1. May 13, 2015

2. Site - USGS Topo SITE Source: 2013 Oriental USGS 7.5-minute Topographic Map

3. Site - Soil Survey SITE Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service Pamlico County Soil Survey Map

4. Site Setting Source: Pamlico County GIS 2010 Aerial Smith Creek Camp Creek

5. Lot Source: Pamlico County GIS 2010 Aerial

6. Existing Conditions

7. Project History May 20, 2003Purchased subject property November 4, 2004 Minor Variance issued for 7-unit multi-family condominiums Zone 2 Impacts = 1,626 sq ft Mitigation: Planted 12 trees within retained buffer August 25, 2010 Letter that no written concurrence required issued for condominium completion, driveways, bulkhead, docks and piers Zone 1 Impacts = 80 sq ft April – June, 2011 Applied for General Major Variance for decks on all 7 units Application returned as ineligible due to purchase date of the property August 20, 2012 Minor Variance issued for two decks (units #1 & #2) Zone 2 Impacts = 440 sq ft Mitigation: 660 sq ft buffer credits from private bank March 2, 2015 ( complete application ) Major Variance application submitted for five additional decks (units #3-#7) Zone 1 Impacts = 509 sq ft Zone 2 Impacts = 931 sq ft

8. SitePlan Zone 1 Zone 2 Bulkhead Smith Creek Existing Decks Proposed Decks Blackwell Point Loop Rd N

9. Permanent Impacts: Zone 1 Zone 2 509 sq ft 931 sq ft Total1,440 sq ft Mitigation Required: 509 x 3 = 1,527 sq ft 931 x 1.5 = 1,397 sq ft Total 2,924 sq ft Stormwater Plan: Roof drainage to outlet in vegetated area outside buffer Mitigation Proposal: Private Mitigation Bank Buffer Credits 2,924 sq ft

10. Pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B.0233 (9)(c), the Division of Water Resources makes the preliminary finding that the major variance request does not demonstrate the following: practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships are present, the harmony and spirit of buffer protection requirements are met, and the protection of water quality and substantial justice have all been achieved in accordance with 15A NCAC 02B.0233 (9)(a).

11. Practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships are not present: A.The applicant can make reasonable use of his property without the additional impacts from constructing five additional decks. While the applicant would not be able to build five open-air decks without these additional impacts, two units have open-air decks and each unit has a ground level screened porch with optional second and third floor decks. B.The hardship results from the application of this Rule rather than other factors such as deed restrictions or other factors. Application of the buffer rule does not prevent the applicant from providing ADA-accessible, outdoor recreational area. X X

12. C.The hardship is not due to the physical nature of the applicant’s property. Although a portion of the property is located within the buffer, approximately two-thirds of the property is located outside the buffer. The hardship was created by planning seven townhouse units situated within Zone 2 of the buffer and then requesting a major variance from the rule. D.The applicant did not cause the hardship by knowingly or unknowingly violating this Rule.

13. E.The applicant purchased the property on May 20, 2003, which is after the effective date of this Rule. The lot was platted and recorded on August 20, 1997, which is approximately one month after the effective date of the rule. F.The hardship is not unique to the applicant’s property in that adjacent properties are of similar size and also contain buffer adjacent to Smith Creek. X X

14. The purpose of the riparian buffer rules is to protect existing riparian buffer areas. The applicant could utilize the townhomes without additional impacts to the riparian buffer. Allowing the construction of decks by granting the request for a major variance would not be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the riparian buffer protection rules and does not preserve their spirit.

15. The variance would not assure the public welfare, protect water quality and ensure substantial justice has been done. Although the applicant proposed to discharge gutter downspouts outside the buffer, the applicant reports that area to provide stormwater treatment is not available on the property. The applicant failed to establish that a variance for the proposed decks would assure the public welfare and protect water quality as it is protected by strict application of the Neuse River Riparian Area Protection Rules. Further, the applicant failed to establish that allowing placement of the decks within the riparian buffer would provide substantial justice when other property owners have been required to comply with the rules.

16. DWR recommendation is that the Water Quality Committee deny this major variance request. If the Water Quality Committee approves this request, the Division recommends approval with the following conditions or stipulations:  Mitigation The applicant shall provide mitigation for the proposed impacts by purchasing 2,924 buffer credits from EBX Neuse Riparian Buffer Umbrella Mitigation Bank as indicated in the application.  Stormwater Management Plan The applicant shall direct roof drainage from Units #3 through #7 to outlet in a vegetated area outside the buffer