Douglas County approves clean‑rubble landfill and borrow‑pit CUPs for K‑10 expansion with five‑year limits and conditions

The Douglas County Board of County Commissioners on Jan. 15 approved two related conditional use permits to allow a clean‑rubble landfill and a borrow pit on land west of K‑10 for the K‑10 expansion project. The permits were approved with conditions that include a five‑year time limit, limits on hours (sunrise to sunset), restrictions on materials (clean rubble only and no asphalt in the southern landfill area), truck‑route limitations and requirements for reclamation and surety bonding.

Mary Miller, city/county planner, told the commission the two applications were reviewed together and that a conditional use permit (CUP) is discretionary: “A conditional use is a discretionary use. So it’s a use that you can approve or deny, or you can approve it with conditions.” Miller said state regulators (Kansas Department of Health and Environment, KDHE) had determined the landfill would qualify as a “clean rubble” site, meaning it would accept materials such as concrete, brick, rock and uncontaminated soil and would not need a KDHE solid‑waste permit. Miller also described planning‑commission recommendations and added conditions, including a deed note informing future owners of landfill use and a requirement to keep asphalt out of the lower (southern) landfill area after the Army Corps raised concerns about asphalt‑spray chemicals running off toward Clinton Lake.

Chris Storm of Storm Engineering, representing King’s Construction, the contract purchaser and proposed operator, said the site was chosen to “cause the least amount of impact to the surrounding community while … supporting the completion of the K‑10 expansion project.” He told commissioners the applicant worked with staff on the plan and accepted many of the recommended conditions, including removing landfill activity from an easement held by Southern Star pipeline company and performing an engineer load study where access crosses that easement.

County staff and outside reviewers described the conditions that would govern the uses. Miller summarized the planning commission’s conditions that the county add: five‑year time limits with an option to request extensions tied to K‑10’s schedule, erosion‑ and stormwater‑control measures, staking setbacks for inspections, restrictions limiting fill to clean rubble and expressly prohibiting asphalt in the southern landfill area, limits on hours of operation to sunrise through sunset, and a requirement that truck and equipment traffic use the truck route shown on the plans.

Tanya Voigt, director of zoning and codes, described enforcement and compliance practice if prohibited material appears at a clean‑rubble site: “If we were to either get a complaint or happen to be driving by and we identified that there was material that was outside of what’s permitted in [a] clean rubble landfill, we would notify the developer and/or applicant immediately and we would have them actually remove that content … it would be a stop work order in our office while we addressed how much of that material had gone in.” Voigt said current practice relies heavily on complaint‑driven inspections rather than routine sampling; testing for contaminants is not required by KDHE for clean rubble unless a separate testing condition is added to the CUP.

Chad Voigt, county engineer, told the commission he reviewed the site materials and plans and said he did not see a need for a drainage or stormwater study beyond the required erosion/sediment controls KDHE expects: “I did review this development, and I didn’t see a need for a stormwater study … I don’t think a stormwater study is needed.” Some commissioners disagreed on that point; one asked that a county‑engineer sign‑off condition be removed, while another said the commission should consider targeted mitigation to reduce risk of contaminants reaching Clinton Lake.

Planning staff said KDHE had told them that clean‑rubble sites are regulated by material definition rather than an initial KDHE permit and that the county’s CUP process is used to address external impacts such as traffic, hours and reclamation. The planning commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of both CUPs subject to revised conditions; the county commission then voted to approve both permits. The first, CUP‑24‑1010 for a landfill tied to the K‑10 project, was approved by motion of Commissioner Reed, adopted as resolution 25‑06. The second, CUP‑24‑1011 for a mining/excavation (borrow pit) to supply material for the same highway project, was approved and adopted as resolution 25‑07.

Both resolutions attach a set of release conditions and restrictions of use that run with the property. Key conditions recorded in the staff report and reflected in the adopted resolutions include:

- Timeframe limited to five years from approval, with an option to return for an extension if the K‑10 schedule requires more time. - Fill restricted to clean rubble only; the southern landfill area expressly excludes asphalt. - No exterior lighting and operations limited to sunrise through sunset. - Truck and equipment traffic restricted to the truck route shown on the approved plan; KDOT is contracted to build and maintain the truck route during construction and will turn roads over to the appropriate governing body when the highway project is finished. - A deed notation required informing future owners that the site was used as a landfill and may require additional engineering for development. - A surety or reclamation bond required for the borrow pit/CUP to ensure reclamation if the operator does not complete work. - Southern Star easement: applicant must remove any proposed fill from the gas‑pipeline easement, and a load‑study is required where the access drive crosses the easement; mitigation measures must be shown on plans if needed. - County‑engineer review of drainage/stormwater measures was added by the planning commission; the county engineer advised the commission he did not consider a formal drainage study necessary but supported required erosion‑control measures.

Commissioners debated the degree of extra engineering review and whether to require baseline testing of materials; commissioners who questioned the need for additional studies emphasized the temporary nature of the use and staff and KDHE statements that clean‑rubble fill is a defined material category and that KDHE does not routinely test all such materials. The zoning director said the county could add testing or monitoring obligations to a CUP if the commission wants that guarantee.

Votes at a glance

- CUP‑24‑1010 (Landfill for K‑10 expansion) — mover: Commissioner Reed; adopted as Resolution 25‑06; outcome: approved. Conditions include 5‑year limit, clean‑rubble only, no asphalt in southern landfill, truck‑route restrictions, deed notice, and stormwater/erosion controls. - CUP‑24‑1011 (Mining/excavation / borrow pit for K‑10 expansion) — mover: Commissioner Reed; adopted as Resolution 25‑07; outcome: approved. Conditions include 5‑year limit, reclamation bond requirement, truck‑route restrictions and the same no‑asphalt restriction for the southern landfill area.

What happens next

Planning staff said plans and required KDHE erosion control documentation must be submitted and approved, setbacks staked for inspections, and the county will not release the building/operation permits until those conditions are met. Zoning and codes officials said they will rely primarily on complaint‑triggered inspections but can carry out periodic compliance checks and can add testing or monitoring conditions to a CUP if the commission asks.

Background and context

The proposals are part of the multi‑phase K‑10 expansion; applicants said the highway work is expected to continue through 2028 in the project phase tied to these CUPs. The landfill would accept only clean rubble as defined by KDHE; KDHE representatives had indicated the material category and the relative stability of those materials were reasons a KDHE solid‑waste permit was not required. The Army Corps of Engineers asked that asphalt either be tested or excluded from the open southern landfill because of potential runoff concerns; the county and applicant opted to exclude asphalt from that portion of the site.

Speakers quoted in this article appear in the meeting transcript and are identified in the article’s speaker list. The transcript contains detailed staff reports, public‑agency comments, applicant statements and commissioner deliberations supporting the summary above.