noted from approved 2002 master plan include:
1) Donut hole North Murrayville Road
2) Yopp Tract (adjacent & South Murrayville Rd)
3) Remnant piece North Weaver Woods 7 w �� of
• Total number Platted lots = 3,616, acres 1,262
• If Legacy property included = 3,988 lots (based on approx 148.88 acres) — need total 1,595.2 ac
Synopsis L4 1 * \D ( O-tcc - `ct C} 1LovQA
• Approximately 433 undeveloped lots available within CCD based on balance of 173 acres
(1,768—1,595) to maintain 2.5 units per net tract ac acres balance
Recommendation
• Revise Master Concept Plan CCD to reflect surveyor stats
• Take revised Master Concept Plan to TRC for consideration and approval
I�iCo�d�� U e 5 V Ise w LacL_ . z� �1 �nci� \ -oo d
Z oie �a�r ryf cc C,?,Z- - of�w %
�FC4 ,J� p.Q'tk
y.Gi wc� CGJ�� c�r� p_oYccl ti 1
o can c iL Lcv.c� 2...;-c-- I-xc3 ten i vV -7/ t3
,2 G _- R P
-- - ----
l_�t C..o.,..L� �e..<-.� � Qc,ti, /\q.S�.G'✓s,..l�— lV\w:�—G2—
C(�.nC_.�t_c�
31—C
COASTAL CAROLINA DEVELOPMENT HISTORY
T. 6
* June, 1986: Concept master plan approved by Planning staff for 3,850 lots-1,649 acres.
* Nov, 1986 : Revision (modifications to design) to master plan approved by staff for 3,850
lots-1,649 acres.
Nov,1988 : Revision (modifications to design) to master plan approved for 3,8501ots-
1,649 acres.
* Mar, 1990: Revision (modifications to design) to master plan approved for 3,850 lots-
1,649 acres.
* Feb, 1992 : Revision (annexation of Gordon Woods) to master plan approved for a total
of 3,873 lots- 1,675 acres.
Mar, 1993 : Revision to master plan approved 4,089 lots-1,748 acres (annexation
Meadowbrook ?).
Jan, 1994 : Revision to master plan (reduction open space) approved for 4,089 lots- 1,748
acres.
July, 1995: Revision to master plan (purchase of property to Harris) approved for 3,371
lots-1,348 acres.
* Mar, 1996: Revision to master plan (design changes) approved for 3,371 lots-1,348 acres.
Feb, 1997 : Revision to master plan (annexation of add. property) approved by TRC for
3,730 lots-1,492 acres.
Aug, 1998: Revision to site plan (design changes) approved by TRC for 3,730 lots-1,492
acres.
�C1CtCi 1�Qvls);� �% D_�Ee Pecs ls,.c,�) b� Y0.L Le'• `-4)1-405 Qoi.D1
k) 762- cw_zn
Lk C) J
qw t W w W—lw w lor,"W 14
L-C
k-t 1A
Off
5
t-k v v t-
I-N Q,
Q--x-, Ir >,Jtsxl---:
Burgess, Sam
From: Burgess, Sam
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:31 PM
To: O'Keefe, Chris; Ralston, Shawn
Subject: Hanover Lands Response to Wolf (draft)
C&S,
Please review and advise!
Cindee,
Planning staff has had the opportunity to review and discuss potential land development options based on the "Hanover
Lands" documentation sent by your office January 18, 2013. Based on our discussion, Planning staff made the following
observations:
• A proposed map amendment to the land use plan for the approximate 120 acre tract can't be supported at this
time. Staff will begin working on the comprehensive plan update soon with completion in two years. Staff feels
that the planning process of this tract/area be thoroughly evaluated and vetted through the process before
moving forward with any potential high density proposal.
• Staff can't support a rezoning from R-15 Residential to R-10 Residential based on the present land classification
and existing R-15 zoning adjacent to the tract.
• Staff does recommend moving forward with a development tool such as a performance residential project for
the 120 acres as a "stand- alone" project which may yield 300 units. This option would need to provide/display
an improved extension of Murrayville Road and improved road connection to Military Cut -Off Extension. This
display may provide commercial node possibilities.
• Staff would also be amenable to reviewing a GDP (General Development Plan) of the "Hanover Lands" tract or
the submission of the entire Coastal Carolina Development project in accordance with Section 51.5-2 (8)(A)(B)(C)
of the County's Zoning Ordinance.
Please contact me if you have questions.
Burgess, Sam
To: Chris Glover
Cc: Robin Grathwol; O'Keefe, Chris; Ralston, Shawn
Subject: RE:Coastal Carolina Development Conceptual Update
Chris,
Enjoyed talking with you regarding the updated CCD Conceptual Plan late this afternoon. To summarize our
conversation after discussing the proposal with Chris O'Keefe, please note the following:
1) The County is willing to accept the additional 16 acres (3 parcels)and 42 lots to the plan/map as shown.
2) The property labeled as Swain & Associates is now County property and must be removed from consideration.
For purposes of clarity, please delineate the Swain/County property boundary on the map and remove the
acreage and potential lots from the matrix table.
3) Please clarify the Weaver Woods boundary on the map.
4) The conceptual plan as noted on the map needs to be changed to General Development Plan (GDP —part of
Zoning Ordinance).
5) Under GDP criteria, the land noted on the map as "Hanover Lands" must show the road network, lots (as shown
on the approved 2002 conceptual, and type of housing — single family detached).
6) Based on the County's 2006 adopted Land Use Plan, the "Hanover Lands" area is classified as Wetland Resource
Protection which would prohibit the clustering of more than 2.5 units an acre on the property.
7) On the GDP (which would be reviewed by TRC), the labeling of the Military Cut -Off Ext will need to be shown on
the map along with plans for extending Murrayville Road for future access purposes.
Since there has been a proposal to capture 445 units on the "Hanover Lands" tract, we recommend several potential
options:
1) Submit the "Hanover Lands" proposal as an Exceptional Design Zoning District (EDZD)which additional density
may be captured based on core requirements and a point system to determine density or,
2) Submit a text amendment.
As you know, I will be out the entire week of December 24-28.
Merry Christmas,
Sam
From: Chris Glover [mailto:ciglovercoCcbyahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 8:29 AM
To: Burgess, Sam
Cc: Robin Grathwol
Subject: Re: Conceptual Update
Sam- Here it is again. Notes 11 and 12 have been revised. Hopefully that will help with some of the
misunderstanding. -CG
1
From: "Burgess, Sam" <sburgess(a_nhcgov.com>
To: 'Chris Glover' <cigloverco(ayahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 8:08 AM
Subject: RE: Conceptual Update
Chris,
Resend conceptual. I could not open it. I will look at open space that has been recorded.
Sam
Sam Burgess I Senior Planner
Planning & Inspections - Planning & Zoning I New Hanover County
230 Government Center Drive, Suite 110
Wilmington, NC 28403
(910) 798-7441 p 1 (910) 798-7053 f
From: Chris Glover [mailto:ciglovercowahoo.coml
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 4:54 PM
To: Burgess, Sam
Cc: Robin Grathwol; Tom Wilson
Subject: Conceptual Update
Everyone please look at this update and comment/reply. I am available in the morning
for anymore changes. -C
Total Control Panel
To: sburgessAnbegov.com Remove this sender from my allow list
From: cigloverco@yahoo.com
Yoa receNed this message because the sender is on your allow list.
2
<<
L%
6-r-elf ✓t 2 5 3 o D /� C- C-u�✓' �e-�� �, P� vq, o
P
.t r/ .
tzt,� r �D�D(oC 4c-vKer- Trv'v B S�Q� rio�J c�G �h
SL' Gf�'cMS l�C,,O n For ( q q
P
Cu2�2r�T T6CT -b�,i/S�
'3/ol (o
f51Z.3(o
2 3� uu, f s
per -
AC re
;?0,)
Aho4w""�
lq4Awm�r-