20160279 Ver 1 _City Staff Report _20160316

CITY OF HIGH POINT
AGENDA ITEM
Title: SP -15-0010
WI High Point Landfill, LLC
From: Lee Burnette, Planning & Development
Director
Public Hearing: No
Attachments: A. Staff Report
B. Applicant's Findings
Meeting Date:
Advertising Date:
Advertised By:
November 02, 2015
NA
NA
PURPOSE:
A request by WI High Point Landfill, LLC for a major watershed variance to disturb an existing
perennial and intermittent stream buffer as classified by the Department of Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality. The buffer disturbance exceeds five percent (5%) of the stream;
therefore, local and state (Environmental Management Commission) review is required. The site is
located at 5830 Riverdale Road, which is lying along the west side of Riverdale Drive
approximately 1/4 mile south of E. Kivett Drive. The site is also known as Guilford County Tax
Parcel ID 0213048.
BACKGROUND:
Staff report and the Applicant's proposal is enclosed.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact.
RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUESTED:
A. On October 7, 2015, the Technical Review Committee had a favorable recommendation for the
proposed Major Watershed Variance.
B. Staff recommends approval of the Watershed Variance Case SP -15-0010 as outlined in the
attached staff report.

CITY OF HIGH POINT
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT (Case # SP -15-0010)
MAJOR WATERSHED VARIANCE
November 2, 2015
Applicant:
Owner:
Waste Industries High Point Landfill,
WI High Point Landfill, LLC
LLC
Request: A major watershed variance is being requested for proposed disturbance of an
existing perennial and intermittent stream buffer as classified by the Department of Natural
Resources Division of Water Quality.
Site
Information
Location
5830 Riverdale Drive located on the west
side of Riverdale Drive between E. Kivett
Drive and 1-85. Guilford County Tax Parcel
0213048.
Site Acreage
Approximately 153.8 acres
Current Land Use
Construction Debris Landfill
Land Use Plan Designation
Heavy Industrial and Rural Development
Overlay Districts
Randleman Lake Watershed Critical Area (WCA)
Tiers 2 and 3
Background:
The overall project site (approximately 81 acres) includes a scale house and office, a
recycling center, maintenance building and parking/storage area, the existing construction
and debris landfill, and the future cell areas that are currently pasture, scrub, and forest. The
remainder of the site (approximately 73 acres) is reserved for stormwater basins, minor
grading, and a recorded easement for a future City relocation of Kersey Valley Road.
The site was rezoned to Conditional Use Agriculture (CU AG Case #01-09) in 2001 to allow
a construction and debris landfill. A Solid Waste Permit from the State was obtained to allow
a construction and debris landfill with a design capacity of up to 4.7 million cubic yards.
Following the purchase of the landfill by the current owner additional environmental
assessments were conducted. Two drainages areas with wetlands and a stream were
identified. The stream is a jurisdictional stream for which riparian buffers must be preserved
in accordance with the City's Development Ordinance (approved by NCDNER). The riparian
buffer disturbance exceeds 5 percent of the stream buffer area; therefore, local and state
(Environmental Management Commission) review is required.

Description of Request:
In order to retain their original approved design capacities for the Construction and Debris
(C&D) Landfill the applicant is seeking a major watershed variance to disturb approximately
39,886 square feet of riparian stream buffer (23,718 sq. ft. in Zone 1 and 16,168 sq. ft. in
Zone 2). The applicant considered several scenarios to avoid direct impact to the stream and
riparian buffers. Please see Page 3, Table 2 of their request for documentation of the landfill
expansion alternatives. After assessing all the alternatives the applicant believes that
avoidance of the stream, although only reducing the C&D Landfill capacity by 600,000 cubic
yards (19% of capacity), would have long term adverse impacts to the preserved stream.
Required Findings of Fact:
To approve a major variance to the standards and restrictions of Chapter 7, Article A
(Watershed Protection Overlay Districts) of the City Development Ordinance, City Council
is required to make the following findings of fact: 1) There are practical difficulties or
unnecessary hardships that would prevent compliance with this Ordinance; 2) The variance is
in general harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Ordinance and preserves its
spirit; and 3) Public safety and welfare is assured and the granting of the variance will do
substantial justice.
The applicant's submittal addresses the above finding in detail on pages 5 through 10 in their
request documentation. The findings are summarized below:
(1) There are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships that would prevent compliance with the
watershed regulations. There are several practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships that result
from the strict application of the Rule, as follows:
a) The hardship results from application of this title to the property rather than from other
factors such as deed restrictions or other hardships. There are no other restrictions on the
proposed landfill that would restrict its desired expansion.
b) The hardship is due to the physical nature of the applicant's property, such as its size, shape,
or topography, such that compliance with the provisions of this title would not allow reasonable
use of the property. The physical nature of this site is the key constraint limiting landfill
expansion alternatives and preventing reasonable use of the property. The 35 acre watershed of
the subject stream is contained almost entirely on the site. Practical landfill configurations that
avoid the stream and buffer drastically alters the drainage on site and would likely reduce or
eliminate flow in the upper reach of stream over the long term, eliminating its jurisdictional
classification. Based on historical monitoring data collected for the hydrologic and geotechnical
investigation of this site for solid waste permitting, groundwater regularly intersects the subject
stream at a point near the impact limit of the proposed project. Therefore, the remaining stream
channel would likely retain hydrology and be considered jurisdictional in the future after the
drainage pattern on the site has changed.
c) The applicant did not cause the hardship by knowingly or unknowingly violating this title. The
Site is currently in compliance with the Rule. The Site was developed as a C&D landfill facility
by DH Griffin, and was transferred to WCA Waste Corporation prior to being acquired by the
current applicant, Waste Industries (WI). WI's due diligence review and purchase of the site
included prior permits and documents such as the CUP (Appendix 2) and NCDENR Solid Waste
y:\council\agenda\2015\staffreport (sp-15-0010).docx

Permit (Appendix 3). The subject stream was shown as part of the proposed landfill footprint in
all these documents, which were already approved by the corresponding authorities. Potential
expansion volumes used in the analysis of the purchase of the site included this airspace as it was
approved in the DH Griffin and WCA plans. Future permitting of streams and wetlands is a
common occurrence for landfills, as the three dimensional aspect of these sites require filling of
low areas and drainages.
d) The hardship is rare or unique to the applicant's property. The property contains an existing
C&D landfill, which is in itself relatively rare. As seen in Figure 3, only 10 alternative C&D
disposal sites are currently present within a 50 -mile radius of the site, which is where a majority
of the waste stream for the Site is produced. Due to the need for stable side slopes and the three
dimensional aspect of landfills, avoidance of the stream and buffer is more difficult.
e) If the applicant complies with the provisions of this title, the applicant can secure no
reasonable return from, nor make reasonable use of, the applicant's property. The original
landfill is nearing capacity and is constrained to the west by a perennial stream, to the south by
the critical area of Randleman Reservoir, and to the north by a recycling facility and Riverdale
Drive. Expansion to the east is the only alternative available to make use of the remaining
property. The reasonable and efficient expansion of the existing C&D facility per the approved
CUP is preferred to a new facility in a new location that would likely result in similar impacts and
increased fragmentation of landfills.
(2) The variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this title and preserves its
spirit. The proposed project would have minimal effect on water quality, the protection of which is
the primary purpose and intent of the Watershed Regulations. The amount of impervious area
associated with this project is minimal (less than 4%). If the stream and buffer are avoided,
stormwater management and rerouting of drainage on the site would eliminate most of the discharge
going through the stream buffer which is the buffers intended function. The applicant is prepared to
provide compensatory mitigation for the current resources on site, which would provide water quality
benefits in the local area, in order to gain certainty in the design, construction, and management of the
site.
(3) The granting of the variance assures the public safety and welfare and does substantial justice.
The proposed facility design and operation, as well as the history of the existing facility, provide
ample evidence that public safety and welfare have been considered and ensured for the future. The
need for the landfill to provide reasonably close disposal options for new residential and commercial
development has been discussed earlier. Public welfare would be ensured by the granting of this
variance. The C&D landfill waste stream is complimentary to the existing Kersey Valley MSW
landfill. The capacity provided by this project would save valuable MSW landfill volume and allow
the City's facility to serve the public for a longer period of time. BMPs such as extended dry
detention basins, grass swales, and level spreaders would be implemented as shown on the attached
plans. A more detailed plan would be developed during the final design of the facility and submitted
to the City and NCDWR to review during the City's final site plan review and 404/401 permitting
process.
Watershed Review Committee Recommendation:
The City's Watershed Review Committee (WRC) met with the applicant in late August, 2015
to discuss the permitting history and proposed findings outlined above. The formal proposal
was reviewed in late September, 2015. The WRC supports the arguments and evidence
presented by the applicant to allow the disturbance of the stream buffers for a length of 394
y:\council\agenda\2015\staffreport (sp-15-0010).docx

linear feet resulting in buffer disturbance areas as outlined in Table 2 (attached
documentation).
Staff's findings are based on the belief that the applicant's proposal is the best option to
allow design capacity of the C&D landfill while adequately treating storm water runoff from
the landfill prior to re -introducing the surface water flow back into the undisturbed stream
channel south of the landfill.
Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
1. A Site Plan (including the Watershed Control Plan component) is approved by the
Technical Review Committee (TRC) prior to disturbance within the buffer area.
2. Issuance of the applicable 404/401 permits.
3. High Point reserves the right to approve the compensatory mitigation method. Details of
the compensatory mitigation requirements would be evaluated and determined during the
CWA 404/401 permitting process. Mitigation will be one or a combination of the
following: in -lieu fee payment (local stream restoration project), mitigation bank
payment (tagged for local projects), on-site preservation of streams and buffers, and
increased stormwater control and treatment.
y:\council\agenda\2015\staffreport (sp-15-0010).docx

N
W® E
S
PROPER 7 Y LINE
F III )�/ /
n
w —2 ` "©
to
—v /
man upraner, inc.
I
1
1Qx
i
I I
-------------
-LEVEL SPREADER "w.11211lost #,�,
CARO���],,o�
Q� Vlo
Ir I.
i
•
SEAL
023002
A c3
AIRSPACE
LANDFILL VOLUME
(CY)
ISA
3,301,363
46.0
BUFFER
ZONE 1
23,718 SQ. FT.
ZONE 2
16,168 SQ. FT.
STREAM
394 LINEAR FT.
man upraner, inc.
I
1
1Qx
i
I I
-------------
-LEVEL SPREADER "w.11211lost #,�,
CARO���],,o�
Q� Vlo
Ir I.
i
•
SEAL
023002
A c3
AIRSPACE
LANDFILL VOLUME
(CY)
LANDFILL AREA
(ACRES)
3,301,363
46.0
IMPACTS
DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
(WITHIN LANDFILL LIMITS)
WETLANDS
0.59 ACRES
BUFFER
ZONE 1
23,718 SQ. FT.
ZONE 2
16,168 SQ. FT.
STREAM
394 LINEAR FT.
LEGEND
w
200' PROPERTY LINE BUFFER
a
DEDICATED ROADWAY EASEMENT
Z
0
m
ZONE 1 BUFFER
LL
a
— — ZONE 2 BUFFER
o
LL
STORM WATER FLOW
"'
Q
z
RANDLEMAN WATERSHED TIERS
Z
® 00 0-1 NPDES MONITORING LOCATION
o Q
a
o cj�
M� MW -5 GW MONITORING WELL
a
% • sw-1 SURFACE WATER MONITORING
o
N
LOCATION
z U
�
LIMITS OF ACTIVE AREA
u
NOTE:
1. STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURES ARE SHOWN FOR CONCEPT AND SUBJECT
TO FUTURE EROSION CONTROL PERMIT.
REFERENCES:
1. FACILITY PROPERTY LINE REFERENCE: SURVEY BY MARK TERRY AND ASSOCIATES,
INC., DATED MAY 15, 2001.
2. EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY FROM AERIAL SURVEY DATED JUNE 30, 2012 BY GEODATA
J J
CORPORATION, ZEBULON, NC. TOPOGRAPHY IN ACTIVE AREAS FROM FIELD SURVEY
_ O
a
DATED JANUARY 13, 2015 BY SURVEYING SOLUTIONS, P.C., LOUISBURG, NC.
Q
C9
3. ORIGINAL GRADES FROM GOLDER AND ASSOCIATES.
O
0 300' 600'
Q cab
o
J C-
Z Z
W
CJ7
FOR MAJOR WATERSHED
VARIANCE
O O O
� d W
S S O
cm cm 0-
SE
SE x
a

3
4 ,
5
6 _<
�1W/7
,
�Ci'���ti:�y4�"+�F
/ 9° f 7
10
V / / 12
_ � / ��y,,, X11 � r W➢ 'To
�
' z 13 #
y� �c �
�� 1..� l ]� #..:' s,
OkO
16 / a
F '1..�,y�C / f �: /f"._ �. -"`. ';4�'N •rte>. 5 fA�K d� '�e #' 'WS:.
A ��., � e "'18
� ' / ' � TRY :F'd 4 G •� '�'•
r+✓`W
20
tz
t 191
l
tel.
CAROLINA N Property Boundary Photo Approximate Locations Photo Locations
ECOSYSTEMS Feet F-7 Wetlands Zone 1 Buffers
3040 NC 42 West; Clayton, NC 27520 r . - Zone 2 Buffers • High Point Landfill, LLC
Y �
P: (919)-606-1065 F:(919)-585-5570 0 150 300 `' ' Streams High Point C&D Landfill
September 2015 Guilford County, NC
\
'#
q
1 }
�Ci'���ti:�y4�"+�F
/ 9° f 7
10
V / / 12
_ � / ��y,,, X11 � r W➢ 'To
�
' z 13 #
y� �c �
�� 1..� l ]� #..:' s,
OkO
16 / a
F '1..�,y�C / f �: /f"._ �. -"`. ';4�'N •rte>. 5 fA�K d� '�e #' 'WS:.
A ��., � e "'18
� ' / ' � TRY :F'd 4 G •� '�'•
r+✓`W
20
tz
t 191
l
tel.
CAROLINA N Property Boundary Photo Approximate Locations Photo Locations
ECOSYSTEMS Feet F-7 Wetlands Zone 1 Buffers
3040 NC 42 West; Clayton, NC 27520 r . - Zone 2 Buffers • High Point Landfill, LLC
Y �
P: (919)-606-1065 F:(919)-585-5570 0 150 300 `' ' Streams High Point C&D Landfill
September 2015 Guilford County, NC

,Y
t
i
F F Y f4 j1
�: ,..��' F ..,y e`.y iij• y. .ova-�v .
�'� F °'- rte' ''3 - •-'Y Y` ..
y r 1
Photo 1: Stonnwater detention pond outfall.
t ■ g+$.: r � 9�',v^ .iia. � •� ; "� F d' .� _Mli•'�'
$ '.5T'• _ •-ham Z
� may;; •� - 8 �' �:' a �* f ♦ ` _ � � � al -
.01
JDI
,�' r x . �P� °� 5 Y�. . ._, Y +.f � 7�y„ ' .c _ +sCr ��y1q ��{•
� 1
l 1

. 2.
kl
A '
e� �'F'�; a *,,� -gip � , q ` � • eprzv ,�R
s r,
1' ,z
' F y
ilk
• ��•,� ,fes
r
V .%.: ..4.e -: moi` ��•� --
,.�+ �y. z•r,,� ;x __.-�^a� _Jn
to
;Y. � D .*� � may-. OS + � � �,� y �•
°�; y�r _ - F � �,�� � ,fir � .•�,�, '—� � '*s..
e:
� a JP
? P r
::_ -4 �•: ��P a �� - - - �'
y.
i.
�I _`

{
dell
_•-Y a —'
tt 40 e
,
6 -
M� X
- - ov
_
1 P-Acg
tis a

d
y�
Ft
AW
44ft
i Ai a r~
16
Y=
4ff
r
ALI
Photo 7: Drainage from old pond bed.
B
i
— '+' _, \
•, }' rte, `�1 �4}'il5e� 3y_
-
p F6
r ap
n
i
LSf
I LL
i ti -
'� .'arm
�•_—' ;n AW

e p Y
,
r
—1
_ ` � 4 =-*•Por �1 a � i
M1
r
h A
Y y
y,
F
r�•
VR
{ — _
14
IlL
� • kyr ����###� �+a6 �
Po

dt

WI -High Point C&D Landfill Appendix 8
Major Buffer Variance — Site Photographs
Photo 17: Drainage pattern in lower wetland area.
Photo 18: Beginning to concentrate in lower wetland area.
Page 9 of 10

SMITH GARDNER
September 25, 2015
City of High Point
Technical Review Committee
211 South Hamilton Street
High Point, NC 27260
ADDRESS TEL WEB
14 N. Boylan Avenue, Raleigh NC 27603 919.828.0577 www.smithgardnerinc.com
RE: TRC Watershed Plan Application & Major Variance Request
High Point CRD Landfill
Jamestown, North Carolina
Dear Technical Review Committee:
The purpose of this letter and application is to request the City of High Point's (City) review,
favorable recommendation, and forwarding of a Major Variance to the NC Environmental
Management Commission as described in City ordinance Section 9-9-11 (Ordinance). The
proposed project varies from the Randleman Lake Water Supply Watershed: Protection and
Maintenance of Existing Riparian Buffers rule (15A NCAC 02B .0250) (Rule).
Application of the Rule and Ordinance as currently required on the High Point Construction
and Demolition (C&D) Landfill Property would restrict both the capacity and lifespan of the
solid waste facility. The required buffers on this property, due to its size, configuration, and
proximity to the critical area of Randleman Lake, present unnecessary hardship and
practical difficulties to its intended use as a C&D landfill.
This letter describes the project and the justification for this variance request, as required by
the Rule and Ordinance. Also enclosed are supporting documents for the request including
site maps, engineering plans, site photographs, and preliminary stormwater design. We
respectfully request your consideration of this information during your evaluation of this
project.
Background Information
The High Point C&D Landfill (Site) is located at 5822 Riverdale Drive, Jamestown NC, in
southwestern Guilford County (Figure 1). It lies within the Deep River watershed of the Cape
Fear River (8 -digit HUC 03030003). Stream and wetland resources on the site drain to an
unnamed tributary of Richland Creek (17-7-(4)), which carries a NC Division of Water
Resources (NCDWR) classification of WS -IV.
The Site (Guilford County PIN 0213048) is a 153.8 acre tract. Existing development on the
property includes a scale house and office, a recycling center, maintenance building and
parking/storage area, the existing C&D landfill, and the future landfill cell areas that are
currently pasture, scrub, and forest (Figure 2). The remainder of the property is within the
Randleman Lake critical area, and is reserved for stormwater basins, minor grading, and a
recorded easement for a future City relocation of Kersey Valley Road, per the Conditional

Technical Review Committee
September 10, 2015
Page 2 of 10
Use Permit (CUP) and in compliance with water supply watershed requirements. This
reserved area takes up approximately 73 acres or 47% of the entire site.
The proposed landfill expansion area contains two drainages with wetlands and a stream
under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The stream would also be under the
jurisdiction of the Rule/Ordinance. The depiction of CWAjurisdictional resources shown in
Figure 2 and Engineering Figure 1 have been verified in the field by Mr. David Bailey of the
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on 8/26/2014. Stream buffers shown are based on a
NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) determination by Ms. Sue Homewood on
12/11/2014 after an appeal of the City determination (see Appendix 1).
Project Purpose and Need
The purpose of the Waste Industries High Point C&D Landfill Expansion is to provide
construction and demolition waste capacity to serve the growth and development over the
next 20 or more years in High Point and the Triad area. The project goal is to realize the
previously planned and permitted waste capacity of the landfill as approved in the facility's
CUP and Solid Waste Permit, while avoiding the designated water supply critical area on the
site.
Due to the rapid growth in the Triad area, there is a continuous demand for C&D disposal. As
can be seen in Figure 3, there are a limited number of C&D facilities in the area. Ten C&D
landfills occur within 50 -miles of the Site. The permitted capacities of each of these landfills
are shown in Table 1. Only three of the ten alternative existing disposal locations are private
facilities, while the remainder are public and take waste primarily from their local area. The
total available capacity of all these sites does not meet the future demand for C&D disposal
over the next several decades. It should be noted that many of those capacities do not
represent actual available capacity, but rather maximum site capacity that may not be
realized. For example, the Site is shown on NC Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (NCDENR) records to have 4.7 million cubic yards (MCY) of capacity, while the full
build out capacity proposed for this site is 3.3 MCY.

Technical Review Committee
September 10, 2015
Page 3 of 10
TABLE 1: Permitted CEO Landfills
Figure 3
Location
ID
Permit Name
Public/
Private
Gross
Capacity
(cy)
Remaining
Airspace
(cy)
Remaining
Life (yrs)
P0792
Albemarle, City Of, CDLF
Public
2,390,900
1,757,527
10.4
P0796
Cabarrus County CDLF
Public
535,284
165,055
0.6
P1019
Gold Hill Road C&D Debris Landfill
Private
1,114,400
566,170
15.9
P1051
Davidson County CDLF
Public
308,752
107,932
4.1
P0563
Austin Quarter C&D Unit
Public
338,897
115,601
12.9
P0879
Cobles C&D Landfill
Private
6,935,903
6,089,192
45.9
P1067
High Point C&D Debris Landfill
Private
4,773,968
4,700,995
21.9
P1170
Orange County C&D Landfill
Public
790,000
652,900
12.0
P0970
A-1 Sandrock C&D Landfill
Private
2,231,848
1,930,228
12.8
P0708
Old Salisbury Road CDLF
Public
4,030,000
1,282,746
3.8
P0801
Greensboro, City Of
Public
2,525,443
1,202,343
25.1
- Gross capacity determined from most recent Permit to Construct or Permit to Operate.
- Remaining airspace determined from 2012-2013 Annual Facility Report
- Remaining Life calculated assuming LF receives waste in the amount equal to permitted limit
each year and two years subtracted.
Project Alternatives
Alternative site designs were evaluated that encompassed complete avoidance of all
resources to multiple minimization alternatives. Each of these is presented in Table 2, along
with the attached engineering exhibits, and evaluated below. Intermediate alternatives
between these options were considered, but not included as they did not provide significant
or practical differences from the options below.
TABLE 2: High Point CEO Landfill Expansion Alternatives
ac = acres; mcy= million cubic yards; if = linear feet
No Impact Option (Engineering Figure 2)
The avoidance of all jurisdictional features (buffers, streams, and wetlands) was
evaluated but deemed not practical as it creates fragmented cells. The areas
remaining for landfill with this option yield approximately 0.98 MCY of capacity, which
Waste
Impacts
Alternative
Capacity
Wetland
Stream
Buffers s ft.
(sq.ft.)
(see attached plans)
Area
(mcy)
(ac)
(ac)
(if)
Zone 1 / Zone 2
No Impact
33.4
1.0
0 ac
0
0/0
Minimization Impact I
41.3
2.0
0.55
0
0/0
Minimization Impact II
44.0
2.7
0.59
0
0/0
Proposed Project
46.0
3.3
0.59
394
23,718 / 16,168
ac = acres; mcy= million cubic yards; if = linear feet
No Impact Option (Engineering Figure 2)
The avoidance of all jurisdictional features (buffers, streams, and wetlands) was
evaluated but deemed not practical as it creates fragmented cells. The areas
remaining for landfill with this option yield approximately 0.98 MCY of capacity, which

Technical Review Committee
September 10, 2015
Page 4 of 10
is a 70% loss compared to the proposed project. Due to the cost and difficulty of
permitting, constructing, and maintaining three mostly isolated cell units, this option
was not determined to be feasible.
Minimization of Impact Option 1(Engineering Figure 3)
This option avoids the primary drainage on the site including the existing stormwater
BMP and wetlands above the subject buffered stream. This landfill configuration
would involve wetland impacts that would require issuance of an Individual Permit
from the USACE. The option results in two distinct landfill cells that yield
approximately 1.8 MCY of capacity, which is about a 45% loss compared to the
proposed project. The watershed of the subject drainage would be altered by this
configuration, resulting in a change from 35 acres to 6.5 acres. Stormwater runoff
from the remaining acreage would be discharged in a similar location to the
Proposed Project. Due to the significant loss of landfill volume, in combination with
the change in site hydrology and potential long-term drainage of the upper portion of
the stream channel (see Finding of Fact Item 1 b), this option was determined not
practical. In addition, to retain maximum drainage into the stream channel, a BMP
would be required in jurisdictional wetlands, which is often difficult to permit through
the CWA.
Minimization of Impact Option 2 (Engineering Figure 4)
This option would avoid all stream and buffer impacts and not require a variance from
either the City or State. This landfill configuration involves similar wetland impacts
as Minimization Option 1 and the Proposed Project, and would require a CWA permit.
This option results in a landfill capacity of 2.675 MCY, which is a 19% loss versus the
proposed project. While this is a much greater landfill volume than the No Impact
and Minimization Option 1, the drainage to the subject stream would be radically
altered. Less than an acre of landfill berm slopes would drain to the stream, and
runoff from the remaining 35 -acre watershed would be rerouted and captured in on-
site BMPs before discharging at a similar point to that of the Proposed Project. This
Loss of hydrologic input to the upper reach of stream would likely reduce or eliminate
function down to a point where groundwater flow significantly contributes to the
stream (regular intersection of the stream channel and water table). Based on site
hydrogeologic data, this point is near the limit of impact of the Proposed Project as
described below. This option is not deemed preferable due to the loss of
approximately 20% capacity, associated with a similar long-term stream impact as
the Proposed Project.
Proposed Project (Engineering Figure 5)
The proposed project involves building the full allowable capacity of the landfill
anticipated under the existing CUP and Solid Waste Permit. Impacts to wetlands
would be similar to other options, but there would also be impacts to both stream and
riparian buffers. Since the avoidance of the stream would likely cause similar Long-

Technical Review Committee
September 10, 2015
Page 5 of 10
term effects as described above, the Proposed Project was deemed the most
practical alternative. Building Minimization Option 2 and waiting a number of years to
evaluate the condition of the subject stream was considered, as this would avoid the
need for a variance or any compensatory stream and buffer mitigation. Due to the
uncertainty of the exact location where the stream characteristics would be retained,
and the difficulty of constructing and maintaining a "bowl" around the stream, it was
determined to be better to accept the proposed impact and provide compensatory
mitigation to offset this loss.
Based on the change between pre and post -construction drainage, there would be a
significant loss of drainage contributing to the subject stream's upper reaches with all
practical landfill options (Minimization Option 2 and Proposed Project). This would have a
long term effect on the hydrology of the subject stream to such an extent that it might no
Longer be jurisdictional in the future. Similar situations on other solid waste sites have
shown this to be a valid concern, due to the reconfiguration of on-site drainage associated
with these facilities. This, in addition to the large loss of landfill capacity, resulted in the
Proposed Project being chosen.
Findings of Fact
Per City Ordinance Section 9-9-11, the following findings of fact are provided for your
consideration. Each City ordinance item is provided below in italics.
(1) There are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships that would prevent compliance
with this title.
There are several practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships that result from the strict
application of the Rule, as follows:
a) The hardship results from application of this title to the property rather than from
other factors such as deed restrictions or other hardships.
There are no other restrictions on the proposed landfill that would restrict its
eastward expansion, beside the Rule and CWA permitting. Expansion plans
showing the proposed project have been approved under a City CUP (Appendix
2) and a NCDENR Solid Waste Permit (Appendix 3). The CWA Individual Permit
would be applied for upon conclusion of the variance process, and coordination
with the USACE and NCDWR has been initiated. The only deed restriction on the
site is a road right-of-way dedicated for the City's future realignment of Kersey
Valley Road to allow for expansion of the City's MSW landfill. Watershed
restrictions apply to the southern portion of the site, preventing landfill cells
within approximately 47% of the site (Figure 2).
b% The hardship is due to the physical nature of the applicant's property, such as its size,
shape, or topography, such that compliance with the provisions of this title would not
allow reasonable use of the property.

Technical Review Committee
September 10, 2015
Page 6 of 10
The physical nature of this site is the key constraint limiting landfill expansion
alternatives and preventing reasonable use of the property. Expansion to the
south is not possible due to compliance with the Water Supply Watershed
critical area for the Randleman Reservoir. Expansion to the west is not
possible due to a perennial stream and the City of High Point's Municipal Solid
Waste (MSW) Landfill. Expansion to the north is not possible because of an
existing road and established recycling facility, which is a requirement of the
CUP.
The 35 acre watershed of the subject stream is contained almost entirely on
the site. The retention and discharge of stormwater from a BMP south of the
existing scale house, as well as drainage from the eastern portion of the site,
significantly contributes to the stream flow in the upper reach. Practical
landfill configurations that avoid the stream and buffer, described above,
drastically alter the drainage on site and would likely reduce or eliminate flow
in the upper reach of stream over the long term, eliminating its jurisdiction
under the CWA and Rule. Based on historical monitoring data collected for
the hydrologic and geotechnical investigation of this site for solid waste
permitting, groundwater regularly intersects the subject stream at a point
near the impact limit of the proposed project. Therefore, the remaining
stream channel would likely retain hydrology and be considered jurisdictional
in the future after the drainage pattern on the site has changed.
c% The applicant did not cause the hardship by knowingly or unknowingly violating this
title.
The Site is currently in compliance with the Rule. The Site was developed as a
C&D landfill facility by DH Griffin, and was transferred to WCA Waste
Corporation prior to being acquired by the current applicant, Waste Industries
(WI). WI's due diligence review and purchase of the site included prior
permits and documents such as the CUP (Appendix 2) and NCDENR Solid
Waste Permit (Appendix 3). The subject stream was shown as part of the
proposed landfill footprint in all these documents, which were already
approved by the corresponding authorities. Potential expansion volumes used
in the analysis of the purchase of the site included this airspace as it was
approved in the DH Griffin and WCA plans.
Future permitting of streams and wetlands is a common occurrence for
landfills, as the three dimensional aspect of these sites require filling of low
areas and drainages. Therefore, assuming future permitting of the cells is a
typical approach in a pre -purchase review of a solid waste site. In addition,
the current City stream buffer ordinance seems to have stricken out the
language related to buffer applicability based on on-site evidence of a stream
(Appendix 4). On the surface, this language suggests that only USGS and
NRCS mapping can be used to determine buffer applicability in the City's

Technical Review Committee
September 10, 2015
Page 7 of 10
jurisdiction of the Randleman watershed. These maps (Figures 4 and 5) do
not show the subject stream. While this has since been addressed by the City
through clarification provided by the Planning Department (Appendix 4),
under initial due diligence review the ordinance does not seem to apply to the
subject stream. In fact, WI still respectfully contends that the ordinance, as
written, should not apply to the site, but is foregoing any legal avenues,
accepting the City's clarification, and requesting this variance.
dl The hardship is rare or unique to the applicant's property.
The property contains an existing C&D landfill, which is in itself relatively rare.
As seen in Figure 3, only 10 alternative C&D disposal sites are currently
present within a 50 -mile radius of the site, which is where a majority of the
waste stream for the Site is produced. Of these alternative sites, only three
are private facilities and the other seven are public and likely take waste from
a more limited service area. New C&D sites are extremely difficult to locate
and permit due to restrictive siting requirements (Appendix 5) that do not
apply to existing sites.
Due to the need for stable side slopes and the three dimensional aspect of
landfills, avoidance of the stream and buffer is magnified to a much greater
extent than avoidance for a typical "two dimensional" development, which can
develop up to the edge of the buffer without being impeded.
The location of this property adjacent to the Kersey Valley MSW landfill is also
unique. The C&D disposal capacity available at the Site compliments the
City's MSW site by saving their valuable MSW capacity and lengthening the
lifespan of that facility.
e% if the applicant complies with the provisions of this title, the applicant can
secure no reasonable return from, nor make reasonable use of, the
applicant's property.
The constraints of the site described above already severely limit use of this
site, even without application of this rule. Compliance with the Randleman
watershed critical area restricts approximately 47% of the site to minor uses
such as grading and stormwater.
The original landfill is nearing capacity and is constrained to the west by a
perennial stream, to the south by the critical area of Randleman Reservoir,
and to the north by a recycling facility and Riverdale Drive. Expansion to the
east is the only alternative available to make use of the remaining property.
The location of the Randleman Lake protected tiers (Figure 2) render
significant portions of the site unusable. The reasonable and efficient
expansion of the existing C&D facility per the approved CUP is preferred to a

Technical Review Committee
September 10, 2015
Page 8 of 10
new facility in a new location that would likely result in similar impacts and
increased fragmentation of landfills.
(2) The variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this title and preserves
its spirit.
The proposed project would have minimal effect on water quality, the protection of which is
the primary purpose and intent of the Rule. The amount of impervious area associated with
this project is minimal (less than 4%). This is well below any regulatory thresholds for
stormwater BMPs and also below NCDENR recommended limitations for the protection of
sensitive aquatic environments. The closed landfill cap would be a vegetated cover that
allows infiltration of precipitation before it is collected and drained to a BMP. The cap (see
Engineering Figure 7) would serve to provide detention and some treatment prior to the
BMP. In fact, during the typical water quality storm of concern (2 -year), there would be
minimal discharge from the BMPs. Rigorous maintenance and monitoring requirements
would be implemented to protect water quality as described below.
The long-term effects of other alternatives, including practical alternatives that do not
require a variance, would be similar to the proposed project, as discussed above. If the
stream and buffer are avoided, stormwater management and rerouting of drainage on the
site would eliminate most of the discharge going to the stream buffer, which would therefore
not provide its intended function.
WI has evaluated the option of avoiding the stream and buffer, and re-evaluating it at a later
date after the surface runoff has been rerouted to the proposed BMPs. While this option
would greatly reduce the cost of the project by potentially avoiding this variance, CWA
permitting, and compensatory mitigation, it would create some uncertainty as to the eventual
location of stream and buffer jurisdiction and increase costs and difficulty of design and
construction of the "bowl" area that would need to be filled in later. The NCDENR Solid
Waste Section has stated that, assuming all appropriate approvals are granted, they would
prefer to see a lateral expansion of a landfill rather than filling back in a "bowl" later.
Therefore, WI is prepared to provide compensatory mitigation for the current resources on
site, which would provide water quality benefits in the local area, in order to gain certainty in
the design, construction, and management of the site. Compensatory mitigation would be
one or a combination of in -lieu fee payment, mitigation bank payment, on-site preservation
of streams and buffers, and increased stormwater control and treatment. Details of the
compensatory mitigation requirements would be evaluated and determined during the CWA
404/401 permitting process.
(3) The granting of the variance assures the public safety and welfare and does substantial
justice.
The proposed facility design and operation, as well as the history of the existing facility,
provide ample evidence that public safety and welfare have been considered and ensured for
the future. The need for the landfill to provide reasonably close disposal options for new

Technical Review Committee
September 10, 2015
Page 9 of 10
residential and commercial development has been discussed earlier. The proximity of the
landfill to ongoing development in Guilford County and surrounding areas would not only
reduce hauling costs, but also reduce the amount of truck traffic that would otherwise have
to travel to alternative sites along public roads. This reduction in truck traffic reduces
emissions and increases public safety.
Public welfare would be ensured by the granting of this variance. The C&D landfill waste
stream is complimentary to the existing Kersey Valley MSW landfill. The capacity provided by
this project would save valuable MSW landfill volume and allow the City's facility to serve the
public for a longer period of time. Use of an alternate disposal site would increase costs due
to haul distances, and these costs would be passed on to the public through developers and
contractors.
Significant environmental protections are already in place, and would be increased with the
proposed project. A detailed Water Quality Monitoring Plan, which includes ground and
surface water, would be developed and approved by the State. This plan would be
implemented, as it is currently for the existing facility, and would continue for, at minimum,
30 years post -closure of the landfill, or approximately 2065. The monitoring plan would
include at least 20 inorganic constituents and 48 organics (see Appendix 6), which would be
monitored on a semi-annual basis. If any significant difference occurs from background
concentrations, a step -wise increase in protection would be initiated including increasing the
number of constituents monitored, providing an assessment of corrective measures, and if
required a corrective action plan. The landfill cap, slopes, and BMPs would also be
monitored and maintained for at least 30 years after closure. This would ensure the proper
function of the drainage system and stormwater measures. The post closure monitoring and
maintenance is required by State law, and proof of financial assurance for these activities
must be provided.
The potential for water quality degradation to occur as a result of this project is minimal due
to the inert nature of the facility. Waste accepted at this facility is only construction and
demolition, and other inert debris as shown in Appendix 7. More active waste including
MSW, contaminated soils, and yard waste, are not allowed in this facility. In addition, the site
is required by the CUP to maintain the recycling center on the site to reduce the waste
stream and provide beneficial use of any recoverable materials.
BMPs such as extended dry detention basins, grass swales, and level spreaders would be
implemented as shown on the attached plans. A more detailed plan would be developed
during the final design of the facility and submitted to the City and NCDWR to review during
the City's final site plan review and 404/401 permitting process.
Additionally, NCDENR regulations require more conservative design standards in
comparison to the Rule. For instance, their minimum required design storm is the 25 year -
24 hour event, which results in extended dry detention basins with no outflow during the 1 -
inch 24-hour storm required by NCDENR criteria. This would provide 100% settling
efficiency and the highest possible water quality protection.

Technical Review Committee
September 10, 2015
Page 10 of 10
Substantial justice would result from the granting of this variance, as the City's Kersey Valley
Landfill, adjacent to this Site, was granted a similar variance.
Conclusion
We would appreciate your consideration of this information during the review of this variance
request, and look forward to your favorable review of this project. Please contact me at your
convenience if you have any questions or require further information.
Sincerely,
SMITH GARDNER, INC.
eit 2�
Phil May,
Carolina Ecosystems, Inc.
phil.may(acarolinaeco.com
SAS/PM/swh
Attachment
CC: David Pepper, Waste Industries
Seth Heath, Waste Industries
File
4 L i w
Z Mr
i#04, 40060.6960
,Stace A. Smith P. E.
Senior Engine
staceyfdsmithgardnerinc.com
H:\Projects\WI High Point Landfill (C&D)\WIHIGHPOINT14-1(Wetlands)\Preliminary Submittal\WI HIGH POINTVariance Cover
Letter_SG.docx