SW5220103_Soils/Geotechnical Report_20220124

ECS SOUTHEAST, LLP
"Setting the Standard for Service"
Geotechnical • Construction Materials • Environmental • Facilities NC Registered Engineering Firm F-1078
NC Registered Geologists Firm C-406
SC Registered Engineering Firm 3239
August 23, 2021
Mr. Jarrett Senkbeil, PE LEED AP
OnSite Civil Group, LLC
980 Birmingham Road, Suite 501 340
Milton, Georgia 30004
Reference: Report of Seasonal High Water Table Estimation and Infiltration Testing
Louisburg Site
Louisburg, Franklin County, North Carolina
ECS Project No. 49.14807
Dear Mr. Senkbeil:
ECS Southeast, LLP (ECS) recently conducted a seasonal high water table (SHWT) estimation
and infiltration testing within the stormwater control measure (SCM) area(s) at 602 South Bickett
Boulevard in Louisburg, Franklin County, North Carolina. This letter, with attachments, is the
report of our testing.
Field Testing
On August 19, 2021, ECS conducted an exploration of the subsurface soil conditions, in
accordance with the NCDEQ Stormwater Design Manual section A-2, at six requested locations
shown on the attached Boring Location Plan (Figure 1). ECS used GPS equipment in order to
determine the boring locations. The purpose of this exploration was to obtain subsurface
information of the in situ soils for the SCM area(s). ECS explored the subsurface soil
conditions by advancing one hand auger boring into the existing ground surface at each of the
requested boring locations. ECS visually classified the subsurface soils and obtained
representative samples of each soil type encountered. ECS also recorded the SHWT elevation
observed at the time of the hand auger borings. The attached Infiltration Testing Form provides
a summary of the subsurface conditions encountered at the hand auger boring locations.
The SHWT elevation was estimated at the boring locations below the existing grade elevation.
A summary of the findings are as follows:
Location
SHWT
1-1
>36 inches
1-2
>48 inches
1-3
>48 inches
1-4
>36 inches
1-5
>36 inches
1-6
>48 inches
ECS Capitol Services, PLLC • ECS Florida, LLC • ECS Mid -Atlantic, LLC • ECS Midwest, LLC • ECS Southeast, LLP • ECS Texas, LLP
www.ecslimited.com

Report of SHWT Estimation and Infiltration Testing
Louisburg Site
Louisburg, Franklin County, North Carolina
ECS Project No. 49.14807
August 23, 2021
Auger refusal was encountered at each boring location due to the presence of rock. ECS has
conducted six infiltration tests utilizing a compact constant head permeameter near the hand
auger borings in order to estimate the infiltration rate for the subsurface soils. Infiltration tests
are typically conducted at two feet above the SHWT or in the most restrictive soil horizon. Tests
in clayey conditions are conducted for durations of up to 30 minutes. If a more precise hydraulic
conductivity value is desired for these locations, then ECS recommends collecting samples and
performing laboratory permeability testing.
Field Test Results
Below is a summary of the infiltration test results:
Location
Description
Depth
Inches/
hour
1-1
Tan/orange fine to coarse SAND w/
10 inches
1.23
clay lens
12
Tan/orange fine to coarse SAND w/
10 inches
6.33
clay lens
1-3
Tan/orange fine to coarse SAND w/
10 inches
6.74
clay lens
1-4
Tan/orange fine to coarse SAND w/
10 inches
2.81
clay lens
1-5
Tan/orange fine to coarse SAND w/
10 inches
5.96
clay lens
1-6
Tan/orange fine to coarse SAND w/
10 inches
6.67
clay lens
Infiltration rates and SHWT may vary within the proposed site due to changes in elevation, soil
classification and subsurface conditions. ECS recommends that a licensed surveyor provide
the elevations of the boring locations.
Closure
ECS's analysis of the site has been based on our
information provided to us, and the data obtained
information provided to us is changed, please contact
reviewed and appropriate revisions provided, if nec
subsurface conditions during construction which di
exploration should be reported to us for our r
understanding of the site, the project
during our exploration. If the project
us so that our recommendations can be
=ssary. The discovery of any site or
Mate from the data outlined in this
view, analysis and revision of our
recommendations, if necessary. The assessment of site environmental conditions for the
presence of pollutants in the soil and groundwater of the site is beyond the scope of this
geotechnical exploration.

Report of SHWT Estimation and Infiltration Testing
Louisburg Site
Louisburg, Franklin County, North Carolina
ECS Project No. 49.14807
August 23, 2021
ECS appreciates the opportunity to provide our services to you on this project. If you have any
questions concerning this report or this project, please contact us.
Respectfully,
ECS SOUTHEAST, LLP
• �7`�oD �j v �'� t/
K. Brooks Wall
Project Manager
bwall(a)ecslimited.com
910-686-9114
Attachments: Figure 1 - Boring Location Plan
Infiltration Testing Form
GBA Document
W. Brandon Fulton, PSC, PWS, LSS
Environmental Department Manager
bfulton(a)ecslimited.com
704-525-5152

yjm mzp dotes Corresponding to Sebedule B LWad of 5Ymbab & Abbreviations ?eft!
g ..�wa�s......@n..l
scHMF
Misedianeaus NO
i&nartchrunt Bdltea
MONO"
I Flood Note
W '�c�r
�l iW^s p.inp o.p u5 Y��Y 4 n Za,.[,.}
.I Ir. F1� n..mw IF.l. Y�Oammui�y ^e,J Na
.� 2 1 . CN1 W ul
.p y n a
5 RiCKETT BLVD
® APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATIONS
NOT TO SCALE
Louisburg Site
Louisburg, Franklin County,
North Carolina
ECS Project # 49.14807
August 19, 2021
KBW
SCALE r=za
/
Nr
w ES E
S
Figure 1— Boring Location Plan
Provided by: Onsite Civil Group

Infiltration Testing Form
Louisburg Site
Louisburg, Franklin County, North Carolina
ECS Project No. 49.14807
August 19, 2021
Location Depth USCS Soil Description
1-1 0-36" SW Tan/orange f. to c. SAND w/ clay
36" -- Hand Auger Refusal
Seasonal High Water Table was estimated to be at >36 inches below the
existing grade elevation.
Test was conducted at 10 inches below existing grade elevation
Infiltration Rate: 1.23 inches per hour
Location Depth USCS Soil Description
1-2 0-48" SW Tan/orange f. to c. SAND w/ clay
48" -- Hand Auger Refusal
Seasonal High Water Table was estimated to be at >48 inches below the
existing grade elevation.
Test was conducted at 10 inches below existing grade elevation
Infiltration Rate: 6.33 inches per hour
Location Depth USCS Soil Description
1-3 0-48" SW Tan/orange f. to c. SAND w/ clay
48" -- Hand Auger Refusal
Seasonal High Water Table was estimated to be at >48 inches below the
existing grade elevation.
Test was conducted at 10 inches below existing grade elevation
Infiltration Rate: 6.74 inches per hour

Infiltration Testing Form
Louisburg Site
Louisburg, Franklin County, North Carolina
ECS Project No. 49.14807
August 19, 2021
Location Depth USCS Soil Description
1-4 0-36" SW Tan/orange f. to c. SAND w/ clay
36" -- Hand Auger Refusal
Seasonal High Water Table was estimated to be at >36 inches below the
existing grade elevation.
Test was conducted at 10 inches below existing grade elevation
Infiltration Rate: 2.81 inches per hour
Location Depth USCS Soil Description
1-5 0-36" SW Tan/orange f. to c. SAND w/ clay
36" -- Hand Auger Refusal
Seasonal High Water Table was estimated to be at >36 inches below the
existing grade elevation.
Test was conducted at 10 inches below existing grade elevation
Infiltration Rate: 5.96 inches per hour
Location Depth USCS Soil Description
1-6 0-48" SW Tan/orange f. to c. SAND w/ clay
48" -- Hand Auger Refusal
Seasonal High Water Table was estimated to be at >48 inches below the
existing grade elevation.
Test was conducted at 10 inches below existing grade elevation
Infiltration Rate: 6.67 inches per hour

r- Geolechnical-EngineePing RePOPI --)
The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA)
has prepared this advisory to help you — assumedly
a client representative — interpret and apply this
geotechnical-engineering report as effectively
as possible. In that way, clients can benefit from
a lowered exposure to the subsurface problems
that, for decades, have been a principal cause of
construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and
disputes. If you have questions or want more
information about any of the issues discussed below,
contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer.
Active involvement in the Geoprofessional Business
Association exposes geotechnical engineers to a
wide array of risk -confrontation techniques that can
be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a
construction project.
Geotechnical-Engineering Services Are Performed for
Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific
needs of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted
for a given civil engineer will not likely meet the needs of a civil -
works constructor or even a different civil engineer. Because each
geotechnical-engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-
engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. Those who
rely on a geotechnical-engineering report prepared for a different client
can be seriously misled. No one except authorized client representatives
should rely on this geotechnical-engineering report without first
conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one
- not even you - should apply this report for any purpose or project except
the one originally contemplated.
Read this Report in Full
Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical-
engineering report did not read it in its entirety. Do not rely on an
executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. Read this report
in full.
You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer
about Change
Your geotechnical engineer considered unique, project -specific factors
when designing the study behind this report and developing the
confirmation -dependent recommendations the report conveys. A few
typical factors include:
• the client's goals, objectives, budget, schedule, and
risk -management preferences;
• the general nature of the structure involved, its size,
configuration, and performance criteria;
• the structure's location and orientation on the site; and
• other planned or existing site improvements, such as
retaining walls, access roads, parking lots, and
underground utilities.
Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include
those that affect:
• the sites size or shape;
• the function of the proposed structure, as when its
changed from a parking garage to an office building, or
from a light -industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse;
• the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or
weight of the proposed structure;
• the composition of the design team; or
• project ownership.
As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project
changes - even minor ones - and request an assessment of their
impact. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept
responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical
engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise
would have considered.
This Report May Not Be Reliable
Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it:
• for a different client;
• for a difrerentproject;
• for a different site (that may or may not include all or a
portion of the original site); or
• before important events occurred at the site or adjacent
to it; e.g., man-made events like construction or
environmental remediation, or natural events like floods,
droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations.
Note, too, that it could be unwise to rely on a geotechnical-engineering
report whose reliability may have been affected by the passage of time,
because of factors like changed subsurface conditions; new or modified
codes, standards, or regulations; or new techniques or tools. If your
geotechnical engineer has not indicated an `apply -by" date on the report,
ask what it should be, and, in general, if you are the least bit uncertain
about the continued reliability of this report, contact your geotechnical
engineer before applying it. A minor amount of additional testing or
analysis - if any is required at all - could prevent major problems.
Most of the "Findings" Related in This Report Are
Professional Opinions
Before construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a sites
subsurface through various sampling and testing procedures.
Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at
those specific locations where sampling and testing were performed. The
data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your
geotechnical engineer, who then applied professional judgment to
form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual
sitewide-subsurface conditions may differ - maybe significantly - from
those indicated in this report. Confront that risk by retaining your
geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team from project start to
project finish, so the individual can provide informed guidance quickly,
whenever needed.

This Report's Recommendations Are
Confirmation -Dependent
The recommendations included in this report - including any options
or alternatives - are confirmation -dependent. In other words, they are
not final, because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied
heavily on judgment and opinion to do so. Your geotechnical engineer
can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface
conditions revealed during construction. If through observation your
geotechnical engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist
actually do exist, the recommendations can be relied upon, assuming
no other changes have occurred. The geotechnical engineer who prepared
this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmation -
dependent recommendations if you fail to retain that engineer to perform
construction observation.
This Report Could Be Misinterpreted
Other design professionals' misinterpretation of geotechnical-
engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk
by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a full-time member of the
design team, to:
• confer with other design -team members,
help develop specifications,
• review pertinent elements of other design professionals'
plans and specifications, and
be on hand quickly whenever geotechnical-engineering
guidance is needed.
You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this
report. Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in
prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction
observation.
Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift
unanticipated -subsurface -conditions liability to constructors by limiting
the information they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent
the costly, contentious problems this practice has caused, include the
complete geotechnical-engineering report, along with any attachments
or appendices, with your contract documents, but be certain to note
conspicuously that you've included the material for informational
purposes only. To avoid misunderstanding, you may also want to note
that "informational purposes" means constructors have no right to rely
on the interpretations, opinions, conclusions, or recommendations in
the report, but they may rely on the factual data relative to the specific
times, locations, and depths/elevations referenced. Be certain that
constructors know they may learn about specific project requirements,
including options selected from the report, only from the design
drawings and specifications. Remind constructors that they may
perform their own studies if they want to, and be sure to allow enough
time to permit them to do so. Only then might you be in a position
to give constructors the information available to you, while requiring
them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming
from unanticipated conditions. Conducting prebid and preconstruction
conferences can also be valuable in this respect.
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some client representatives, design professionals, and constructors do
not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other
engineering disciplines. That lack of understanding has nurtured
unrealistic expectations that have resulted in disappointments, delays,
cost overruns, claims, and disputes. To confront that risk, geotechnical
engineers commonly include explanatory provisions in their reports.
Sometimes labeled "limitations;' many of these provisions indicate
where geotechnical engineers' responsibilities begin and end, to help
others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these
provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should
respond fully and frankly.
Geoenviron mental Concerns Are Not Covered
The personnel, equipment, and techniques used to perform an
environmental study - e.g., a "phase -one" or "phase -two" environmental
site assessment - differ significantly from those used to perform
a geotechnical-engineering study. For that reason, a geotechnical-
engineering report does not usually relate any environmental findings,
conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of
encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants.
Unanticipated subsurface environmental problems have led to project
failures. If you have not yet obtained your own environmental
information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk -management
guidance. As a general rule, do not rely on an environmental report
prepared for a different client, site, or project, or that is more than six
months old.
Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with Moisture
Infiltration and Mold
While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater,
water infiltration, or similar issues in this report, none of the engineer's
services were designed, conducted, or intended to prevent uncontrolled
migration of moisture - including water vapor - from the soil through
building slabs and walls and into the building interior, where it can
cause mold growth and material -performance deficiencies. Accordingly,
proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer's recommendations
will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moisture infiltration. Confront
the risk of moisture infiltration by including building -envelope or mold
specialists on the design team. Geotechnical engineers are not building -
envelope or mold specialists.
GEOPROFESSIONAL
BUSINESS
&EPA ASSOCIATION
Telephone: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail] wwwgeoprofessional.org
Copyright 2016 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly
prohibited, except with GBAs specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission
of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any
kind. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent

'.. IR
.-.
-ram,
afr' `; 1
Geotechnicab-Investigation
Planned Car Wash-Louisbu:
602 S. Bickett Boulevard
;. Louisburg, Franklin County,
North Carolina.
MDM Proj ect's #210350 / 21114
�h
22.
t
prepared. for:
2140
K EXPRESS WASH OPERATIONS, LLC .
July 202$� -..�
Services, Inc.'
'�a a
r0
zo,
02.

MDM
1055 Kathleen Road, Lakeland, Florida 33805 - [phone] - www.mdmservices.com
Geotechnical Investigation
Planned Car Wash -Louisburg
Planned Car Wash -Marietta
602 S. Bickett Boulevard
Louisburg, Franklin County, North Carolina
MDM Project 9210350 / 21114
July 16, 2021
On June 16, 2021, MDM Services, Inc. completed four (4) standard penetration test borings
(B-1 through B-4) to investigate soil conditions for proposed development of the property
referenced above. The SPT borings were performed in general accordance with ASTM
Standard D1586. The test locations are depicted on the proposed development layout on
Figure I (Appendix A). Logs for each SPT boring are compiled in Appendix B. All depths
as referenced are below the existing grade on the date of testing. Appendix C contains a
map and summary report of the soil distribution on the site, as obtained from the Natural
Resources Conservation Service.
Based on the Natural Resources Conservation Service soil survey for Franklin County, the
property is covered by two mapped soil units. Wedowee sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes
(map symbol WeC) covers the majority of the site on the north and west sides. Wedowee -
Urban land-udorthents complex, 2 top 10 percent slopes (map symbol WuC) cover the
southern and southeastern portions of the site.
Wedowee sandy loam soils are described as well drained Saprolite soils derived from
granite, gneiss or schist, occurring on hillslopes and ridges. The soils are typically sandy
loam to from the ground surface to a depth of 7 inches, clay to a depth of 23 inches, clay
loam to a depth of 35 inches, and sandy clay loam to a depth of 80 inches or more. The
hydraulic conductivity of the most limiting soil layer is listed as ranging from 0.57 to 1.98
in/hr. The depth to the water table is listed as greater than 80 inches.
Wedowee -Urban land-udorthents complex is described as comprising unmapped areas of
Wedowee soils, Urban land, and Udorthents. The Wedowee soils (approximately 40% of
the mapped soil unit) are as described above. Urban land and Udorthents are described as
significantly reworked soils or imported fill and are not sufficiently uniform to describe
typical characteristics. A site soil map and soil report are compiled in Appendix C.
From review of the standard penetration test logs (Appendix B), the lithology at the site
consists primarily of silty and clayey sands generally of low plasticity extending from the
ground surface to the depth limit of the investigation at 8 feet below land surface (bls). The
recorded SPT blow counts yielded N-values ranging from 5 to 160 blows per foot, indicating
loose to very dense relative densities for the sandy soil layers and firm to very hard
consistencies for the fine-grained soil layers. The water table was not encountered within
8 ft bls feet bls during completion of the SPT borings. The seasonal high water table is
estimated at greater than 8 ft bls. Based on the characteristics of the site lithology, the site

Planned Car Wash - Geotechnical Investigation
MDM Job #210350 / 21114
Page 2
is suitable for the proposed development, provided site soils are adequately compacted and
the facility construction is in accordance with the recommendations provided herein.
The following general recommendations for site development are proposed:
SITE PREPARATION
• Vegetation (if any) should be stripped from all proposed building areas, proposed
pavement areas, and all areas where site drainage features are installed. Although not
encountered in more than trace amounts during the geotechnical investigation, organic
soils, if encountered during site construction, should also be stripped from these areas.
Such stripping should be extended a minimum of 5 feet beyond these areas.
• The proposed building and paved areas of the site should be compacted with the use of
a minimum 10 ton vibratory roller. The base of proposed drainage areas should not be
compacted.
• Modified Proctor tests should be performed every 2000 ft2 per foot of depth at the
proposed building areas and every 10,000 ft2 per foot of depth in proposed paved areas.
A minimum density of 98 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density is
required to a depth of 5 feet below the base of proposed building foundation and to a
depth of 3 feet below the base course in proposed paved areas. Any areas not achieving
a minimum density of 98 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density should
be undercut and the material replaced/compacted in lifts not exceeding 1 ft. until a
minimum 98 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density is achieved. The
proposed building and paved areas of the site may require significant compaction, which
may include undercutting/lift compaction, to achieve the optimum densities throughout
the recommended depth intervals.
• Imported fill material should consist of well -graded sand with less than 5% organic
fines. The fill should be placed in lifts not exceeding 1 ft. and compacted until a
minimum density of 98 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density is
achieved to a depth of 5 feet below the base of proposed building foundations, and to a
depth of 3 feet below the base course in proposed paved areas. Compaction tests should
be performed every 2000 ft2 per foot of depth in the proposed building area and every
10,000 ft2 per foot of depth in proposed paved areas.
BUILDING FOUNDATIONS
• The building foundation should be installed at least 1.5 feet below the proposed finish
grade of the site.
• The building foundation footings should be sized to exert a maximum pressure of 2000
psf on the compacted native sand material and/or structural fill, and should be of
minimum 16 inch width. Based on the soil conditions encountered during standard
penetration testing in the building area indicating generally dense to very dense soils
and associated shallow soil bearing capacities ranging from approximately 5,500 psf or
more, compaction may be required for imported or reworked soils only.

Planned Car Wash - Geotechnical Investigation
MDM Job #210350 / 21114
Page 3
• Visqueen of minimum 6 mil thickness, or equivalent vapor retarding material, should
be placed beneath all building floor slabs as a means of retarding moisture and
subsurface vapors.
• Stormwater drainage features should be placed as far as possible from the proposed
building foundation. The minimum recommended distance for such drainage features
from the building foundation is 20 feet.
CANOPY FOOTER(S)
• Based on "N" values (i.e. blow counts per foot of depth), the bearing capacity of soils
from ground surface to eight feet in depth for the canopy area ranges from approximately
1,500 psf to 7,000 psf.
• At minimum, the base of the canopy footer, including a 3 foot perimeter beyond the
footprint of the canopy footers, should be compacted using a vibratory plate compactor.
• The canopy footer(s) should be designed to exert a maximum pressure of 2000 psf.
Provided the proposed canopy footer(s) area of the site, including the recommended 3
foot perimeter beyond this area, is properly compacted as confirmed by Modified
Proctor testing per the above recommendations, the canopy footer(s) will be adequately
supported for this recommended maximum pressure.
PAVEMENT AREAS
• Paved areas should have a stabilized subgrade of at least 12 inches.
• The base course above the subgrade should be a minimum thickness of 6 inches,
following compaction. Based on availability in the site area, crushed rock is the
recommended base course (if asphaltic concrete is the finished surface course) and
should be compacted in maximum 6 inch lifts.
• The surface course of paved areas is recommended to be asphaltic concrete and have a
minimum stability of 1500 pounds. The recommended minimum thickness of the
surface course (finished asphalt) is 1.5 inches.
• Commercial mix concrete of minimum 3500 psi load bearing capacity may be
substituted for asphaltic concrete as the surface course. The minimum recommended
slab thickness is 5 inches. Welded wire mesh should be set approximately within the
slab center during concrete pouring. Compacted sand may be substituted for the base
course if concrete is chosen as the surface course.

Respectfully submitted,
MDM Services, Inc.
Joel M. Cornwall, P.G.
MDM Services, Inc,
1055 Kathleen Road, Lakeland, FL 33805.
Tel [phone] ext 105
Fax[phone]
Planned Car Wash - Geotechnical Investigation
MDMJ b#210350/21114
10
O,CARD Page 4
+ i
r �.• 0 D4,9 9
�S81 c.
Q
SEAL .
111�2
�� R.
I1111��
Richarg . Mo is, P.E.
NC Reg. #011182

APPENDIX A
MDM Services, Inc.

- - - - - -� --------�±- —
F-F- -
I
N
YI -
U
I Q
m
zl �J
I �I
m
ul
I 16'
I
I �
I
I
7 20'BUIL20' BUILDING SETBACK
__
VACUUM
STATION
CA
PY
(TYP.)
A
-
Y
I<
Q
m
ui I
w
Iz
II
Im �I
I B-1 Lu
I
rz I I I I
=a oY
� yQ�
w
a�rw o IIN
xv`y'
�J
15' 35' 8' 20' 19' 20' S' 20' 19' 1 128' I 15'-7"
I
I
I
16'
I
I
MDM
1055 KATHLEEN RD., LAKELAND, FL 33805
E.B. ;4857 Ph. [phone]
MDM JOB NO. 210350
I I
co
I
TRA H 30' BUILDING SETBACK
ENCLOSURE a
5' LANDSCAPE BUFFER -
209'±
58'-8"
EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO REMAIN
S BICKETT BLVD
LANNED CAR WASH - LOUISBURG
2 S. BICKETT BLVD, LOUISBURG, FRANKLIN COUNTY, NC
ITE PLAN WITH GEOTECHNICAL TEST LOCATIONS
L'l
NATIONAL GUARD
ARMORY
T-�
LEGEND:
SPT BORING
15' 0' 15' 30'
SCALE 1" = 30'
FIGURE NO.
1

APPENDIX B
MDM Services, Inc.

MDM BORING LOG B-1
PROJECT NUMBER 210350 DRILLING DATE 6/16/2021 DRILLING CO. MDM Services, Inc.
PROJECT NAME Planned Car Wash DRILLING METHOD Split Spoon / SPT DRILL RIG Geoprobe 6620
CLIENT Xpress-Wash TOTAL DEPTH 8 DRILLER M. Williams
LOCATION 602 S. Bickett Blvd. DIAMETER 3 in. COMPLETION Backfilled
Louisburg, Franklin County, NC DEPTH TO WATER >8 ft LOGGED BY J. Cornwall
COMMENTS
a
w
rn
F�
7
J
v
a
s
U
U
s
Q
c
w
N
E
a
O
>
U
fn
m
Z
U'
7
SS
3,12,
41
Silty Sand, light yellowish brown, fine to medium -grained
SM
D
29,39
1
2
40,50,
100
50,50
3
4
70,70,
140
Silty sand, reddish brown, fine to medium -grained, with clay
SM-SC
D
70,50-0"
5
6
80,80,
160
80,80
7
Termination Depth at: 8 ft, Refusal
WT >8 ft
9
10
11
12
13
14
Page 1 of 1
produced by ESIog.ESdat.net on 16 Jul 2021

MDM BORING LOG B-2
PROJECT NUMBER 210350 DRILLING DATE 6/16/2021 DRILLING CO. MDM Services, Inc.
PROJECT NAME Planned Car Wash DRILLING METHOD Split Spoon / SPT DRILL RIG Geoprobe 6620
CLIENT Xpress-Wash TOTAL DEPTH 8 DRILLER M. Williams
LOCATION 602 S. Bickett Blvd. DIAMETER 3 in. COMPLETION Backfilled
Louisburg, Franklin County, NC DEPTH TO WATER >8 ft LOGGED BY J. Cornwall
COMMENTS
a
w
rn
F�
7
J
v
a
s
U
U
s
Q
c
w
N
E
a
O
>
U
fn
m
Z
U'
7
SS
3,4,
8
Silty Sand, light yellowish brown, fine to medium -grained
SM
D
4,5
1
2
3,4,
8
Clayey sand, light yellowish brown, pale yellow, fine to
Sc
M
4,9
medium -grained
3
4
14,40,
80
Silty sand, yellowish gray, fine to medium -grained
SM
D
40,90
5
6
90,90,
>140
Silty sand, pale red, light gray, fine to medium -grained
SM
D
50-0"
7
Termination Depth at: 8 ft, Refusal
WT >8 ft
9
10
11
12
13
14
Page 1 of 1
produced by ESIog.ESdat.net on 16 Jul 2021

MDM BORING LOG B-3
PROJECT NUMBER 210350 DRILLING DATE 6/16/2021 DRILLING CO. MDM Services, Inc.
PROJECT NAME Planned Car Wash DRILLING METHOD Split Spoon / SPT DRILL RIG Geoprobe 6620
CLIENT Xpress-Wash TOTAL DEPTH 8 DRILLER M. Williams
LOCATION 602 S. Bickett Blvd. DIAMETER 3 in. COMPLETION Backfilled
Louisburg, Franklin County, NC DEPTH TO WATER >8 ft LOGGED BY J. Cornwall
COMMENTS
a
w
rn
F�
7
J
v
a
s
U
U
s
Q
c
w
N
E
a
O
>
U
fn
m
Z
U'
7
SS
3,3,
9
Silty Sand, light yellowish brown, fine to medium -grained
SM
D
6,3
1
2
1,2,
14
Sandy clay, yellowish brown, gray, with sand lenses
CL
M
12,30
3
4
26,40,
90
Clayey sand, yellowish brown, fine to medium -grained
Sc
D
50,50
5
6
50,58,
118
VSilty
sand, yellowish brown, greenish gray, fine to
SM-SC
M
60,62
medium -grained, clay pockets
7
el
Termination Depth at: 8 ft, Refusal
WT >8 ft
9
10
11
12
13
14
Page 1 of 1
produced by ESIog.ESdat.net on 16 Jul 2021

MDM BORING LOG B-4
PROJECT NUMBER 210350 DRILLING DATE 6/16/2021 DRILLING CO. MDM Services, Inc.
PROJECT NAME Planned Car Wash DRILLING METHOD Split Spoon / SPT DRILL RIG Geoprobe 6620
CLIENT Xpress-Wash TOTAL DEPTH 8 DRILLER M. Williams
LOCATION 602 S. Bickett Blvd. DIAMETER 3 in. COMPLETION Backfilled
Louisburg, Franklin County, NC DEPTH TO WATER >8 ft LOGGED BY J. Cornwall
COMMENTS
a
w
rn
F�
7
J
v
a
s
U
U
s
Q
c
w
N
E
a
O
>
U
fn
m
Z
U'
7
SS
2,2,
5
Clayey sand, yellowish brown, fine to medium -grained
Sc
D
3,3
1
2
2,2,
5
Silty sand, grayish brown, fine to medium -grained, with clayey
SM-SC
M
3,5
lenses
3
4.
45,35,
70
Clayey sand, yellowish brown, pale red, fine to coarse -grained,
Sc
M
35,50
crystalline nodules and clayey lenses
/Z
6
55,55,50-0"
>105
Silty sand, dark yellow, yellowish brown, fine to medium -grained
SM
D
7
Termination Depth at: 8 ft, Refusal
WT >8 ft
9
10
11
12
13
14
Page 1 of 1
produced by ESIog.ESdat.net on 16 Jul 2021

APPENDIX C
MDM Services, Inc.

a
36° 56" N
36° 50" N
Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
742110 742130 742150 742170
742110 742130 742150 742170 742190
Map Scale: 1:859 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.
Meters
N 0 10 20 40 60
A Feet
0
0 40 80 160 240
Map projection: Web Mercator Comer coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 17N WGS84
6
742190
742210
742210
742230
36° 56" N
0
r
36° 50" N
742230
in

MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOI)
0
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
0
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special
Point Features
Iwo
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
�i
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
A.
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
G '
Sodic Spot
Custom Soil Resource Report
MAP INFORMATION
Spoil Area
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Wet Spot
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
Other
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
�-
Special Line Features
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
Water Features
scale.
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
E F
Rails
measurements.
. 0
Interstate Highways
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
US Routes
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Major Roads
Local Roads
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
Background
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Aerial Photography
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Franklin County, North Carolina
Survey Area Data: Version 23, Jun 4, 2020
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: May 25, 2016—Nov
17, 2017
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
7

Custom Soil Resource Report
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
WeC
Wedowee sandy loam, 6 to 10
percent slopes
1.7
60.6%
WUC
Wedowee -Urban land-
Udorthents complex, 2 to 10
percent slopes
1.1
39.4%
Totals for Area of Interest
2.9
100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the
soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along
with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more
major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named
according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic
class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the
landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the
characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some
observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.
Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without
including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made
up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor
components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.
Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the
map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called
noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a
particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties
and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different
management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They
generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the
scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas
are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a
given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit
descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor
components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not
mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it
was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and
miscellaneous areas on the landscape.
The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the
usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate
pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or
landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The
delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the

Custom Soil Resource Report
development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however,
onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous
areas.
An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.
Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil
properties and qualities.
Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for
differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major
horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.
Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness,
salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the
basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas
shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase
commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha
silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.
Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.
These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.
A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate
pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.
The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar
in all areas. Alpha -Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.
An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or
miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present
or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered
practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The
pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat
similar. Alpha -Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas
that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar
interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion
of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can
be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made
up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil
material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.

Custom Soil Resource Report
Franklin County, North Carolina
WeC—Wedowee sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 3s64
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 66 degrees F
Frost -free period: 160 to 240 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance
Map Unit Composition
Wedowee and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 14 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Wedowee
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Saprolite derived from granite and gneiss and/or schist
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 4 inches: sandy loam
E - 4 to 7 inches: sandy loam
Bt - 7 to 23 inches: clay
BC - 23 to 35 inches: clay loam
C - 35 to 80 inches: sandy clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 6 to 10 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity: Moderate (about 8.1 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Rion
Percent of map unit. 8 percent
10

Custom Soil Resource Report
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
Vance
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
Wateree
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
WuC—Wedowee-Urban land-Udorthents complex, 2 to 10 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 3s66
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 66 degrees F
Frost -free period: 200 to 240 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Wedowee and similar soils: 40 percent
Urban land: 30 percent
Udorthents and similar soils: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Wedowee
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Saprolite derived from granite and gneiss and/or schist
11

Custom Soil Resource Report
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 5 inches: sandy loam
Bt1 - 5 to 10 inches: sandy clay loam
Bt2 - 10 to 35 inches: sandy clay
C - 35 to 80 inches: sandy clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 10 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity: Moderate (about 8.2 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
Description of Urban Land
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Impervious layers over human transported material
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8
Hydric soil rating: No
Description of Udorthents
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Loamy and clayey mine spoil or earthy fill derived from igneous,
metamorphic and sedimentary rock
Typical profile
C - 0 to 80 inches: sandy clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 10 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
12

Custom Soil Resource Report
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to high (0.00
to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity: Moderate (about 8.4 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Hydric soil rating: No
13