HomeMy WebLinkAbout20122333.tiff INVENTORY OF ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
• Applicant BB Colorado Holdings, LLC Case Number USR12-0034
Submitted or Prepared
Prior to At
Hearing Hearing
PC Exhibits
1 Brad& Laura Zermuehlen, letter received 8-17-12 x
2 Bill Lent, letter received 8-21-12 X
3 Charles&Marian Baum, letter received 8-15-12 X
4 Robert&Debra Griffin, letter received 8-17-12 X
5 Jan&Holly Hoxley,email received 8-20-12 X
6 Denette Vonasek, letter received 8-12-12 X
7 William J. & Diane B Van Wormer, letter received 8-3-12 X
8 Charles Baum, letter received 7-24-12 X
9 Joseph&Elizabeth Krueger, letter received 7-20-12 x
10 Charles Baum, letter received 6-11-12 X
11 Frank Hobbs, letter received 8-5-12 X
12 Frank&Marian Hobbs, letter received 8-5-12 X
• 13 William J &Diane B Van Wormer, letter received 8-13-12 X
14 Thomas Harris,email received 8-13-12 X
15 Henry Thuener, letter received 8-13-12 X
16 Dawn Bernhard,email received 8-14-12 X
17 Holly Oxley Documents, submitted at hearing X
18 Revised USR Map, submitted at hearing X
19 Mineral Interest Objection Letter X
20 >ver5t 4 Posfrit Baud- Mont tymap
I hereby certify that the)*items identified herein were submitted to the Department of Planning Services at or prior to the
scheduled Planning Commissioners hearing
441/6 Tom Parko Planner
•
r3 CM —07333
-
\O \{J2.\cS• C'vc:.',1‘ , .v;�`\ :IC•A\t%it d' Z jam.\� "1 d� o ti` �]� `•V \C_C J
1
fc-2,a. - C.c5C � _ )•1/4.,iS R i %-' Cis%
c
\R'1' \ •4C `TLR.ca ' V '� arnti "
vvJ(\?d cV1. viYr\4 'a :)1-. Vnr,;An cyy,
Sc C\V`(\ 1 sc= Y')/1/4. c4'1 sZ,t4t(!CS\Qii-1 .� -\- .j/(f\ vel
O VD: "Vi \- c � 1c c
qq
VC\ 'D-°\\ � � T._ olr tv, :'�. \n€c\r c \crk- o �.
r
- rki.--1 /�1'h ,vrt-k '{1 S c ���.2�Jo n\�' 7 \\. VA�' c • h ci� 42,
Y
1 1 \Sc,-, ^\h'w: r J\1�\,.. r'� `\• ��--.�-�
browvs, k0 t„nakt4 7c. :�
L c\-- .\J\ C'v'Y1
(La-n u J all 11 .r)�..r/�\?Y:44\ �� C ci, \
Ce 5 1 �\e.n-E �'4>�.era h.`•% O>^ce
4ZM-C \c r - &V.l `Gw'S GO'\ S
(ICJ Var. V� \ _ \c.) QP 6cl co-\\ cc
c&Sc-a J c n-xc_\
Cou; cv, \v va` \;kg-. CA. >L c i
t aci,
� O�� C l\,-\ c/Jcv,At \c JSYc VaRvv •\ plc' c\,<\ v s,v `,)S \ry L C�/KC
' e GvCS i✓vW.-1 i�vu Y\s
EXHIBIT
/}
9 1
8582 C:K 21
Ft. Lupton, CO 80621
R/019 RECEIVED
Barbara Kirkmeyer AUG ? 1 ?fl?
Weld County Commissioner
Weld County Harming Department
GREELEY OFFICE
Dear Commissioner Kirkmeyer,
T am writing you on behalf of my myself. I am obiecting to a proposed industrial mega-dairy at
9743 CK 20.
There are many residents who have made their home here for years: I have been here two
years.My neighbors are all good people and they, we, have not been considered in this business
proposal. for what seems to he_ obvious reasons
Our neighborhood of fifteen families has been relegated to 2 words rurai residential . there
are no lines of demarcation indicating our homes and properties on the plan. Four of the
families would be contiguous to the proposed dairy: having either slurry ponds or manure piles
in their backyards. (terrainiv neither of which would he riPcirabie in your iackyards W, ,,id „ou
like to see your property value drop?Deal with the dust,dirt,noise from up to io,000 cows from
this dairy/feedlot?io.000 cows on 1c2 acres.This is not right.
RE: -agricultural uses that surround this site"
There are/is : NO noultry farms in nroduction
NU hay production
NO cattle grazing
N(1 rlairiec
Nu teecllots
1 40 acre (approx) parcel in corn
(the extent of crop farming nn this sertinn)
BUT there are 15 families and their properties which would be adversely affected.
Granting this proposal would change the character of the neighborhood and would additionally
adversely affect health and safety due to the exponential increase in flies. Flies are extremely
A;csini,lt to nnn-P nn
in referring to me Weld County Mission statement granting this proposal would be inconsistent
with "codes so that quality of life and property values are maintained for County residents,
businesses and nronertv owners thymic]) re.snnnse to riti7Pn rnnrernc "
we, as concerned citizens, residents and property owners, ask that this proposal be denied.
Thank von. EXHIBIT
Bill Lent
a
EXHIBIT
8519 Weld County Road #21 RECEIVED
Fort Lupton, Colorado, 80621 ! �J
August 13, 2012 AUG 15 ��l�
Weld County Planning Board Weld County Planning Department
Case# USR 12-0034, a Mega Feedlot/Dairy operation GREELEY OFFICE
I am, along with my wife Marian, totally against any acceptance of this proposal. When we moved here, we
were surrounded by friendly, clean and cooperative turkey farms who proved to be a good neighbor, who provided a
great acceptable living environment with adequate setbacks for us and our neighbors. All neighbors within 1,000 feet
will be adversely affected by an industrial mega dairy of this magnitude. We are disappointed we were not approached
before their going to the Weld County Planning Board. The strength of our neighborhood opposition might have
deterred our need to be here at all. Some residents have lived here more than forty years and these properties are our
lives and our homes.
1: Topography: This proposal sits on a huge watershed, whereby the runoff from a heavy storm runs downhill to
the South-East. Historically, these residential properties have experienced flooding and erosion from these fast and
powerful runoffs. The last known severe runoff was in the late sixties and the affected owners had to fill in,grade and
reseed several eroded areas.
2: Soil and Groundwater: The soil in this area is mostly sand and water easily moves underground through this
soil. It is my concern that these manure compost piles and urine evaporative ponds will drain or overflow into runoffs
and seep under-ground. Residences downhill would become contaminated with seepage into basements or living
areas. In particular, our home and one other are bi-level with their living area four feet below ground level. There is no
adequate moisture barrier offered in the plan to prevent ground water from moving east into these properties.
3: Setbacks: There are few marginal setbacks shown on the plan with far less than 1000 feet from residences. As
currently shown; some residences back up to slurry pits and manure piles.
4: Ponds and Compost: The odor from these ponds and manure areas is unacceptable. Many homes and buildings
are only a few feet from their property lines. Some homeowners have air conditioners or swamp coolers which will
draw adverse odors into their homes. These ponds and manure piles will increase insect populations of up to 100 fold.
5: Insects: Flies and mosquitoes carry infectious diseases which can be spread to humans and animals. Pets carry
insects and insects carry diseases. This excessive increase of insects is a major concern to our neighbors.
6: Overpopulation: 8,000 head of cattle is a flagrant request for this size of a dairy facility. 8,000 head is 13 times
higher than County use regulations; mathematically, this is 53 head per planned acre. It is known that there are five oil
pumping sites and a tank site, all requiring areas of space as well as access roads to each. The plan shows areas for the
existing houses, workshop and parking areas. And there is a large area to be used for milk storage and other required
operations. This uses up considerable space,thus reducing the area usable for cattle, I would assume more than half.
7: Feed Storage: There are no areas shown where to store hay and grain. Storage of hay is problematic in relation
to hay combustability and the physical location of our residences. Their feedlot south of us had a hay fire two years ago,
which burned for days and thanks to a wide setback from neighboring residents, no buildings of theirs were damaged.
8: Operation: This proposal is a twenty four hour business with approximately 25 employees working continuously
to move cattle to and from feedlot pens and milking areas. This would be twenty four hours of perpetual noise, dust
and an unbearable environment for our neighbors. Several neighbors currently have respiratory problems and this
excessive dust would drastically elevate their health concerns. I assume this proposed operation would be no different
from other production businesses whereby employees are to be just productive. This being the case, there will little
effort applied to carry out any proposed plans for dust, noise, odor or insect controls on a regular basis.
9. Property Values: Our properties are a tremendous lifetime investment. Losing these investments due to an
adverse quality of life is a major concern to our neighborhood. Our neighborhood plans to keep it that way.
10. In Conclusion: We ask each and every one of you to put yourself into our position and ask, "could or would I live
with any conditions this proposal will create?" In referring to the Weld County Mission statement granting this proposal
would be inconsistent with "codes so that quality of life and property values are maintained for county residents,
businesses and property owners through response to citizen concerns." We are not convinced that there are adequate
setbacks,proper control of contamination, dust,odors, noise and insect infestation. We are in agreement with our
neighbors to strongly ask you for a full defeat of this proposal.
Attest: Charles Baum and Marian Baum
RECEIVED
Robert and Debra Griffin
9262 County Road 21 At 1 7 p1112
Fort Lupton, CO 80621 Weld County - rr,r:;; ,g Department
303-857-4245 GREELEY OFFICE
Weld County Department of Planning Services
1555 N. 17th Ave.
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Case#USR12-0034
To: Michelle Martin or Case Representative
We are writing to request that the permit for a large dairy located at 9743 WCR 20, amidst our neighborhood is denied.
The dairy is proposing 8000 head of cattle on 150 acres.
Eleven years ago we moved away from high density city life to escape city pollution in search of a better quality of life.
Today we value and cherish the quiet and the joys of country living. We support the right of business owners to expand
their operations and to increase profit margins and agriculture, however not at the expense of nearby residents. This
project will greatly impact our lives and our neighbor's by decreasing property values, impacting our health, our
livelihood and our present quality of life.
We are very concerned about the stench of the waste, the increase in insects that accompany a dairy, the added noise,
increased traffic, bright lights all night and the devaluation of our property. One of us has severe allergies and asthma
and will be impacted by the dust and the change in overall air quality from such a concentrated commercial operation.
The Griffin's have a small, fledgling, but growing bee-keeping business, therefore we have tremendous concerns about
the pesticides that will be used by the dairy for insect control. We are also engaged in some organic farming and are
quite disturbed by the horror stories of the amount of flies that render being out of doors impossible by other Weld
County residents living near dairies.
Please consider how other dairies in Weld County have a virtual buffer zone when their daily operations are% mile or
greater away from residents. This fairly small acreage has no buffer. Compost areas and retention ponds are proposed
very near our neighbor's back yards. It is our belief that the Planning Department and County Commissioners should
maintain a buffer zone between high concentration 24/7 feed lot/dairy and that of small family residences completely
unassociated with the proposed operation.
All of us have invested in the development of our homes and property. Many of us had the dream of retirement here.
This project casts a dark cloud over our hopes and dreams of the future. The devaluation in our collective properties
will render some of us upside down in our mortgages.
It is our hope that the Weld County Planning Commission will not consider this large-scale use of this acreage.
We strongly believe that this is not the right property for this proposal.
Sincerely,
EXHIBIT
Robert Griffin
Debra Griffin
�c c`c. Barbara Kir,krneyer
FROM : JHOXLEY FAX NO. : 17208905974 Aug. 20 2012 05:28PM Fl
case 4: USR12-0034
case #: USR12-0034 X1(9
From: JAN AND HOLLY <jhoxley@peoplepc.c O^�'0 �e
eQ'�
To: bkirkmeyer@coeld.us a�G a��\c C.)
Subject: case#_ USR12-0034 O
Date: Aug 7, 2012 7:46 PM
To: Barbara Kirkmeyer
& Michelle Martin
We were informed that we needed to object to the proposed dairy on Weld County Rd
20 case = JSR12-0034 in writing as well as in person. Therefore we will briefly
list our objections and concerns that we will bring up in detail at the public
hearing on Aug 21 at 1:30 PM.
Our objections are:
we were not consulted as a community as to any of the plans for the holding ponds,
compost areas that are directly adjacent to our residential properties. The plan
to have 6000 head of cattle just 55 steps from our back door is very distressing.
This many cows on such a small area of land is excessive.
With this large of an operation a great deal of noise, light and air pollution
will be generated.
Flies, fly fecal matter, and mosquitoes will be present almost veer round. Thjs
is of health concern along with the pesticides that will be sprayed to rid the
area cf these pest.
Also of great concern is t a' impact of property values dropping- There are
several case studies on similar situations of animal containment operations.
greatly impact the quality of not c, ly our
All of these plus other issues will
lives bu the lives of every one in our neighborhood.
Sincerely
Jan and Holly Oxley
EXHIBIT
2eoplePC online
A better way to Internet
ht ': //''^ w,ce Jpiebc_com
i am/nrimable.is➢?mseid=4045Rce708460827 8/19/2012
Weld County Planning Board August 12, 2012
1555 N17th Ave.
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Case #USR12-0034
I am writing this letter to oppose CASE #USR12-0034. My family has owned our
farm property located at 7012 WC Rd 21 in rural Ft. Lupton for 65 years. Growing up here
has been a blessing. We loved and enjoyed the quality of life we had come accustomed to.
You are far away from city lights, plenty of fresh air, open space, no traffic, growing crops,
raising animals and most importantly raising a family. Relatives and friends couldn't wait
to come and spend a day, weekend or summer and enjoy our farm.
Now I am unfortunate to have, the Front Range Dairy across from my property. At
first when it was smaller it was still something you didn't want to live next to, but we dealt
with it. Fast forward a few years and the dairy has gotten much larger and our quality of
life has greatly changed. Yes, we are still far away from the city lights but now we have the
many lights from the dairy to light up the night sky, every night 365 days a year. We have
the dairy trucks and employees driving back and forth on our dirt road. We have no more
fresh air, well on occasion we do when the wind blows the other direction. It is sometimes
truly overwhelming, especially at dusk. This is a smell you can't get away from, it's
everywhere even in your house. Forget ever enjoying a meal outdoors, we don't even want
open a window. We also on occasion find dozens of dead birds that literally drop dead out
of the sky, some with wings still spread. The EPA told me that the Front Range Dairy is
allowed to poison the dairy cow feed twice a year to kill the birds that eat the feed. What if
family pets or other wildlife got ahold of one of these poisoned birds?
These problems are very hard and frustrating to live with, but what I have found
impossible to live with, is the flies. They absolutely have made a huge negative impact on
us. A way to picture the quantity of these flies is like what's in a horror movie. We
absolutely cannot have any food or a drink outside without a lid on it. They will even crawl
down a straw. If were working outside and sweating, they land all over us. They try to go
up your nose and in your mouth. This is disgusting and unsanitary. The flies cover our
animals and pets and are a constant irritant to them. Our trash becomes infested with
maggots. I cannot keep them out of the house either. Fly specks from their excrement is
everywhere, on our stovetop, counter top, windows, and table where our family eats. They
even land on food you are cooking or fruit on the counter. They also invade our cars just
from opening the door to get in or out. We don't ever leave our car windows down or even
cracked, it would be full of flies.
EXHIBIT
e
I currently have at any given time from spring to fall 10-12 large fly traps around my
house and out buildings.They fill up in 2-3 days and need to be dumped and changed.
Dumping the fly traps full of dead flies, maggots,and rotten smelling fly attractant is
enough to make you sick. I have many indoor sticky fly traps as well (great home decor). I
have tried different sprays to no avail they just don't work for long. I no longer have
animals on my property and it has made no difference. I complained about the flies to Weld
County the first week in August and as of the writing of this letter have not gotten a return
call.The only thing that gets rid of the flies is winter,but spring brings them back again.
For these reasons most of my relatives and friends don't want to come out to my
property any longer.The foul smell and flies actually is embarrassing to me. I get
comments such as; "How can you stand it here," "this is disgusting," "You should just sell it."
There is a lot of memories and hard work having a place in your family for 65 years and I've
seen several of my neighbor's properties up for sale for years. I don't know anyone who
would want to live next to this.
I am writing this letter on behalf of my neighbors just a short ways down the road
where the new 8000 cow dairy/feedlot is purposed, case# USR12-0034. Please vote to
recommend denial of the permit to build this dairy so close to people's homes and families.
Having the Front Range Dairy across the road from my property has only had a great
negative affect on our quality of life and property value.
Sincerely, (r//
Denette Vonasek
303-929-8029
William J and Diane B Van Wormer
9289 C.R. 18
Ft. Lupton, CO 80621
August 3, 2012
Weld County Department of Planning Services
1555 N. 17th Ave.
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Case#USR12-0034
To Whom It May Concern,
We are opposed to the proposed "dairy farm" at 9743 WCR 20, Fort Lupton, CO.
Our property is on the North side of WCR18, across from the current dairy. The ever present flies and
smells that accompany a dairy have become a part of our daily lives. But increasing that, and having
that also come from the opposite direction (proposed NE of us), would be more than a nuisance. We
have %to %acre of vegetable/fruit gardens, from which we donate produce. Thus, we are working
outside our house most of the time that is spent at home.
Another concern would be having a fire, similar to the one in 2010 in the hay/straw stacks at the dairy
across the road. If a fire of that magnitude came across the field, it would destroy some of our homes.
We already have too much road use by large commercial vehicles, leaving our road a washboard most of
the time, and causing the dust to be overwhelming at times. Since the shortest route is preferred by all,
it seems only likely that some of the traffic associated with another commercial type of operation will
add to the already deteriorating condition of our road.
We also worry about how our property value, and that of our neighbors, will be affected by the
proposed operation.
Please vote to recommend denial of the permit.
Thank you for your considerations.
Sincerely,
William J and Diane B Van Wormer
cc: bkirkmeyereco.weld.us
lizandi@skybeam.com EXHIBIT
a
8519 Weld County Road #21
Fort Lup201, Colorado 8
CG' 1/ E®
July 20, 2012
Planning, Weld County JUL 2 4 glj7
Weld County rtnnisg DepartJpayt
Case #USR12-0034 GR.EELEY OFFICE
I wrote to you previously with concerns before knowing thoroughly what the plans were.
Knowing them now creates very serious health concerns. In our opinion, this is not agricultural as
agricultural is raising animals and crops. This not a business of raising anything and should be zoned
industrial or commercial.
I cannot understand why such a largely populated outfit has plans in such a small area as well as
so close to residential area. There are other locations much more suitable for this industry to locate, all
on sections of property being sold by AGPRO. I have been made to understand that anything west of
CR19 is controlled by Firestone, so the most ideal location (southwest corner of 19 and 20) is
unfortunately not considered. However on the East side of WCR19 between WCR 22 and WCR 24 is
wide open with no residences privately owned. It is far larger than this proposal and a respective
distance away from private homes.
Our biggest concern is that urine evaporation ponds and manure compost piles are right up to
our property lines. This is not something anyone would welcome and being a former chairperson of the
health board I find it very unacceptable. Odor, disease and insect infestation will be transmitted to our
properties; extreme devaluation of our properties; as no one else would accept to buy these properties
with such a distasteful environment. I certainly don't expect any attempt from the outfit who desires to
move in to be concerned about our welfare.
The turkey farms were spread out nicely with a wide area void of any waste and/or buildings
which gave us some decent breathing room and no fear of disease and insects. Yes, there were times
when we had odor problems but they were temporary and occurred when they cleaned the building and
manipulated the compost piles occasionally. This proposal has no open space shown in their plans.
I strongly recommend that this proposal be turned down. We ask that they try a larger area
elsewhere. Most of us have lived here more than 40 years and hope to stay in our present environment
without distasteful odors, disease and insect infestation. Our present problem is the sudden growth of
Prairie Dog population, again a disease problem. I would like every board member imagine their living
here and accepting a proposal like this against their property. I am positive each and every one of you
would say a big fat NO.
Sincerely
Charles M. Baum
EXHIBIT
,-
RECEIVED
JUL 2 7.012 8657 Weld County Road 21
Fort Lupton, CO 80621
Weld County Raining Department July 16, 2012
GREELEY OFFICE
Weld County Department of Planning Services
1555 N. 17th Ave.
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: Case # USR12-0034
To Whom It May Concern,
We are writing to protest the 152 acre proposed 8000 head dairy farm, namely Front Range
Dairy with proposed location of 9743 WCR 20. Fort Lupton. CO. Although the drawing of
proposed site does not include the residence adjacent to our North property line, it is still
considered part of the property being sold. Thus, we would be bordered on the North and West
by the proposed dairy.
We have lived here 42 years having purchased the 2 acre property in June 1970. We have since
remodeled the house and added many improvements to the property. According to the site plan,
the compost area is adjacent to our West property line and that of our neighbor. The South
retaining pond is located West and South behind two more residences. The second retaining
pond is north of our property. We are well aware that this is an agricultural area; however the
proposed dairy farm will sharply devalue our property as it will add multiple health and
environmental hazards preventing it from being an acceptable place to live. In the initial
composting stage, the manure smells like rotting carcasses. In the final stage of composting, the
moisture content of the compost is so low that it is like a fine dust. Our daughter and one
granddaughter have asthma. The dust and stench from the composting will worsen their asthma.
The flies will be constant. Being within a couple hundred feet of the compost, we would not be
able to get away from the constant stench, dust and flies. The control of the health and
environmental issues look good on paper, but reality is different.
Please deny this special use permit as it is incompatible with the size and location of the site and
will compromise the quality of life of the adjacent residents and value of the established adjacent
residences. The number of animals and the twenty-four hour operation is more commercial
instead of agricultural.
Sincerely yours,
(----,-/__r
Josep 1 K }eger
rte.
7
Elizabeth Krueger
EXHIBIT
I
8519 Weld County Road #21
Fort Lupton, Colorado, 80621
June 7, 2RECEI M Ate®
Weld County Dept. of Planning Services JUN 1 1 7n17
1555 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, Colorado 80631 Weld County Pianning Department
GREELEY OFFICE
To Whom It May Concern,
We just received notice of a case#USR12-0034 review notification for a proposal to allow a dairy farm of
up to 8000 head of cattle adjacent to residential properties located on CR#21. We are very concerned as to
what is meant by dairy farm. 8000 head of cattle is far too many to be located on such a small area which makes
us believe it may be a feed lot.
The area may be classified as agricultural but we doubt its intent was to have it over populated. Farming
crops, pasture, or poultry seem more reasonable. Even with the previous turkey farms, odors were extensive
when they cleaned out their buildings, but it lasted a few days and was tolerable. We previously had a neighbor
who proposed a duck farm with 4000 ducks and some greenhouses on his 2 acres of land and the Health Board
(which I was once a member) and the Commissioners both turned it down. We are not sure who oversaw the
planning of this project, but no consideration was made concerning that this land proposed for so many head of
cattle has its watershed flowing south-east towards the residential properties and should all the urine and
diseases flow down this watershed,the stench and safety hazards would be unbearable. Also our property
values which are presently about a half million each would go down to almost nothing. Should this go through
with all these cattle crowded into a small area it would be very unhealthy and costly to its neighbors.
We already have a feed lot covering a larger area with fewer heads of cattle south west of us and
occasionally the wind drives the odors our way, but being farther away, it is tolerable. We also experienced a
huge hay fire a couple years ago on this feedlot and this caused much fear to residents nearby. Should a fire
occur on this new proposed area, there would be no way to stop it from wiping us out, being so close. Had this
proposal planned for 800 head of cattle to be used either as pasture or as a dairy farm with a processing plant
on CR#20, it would be more practical and more acceptable. We strongly reject any overcrowded and unhealthy
feedlot this close to our residences.
If you have a larger map and description of this proposal, please send it down either by USPS or by an
e-mail (akelacmb@live.com) attachment for our review and with the neighbors also. One other thing we need
to mention is that roads CR18, 20 and 21 were (confirmed) appropriated back in the early 1970s to be paved
within 8 years and as yet no pavement. CR#20 just got a new road base which created some hope, but 18 and
21 need a road base also to keep the dust down a to improve the surfaces from being so rough on vehicles.
Your support, by providing more information, will be much appreciated and help us prepare for any
hearings in the future. We wish to cooperate with new owners providing we don't have an over-crowded,
unhealthy and devaluating situation.
Sincerely:
Charles M. Baum
e-mail address: akelacmb@live.com EXHIBIT,
1
10
8590 CR 21
Fort Lupton, CO 80621
8/5/12
Planning Commission
RE: USR12-0034
To Whom It May Concern:
I'm all for mega-dairies and mega-giant Leprino having a
plant in Greeley. But not when it would adversely change
the character of our neighborhood and adversely affect the
quality of life of the residents and property owners.
Of all people, Mr. DeHaan should realized that his current
dairy layout of 160 acres, (4000 head) which is completely
surrounded by 480 acres of open farmland, is disparate
with the proposed 152 acre (8000 head) dairy. While there
are a handful of non-contiguous homes on the outer
perimeter of that section, none is within a 1000' of the
dairy property proper.
The proposed dairy has 18 family residences within 1000'
feet. The dissimilarity is obvious and for this reason alone,
the proposal should be denied.
For the Planning Commission to recommend this proposal
to the County Commissioners would be a reckless act;
setting a precedent for other dairies of this size on limited
acreage to adversely affect current property owners.
As a concerned citizen, resident and property owner, I
request that you do not recommend this proposal in its
entirety.
Thank you.
J. Frank Hobbs EXHIBIT
1/9
8590 CR 21
Ft. Lupton, CO 80621
8/5/12
Barbara Kirkmeyer
Weld County Commissioner
Dear Commissioner Kirkmeyer,
I am writing you on behalf of my husband and myself. We are objecting to a proposed industrial
mega-dairy at woo WCR 20.
There are many residents who have made their home here for years; we have been here twenty
two years. They, we, have not been considered in this business proposal, for what seems to be,
obvious reasons.
Our neighborhood of eighteen families has been relegated to 2 words "rural residential".
There are no lines of demarcation indicating our homes and properties on the plan. Four of the
families would be contiguous to the proposed dairy; having either slurry ponds or manure piles
in their backyards. Certainly neither of which would be desirable in your backyards'?
RE: "agricultural uses that surround this site"
There are/is : NO poultry farms in production
NO hay production
NO cattle grazing
NO dairies
NO feedlots
1 4o acre (approx) parcel in corn
(the extent of crop farming on this section)
BUT there are 15 families and their properties, which would be adversely affected.
Granting this proposal would change the character of the neighborhood and would additionally
adversely affect health and safety due to the exponential increase in flies. Flies are extremely
difficult to confine, they go where they want.
In referring to the Weld County Mission statement granting this proposal would be inconsistent
with "codes so that quality of life and property values are maintained for County residents,
businesses and property owners through response to citizen concerns."
We, as concerned citizens, residents and property owners, request that this proposal be denied.
Thank you.
EXHIBIT
Frank Hobbs 9 f2
Marian Hobbs
RECEIVED
William J and Diane B Van Wormer
9289 C.R. 18 AUG 1 q 9r)19
Ft. Lupton, CO 80621 Weld County r a nine Department
GREELEY OFFICE
August 3, 2012
Weld County Department of Planning Services
1555 N. 17th Ave.
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Case #USR12-0034
To Whom It May Concern,
We are opposed to the proposed "dairy farm" at 9743 WCR 20, Fort Lupton, CO.
Our property is on the North side of WCR18, across from the current dairy. The ever present flies and
smells that accompany a dairy have become a part of our daily lives. But increasing that, and having
that come from the opposite direction (proposed NE of us), would be more than a nuisance. We have 1/:
to % acre of vegetable/fruit gardens, from which we donate produce. Thus, we are working outside our
house most of the time that is spent at home.
Another concern would be having a fire, similar to the one in 2010 in the hay/straw stacks at the dairy
across the road. If a fire of that magnitude came across the field, it would destroy some of our homes.
We already have too much road use by large commercial vehicles, leaving our road a washboard most of
the time, and causing the dust to be overwhelming at times. Since the shortest route is preferred by all,
it seems only likely that some of the traffic associated with another commercial type of operation will
add to the already deteriorating condition of our road.
We also worry about how our property value, and that of our neighbors, will be affected by the
proposed operation.
Please vote to recommend denial of the permit..
Thank you for your considerations.
Sincerely,
/Ct.Ll '3yC74C
William J and Diane B Van Wormer
cc: bkirkmeyer@co.weld.us
lizandi@skybeam.com
EXHIBIT
f3
Michelle Martin
From: Trevor Jiricek
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 9:07 AM
To: Michelle Martin
Cc: Tom Parko
Subject: FW: Case# USR12-0034
Michelle,
This is the letter I referenced this a.m.
Trevor Jiricek
Director
Department of Planning&
Environmental Health Services
1555 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Email: tliricek@co.weld.co.us
Office it 970-353-6100, Extension 2214
Fax#:970-304-6498
L
Confidentiality Notice:This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for
the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise
protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return
e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the
contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited.
From: Barbara Kirkmeyer
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 6:20 AM
To: Esther Gesick; Commissioners; Trevor Jiricek
Subject: Fwd: Case # USR12-0034
Please add to the record
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: thomas Harris <flyfish8575 cr,hotmail.com>
Date: August 12. 2012 9:38:44 PM MDT
To: Barbara Kirkmeyer <bkirkmever'dco.weld.co.us>
Subject: Case # USR12-0034
8575 WCR 21 August
9, 2012
EXHIBIT
Fort Lupton, CO 80621 ffi
s iq
1 �-
Barbara Kirkmeyer
Weld County Commissioner
bkirkmever@co.weld.co.us
Dear Commissioner Kirkmeyer,
I am writing to you on behalf of myself, my family,and the 14 other families that live in my
neighborhood. We are collectively objecting to the proposed construction of an industrial mega-dairy at
9743 CR 20.
I would first like to cite that we are not against appropriate and sustainable agricultural utilization of this
area. However,the proposed facility is neither appropriate nor sustainable, and would present countless
health and safety risks to the surrounding residents. Frankly,we feel that this operation is too intense a
use for the neighborhood.
My family has made a home in this rural area as we enjoy the outdoors and appreciate the peace that
this area provides us. We have lived here for 14 years and recently added a third generation to our
family of rural enthusiasts. One may think that because the proposal is structured on the modification
of an existing facility that it would have little impact on the area. However,the existing facility is
significantly smaller and creates far less commercial traffic than the mega-dairy that is proposed to
replace it.The increased footprint of the facility will be seen in the traffic, air,and landscape,and will be
a permanent reminder of thoughtless commercial development and intrusion.
On a personal level,our properties back up to the proposed "dairy,"which is also known as a
commercial animal feeding operation.The plans indicate that there would be compost and slurry ponds
within 500 feet of our homes,and the operation is contingent on processing thousands of cattle a year.
It is well understood that over-utilization and under-appreciation of any land will result in both financial
depreciation of the land and surrounding lands,and carries long-term consequences for the soil and
water.When we moved into the area,we never envisioned that it would literally be used to store and
contain animal feces,corpses,and the like,of which present a health and safety hazard for anyone
visiting or living within vicinity of the operation.
2
We invite you to visit the neighborhood to understand the area that we have come to call home.
Approving this proposal grants the requestor the right to use,abuse, and destroy the land and place our
health and livelihood in peril. We feel as though we are not considered when the application was
submitted, but as concerned citizens, residents and property owners,would like our voice to be heard,
and strongly request that this proposal be denied in favor of an alternative option.
Respectfully,
Thomas Harris
Joseph,Tara and Maddix Clifton
3
August 13, 2012
To: Michelle Martin
Planning Department
Weld County, Colorado
We are writing in regard to Case# 1.15R 12-0034. We would like to encourage the Planning
Commission to vote to recommend denial of the permit for a large dairy on a fairly small acreage in our
neighborhood in southern Weld County. Our neighborhood is made up of properties of various sizes
with smaller family oriented businesses and residential properties, with no commercial ventures with
such high density use of the land.
There was no neighborhood meeting before filing the application and therefore none of the
concerns of the property owners in the vicinity of the proposed dairy were addressed. The plans for the
dairy have the compost pile and the retention ponds basically on the property lines of 4 homeowners,
and we do not believe any amount of mitigation will control odor and flies in such close proximity.There
is also concern about possible toxins that would be used to control flies and other insects, although the
applicant states that chemical use would be a last resort.
There is no landscaping plan nor a storm drainage plan for more than a 25 year storm. In the
event of a major storm it appears that overflow from the holding pond would run right through several
neighboring properties. Also there is no buffer zone between the surrounding properties and the
proposed dairy. If a buffer were to be created it would diminish the area available for the dairy. We also
understand that there are 5 oil and gas wells and 2 tank batteries on the site which we do not see
addressed on the site plan. The area around each well used by the oil and gas companies would appear
to further impact the area available for dairy buildings.
While there is a need for increasing the number of dairies in Weld County to supply increasing
demand, but we feel that this is too intense of usage for this neighborhood. Although the applicant is
correct in stating that there are dairies in the surrounding area, none of them are at as high a density as
this proposed diary will be and there is a large buffer zone around these dairies. There will be at least 18
families directly affected by the increased dust, flies, noise and odor and additional families that will be
affected by the increased traffic on Road 20 and Road 19. We have already seen a large increase in
heavy traffic on Road 20 due to the gravel trucks and oil industry that use our road as a route to the
west as well as traffic from Frederick and Firestone that travels east.
In an effort to continue our rural way of life we would encourage the Planning Commission to
deny this application and not set precedent for high density commercial use of land that abuts
residential acreages.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Henry A. Thuener II
Deborah A. Thuener
10303 County Road 20
For Lupton, CO 80621
hatii@msn.com
303-947-7665
EXHIBIT
Cc: Barbara Kirkmeyer s
Michelle Martin
From: Tom Parko
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 6:58 AM
To: Michelle Martin
Subject: FW: Front range dairy.
FYI.
Tom Parko, M.A.
Planning Manager
Weld County Dept. of Planning Services
1555 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO. 80631
Office: 970-353-6100, ext 3572
Mobile:970-302-5333
t! f; II,
Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for
the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise
protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return
e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the
contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited.
From: Barbara Kirkmeyer
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 6:52 AM
To: Tom Parko; Esther Gesick
Subject: Fwd: Front range dairy.
Weld County Department of Planning Services In care of Michelle Martin
Case number USR12-0034
Name: BB Colorado Holdings, LLC
! We would like to express our [ non support ] of the proposed 8000 head dairy for this
location. Our home is located directly east of this property on road 21 . We have lived at
this address for 24 years. We have many concerns about this dairy / feedlot. This dairy
will bring many health concerns to us and the surrounding area [ heavy dust, fly and
insect production, noise, bad oder, high traffic and drainage problems ]. This is a quiet
neighborhood and will be completely changed if this project is approved. The property
is undersized for this dairy and is very close to many homes,[ no set backs from
property lines ] 1 1 1 1 1 1
EXHIBIT
Weld county has many other locations which would be better suited for a large dairy
operation such as this. The impact to this area will be significantly bad. please do not
allow this to happen to our neighborhood and home.
Thanks for your consideration Bryan and Dawn Bernhard
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Dawn Bernhard <ranchbbb@hotmail.com>
Date: August 12, 2012 8:59:44 PM MDT
To: Barbara Kirkmeyer<bkirkmeyer@co.weld.co.us>
Subject: Front range dairy.
2
Intro:
Hi, I am Holly Oxley and this is my husband Jan Oxley,
We live at 8653 CR 21 in Ft Lupton CO and we have lived here for 11 years.
And we strongly oppose this plan and request that you vote against it or any
dairy that would require a special use permit.
There is a long list of reasons why this plan should not be approved, and you
have heard most of them many times over today. But we feel it worth saying
again.
There will be 24 hours a day of light, noise, and air pollution.
Light pollution for the lights that will be on at night to conduct the work as
this will be a 24 hr a day operation, (we will no longer be able to sit out and
enjoy the night stars)
Noise pollution for the equipment that will be running all day and all night
not to mention the noise that the cows make 24 hours a day. (imagine a large
number of cows mooing all the time) (and they do)
And the air pollution: There will be dust from the compost piles and the
barren ground from all the cows trampling it a barren nothingness, And the
pesticides that will be sprayed in an attempt to keep the unbearable number
of flies, and mosquitoes down. The flies and mosquitoes are major carriers of
disease for both humans and animals and they will be present year round
along with the fly fecal matter . This is of concern for health reasons. With
this poor air quality we would no longer be able to barbeque on our patios,
entertain any guest, open our windows for the cool evening breeze or just sit out
side to enjoy the quite dark cool evening air.
If this plan is approved we will never be able to open our windows again for
the Oder of the facility and the insects.
Then there is the concern for property values. Case studies indicate that
these types of operations diminish adjacent property values by 50-90%. This
info comes from the appraisal journal.
(We have 31 years of hard work invested in a modest home and 2 acres of
property, if this plan is approved we feel our property along with our neighbors
properties will be of no value to our families or anyone else.)
EXHIBIT
9 11
Pg2
If this situation was turned around, this was an existing dairy and the
plan was to build a neighborhood, everyone would think this whole
idea insane. After all who would want to place their back door just 150
ft from a slurry pond or even down hill from one. I think everyone
would find this unacceptable or the person purposing the idea a little
crazy. So then why is it ok to place a mega commercialized dairy in an
existing neighborhood?
As we look at this plan we wonder, first off why did they not come talk
to us as a neighborhood about what they where planning, second why
no buffer zone at all, third why the lack of respect for the people that
live in the area, the placement of an slurry pond just a few feet off the
property line close to where a neighbor lives is a definite lack of respect.
Finally, why here?
As someone who has lived near a dairy and who has family members
that work for and live on a dairy I can speak from experience about the
smell, the flies, fly fecal mater and the mosquitoes and how they effect
your daily life. You can not work outside or go for a run or walk outside
without the constant presence of something (fly or mosquito) in your
face or crawling on you. We understand that there is a plan to help
with pest and dust control, but we have never seen one of these plans
work.
We feel that if this industrial dairy is approved that the quality of our
lives and that of our neighbors lives will never be the same again. As we
won't be able to enjoy the out of doors as we now know it again,we
won't be able to do our organic gardens have our organic honey bee
hives or just enjoy our space that we have worked for.
Pg3
Most homeowners have a choice as to where their back door will lead,
for us this choice will be made by big business and a county
commission.
We ask for you to please take into account how you would feel if this
was your neighborhood. You had the right to choose what was in your
back yard, now you will help to choose what is in our back yard. Also
remember that the owner of this business probably won't even live near
it.
In closing: we ask that you reject this proposal for the too close of
quarters and the too intense of usage for such a small area of land. This
is obviously a business plan based on profit, disregarding at whose
expense that profit will come.
r Prwl Pt cc/pr 7fh k. C wrQ r• = -711 4 r_ ::
We ask that you help to save our little piece of heaven.
Thank you
Flies and Disease
John H. Kirk
Veterinary Medicine Extension, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California
Davis, VMTRC,Tulare
As we approach the warmer seasons of the year it is well to think about controlling flies
on dairies,as they are known to carry both animal and human diseases. With the
approach of warmer weather,the flies begin to increase in numbers rapidly as their
generation time within manure and decaying feeds becomes increasingly shorter. Here
are some reasons to prepare for fly season.
Mastitis
Flies are known to carry Streptococcus and Staphylococcus bacteria in their mouthparts
and on their feet. The common housefly,which is not a biting fly, sponges up moist
materials with its mouthparts as it feeds.The"fly specks"seen on walls and corral fences
are actually small amounts of vomit and fecal matter left behind by the flies. Often these
"specks"contain bacteria that will also be deposited at the next place the fly lands to feed
or rest. Flies particularly like decaying matter whether animal or plant so they feed on
rotting placentas or manure pats. Cows that leak milk in between milking periods are
frequent targets for housefly feeding.And it just happens that cows that leak milk are
more likely to have mastitis than other cows. So more often than not, the milk that the
housefly sponges up contains mastitis-causing bacteria.
The biting flies are particularly troublesome for cows. They often bite on the teats and
teat ends of cows where the skin is thin.These flies have been shown to be able to cause
enough irritation and damage on the teat ends to result in wounds and scab formations.
Staphylococcus bacteria such as Staph. aureus readily grow in these bite injuries and
around the scabs. Even in heifers before they calves; mastitis can occur from the bite
injuries that become infected with bacteria. As with any wound on the teat,mastitis is
almost always sure to happen.These cases of Staph. aureus mastitis often become
chronic resulting in decreased milk quality and production or perhaps early marketing.
Pinkeye
The Moraxella bacteria that cause pinkeye in calves are readily available in the tears and
discharge from calves for flies to feed on. When fly populations are high, pinkeye
infections rapidly spread from calf to calf as the flies move from one calf to another.
Houseflies are particular adept at moving bacteria as they feed from one moist area to
another. Face flies will also increase the spread of pinkeye. While most of the pinkeye
lesions will heal slowly over 45-60 days leaving only a white scar, however, in about 1%
of the cases the eye will rupture and eyesight will be lost. In addition, expensive
antibiotic treatment is required in most cases of pinkeye.
Decreased Production
When biting fly populations become excessive,they chase cows and calves as they
attempt to bite. In an effort to avoid fly bites,the cattle will crowd together constantly
trying to get in the center of the herd. This avoidance behavior takes them away from the
feed bunks and production may suffer 5-20%. Growing heifers also demonstrate this
avoidance behavior when chased by many biting flies.They may even loose weight
during the peak of the fly season instead of gaining.
Potential Infections
Flies are also known to carry bacteria such as Salmonella and E. coli O 157 that are
potential human food borne pathogens as well as animal pathogens. Flies can carry
Salmonella from a cow with diarrhea in the hospital pen to nearby calves in hutches.A
recent report indicates that E. coif O157,"the hamburger E. co/i", beyond just being
carried on the fly mouthparts and feet,can multiple within the housefly. Thus the
housefly is more than just a carrier; it is a source of multiplication. As these bacteria are
being monitored in slaughterhouses that take market dairy cows,fly control may become
another avenue for reduction of contaminated dairy cows arriving at the slaughterhouses.
Basic Control Strategies
The basic strategy for control flies on dairies is to reduce the amount of potential
breeding locations. The primary fly breeding locations are in fresh manure(Photo 1),
bedding materials such as straw in calving areas or around hutches(Photo 2)and
decaying plant material such as silage or hay. Composting grass clipping are also suitable
breeding locations for some flies. Common locations for these breeding sites are along
fence lines and around feed bunks. Removing these breeding sites is the cheapest means
of controlling flies. More expensive steps for fly control may include biological control
and insecticides.
Now is the time to begin gearing up for fly control. Search the dairy for breeding
locations and remove them before the fly populations begin to develop. Once the weather
gets really warm and ideal for rapid fly propagation,control becomes much more difficult
and expensive.
Photo 1. Fresh cow manure is an ideal breeding site for some flies.
/ -
Noaktic
l
ta'7▪� r + wtVcc
��
.**.t..4.7-;::::'' ;c'r `�ac�x.▪ . u A.*ht.'s/
.c �, � . a, Tr, 3:. 3
� ` `+, . ,' ~ +4
mot :
tit -t ,%c�C i \ , -.y.�Z1t ..• i •i�r�
Photo 2. Straw bedding materials around calf hutches provides an excellent breeding site
for flies.
_ j j
yl
- I
s # if
'i:` =`a' '-. s
giitit rC. r4)7S :O t.f.,/�f-h'.w▪ 7 �c .Te r 11 "'4
����.i;;.-;'•§ / h lh YJ y !:
,rim �� r (�ry~ ! F ' ''t• r _ tZ
• yr f+t^tr-yy ci -a7. ..:;?,.,):7•1,,/,
House Fly and Disease
Houseflies are recognized as carriers of easily communicable diseases.Flies collect
pathogens on their legs and mouths when females lay eggs on decomposing organic matter
such as feces,garbage and animal corpses.
Houseflies carty diseases on their legs and the small hairs that cover their bodies.It takes
only a matter of seconds for them to transfer these pathogens to food or touched
surfaces.Mature houseflies also use saliva to liquefy solid food before feeding on it.
During this process,they transfer the pathogens first collected by landing on offal.
Diseases carried by houseflies include typhoid,cholera and dysentery.Other diseases
carried by houseflies include salmonella,anthrax,and tuberculosis. Houseflies have also
been known to transmit the eggs of parasitic worms.
House Fly Eyes
Sounds of a house Fly
I/flies/house-fly/house-fly-and-disease/ 7/17/2012
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and Proximate Property Values Page 1 of 5
Animal Production Systems
DircLi ui d Ir1dir cf C_OSI-3 or .kcairnicrohlul U.::. in hccd Anim lL:
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
and Proximate Property Values
Abstract
John A. Kilpatrick
The Appraisal Journal
July 2001,
Volume LXIX Number 3
Concentrated animal feeding operations(CAFOS)are often called"feed-lots."They may include
facilities where animals are raised or where animals are brought for slaughter.The common
denominator is a large, perpetual inventory and density of animals.
Currently,the USDA and the EPA estimate that livestock in the United States produces 130
times the amount of manure produced by the entire human population of this country.Spills
from CAFOs have killed fish in several states; phosphorus in land and water has been
correlated with livestock density;and manure has caused eutrophication and degradation of
U.S.waterways.
The trend toward CAFOs has been rapid and pronounced In the U.S., but federal and state laws
generally are considered to have some gaps. In addition to water quality issues resulting from
manure and waste run-off,these facilities attract flies and other insects and pests that parasitize
the insects.
Professor John Ikert,an agricultural economist with the University of Missouri at Columbia,
sums up the problems quite succinctly In a recent working paper when he says,"Piling up too
much'stuff in one place causes problems."Writing specifically about swine CAFOs, he goes on
to comment,"if you spread out the hogs and let hog manure lay where it falls in a pasture, it
doesn't bother anyone very much. But if you start collecting it,flushing it,spreading and
spraying it around—all normal practices in confinement hog operations—it becomes air
pollution."
Because of the noxious and obvious problems associated with CAFOs,many states have
enacted severe restrictions on permits.For example,in 1997 the legislature of typically
livestock-friendly Oklahoma mandated setbacks and other pollution controls,and in 1998 that
legislature enacted a moratorium on new livestock permits.'Kansas is another typically
agriculture-friendly state that recently has enacted a moratorium on CAFO,and it is considering
legislation to end CMOs.In 1998,the North Carolina legislature,faced with unregulated
establishment of CAFOs, enacted House Bill 1480,which mandated the registration ofgrowers
for integrators,extended a moratorium,and mandated substantial elimination of both
atmospheric emission of ammonia and odor beyond the boundary of existing CMOs. Minnesota
enacted similar odor control legislation in 1997 and established both a complaint control
protocol and an enforcement response protocol specific to CMOs.
CAFOS and the Value of Nearby Real Estate
A CAFO impacts the value of proximate properties to the extent that the CAFO is viewed, in the
market,as a negative externality.As an externality, it is typically not considered to be
economically"curable"under generally accepted appraisal theory and practice.Some of this
loss in value may be attributable to stigma,when there are unknowns and risks associated with
ownership of the property.
http://www.pmac.net/AM/property values.html 7/17/2012
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and Proximate Property Values Page 2 of 5
Impairment and Value-An Overview
From an economic perspective,the rights enjoyed by a fee-simple owner fall into three
categories:
1. Right of use and enjoyment
2.Right of exclusion
3.Right of transfer
It is important to note that in the U.S.property itself is not"owned," but rather the rights of the
property are owned.The ability to delineate these rights,and the ability of owners to transfer
some or all of these rights voluntarily is a necessary condition for property valuation.
Use and Enjoyment
The first of these rights,that of use and enjoyment,is generally interpreted to mean that the
owner may determine how property will be used,or if it is to be used at all.The right of use
traditionally is limited in western culture by both public restrictions(e.g.,eminent domain,
police power)and private restrictions(e.g., liens, mortgages). Private restrictions are generally
voluntary,and property owners willingly submit to the disutility of such restrictions in trade for
some other economic benefit For example,a property owner will issue a mortgage to a lender
in trade for leverage in the purchase.Also,a homeowner will purchase in a subdivision with
covenants and restrictions in trade for the assurance of uniform property use within the
neighborhood.It is noteworthy that the voluntary acceptance of private restrictions Is always in
trade for some economic compensation.For example,a property owner may grant a scenic
easement,which restricts the use and enjoyment of his or her property, but will expect to be
compensated for that easement
An Impairment often places a restriction on the right of use without some economic
compensation.This is illustrated in potential restrictions that may be placed on the use of real
estate due to a physical impairment and can thus limit the property to something less than Its
highest and best use. For example,odor or flies from a nearby CAFO will restrict the use and
enjoyment of impaired property without compensation.
Right of Exclusion
The right of exclusion—often called the right of exclusive use or right of exclusive enjoyment—
provides that those who have no claim on property should not gain economic benefit from
enjoyment of the property.In other words,the right of use is exclusive to the property owner,
and any violation of the right of exclusive use typically carries either payment of compensation
to the rightful owner or assessment of a penalty. For example, if"A"trespasses on land owned
by"B,"then"A"will be guilty of a crime and a possible criminal penalty may be in order,as well
as civil damages.Physical impairment,such as the odor or flies, in effect is a trespass on
property rights and violates the right of exclusion.
Society places a high value on the right of exclusion,for justifiable reasons.Exclusion provides
that both the current benefits of ownership as well as future benefits accrue only to the rightful
owner,and his/her successors and assigns.In the absence of exclusion,the right of use is
under constant threat of nullification without just compensation. In an economy without the
right of exclusion, property owners would adopt short-term strategies for use,rather than long-
term strategies.In an economic sense,this would lead to widespread inefficiency in the
allocation of resources.Hence,the right of exclusion carries with it a significant societal good,
and thus a significant,societally recognized Value.
Right of Transfer
Finally,the right of transfer provides the owner with the ability to swap one resource for
another.An impairment restricts the right of transfer,and may destroy the right of transfer
altogether.
Effects of Negative Externalities on Property Values
Real estate economics and appraisal practice uniformly recognize that many externalities such
as contamination may have a negative impact on property values. For example,appraisers are
http://www.pmac.net/AM/property_values.html 7/17/2012
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and Proximate Property Values Page 3 of 5
required by the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice(USPAP)to consider the
impacts of such contamination in the value estimation process.
"Real estate economics and appraisal practice uniformly recognize that many externalities such
as contamination may have a negative impact on property value"
Fitchen was one of the first to look at the value of the rights of a property owner in the face of
impairment-in that case,a toxic chemical pollution.As an anthropologist and a professor of
anthropology,she looks principally at residential values and considers not only the real aspects
of"violation of the home" by contamination(e.g.,carcinogenic effects of polluting chemicals)
but also the symbolic interference of what she calls"...a threat to the assumptions people have
about themselves and the way life is supposed to be."She notes,"Toxic contamination also
attacks the valued institution of homeownership,violating many of the rights that are assumed
to flow from the ownership of ones home, including the assumed right to control entry to
it....Chemical contamination may affect homeowners more seriously than renters,not only in
terms of potential financial loss, but also in terms of devaluation of the achieved status of
homeowners."
Edelstein also deals with this"home"theme,and calls impairment to or near a residence an
"...inversion of home..."when"...the previous locus of family security and identity becomes
instead a place of danger and defilement."He builds on previous works,such as Perin and
Altman and Chemers,that show the very special place the home has in American society,
culture,and economics. Perin states, "Not being a nation of shopkeepers,America is one of
homeowners, busily investing in plant maintenance and expansion with both money and time,
keeping the product attractive for both use and sale."
Edelstein specifically stresses the investment diminution aspect of the inversion of home
principle. In citing case studies of experiences following neighborhood-wide impairment In the
Legler section of Jackson Township in southern New Jersey, he shows that residents could not
separate the psychological pride in home ownership from the question of economic value.
Surveys of the population found uniformity of opinion that property values had diminished as a
result of the problem.While previous studies had focused on the diminution of value from
existing homes, Edelstein was one of the first to focus on the opportunity costs stemming from
the inability to move. In short, homeowners were stuck holding unsellable homes with stagnant
prices,while homes in other neighborhoods were soaring in value.Thus,the owners were
harmed not only by the diminution of value in the existing residences, but by the opportunity
costs inherent in lost gains from alternative home investments.
Value Loss:Stigma Issues
Edelstein refers, in a general sense,to the issue of stigma as a mechanism for manifestation of
value diminution in residential property.Stigma is an increasingly common term in appraisal
and real estate economics literature,and refers to a very specific quantitative mechanism by
which value is impacted by proximate contamination or negative externalities.
The earliest references to stigma as a quantitative concept in real estate economics appear to
be in the writings of Patchin and Mundy.The latter study differentiated between the cost to cure
and the cost of stigma.The former is an out-of-pocket expense born either by the property
owner or some other responsible party,while the latter manifests in property value diminution
even in the absence of a cost to cure. For example,a property that is completely cured may
continue to suffer a diminution in value,and hence damages, because of stigma.
Kilpatrick outlines the quantitative model by which the value of income producing property is
reduced by the effects of stigma manifested via increases in market driven capitalization rates.
He outlines four components of income producing property value impacts:net operating
income,actual cost-to-cure,ongoing increases in maintenance,and stigma. In his model,the
stigma losses actually overwhelm the other three factors as a component of value diminution.
He concludes that under many circumstances the stigma impacts are actually the greater
portion of value losses to property owners.
http://www.pmac.net/AM/property_values.html 7/17/2012
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and Proximate Property Values Page 4 of 5
Other Proximate Contamination Issues
The issue of value loss for proximate contamination or other impacts has been considered in a
number of studies,and includes how the citing of an externality,such as a CAFO,can impact
nearby values. Some of the earliest researchers,such as Blomquist, looked at the impact of
locating a power generating plant,while Gunterrnann showed that landfills have a negative
impact on the value of surrounding industrial property,and that this value loss has a spatial
component. Kinnard and Geckler had similar findings for nuclear facilities,as did Kinnard and
Kiel for hazardous waste sites.
In a similar vein,Colwell analyzes the property value diminution associated with proximity to
power lines,and Kirshner and Moore show that water quality can impact nearby residential
property values.Simons's study of pipeline ruptures shows that diminution in value occurs on
properties up to two miles from the site of a petroleum spill.
Case Studies
The following cases illustrate the effects of CAFOs and the impact of CAFOs on property value.
Minnesota Case Study
A homeowner in Minnesota lives about two miles from one swine CAFO and about three-
quarters of a mile from a second CAFO.When these CAFOs were first opened in the early 1990s,
she was initially a supporter.However,she and her family immediately began suffering
Illnesses,which they attributed to the proximate CMOs.She contacted the Minnesota poison
control center and for the first time learned about the dangers of hydrogen sulfide emissions.
She kept track of her Illnesses and weather conditions(e.g.,wind and direction)and concluded
that her illnesses were caused by the emissions from the CAFOs.Testing was warranted, and
on at least one occasion the reading was above 1,000 ppb hydrogen sulfide,well above danger
levels.
North Carolina Study
Palmquist,et.al,were the first to quantitatively determine that the distance from a residence to
a CAFO has an impact on residential values. However,their study looked only at residences
already near CAFOs and measured the impacts of additional CAFO capacity(either new CAFOs
or additional livestock at existing CAFOs)located at 0.5-,1.0-,and 2.0-mile distances from the
residence. Nonetheless,they established a methodological model for spatial impacts of CMOs.
University of Minnesota Study
In 1996,the Minnesota Department of Agriculture commissioned a study by researchers at the
University of Minnesota on the topic of value diminution resulting from proximate CAFOs.In
addition to substantial secondary research in the area,the study authors also conducted
primary research into value impacts in that state.Specifically,they conducted a hedonic price
analysis on 292 rural residences that were sold during 1993-1994 in two Minnesota counties.
They found a statistically significant pricing impact related both to the existence of a CAFO as
well as the distance from the CAFO.In other words,not only does a CAFO have a significant
impact on property value,but the nearer the CAFO,the greater the impact.The researchers also
found that CAFOs tend to be located near older or lower valued homes. Hence,the pricing
impacts in a simple empirical study may be muted by other negative impacts to value, and high-
valued residences may be impacted to a greater degree by CMOs than would be suggested by
their findings.
University of Missouri Study
Following the methodology of the Minnesota study, researchers at the University of Missouri
were able to quantify both the average value impact of a CAFO and the impact by distance.An
average vacant parcel within 3 miles of a CAFO experienced a value loss of about 6.6%.
However, if that parcel was located within one-tenth of a mile from the CAFO(the minimum unit
of measure in the study)and had a residence on it,then the loss in value was estimated at about
88.3%.
Pasco,Washington Case Study
http://www.pmac.net/AM/property_values.html 7/17/2012
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and Proximate Property Values Page 5 of 5
A 309-acre family farm that had been operated for many years produced alfalfa,asparagus,
corn,apples,peaches, nectarines,cherries,melons,and a range of garden produce.A CAFO
was adjacent to the residence(about 1/4mile away),and consequently the farm product was
impacted by dust,files,fly fecal matter,and odor.The farm was appraised for litigation
purposes and a value diminution of over 50%was determined,using traditional farm appraisal
methods.The CAFO settled the lawsuit by purchasing the plaintiffs farm and relocating the
residents to a nearby farm that was not impacted by the CAFO externalities.
Michigan Horse Farm Case Study
A horse-breeding operation (owner-occupied farm) is located approximately 1,000 feet from a
recently constructed large scale,pork processing facility.The use and enjoyment of the home
has been diminished by airborne externalities,and the ability to use the site as a farm may be
compromised as a result of flies carrying animal blood and feces that contain antibiotics and
other nuisances.In 2000,the property owner appealed for a property tax reassessment
representing a devaluation of over 50%from fair market value,and the county attorney
concurred with that appeal.
Michigan Residence Case Study
A family purchased a"fixer upper"residence in rural Vicksburg, Michigan in 1995.In 1997,a
large-scale pork processing facility was located about 700 feet from the home.The reduction in
air quality was so severe as to force the residents to abandon their home and move elsewhere.
To date,they have not been able to sell the home.The owner of the processing facility offered to
compensate them for 60%of the fair market value of the home(i.e.,a 60%diminution in value).
As of this writing, litigation is pending.
Summary and Conclusions
The above suggests that the establishment of a CAFO may result in value diminution to other
nearby properties.The amount of the value loss is typically an inverse function of distance
(closer properties diminish more),a function of property type(newer,nicer residences lose
more),and a function of property use(farm will lose value due to diminished productivity and
comparative marketability to other farm lands).While the appraisal profession has only begun
to quantify the loss attributable to CAFOs, it is clear from the above case studies that
diminished marketability, loss of use and enjoyment,and loss of exclusivity can result in a
diminishment ranging from 50%to nearly 90% of otherwise unimpaired value.
When appraising a property located proximate to a CAFO,the appraiser needs to consider
seven specific Issues,each of which will have an impact on the value conclusions:
1.Type of subject property,
2.Distance to the CAFO,
3. Physical manifestations(e.g.,air quality,insects),
4. Engineeringlscientific testing performed(e.g.,air quality),
5. Impacts on property use(e.g.,habitability, rental income or vacancy),
6. Marketability evidence(e.g.,time on market of comparable properties),and
7. Impact on highest and best use.
While there is little disagreement that a CAFO has an impact on surrounding property values,
the degree of impact is clearly a function of the inter-play of these factors.
John A. Kilpatrick is a partner and senior analyst with Mundy Associates, LLC,an economic,
market,and valuation firm specializing in complex real estate matters headquartered in Seattle,
Washington. Kilpatrick is the author of four books and numerous articles on real estate matters,
and is a frequent speaker on real estate economics and valuation. He did his graduate work in
Real Estate Finance at the University of South Carolina.Contact:Suite 200 Watermark Tower,
1109 First Avenue,Seattle,Washington 98101.(206)623-2935;fax:(206)623-2985;email:
john@mundyassoc.com.
i Back to Main Index Page
http://www.pmac.net/AM/property_values.html 7/17/2012
EXHIBIT
/ 8
FRONT RANGE DAIRY
WEl,O COUNTY USE.BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PAL(' O1' I I IL NORII IEASI 14 OF SECT ION 22. 1OWNSI III'2 NORM I.RANGE 67 WEST'.Oh ll IL 6th P.M..COUNTY OP WELD.STATE OF COLORADO
n rFulllt I p lr n
1$ I I 15.14
22 2. 23
u c
I —I i r
. .
I 12
IIIIII F. FETE
I I
FE
I J
H — > > -
-.
- - ... PDI I I I(III DICINII _
I3 lights -ne ��m rr rmnnnr O 2 _
U ...... InuldigoAll other lig him OH Nile OW
Icciien 21-3 1ii,II I.ail,
R _ _ "..\‘'..„.1.,,,,c.,„ s�outlined
e��I at.r wnk ,� �a
�.�4r , I:I
J O _ _ — _ r
T
N
o s U-1
22 N N 111_
EXHIBIT
Michelle Martin
From: Kelsey H. Wasylenky[kwasylenky@kpk.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 4:10 PM
To: Michelle Martin
Cc: Molly Buchanan; Enright, Terry; Avi Mehler; Kris Ellis
Subject: KPK Notice and Objection to Front Range Dairy/BB Colorado Holdings, LLC- USR 12-0034
Dear Michelle,
Thank you for taking the time to talk to me today about the Front Range Dairy and BB Colorado Holdings, Inc.filing with
Weld County for a site specific development plan and USR 12-0034. Pursuant to our conversation, K.P. Kauffman
Company, Inc.(KPK) has the same comments and objections to this filing as Kerr-McGee Oil &Gas Onshore LP(Kerr-
McGee)and would like the record for this matter to reflect KPK's notice that it owns oil and gas interests on the subject
property and objects to the approval of a final application for development until an agreement is reached between KPK
and the applicants. KPK operates the Premium Turkey Farms O12(SE/NE),the Premium Turkey Farms C#1 (SW/NE),and
the Premium Turkey Farms B#2 (NW/NE)on the subject property. KPK requests that all producing and future oil and gas
locations be reflected on the applicant's final plat. KPK is willing to work with the applicants and Kerr-McGee to
negotiate a surface use agreement that accommodates the interests of all parties.
Please consider this email KPK's notice of oil and gas interests and its objection to the above referenced application.
KPK would greatly appreciate being included on all subsequent notices and filings associated with this USR,which can
be sent via email to my attention or to the address listed in the signature line below.
Many thanks and best regards,
Kelsey H. Wasylenky
Corporate Counsel
K.P. Kauffman Company, Inc.
1675 Broadway, Suite 2800
Denver, CO 80202
303-825-4822 303-825-4825 (fax)
kwasvlenkv(akpk.corn
NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission, including any attachment, is intended only for the person to whom it is
addressed and contains information that is confidential and legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please
notify the sender at the e-mail address or telephone number given and destroy all copies of this message including any
attachment. Thank you.
MOLLY SOMMERVILLE BUCHANAN, P.C.
Molly S. Buchanan 1580 Lincoln Street, Suite 1200
msb@msbuchananlaw.com Denver CO 80203
Telephone: 303.825.0416
Fax: 303.825.3202
July 24,2012
Via e-mail and Federal Fraress
Michelle Martin
Planner III
Planning and Building Department
1555 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley,Colorado 80631
Re: Front Range Dairy/BB Colorado Holdings,LLC
USR 12-0034
Use by Special Review and Site Specific Development Plan
Township 2 North,Range 67 West
Section 22: NE/4(150 acres)
Weld County,Colorado
Dear Michelle:
Weld County has received an application for a site specific development plan and use by
special review permit for a dairy farm operation from BB Colorado Holdings, LLC and Front
Range Dairy ("Applicants") for property in Weld County described as approximately 150 acres
in the NE/4 of Section 22,Township 2 North,Range 67 West("Property").
This letter and the enclosed objection letter are written on behalf of Kerr-McGee Oil &
Gas Onshore LP ("Kerr-McGee") with respect to applications for development that the
Applicants file with the County that include the Property. Kerr-McGee owns certain oil and gas
leasehold interests in the Property.
Please fmd enclosed a letter dated July 24, 2012 entitled"Notice of Oil and Gas Interests
owned by Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP and Objection" which I ask that you provide to
the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners to be made a part of the
record in the proceedings.
Please send notices of future hearings on applications filed in connection with this matter
pursuant to C.R.S. § 31-23-215, C.R.S. § 24-6-402 (7)and C.R.S. § 24-65.5-101,et. seq. to Kerr-
McGee as follows:
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation/Kerr-McGee Oil &Gas Onshore LP
Attention: Terry Enright
1099 18th Street, Suite 1800
Denver,Colorado 80202
Michelle Martin
•
July 24,2012
Page 2
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. If you have any questions, please call
me.
Best regards,
Molly Sommerville Buchanan,P.C.
Molly S. Buchanan
Enclosure
cc: Jeff Fiske,Esq.
Tent'Enright
Kelsey Wasylenky/for K. P. Kauffman Company, Inc.
Tim Naylor/for Applicant
MOLLY SOMMERVILLE BUCHANAN, P.C.
•
, Molly S. Buchanan 1580 Lincoln Street, Suite 1200
msb@msbuchananlaw.com Denver CO 80203
Telephone: 303.825.0416
Fax: 303.825.3202
July 24,2012
Pia e-mail and Federal Express
Members of the Board of County Members of the Planning
Commissioners for Weld County Commission for Weld County
1555 N. 17th Avenue 1555 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley,Colorado 80631 Greeley, Colorado 80631
NOTICE OF OIL AND GAS INTERESTS OWNED BY
KERR-McGEE OIL& GAS ONSHORE LP AND OBJECTION
Re: Front Range Dairy/BB Colorado Holdings,LLC
USR 12-0034
Use by Special Review and Site Specific Development Plan
Township 2 North,Range 67 West
Section 22: NE/4 (150 acres)
Weld County,Colorado
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This notice and objection letter is submitted on behalf of Kerr-McGee Oil &Gas Onshore
LP ("Kerr-McGee") with respect to the application that has been filed with Weld County
("County") by BB Colorado Holdings, LLC and Front Range Dairy ("Applicants") for the
approval of an application for a site specific development plan and use by special review permit
for property described as 150 acres in the NE/4 of Section 22,Township 2 North,Range 67 West
in Weld County ("Property"). Kerr-McGee owns oil and gas leasehold interests that underlie the
Property.
Kerr-McGee hereby gives notice to the County of the oil and gas interests it owns under
the Property and objects to the approval of a final application for development until an
agreement is reached between Kerr-McGee and the Applicants with respect to the oil and gas
interests.
The following are comments in support of this Notice and Objection:
1. The Oil and Gas Interests Owned by Kerr-McGee.
Kerr-McGee owns oil and gas leasehold interests in the Property, and, pursuant to such
interests, Kerr-McGee operates three producing wells on the Property, identified as the Premium
Turkey Farms B #1 in the NE/4NE/4, the HSR-Strear 2-22 in the NW/4NE/4 and the Premium
Turkey Farm Unit#1 generally in the center of the NE/4.
Members of the Board of County Commissioners and Planning Commission
• for Weld County
July 24,2012
Page 2
In addition to the wells that Kerr-McGee operates on the Property, records at the
Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission reflect that K.P. Kauffman Company, Inc.
("KPK")also operates three wells on the Property, identified as the Premium Turkey Farms B #2
in the NW/4NE/4, the Premium Turkey Farms C #2 in the SE/4NE/4 and the Premium Turkey
Farms C#1 in the SW/4NE/4.
Thus there are a total of six producing wells in the NE/4, three of which are operated by
Kerr-McGee and three of which are operated by KPK.
In addition to the existing wells located on the Property,Kerr-McGee has the right to drill
additional wells on the Property and further develop its oil and gas leasehold rights.
Kerr-McGee's recorded oil and gas leases are real property interests that entitle Kerr-
McGee to produce oil and gas from the leased lands. Kerr-McGee has the right to produce from
existing wells and to maintain,rework,recomplete,deepen and fracture existing wells to enhance
production and to drill new wells to produce oil and gas, in accordance with applicable Colorado
Oil and Gas Conservation Commission regulations and State statutes and applicable local
regulations.
Kerr-McGee's oil and gas assets have significant value, and Kerr-McGee believes that
the proposed surface development and use of the Property will interfere with Kerr-McGee's
existing oil and gas operations and possibly preclude Kerr-McGee's ability to further develop its
oil and gas leasehold property rights.
2. The.Surface Construction Proposed by Applicants does not Accommodate either Existing
Oil and Gas Facilities or Future Oil and Gas Development.
Colorado case law provides that the mineral owner has the right of reasonable access to
and use of the surface estate to extract minerals,' and case law and Colorado statutes provide that
the mineral estate owner and the surface estate owner are to give due regard to the rights of the
other and reasonably accommodate each other's rights.
The proposed dairy operations as depicted on the site plan identified as Sheet U-1 in the
Application does not identify the wells and facilities that are currently located on the Property or
provide for future oil and gas operations on the Property as required by law. See Attachment 1.
Further, the proposed dairy operations as depicted on the site plan may violate Section
23-3-50 E. of the Weld County Code, which requires that certain buildings and structures be
'Sim Frankfort Oil Company v.Abrams,413 P.2d 190(Cob. 1966). Note also,Gerrity Oil&Gas
Corporation v.Magness 946 P.2d 913(Cob. 1977)for the principle that the owners of both estates must exercise
their rights in a manner consistent with one another.
Members of the Board of County Commissioners and Planning Commission
for Weld County
July 24,2012
Page 3
constructed outside an area that is two hundred feet from tank batteries and one hundred fifty feet
from wellheads.2 See Attachment 2.
3. There is Clear Statutory Authority and Direction for the County to Take Into Account the
Rights of Mineral Interest Owners in Its Consideration of Applications for Development.
The State of Colorado recognizes the important rights of mineral owners and lessees in
C.R.S. § 30-28-133(10) which states and acknowledges that both the mineral estate and the
surface estate are interests in land and that the two interests are "separate and distinct." The
subsection specifically recognizes that the owners of subsurface mineral interests and their
lessees have"the same rights and privileges as surface owners."
Note also that C.R.S. § 24-65.5-101 et. seq, requires that applicants for development
approvals give notice to mineral estate owners of hearings to be held before local jurisdictions on
applications for development and that the developer certify that he has given the required notice
as a condition to the approval of the application by the local jurisdiction.
4. Condition Recommended by the Planning Department.
The Planning Department recommends as part of its "Land Use Application Summary
Sheet"in paragraph F that
t) applicattt...either submtT a copy of an agreement with the property's mineral
owner/operators stipulating that the oil and gas activities have been adequately
incorporated into the design of the site or show evidence that an adequate attempt has
been made to mitigate the concerns of the mineral owner/operators. Drill envelopes can
be delineated on the plat in accordance with the State requirements as an attempt to
mitigate concerns."
In this case, Kerr-McGee and the Applicants have not to date entered into an agreement
that takes into account both Kerr-McGee's existing facilities and operations on the Property or
provides for future oil and gas activities. Further,the site plan that the Applicants propose clearly
interfere with Kerr-McGee's existing facilities and operations as depicted on Attachment 2 and
also fail to delineate State drill envelopes.
5. Kerr-McGee Has Entered into Many Agreements with Developers.
Kerr-McGee and its affiliate, Anadarko E&P Company LP ("Anadarko"), together have
extensive mineral interests and oil and gas leases throughout Colorado. Kerr-McGee and
Anadarko have successfully worked with many parties who wish to develop the surface estate in
2 The 2006 International Building Code,Section 304 B,Business Group B,lists"animal hospitals,kennels
and pounds,"for example.
Members of the Board of County Commissioners and Planning Commission
• for Weld County
July 24,2012
Page 4
order to assure the compatible development of the surface and the oil and gas and mineral
estates.
Kerr-McGee has attempted to discuss a surface use agreement with the Applicants;
however, the parties have no agreement to date. Because no agreement has been reached and in
order to protect its interests, Kerr-McGee objects to the Application and requests that the County
make any approval of a final application for development for the Property conditioned upon an
agreement among Kerr-McGee and the Applicants.
Very truly yours,
Molly Sommerville Buchanan,P.C.
Molly S. Buchanan
Enclosure
cc: Jeff Fiske, Esq.
Terry Enright
Kelsey Wasylenky/for K.P. Kauffman Company, Inc.
Tim Naylor/for Applicants
fMg65U(OLD Min.81C6-fff(DL6) OonvmmmaavcmuemxAaatm
10509 CO 1vt m 9➢6d4mom, m4nmmwmrtmmuunuv�onan®.cumin• _-,�
l$I L l l I 3„'•12no.Gm,O2 abuVE AialAaII°rnaaas AB asn 16 I s
wow f I I axivaaorivx LNoaa
60 < I a -1 u I o }(
!1 I34 11 Ipr I
0 -vad j;I sl I hf
Di !!!t -
s l a s 1;$ hi1;
o n I1 2r ! 10111 Olt i ii -
E.
in
3-- WI t�a�e iIj. tj21 j t.
o 11
S 3 -
a. a. i as d
-
o
IIIo • ,•
S IIII I d ;� ' 6
=��m�L _
Gam, 0 �-^T $COUNTY ROAD 21 1/
✓ g m-root•mc n c 1 \l
w s ro¢.:>n.amc / a_Li ___4,
-,, g ti
—s p ce
c .„ -
i i
Om>4 OW �y 1 S Lp
_
- 4p�+ b/ � 3 gY P •. .M Po6 M1iG.G.ppS j0.2 t(Don
$ °z ill-- i 4 3gi 10 i' , p pi 33y lit
W N Ili Y t y 2 P y 2 3 A F
Fq °2 III 3 3
F «e �gF g g s I.,r.e,
f�
w a
m0 F ,` / 1 ,
z no . Ea --1 ‘, 1 8 ^
G _ _i _ P 4
0 i! g P C _ ���
r .
w C8 2 C� ` is --
III II
z tillV t I
i , o m an P
1 �~ �IS>m n� �- .
�,,,
%H ; _e Iran PI Ad AA
<t trot uutnnr
J( C I 1 n I u i a u
/ 4//..`sue.✓
a
I FRONT RANGE DAIRY
WELD COUNTY USE BY SPECIAL.REVIEW -
PART OP THE NORTHEAST P,OF SECTION 22,TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH,RANGE 67 WEST,OF THE 6th PM,COUNTY OF WELD.STATE OF COLORADO w 1
wM��w fl t.j mum n to
" rw .vi �'
I.
I Itr--- o i�ip w lw;. — Iv �_ . ii
2 i �� A a
IY 1II sommai e -..�weu,au -.I,41 '� O
_ I �- Q1
�' �wT yW w =4411V� P. IY_i
I— ..4q�M IyUy
it ' I' • __ Tilk Y ' ' j , .. - t
t
( 1I v.wu,vv -,rm
ci r 1 banuzrmuu. ro
.m.v,aw,o..dF12 1 i
E I °
{ I ®w �. e°
I I i i i ' i t i I TILL I a� ! : 4.. jL3`�-W-C,71"
m.�— 9
Hello