For Office Use Only

CASE # ^0^ -^int; .V

FEE PAID ^fO, C''0

_^M/^'^DATE

For Office Use Only

ts\-S-

CRITICAL AREA: IDA LDA L/ RCA

BMA: Yes No y

NO. OF SIGNS

T1

VARIANCE APPLICATION\01 ( I hi' trim i dn hi. dn\Mi].. ;i(]i;d I,. \ulii toiTipiilci and I il 1c d nil llllll/iliy Atldhc Rtdtli l (01 'iiliil, ii [iiiidlkll 11 c.in ,

ou1 IT h.iiid

Applicant(s):_ David Stier

lie piinlcd and I'iiltd

(Applicant must have a financial, contractual, or proprietary interest in the property)

Property Address: 20 Warehouse Creek Lane, Edgewater, MD 21037

Property Location: 465 feet of frontage on the (N ) side of Warehouse Creek Lane

1,000 feet (E(Enter Street Name)

) of fNearest intersecting street) Solomons Island Road (Rt. 2)(Enter Street Name)

12-digit Tax Account Number 01-000-90037474 _ Tax District ( 1 )r<^.. ^^i n:^^,

Waterfront Lot: YJ/] NQZoning District Rl

Area 2.26 _ (Acres

Corner Lot: Y [] N [] Deed Title Reference 32572/182

Lot # _ Tax Map 0055 Block/Grid 0012 Parcel 0121

) Subdivision Name Myrick/Cullember Property

Description of Proposed Project and Variance Requested (Brief, detail fully in lener of explanation)Applicant seeks this variance to build portions of his new residence within the expanded critical area buffer.

The specific variance requested is described in the letter of explanation attached to the variance application.The applicant hereby certifies that he or she has a financial, contractual, or proprietary interest in the property; that he or she isauthorized to makg4his^plication; that the information shown on this appiication ifc5h^t; and that he or she will comply with allapplicable regulaft^ns ofA'rtr^ Arundet|Couiyti^\Ma(-yland.

Owner's SignatureApplicant's Signature^,

Print Naine Attorney for David Stier _ print Name Attorney for David Stierc/o Yumkas, Vidmar, Sweeney & Mulrenin, LLC

Mailing Address 185 Admiral Cochrane Dr.. Ste. 130 _ Mailing Address9430A Contractors Court

City, State, Zip Annapolis. MD 21401

Work Phone 443-569-0757

Hoine Phone

Cell Phone

City, State, Zip Manassas. VA 20109

Work Phone

Home Phone

Cell Phone

Email Address dplott@yvslaw.com Email Address rooferl474@aol.com

* * * Below For Office Use Only * * *

Application accepted by Anne Arundel County Office of Planning and Zoning:Inilials"

varian<-e to a\{o^ d dJiiJP^U^ ijiiprk Vii^ ^ditnr^ s.f\Y\f\ V)^W -^pA ^sq^pA

TrirtiTpzo)ate

YUNKA8 Z^VJDNAR8WEENEY&NULRENIN.

David M. Plott -fr 443-569-0757 <> dplott(5)yvslaw. com

August 17, 2020

Ms. Sterling SeayAnne Arundel CountyOffice of Planning and Zoning2664 Riva Road, Third FloorAnnapolis, MD 21401

Re: Letter of ExplanationA^ariance Application for David Stier/20 Warehouse Creek Lane,Edgewater, MD/Tax Map 55, Grid 12, Parcel 121 (the "Lot")

Dear Ms. Seay:

I represent David Stier regarding this variance request to build portions of his new residencewithin the expanded critical area buffer. Mr. Stier purchased the Lot in reliance on a recentlyapproved Record Plat and representations by a County planner that he could build his home bysimply obtaining a grading and building permit, and without the need for variances. However,much to Mr. Stier's great distress, the representations both on the County approved Record Platand statements made to him by County staff during his due diligence prior to acquiring the Lotproved untrue. Therefore, he must seek variance relief, and justice, from the AdministrativeHearing Officer.

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Stier purchased the Lot from Oden Cullember Jr. and Louise Myrick in October 2018. Theprior owners of the Lot had processed a subdivision plat through Anne Arundel County thatdelineated a critical area "100' BUFFER/EXPANDED BUFFER", encumbered the Lot withthree separate forest conservation easement areas, and established a 10,000 square foot septicreserve area on the Lot. The Plat was approved by Anne Amndel County on May 21, 2015 andrecorded among the land records ofAnne Arundel County at Plat Book 339, Page 20 ("RecordPlat"), less than three years before Mr. Stier purchased the Lot.

Prior to purchasing the Lot, Mr. Stier performed substantial investigations, including meetingwith JeffTomey, a highly experienced, Planner III in the residential section of the DevelopmentDivision of the Office of Planning and Zoning, to ensure that he could accomplish his buildingplans without a complex and difficult approval process such as variances. In the meeting withMr. Tomey, it was represented to Mr. Stier that there was a large building envelope outside ofthe platted forest conservation easements, buffer and expanded buffer and septic reserve area, asshown on the Record Plat, that would be available for accomplishing his house construction. Inreliance on the County approved Record Plat and representations by experienced County staff,

Ms. Sterling SeayAugust 17, 2020Page 2

Mr. Stier purchased the Lot and designed his house. He engaged design and engineeringprofessionals to obtain grading and building permits to constmct his new home.

It was during the permit review process in 2019 that Mr. Stier was informed by a differentCounty planner (but employed in the same Development Division ofOPZ) through a commenton the grading permit application that the platted "100' BUFFER/EXPANDED BUFFER"delineated on the Record Plat approved only four years earlier by the County Planning andZoning Officer would be disregarded and that the County would require a new expansion of thebuffer based upon certain COMAR and County Code provisions which were all in effect at thetime the County officially approved and delineated the 100' BUFFER/ EXPANDED BUFFERby executing the Record Plat.

Mr. Stier met with County planning staff to understand this sudden change in position which onits face is conb-ary to the County approved Record Plat, and was directed to seek variance reliefto the expanded buffer requirements as a precondition to obtaining approval of grading andbuilding permits to construct his home. Therefore, Mr. Stier seeks a Critical Area buffervanance to 18-13-104(a) and (b)(l) of the Code, while reserving all of his rights and causes ofaction against all potentially responsible individuals, companies, agencies and other entities, withrespect to his damages and losses resulting from any intentional, negligent or other actions oromissions including without limitation made on the Record Plat and to him individually duringthe course of his purchasing the Lot and attempting to obtain approval for his home on his lot.Per the County's comments, Mr. Stier's variance application is necessary to develop a single-family dwelling on this buildable Lot only recently granted record plat approval.THE PROPERTY

The Lot is located on Warehouse Creek, a tidal tributary of the South River, in Edgewater,Maryland and comprises approximately 2.26 acres. The Lot is oddly configured almost in theshape of an upside-down boot with the toe of the boot along Warehouse Creek and WarehouseCreek Lane forming the top of the boot. The Lot has unique topography that falls to the east andwest from a ridge that runs from the northern comer to southern potion of the Lot. Certainportions of the Lot contain 15% and greater slopes defined as steep slopes by the critical arearegulations. The Lot is partially wooded with approximately 1. 01 acres (44, 009 SF) of forest perthe Critical Area Report, with the balance of the land being invasive shrubs and mixed grasses.

Vehicular access to the Lot is from MD 2, via Warehouse Creek Lane, a 40' public right-of-way.The Lot is zoned Rl - Residential District and classified as a Limited Development Area (LDA)under the County critical area program. The Lot must be served with onsite septic and individualwell.

The surrounding neighborhood consists of commercial zoning to the west along both sides ofRt.2 and along a portion of Warehouse Creek Lane. The Lot is located in an area ofsingle-familydwellings, many of which are waterfront. The western shore of Warehouse Creek is zoned Rl

Ms. Sterling SeayAugust 17, 2020Page 3

except for marina zoning adjacent to the Rt. 2 South River bridge. The eastern side ofWarehouse Creek is zoned R5. Both sides of Warehouse Creek are divided into lots improvedwith single-family dwellings. The dwelling sizes on nearby waterfront lots range fromapproximately 3, 000 SF to 7, 000 SF. Mr. Stier's proposed home will be one story with abasement and a living area of approximately 5, 171 SF.

THE PROPOSED DWELLWG AND REQUIRED VARIANCE RELIEF

Mr. Stier is proposing to improve his Lot with a single-family dwelling which is consistent withthe Rl (1 unit per 40, 000 SF) and LDA (4 units per acre) classifications. The proposeddevelopment will add approximately 0.2 acres (8, 559 SF) of lot coverage which is 8. 7% of theLot area, well below the 0. 34 acres (14, 767 SF) of lot coverage that is allowed under the law(15% maximum allowed lot coverage). All of the disturbance will be outside of the platted 100'BUFFER/ EXPANDED BUFFER that Mr. Stier relied upon in purchasing the Lot and whichwas rq?resented to him as the applicable full extent of the restricted buffer area when he metwith County staff prior to purchasing the Lot. Even with the newly required expansion of thebuffer beyond what the County Planning Director established when he signed the subdivisionplat in 2015, most of the proposed disturbance from Mr. Stier's house improvements will beoutside of the "expanded buffer" now being required by the County. Significantly, the proposedimprovements within the expanded buffer will not impact any forest, woodlands, steep slopes orenvironmentally sensitive features.

Mr. Stier is requesting the following variance relief:

. A request for 1 ,434 square feet of permanent expanded buffer disturbance per 18-13-104(a) of the Code, as shown on the site plan.

. A request for 1 , 726 square feet of temporary expanded buffer disturbance per 18-13-104(a) of the Code, as shown on the site plan.

. A request for the disturbance of 1, 141 square feet of expanded buffer for purposes ofinstalling a well to serve the dwelling.

VARIANCE REQUIREMENTS

The Critical Area Variance Reauirements

According to the subtitle of the Maryland Code governing development in the Critical Area,'[i]n considering an application for a variance, a local jurisdiction shall presume that the specific

development activity in the critical area that is subject to the application and for which a variance

Ms. Sterling SeayAugust 17, 2020Page 4

is required does not conform with the general purpose and intent of this subtitle, regulationsadopted under this subtitle, and the requirements of the local jurisdiction's program. " Nat. Res. §8-1808(d)(3)(ii). If the variance requested is based on conditions or circumstances that are theresult of actions by Mr. Stier, a local jurisdiction shall consider that fact. Nat. Res. § 8-1808(d)(3)(iii). Mr. Stier has the burden of proof and the burden of persuasion to overcome thepresumption that the development does not conform to the Critical Area program. Nat. Res. § 8-1808(d)(4)(i).

A variance to a local jurisdiction's critical area program may not be granted unless:

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

Due to special features of a site, or special conditions or circumstances peculiar toMr. Stier's land or structure, a literal enforcement of the critical area programwould result in unwarranted hardship to Mr. Stier;

The local jurisdiction finds that Mr. Stier has satisfied each one of the varianceprovisions; and

Without the variance, Mr. Stier would be deprived of a use of land or a stmcturepennitted to others in accordance with the provisions of the critical area program.

Nat. Res. §8-1808(d)(5).

In this context, according to Maryland law, '"unwarranted hardship' means that, without avanance, Mr. Stier would be denied reasonable and significant use of the entire parcel or lot forwhich the variance is requested. " Nat. Res. § 8-1808(d)(l); COMAR 27. 01. 12. 01. The Court ofAppeals, in defining the term "unwarranted hardship, " recently explained that "in order toestablish an unwarranted hardship, Mr. Stier has the burden of demonstrating that, without avariance, Mr. Stier would be denied a use of the property that is both significant and reasonable."Assateague Coastal Trust, Inc. v. Schwalbach, 448 Md. 112, 139 (2016). A "showing of'unwarranted hardship, '" emphasized the Court of Appeals, " is not whether, without thevariance, Mr. Stier is denied 'all reasonable and significant use' of the property, but whether,without the variance, Mr. Stier is denied 'a reasonable and significant use' that cannot beaccomplished somewhere else on the property. " Id. at 138-39 (emphasis in original).

For a property located in the critical area, a variance to the requirements of the County's criticalarea program may be granted if the Administrative Hearing Officer makes the findings listed inSection 18-16-305(b) of the Code. See also COMAR 27.01. 12.04.

Ms. Sterling SeayAugust 17, 2020Page 5

Compliance with the County's Critical Area Variance Requirements

(1) Because of certain unique physical conditions, such as exceptional topographicalconditions peculiar to and inherent in the particular lot or irregularity, narrowness, orshallowness of lot size and shape, strict implementation of the County's critical areaprogram would result in an unwarranted hardship. Code § 18-16-305(b)(l).

The unique physical conditions of the site, including its location on Warehouse Creek, its unique,boot-shaped configuration, the presence of forest land and steep slopes, lack of public water andsewer, the presence of soil conditions needed for onsite sq)tic and necessary well water service,were the driving forces that resulted in the many legal restrictions established on the Record Plat.Those restrictions resulted in three separate, disjointed portions of the Lot, in total comprisingover one-halfofthe entire Lot area being placed into a permanent forest conservation easementthat prohibits any development within those areas. The platted 100' BUFFER/ EXPANDEDBUFFER extends slightly beyond Forest Conservation Easement #1 in a couple locations.Additionally, another 10,000 SF of the Lot is a platted "Septic Area" and subject to the SepticArea Note on the Record Plat that provides as follows:

THE 10. 000 SQUARE FOOT SEPTIC AREA SHALL REMAIN UNENCUMBERED BYBUIDINGS. EASEMENT, RIGHTS-OF-WAY, AND OTHER PERMANENT OR PHYSICALOBJECTS. **/

The above described physical constraints of the Lot and subsequent processing of the subdivisionapplication by the prior owners and the subdivision review and approval by the County, led tothe legal constraints imposed by the Record Plat.

Mr. Stier fully investigated the Record Plat constraints and how they impacted his building plansprior to purchasing the Lot through consultations with Bay Engineering and his meeting with Mr.Tomey at the Office of Planning and Zoning. Based on his due diligence efforts he then closedon the Lot for a sum in excess of half a million dollars. Only after purchasing the Lot and filingan application for a grading permit to initiate his home constmction did the County OPZ, for thefirst time, impose additional building restrictions on the Lot beyond the substantial restrictionsthat they imposed during its extensive review and approval of the Record Plat only four yearspreviously. Notably the law had not changed during those four years. The DevelopmentDivision of the County Office of Planning and Zoning (the same Division that told Mr. Stier

The Plat notes a requirement for a nitrogen-reducing septic system approved as best availabletechnology and imposes annual maintenance obligations, including use of a certified serviceprovider, upon the property owner.

Ms. Sterling SeayAugust 17, 2020Page 6

prior to purchasing his Lot that he could build his house where presently proposed on the Lotwithout variances), through comments on Mr. Stier's grading permit application, imposed anexpanded no-build buffer area in addition to the expansive area already imposed on the Lot. Theexpansion of the buffer added 19,430 square feet to the "100' BUFFER/EXPANDED BUFFER"delineated on the Record Plat, further constraining the development area for his home.

Since the only vehicular access to the proposed home is from Warehouse Creek Lane via anarrow strip of land between FCE #1 and FCE #3 as shown on the Record Plat, the proposeddwelling location is the only location on the Lot to accommodate a dwelling. The County'snewly required expansion of the buffer eliminates essentially all developable portions of the Lotnorth of the proposed dwelling. Ironically, one of the County comments on Mr. Stier's gradingpermit application was to relocate the house to this northern portion of the Lot, now almostentirely expanded buffer and unbuildable, where the previous owners had shown a proposeddwelling on the final plan on file at OPZ and associated with the County approved Record Plat. 2If this is the County requirement, four years ago the County Planning Director signed a plat thatmade this Lot totally unbuildable and the County should be required to pay just compensation fortaking Mr. Stier's property.

The Court of Appeals has stated that a "showing of 'unwarranted hardship is not whether,without the variance, Mr. Stier is denied 'all reasonable and significant use' of the property, butwhether, without the variance, the Mr. Stier is denied ia reasonable and significant use' thatcannot be accomplished somewhere else on the property. " Schwalbach, 448 Md. at 138-39(emphasis in original). The physical and concomitant legal constraints imposed on the Lotclearly result in denial of a reasonable and significant use of the Lot - i.e. Mr. Stier'sconstruction of his home - if variance relief is not granted.

(2) A literal interpretation ofCOMAR, Title 2 7, Criteria for Local Critical Area ProgramDevelopment or the County 's critical area program and related ordinances will deprivethe applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in similar areas aspermitted in accordance with the provisions of the critical area program within thecritical area of the County. Code § 18-16-305 (b)(2).

A literal interpretation of the regulations governing the Critical Area Program will deprive Mr.Stier of rights commonly enjoyed by nearby property owners. In particular, all waterfront

2 There is no legal requirement in the County Code that construction on a lot can only be done asshown on a final plan on file with OPZ in conjunction with a subdivision approval, this isneither the law nor the practice ofAnne Arundel County OPZ in the 30+ years that thisattomey/planner has been practicing in Anne Arundel County.

Ms. Sterling SeayAugust 17, 2020Page 7

property owners in the area surrounding the Lot have single-family dwellings developed on theirproperties ranging from 3,000 SF to over 7,000 SF of living space. Most of the lots have morehouse square footage relative to lot size, than that proposed by Mr. Stier.

Some of these nearby dwellings were consfaiicted piirsuant to variances to the critical area buffer.In Case No. 1996-0325-V, the Hearing Officer granted variance approval to locate a newdwelling within 20' of the top of expanded buffer steep slopes on a lot located at 59 Slama Road,just north of the subject Lot. In Case No. 2013-0146-V, expanded buffer variances were grantedto extend an existing house located at 53 Slama Road twelve feet closer to the shoreline.Therefore, a literal interpretation of the critical area program and ordinances would deny Mr.Stier of rights commonly enjoyed by other nearby properties.

(3) The granting of a variance will not confer on an applicant any special privilege thatwould be denied by COMAR, Title 27, the County 's critical area program to other landsor structures within the County critical area. Code § 18-16-305 (b) (3).

Granting Mr. Stier a variance to construct a single-family dwelling on the Lot would not conferon it any special privilege that would be denied to others. As previously mentioned, nearbyproperties are developed with single-family dwellings within the Critical Area and in some casesthat was accomplished by critical area variance approvals.

(4) The variance request is not based on conditions or circumstances that are the result ofactions by the applicant, including the commencement of development before anapplication for a variance was filed, and does not arise from any condition relating toland or building use on any neighboring property. Code § 18-16-305(b)(4).

Mr. Stier's variance request is not based on conditions or circumstances that are the result of hisaction, and Mr. Stier has not begun any development on the Lot prior to submitting thisapplication. The necessity of the variance is due to existing site conditions. County actions thatimposed severe development restrictions on the Lot through the Record Plat process and itssubsequent actions in requiring an expanded buffer beyond what it established with the RecordPlat executed by the County Planning Director four years ago. Similarly, the circumstances donot arise from any condition relating to land or building use on any neighboring properties.

Ms. Sterling SeayAugust 17, 2020Page8

(5) The granting of the variances -will not adversely affect water quality or adversely impactfish, wildlife, or plant habitat within the County 's critical area and will be in harmonywith the general spirit and intent of the County 's critical area program. Code § 18-16-305(b)(5).

The granting of the variances will not adversely affect water quality or adversely impact fish,wildlife, or plant habitat within the County's Critical Area, because Mr. Stier will be required,among other things, to comply with all stormwater management, forest conservation, septicdisposal and other regulations.

Furthermore, the construction of the proposed dwelling will be in hannony with the general spirtand intent of the Critical Area program. The home will be a minimum of 167' from the shorelineand approximately 30' higher in elevation than Warehouse Creek, further from the Creek thanmost other surrounding homes.

(6) The applicant for a variance to allow development in the 100-foot upland buffer hasmaximized the distance between the bog and each structure, taking into account naturalfeatures and the replacement of utilities, and has met the requirements of § 17-9-208 ofthis Code. Code § 18-16-305 (b)(6).

No variance approval is requested for development within the 100-foot buffer and no bogs areaffected by this application.

(7) The applicant, by competent and substantial evidence, has overcome the presumptioncontained in the Natural Resources Article, § 8-1808, of the State Code. Code § 18-16-305(b)(7).

As set forth in the enclosed Critical Area Report, Mr. Stier's proposed development will be low-impact and will not negatively affect water quality or protected forest conservation areas andhabitats on the Lot. Based on the foregoing, and the evidence and testimony that will beprovided at the hearing, Mr. Stier will overcome the presumption in the State Code.

(8) The applicant has evaluated and implemented site planning alternatives in accordancewith § 18-16-201(c). Code § 18-16-305(b)(8).

Ms. Sterling SeayAugust 17, 2020Page 9

Mr. Stier has consulted with the Office of Planning and Zoning and complied with thisrequirement.

Requirements for All Variances

A variance may not be granted unless it is found that:

(1) the variance is the minimum variance necessary to afford relief; and

(2) the granting of the variance will not:

(i) alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the lotis located;

(ii) substantially impair the appropriate use or development of adjacentproperty;

(iii) reduce forest cover in the limited development and resource conservationareas of the critical area;

(iv) be contrary to acceptable clearing and replanting practices required fordevelopment in the critical area or a bog protection area; nor

(v) be detrimental to the public welfare.

Code, § 18-16-305(c).

The variance is the minimum variance necessary to afford relief. Code, § 18-17-305(c)(l).

Mr. Stier's house plans minimize impacts to the critical area buffer and expanded buffer. Hisproposal has no impact on the OPZ approved 100' buffer/expanded buffer shown on the RecordPlat. He has located his house to avoid impacts to the forest conservation areas whilemaximizing the setback from tidal waters. To that effect, the closest permanent disturbance tothe buffer will be approximately 15 feet from the tidal waters of Warehouse Creek and 28 feetfrom the top of steep slopes. This is much further from tidal waters than almost every otherwaterfront house located on either shore of Warehouse Creek. Pushing the house further back onthe Lot is constrained by the platted forest conservation easements and septic reserve areas andneeded area for access from Warehouse Creek Lane, including the ability to maneuver, park and

Ms. Sterling SeayAugust 17, 2020Page 10

turn around vehicles for ingress and egress to the house. Mr. Stier's proposed improvements areapproximately half of the allowable lot coverage. In summary, Mr. Stier has minimized thevanance request.

The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which thelot is located.

Minimally disturbing the expanded buffer to the top of steep slopes, 167 feet from the shorelineand in an area that contains no forest or sensitive habitat, in order to constmct a single-familydwelling in a neighborhood developed with single-family dwellings will not alter the essentialcharacter of the neighborhood.

The variance will not substantially impair the appropriate use or development of adjacentproperty.

The proposed dwelling will not affect in any way the appropriate use or development of adjacentproperties. The dwelling will be constmcted among other dwellings located in the Critical Areaand will be completely contained within the perimeter of the Lot.

The variances would not be contrary to acceptable clearing and replanting practices requiredfor development in the critical area.

Mr. Stier will comply with all Critical Area regulations, including all mitigation requirementsregarding forest clearing.

The variances will not be detrimental to the public welfare.

The proposed dwelling will not negatively affect the public welfare. It will transform a vacantland located in a residential district into a developed property, where the occupants of thedwelling will care for the property.

Ms. Sterling SeayAugust 17, 2020Page 11

CONCLUSION

The Lot, which is entirely within the Critical Area and severely impacted by physical constraintsrelated to steep slope, buffer and access issues, and also legal constraints imposed by the RecordPlat, has a unique configuration that prevents the construction of a single-family dwelling instrict confonnance of the law. Granting variance approval to allow Mr. Stier to build a single-family dwelling will conform to the spirit of the Critical Area program, as the house will notnegatively affect sensitive environments or wildlife, nor will it alter the character of the single-family neighborhood. The requested variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief. Mr.Stier's requested home is compatible with surrounding homes, and in fact smaller than mosthomes in the area relative to the size of their lots.

We request that the County and State Critical Area Coinmission recommend approval of thevariances as requested.

Very tmly yours,

YUMKAS, VIDMAR, SWEENpY & MULRENIN, LLC

^^A^David M. Plott

DN

150

Sout

h Ea

st S

treet

, Sui

te 2

01Fr

eder

ick,

Mar

ylan

d 21

701

Phon

e: 3

01-6

62-4

408

Fax

: 301

-662

-748

4w

ww

.adt

eken

gine

ers.

com

CIV

IL, S

TRU

CTU

RAL

AN

D S

PEC

IALT

Y EN

GIN

EER

ING

DN

DA #2

DA #2 TcTc

TcTc

TcTc

PRE DEV SITEOUTFALL #2

A B

C

A

B

PRE DEV SITEOUTFALL #1

C

Tc

Tc

Tc

Tc

TcTc

Tc

Tc

Tc

POST DEV SITEOUTFALL #2

POST DEV SITEOUTFALL #1

A

B

C

C

B

DA #1

DA #1

15

0 S

ou

th

E

ast S

tre

et, S

uite

2

01

Fre

de

rick, M

aryla

nd

2

17

01

Ph

on

e: 3

01

-6

62

-4

40

8 F

ax: 3

01

-6

62

-7

48

4

ww

w.a

dte

ke

ng

in

ee

rs.co

m

CIV

IL, S

TR

UC

TU

RA

L A

ND

S

PE

CIA

LT

Y E

NG

IN

EE

RIN

G

EXISTING DRAINAGE AREA=1.11 Ac.CN=70Tc=0.257 Hrs.

A - B = 100' @ 4.62%, 0.252 Hrs.B - C = 97' @ 12.37%, 0.005 Hrs.Q = 2.96 cfs10

EXISTING DRAINAGE AREA=1.11 Ac.CN=61Tc=0.269 Hrs.

A - B = 100' @ 4.00%, 0.267 Hrs.B - C = 47' @ 21.27%, 0.002 Hrs.Q = 1.96 cfs10

EXISTING CONDITIONSSITE DRAINAGE AREA #1

EXISTING CONDITIONSSITE DRAINAGE AREA #2

PROPOSED DRAINAGE AREA=1.03 Ac.CN=79Tc=0.237 Hrs.

A - B = 100' @ 5.60%, 0.233 Hrs.B - C = 80' @ 13.75%, 0.004 Hrs.Q = 3.87 cfs10

PROPOSED DRAINAGE AREA=1.23 Ac.CN=73Tc=0.131 Hrs.

A - B = 68' @ 1.76%, 0.124 Hrs.B - C = 100' @ 6.50%, 0.007 Hrs.Q = 4.37 cfs10

PROPOSED CONDITIONSSITE DRAINAGE AREA #1

PROPOSED CONDITIONSSITE DRAINAGE AREA #2

DA #1

SWM SUMMARY TABLE

TYPE OF

MEASURE

DRAINAGE

AREA TO

MEASURE

(SQ. FT.)

IMPERVIOUS

AREA TO

MEASURE

(SQ. FT.)

%

IMPERVIOUS

Rv FOR

ESD

CALCULATIONS

MIN ESDV MAX ESDV

CREDITTED

VOLUME

DRAINAGE

AREA

(CU. FT.) (CU. FT.)

(CU. FT.)

SWM

NUMBER

SWM-1

Permeable

Pavement

249 673 4954,336 3,096 71.4 .69

SWM-2 DA #2

Rainwater

Harvesting

8 107 8500 500 100 .95

SWM-3 DA #2

Rainwater

Harvesting

8 107 8500 500 100 .95

SWM-4 DA #2

Rainwater

Harvesting

8 107 8500 500 100 .95

SWM-5 DA #2

Rainwater

Harvesting

8 107 8500 500 100 .95

SWM-6 DA #2

Rainwater

Harvesting

8 107 8500 500 100 .95

SWM-7 DA #2

Rainwater

Harvesting

8 107 8500 500 100 .95

SWM-8 DA #2

Rainwater

Harvesting

8 107 8500 500 100 .95

SWM-9 DA #2

Rainwater

Harvesting

8 107 8500 500 100 .95

SWM-10 DA #2

Rainwater

Harvesting

8 107 8500 500 100 .95

SWM-11 DA #2

Rainwater

Harvesting

8 107 8500 500 100 .95

SWM-12 DA #2

Rainwater

Harvesting

3 37 8171 171 100 .95

TOTAL

5839,507 8267

765

TARGET

P

E

(IN)

SWM

REQUIRED

(CU.FT)

1.0

SWM

PROVIDED

(CU.FT)

P

E

ACHIEVED

(IN)

765 0.76