04_NHC TRC Comment Response Letter
880 Island Park Drive, Suite 400, Charleston, South Carolina 29492
843.501.0333 | bowman.com
May 2, 2024
New Hanover County
Attn: Zach Dickerson
Current Planner
230 Government Center Drive, Suite 110
Wilmington, NC 28403
(910) 798-7165
Re: Royal Farms #482 Wilmington (Castle Hayne Rd)
Dear Mr. Dickerson:
We are providing the following responses to address review comments received by email in
December 2023, regarding the above referenced project.
Email Comments from Zach Dickerson, 12/12/23
Comment 1: Please confirm the calculations for the foundation plantings. It appears that the
front of the building is approximately 92’ across the front, unsure of the height
which we would need to calculate the requirement for foundation plantings. The
four planter boxes at 6’x2’ = 12 sq ft each, totaling 48 sq ft of foundation
plantings for the Royal Farms Building- I think you might need more than this but
the calculations will get that figured out.
Response: Royal Farms Building
91’ x 24’-9” = 2,252 sqft area of building face
12% of 2,252 sqft area = 270 sqft area required for foundation planting.
8’x 4’ = 32 sqft area for each planter
9 foundation planters will be proposed for a total of 288 sqft of foundation
planters.
Comment 2: You’ll also need foundation plantings for the portion of the car was building that
faces the parking lot.
Response: The car wash has been removed from the plans.
Comment 3: Please confirm total square footage of the parking lot so we can verify the
amount of parking lot landscaping provided meets requirements.
Response: 30,031 sqft without gas canopy or 35,311 sqft with gas canopy. The
proposed landscape plan includes 66 trees and 335 shrubs. The landscape
plan is included in the site plan submittal.
Royal Farms #482 Wilmington
Page 2 of 4
Comment 4: When I was communicating the information about the street yard and
landscaping calculations with the previous engineer, I made a comment that trees
planted for street yard requirements can count towards the requirement of 15
trees planted per acre disturbed. How this should have been written was that
trees planted in excess of street yard requirements can count towards that
requirement. When we were running those numbers, the total required for this
was 42 trees. Since there are 6 trees being retained, there is a difference of 36
trees that would need to be planted to meet this requirement. The street yard
plantings show a total of 64 trees.
a. With 36 trees required in the street yard, and 64 being planted, you’re in excess
of 28 trees.
b. 36-28 = 8 trees that would need to be planted to satisfy the 15 trees per acre
disturbed requirement.
Response: From the previous submittal street yard calculations determined that 36
trees are required but 6 will remain so a total of 30 trees will be required. 64
trees are proposed to be planted so 64-30= 34 trees are in excess. 36-34= 2
trees that would need to be planted to satisfy the 15 trees per acre disturbed
requirement. 2 extra red maple canopy trees are added to landscape plan.
Environmental Health Comments, provided in 12/12/23 email
Comment 1: All Environmental Health’s previous statements would still be true for new
engineers.
Response: Environmental health comments are addressed.
CFPUA Comments, provided in 12/12/23 email
Comment 1: Project is currently under CFPUA Plan Review.
a. CFPUA water will be made available via a watermain extension.
b. CFPUA sewer will be made available via a forcemain extension then forcemain
to forcemain connection.
Response: Comments from CFPUA have been received and addressed.
Army Corps of Engineers Comments, provided in 12/12/23 email
Royal Farms #482 Wilmington
Page 3 of 4
Comment 1: The Corps verified a nationwide permit for this site earlier this year. I will say the
current plan appears to have impacts that were not covered under the original
verification. Namely the silt fence is proposed is at a different location on this
plan than the plan approved by the Corps. Also there appears to be impacts
associated with the sediment basin that was not approved either.
Response: Wetland impact has been changed since previous submittal, but current plans
show that only 0.017ac of wetland is impacted. Our site is currently approved
for 0.017ac from previous General Permit (Regional and Nationwide)
Verification (SAW-2012-02063).
Comment 2: The applicant may need to coordinate the with the Corps further as it does not
seem consistent with what has been previously approved.
Response: Wetland impact has been changed since previous submittal, but current plans
show that only 0.017ac of wetland is impacted. Our site is currently approved
for 0.017ac from previous General Permit (Regional and Nationwide)
Verification (SAW-2012-02063).
NCDOT Comments, provided in 12/12/23 email
Comment 1: Show and label the 10’ x 70’ NCDOT sight triangles.
Response: Sight triangles are added to plans with dimensions, see sheet C7.1.
Comment 2: Show it on the site plan as well.
Response: Plans include sight triangles.
Comment 3: No obstructions shall be placed within the NCDOT sight triangles.
Response: Obstructions have been moved to adjust for sight triangle, see sheet C7.1.
Comment 4: Show and label the appropriate sight distances.
Response: Sight distances are added to plans with dimensions.
Comment 5: No obstructions shall be placed within the stopping sight distance.
Response: Obstructions have been moved to adjust for sight distance.
Comment 6: Reference table 3-1 below for design requirements.
Response: Sight distance designed with min requirements.
Royal Farms #482 Wilmington
Page 4 of 4
Please do not hesitate to contact me directly if you have any questions. I can be reached at
ndelrio@bowman.com
Very respectfully,
BOWMAN CONSULTING GROUP LTD.
Nina Del Rio, EIT
Civil Engineer I