HomeMy WebLinkAbout20121035.tiff Michelle Martin
om: Theresa Sanders (tjcsanders@gmail.com]
nt: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 9:55 AM
To: Michelle Martin
Subject: USR12-0003
My name is Dale Sanders. I have lived at 14520 WCR 72 for over 8 years.The posting for USR112-0003 at Weld County
Rd 72 indicates the first hearing is on April 3, 2012, at 1:30 PM. I am very interested in this project because I live
adjacent to the proposed business by Mr. Miller. My sister, Loretta Sanders is the current owner of this property and I
am in the process of purchasing it from her. We have not been approached by anyone for approval of sharing the
access road which has been used for this business for several months. The amount of traffic in and out of this access
road is tremendous. They run their trucks several times during regular business hours as well as late at night and very
early in the morning. I need to be sure of the dates and times to attend any hearing or meeting so that I can be present
to address my concerns. Please respond to this email as soon as possible with information regarding any paper work,
documents or written concerns I may need to submit to the committee prior to this hearing. Thank you.
Dale Sanders
•
2012-1035
•
EXHIBIT
1 5- '
• To: Michelle Martin March 19, 2012
Re: Case USR12-0003
Good Day Michelle,
My wife and I own Agricultural property in Weld County at 14179 Weld County Road 70. We operate the
100 plus acres as an integrated livestock and hay operation. We bought the property in 2005 with the
intention of maintaining this property consistent with the way that it was and still is zoned,that being
Agriculture.This section of Weld County bordered by Weld County Roads 29, 31, 70 and 72 is a very
pristine area with the homes and farm properties beautifully maintained and the farm fields irrigated
and managed very well.That is until recently when one of the property owners on this section decided
without approval and inconsistent with the Agriculture zoning of his property to start and operate an Oil
and Gas Service business. Now we understand that this property owner, Mr. Michael Miller has applied
for approval from Weld County to permanently be allowed to operate and actually grow the size and
scope of this Oil and Gas Service business. We VIAMENTLY OBJECT to any consideration for granting
such use of this property for that business!
The scope of Mr. Miller's business would entail multiple oil and gas semi trucks and trailers accessing the
property, being serviced and washed at what has been described as extended business hours including
• weekends.This property would also be used for the storage and parking of numerous trucks as well as
many employees coming and going each day. We object to this business at this location for the following
reasons;
1. Major Environmental concerns. Mr. Miller's application states that trucks will be stored,
serviced and washed at this location.The application does not state what materials will be
stored or what waste material will be accumulated on the property.This property is
bordered by two creeks or streams, Coal Bank Creek and Cattail Creek.The Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has declared a portion of Miller's property as being
in a Severe Hazardous Flood Plain (SHFP).The idea of having environmentally dangerous
chemicals(batteries, oil, and heavy cleaning compounds) with the possibility of runoff into
these waterways that supply irrigation water for farmers, fish and wild life habitat and
eventually feed into the South Platte River is unconscionable! It is interesting and
disappointing at the same time to note that Miller's map in his application shows only one
of the creeks, Coal Bank Creek but ignores the fact that Cattail Creek also flows on the west
boundary of the property in question. His site drawing shows water flow for drainage
purposes to flow only toward Coal Bank Creek but that is probably not the case so that both
creeks are placed in jeopardy.
2. Miller's property has gotten quite unsightly since Miller started this business and it will only
•
get worse as the business expands as described in his application. We sincerely believe that
• property values in the area surrounding Miller's property will be seriously devalued if this
business continues and grows. For those of us that have invested our life's savings to locate
in an Agricultural zoned area this would be a severe blow to our financial future and that of
our successors.
3. The Weld County Roads providing access to this property are not designed for heavy
industrial truck traffic.Three of the bordering roads, WCR's 29, 72 and 70 are gravel roads
and are currently in poor to very poor condition.This business will only serve to deteriorate
their condition further. Additionally the dust and dirt that will fill the air is unhealthy for
residents, livestock, crops and wild life in the area.
4. The hours of operation are not compatible with the residents where Miller states the
business will operate late into the evening and include weekends on a year round basis.
5. The business appears to be designed cheaply and that exposes the residents and
environment to unnecessary risk.
6. Noise and smell destined only for Industrial zoned areas will be prevalent in this agricultural
community.
As I look at Miller's proposal multiple questions come to mind;
1. The truck wash holding tank is not shown on his diagrams. The stated 1000 gallons is of
small holding capacity for washing large numbers of trucks. What is the over flow protection
mechanism for this tank? Where does the over flow drain to? What is the recovery system
• for hazardous materials that would have over flowed? Is Miller required to post a bond of
some sort to cover potential environmental issues caused by his business?
2. Miller's proposal shows a 3.2 acre retention pond. What is the purpose of this pond? If it is
for over flow protection does the wash tank over flow to it? Is the pond lined to prevent
hazardous material from polluting farm land and or the two creeks bordering the property
or the neighboring properties? How often does the pond get pumped? If the pond over
flows does it drain into the two creeks and who is responsible for that?
3. Where is the water table level in relation to the soil surface on this property?This is a
natural water flowage area with the creeks running through it so any over flow will cause
environmental issues. Ground water contamination could impact wells in the area. Has this
been studied?
4. The septic system as described is for 10 employees and his proposal states 20 plus will be at
the site each day.Will the wet nature of this property support a septic system for 20 or
more employees?
For all of the above reasons and probably more than I can think of the proposed use is not consistent
with the Agricultural zoning currently in place. Weld County was built on the back of Agriculture.There
is plenty of Industrial/Commercial zoned property in relative close proximity to Miller's current location
to operate and grow this business.To severely impose upon the neighbors, cause property devaluation
in an already challenging economic climate and cause potentially serious environmental impact that
• would extend well beyond the immediate neighboring property is not something our elected
Commissioners or the planning authority should allow.The risks far outweigh the advantages.
• Thank you for reading our concerns. We intend to be at each of the public hearings regarding this
matter. Please pass this letter along to the Planning Commission Members and the Weld County
Commissioners.
Sincerely,
Marshall and Barbara Ernst
970.674.5113
•
• EXHIBIT
Attn: Michelle Martin March 23, 2012
• Topic: Case USR12-0003
Michelle,
My family and I own an agricultural acreage in Weld County at 34416 Weld County Road 29. We moved
out of a residential neighborhood and bought our property in July 2011. The major factor that led us to
this area of Weld County was the fact that it is an agricultural community that it is zoned that way. We
moved away from an area that had multiple businesses, busy roads and potentially dangerous materials to
our new place for the exact opposite reasons. We have a young family that we intend to raise the same
way we were raised, which is on a farm in an agricultural area. Recently, we have learned that an
individual located near our property has the desire to change the zoning and, possibly,the culture of this
area. Researching this in more detail,we learned that Michael Miller has submitted a proposal to Weld
County asking for a zoning change that would allow him to operate a large oil and gas business out of his
residence on County Road 72.
We strongly disagree with this proposal and I encourage the Weld County government to stand up for
what this historic county has represented for decades. We are proud to be residents of one of the largest
and most productive agricultural counties in the United States. We do not agree with allowing areas that
are already zoned for agriculture to become places of business that do not relate to agriculture in any way.
• The particular section of ground that Mr. Miller is proposing to base his oil/gas business out of is
surrounded by fertile, productive and well maintained farm ground and properties. I am not opposed in
any way to someone growing their own business, but there are plenty of other locations where these type
of businesses can be based. Because Mr. Miller has a desire to expand his operation and make personal
gains from his business, it should not affect the rest of the community by changing the zoning of the area.
Another major concern with this proposal is the volume of large machinery and truck traffic that will be
on Weld County Roads 29 and 72. These are gravel roads that are not designed to withstand and support
the increased traffic and wear and tear that Mr. Miller's business would generate.
In addition to these concerns, we believe this will affect the property value not only on our place but to
the whole community. My wife and I have invested a large percentage of our financial assets into our
property. We strongly oppose of any zoning changes that would affect the value of our property, which
Mr. Miller's proposal does.
I appreciate you taking time to review our concerns and objections to this case.
Sincerely,
• Tyler and Kasey Hodgson EXHIBIT
Igo
Michelle Martin EXHIBIT
rom: Tom ParkoI Si y
vent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 7:09 AM
To: Michelle Martin
Subject: FW: USR12-0003 Michael Miller
Importance: High
FYI. With respect to USR12-0003.
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,...fg' s
p
i Tir*
1 r i
confidentiality Notice:This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for
e 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: RICHARD Dumm [mailto:ufcowdoc@msn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 12:35 AM
To:Tom Parko
Subject: USR12-0003 Michael Miller
Tom ... thanks for getting this letter to the planning commission meetings on my behalf. Let me know if I need
to show in person to read the letter and please send me a confirmation of receipt so that I know you have it.
Thanks so much
Rick
To Whom it May Concern
Dear Planning Commission and Weld County Board of Commissioners
With regards to the USR12-0003 under review for Michael Miller, as a direct neighbor to the property under
review I feel compelled to make comment. Firstly it is encouraging to me that the local oil and gas industry is
libust and growing and I am happy to see that Mr Miller is able to benefit from this growth and expand his
miness. The local economy benefits as a whole and I wish him continued success. I also feel that land owner
rights must be protected vehemently. It is part of the heritage of this great country to allow small business to
grow and thrive but there must also be limits so that we can protect the natural assets of a piece of land.
1
Having never met Mr Miller this is not a personal attack, but rather a major concern associated with the applied use for
this property. The existing buildings are VERY close to the live water slough that runs 365 days a year just a few feet to the West of
e existing buildings and proposed expansion.This water is fed by live springs, upstream wells and tail-water runoff from a number
farms,and then continues south to service watering needs for other farmers. Can this water shed be effectively protected from the
proposed use?I think that with adequate investment this is possible but I do not see any effort being made to make such an investment
to date. I see no recommendations for holding ponds in case of a 25 or 50 year flood. Where will the oil and other fluids be washed to?
Further, I would charge that the only reason this USR is being applied for is because a fine was levied by the county. This
demonstrates a habit for disregard that I fear may continue. Without proper runoff control this is a disaster waiting to happen.
There is concern that even routine servicing of so many trucks, trailers and other pieces of equipment that
already exist on the property will inevitably lead to small but accumulating amounts of harmful chemicals into
the environment. We should all assume that this type of practice will continue because there are no plans to be
able to properly house the number of vehicles and trailers that are already on the site much less those
anticipated in expansion. That is why we have properly zoned industrial sites suited to handle such activities.
The dirt on this property is likely already contaminated. Ground water contamination will follow with any
reasonably heavy rains. The soil in this area is robust and healthy and we should take all measures of precaution
to protect this valuable asset.
This area is zoned agricultural. In the shape of a horseshoe around Mr Miller there is a barrel horse training
facility and alfalfa farm; a purebred Angus operation with alfalfa farm; indoor facility for dairy equipment
manufacture; tenant farming operation; purebred Hereford operation with irrigated hay section; and two fully
fenced commercial cow/livestock neighbors round out the shoe to the East. How does an oil industry business
fit into the middle of all of this? As a veterinarian, I can attest to the vulnerability of cattle, horses and small
ruminants should petroleum or coolant products enter the water shed. Mr Miller does not have cattle or
livestock on his land. When I purchased the property to move my cattle business as well as my manufacturing
akusiness, we took all the appropriate steps to comply with the county to continue to be good neighbors and
ewards BEFORE we moved. Our facility is nearly invisible to all neighbors and cannot be seen from the road.
Mr Miller has not complied with local ordinances. There are no fences or natural barriers to all the equipment.
Relative to neighboring properties the area is untidy which again shows a trend that is worrisome if industrial
uses are permitted. Had he attempted to permit his operation prior to moving it there I suspect this would have
never been allowed.
My bigger concern is with the normal ebbs and tides of the oil business. Today we boom but soon we will bust
and while the oil wells can sit idle and wait for supply and demand to turn them back on, the secondary services
die quickly. This routine has been played out numerous times. If Mr Miller has to shutter his business or worse
must file bankruptcy, who will tend to the clean-up? The property will foreclose and sell for pennies on the
dollar because it will cost a small fortune to cure the land for future use. This will drive down the value of all
adjacent properties on top of the environmental impacts. As a small business owner who has dealt with MANY
code requirements both in the county as well as in local city jurisdictions, I understand the hurdles involved.
From a financial perspective it would be nice to utilize this property but there are properly zoned industrial
sites in the vicinity that are available for very reasonable lease or purchase rates. I know this because I recently
did a study of such facilities for some of my own business. Those properties are on high ground and designed
next to highways for appropriate truck travel, waste water control, dust control, road maintenance and all of the
other issues faced with this USR proposal. In short, areas zoned for industrial use are readily available. I would
welcome the opportunity to see Mr Miller have his corporate offices and continued living quarters on the property to make good use of
his land ownership.
I respectfully encourage the Board of Commissioners to make a full investigation of these issues. Please visit
e proposed site to witness firsthand the low lying area in the flood plain where this industrial business would
side and take note of the agricultural enterprises surrounding it. I recommend that this USR not be granted.
10
Industrial zoning with such a potential for environmental impact does not belong in this agricultural zone.
2
Sincerest Regards
•
Dr Richard Dumm
Dairy Tech
INCORPORATED
352 N Shores Circle Rick Dumm, DVM
Windsor, CO 80550 CEO
Phone: 970.674.1888
Fax: 970.686.5871 ricknn,dairytechinc.com
Toll Free: 866.DTI.COWS
www.dairytechinc.com
•
•
3
Michelle Martin
(tom: Lory_Merritt@vfc.com
�ent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 7:56 PM
To: Michelle Martin
Subject: USR12-0003
Hi Michelle,
My name is Lawrence Merritt and I have some very strong objections to the above permit application for a storage and
maintenance Oil and Gas business bordering my agricultural property. I am directly to the east of this location under
review. I bought this land in 2005 and built this farm from scratch (address 14774 Cty Rd. 72-Greeley, Co. 80631). One
of the reasons I paid so much for the land, corrals, farm ground and pasture is because all properties bordering mine were
also zoned ag. This is agricultural farm ground and pasture and always has been.
If you allow Mr Miller to turn this into an Oil and Gas business using his ground to operate, clean, park, repair and employ
up to 20 workers, it will severely effect the value of my ag property. Below are the reasons he should not be allowed to do
this: Please note that the wind blows from the west to east over 90% of the time, so I will catch the brunt of his operation
down wind:
1. Smell and deposit of diesel and chemicals blowing onto my property
2. Noise of machinery
3. Block of mountain view
4. Traffic on road which is gravel and does not have enough width for truck traffic. Road condition has been severely
downgraded already due to the high traffic in and out of his property.
5. Lights at night, as he has stated that work will be done well after 8:00 pm on many nights.
WDust blowing from his operation to my farm ground and pasture due to construction equipment being moved.
. He says he will be eventually cleaning his containers, and trucks which will inevitably blow onto my farm ground due to
wind conditions from west to east.
8. Cause livestock to spook at large trucks and the noise which borders my pasture.
I have too much invested in this farm to stand by and allow someone to change long existing Ag zoning regulations with
out speaking my concerns. If we allow this, we may as well zone the entire county of Weld (one of the largest Ag zoned
counties in the US) as commercial. Oil and Gas companies have their place and I support their activity but only in
commercially zoned locations, not agricultural zoned locations.
This will decrease the value of my property by 50% atleast and more importantly, cause the value and yield of my farm
ground to decrease.
Please consider my request to turn down Mr Miller's commercial application. If I would have looked at this 53 acres after
Mr Miller's request for rezoning, I would have never touched this acreage. This devalues the entire area.
Regards,
Lawrence Merritt
970-227-8218
• EXHIBIT
Michelle Martin
Wom: Lory_Merritt@vfc.com
nt: Sunday, April 01 , 2012 7: 10 PM
To: Michelle Martin
Subject: Fw: Mike miller USR12-0003
HI Michelle,
Another picture to show you how this is looking from my land.
Regards,
Lawrence Merritt
Forwarded by Lory Merritt/JeanswearNF Corporation on 04/01/2012 07:00 PM
Lory Merritt <Iorymerritt4@gmail.com> To Lory Merritt <Lory Merritt@vfc.com>
cc
04/01/2012 05:30 PM Subject Mike miller
•
•
ate;
EXHIBIT
1
LcF
Michelle Martin
oom: Lory_Merritt@vfc.com
nt: Sunday, April 01, 2012 7:00 PM
: Michelle Martin
Subject: Fw: Mike miller application-USR12-0003
Hi Michelle,
I don't know the proticol concerning re-affirming my objection to Mike Miller's Permit application to have an oil and gas
commercial business but I would like to attend the planning meeting on April 3 and was wondering what time it is and if
that is ok. Also, please forward the photograph of the junk pile that has continued to increase at his residence. It appears
he is already operation an oil and gas operation. This picture was taken from my property so you can see how this
adversely affects the quality of my farm property.
Please let me know what time and if it is ok that I attend.
Regards,
Lory
Forwarded by Lory Merritt/JeanswearNF Corporation on 04/01/2012 06:55 PM
Lory Merritt cIorymerritt4MAmail.com> To Lary Merritt<Lory Merritt(a'vrc.com>
cc
04/01/2012 05:31 PM Subject Mike miller
•
•
1
•
e e• i rd
yti`` .
•
°Pei° '.r a' ':n
'Kq
I.
Sent from my iPhone
i
2
I
Esther Gesick
From: Michelle Martin
•Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 1:39 PM
To: Esther Gesick
Subject: FW: usr12-0003 miller
Could you also make copies of this below email from the applicant, thanks.
Michelle Martin
Planner Ill
1555 N 17th Ave
Greeley,CO 80631
mmartin@co.weld.co.us
PHONE: (970)353-6100 x 3540
FAX: (970)304-6498
.ig6ry —
9j r _-
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: Mary Evett
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 12:49 PM
To: Michelle Martin
Subject: usr12-0003 miller
See email below from Mike Miller.
Mary Evett
Environmental Health Specialist
Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment
1555 N 17th Ave
Greeley, CO 80631
tel: 970-304-6415, Extension 2216
EXHIBIT
.'" ismI.IC
71
{6 • rr
�, F
•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
1
f
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: Michael Miller [mailto:mike.m@suoerioroilfield.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 12:43 PM
To: Mary Evett
Subject: Fwd: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <mailer-daemon@googlemail.com>
Date: April 3, 2012 10:26:09 AM MDT
To: mike.m@superioroilfield.com
Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:
mevett@co.weld.co.os
Technical details of permanent failure:
DNS Error: Domain name not found
• Original message
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=google.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type
date:message-id:subject:to:content-type
:x-gm-message-state;
bh=6GEsj P76uA9FDPgwE2iKFGjih3gNcyt3pMvixrl R/VE=;
b=n0kTj 3TZzwGhp9ADooktkGf8Mm4h8tFmyxA 1 UX/Ge4H2dP 1 j AAJJI9BHNFluOi91A0
oLfsyP3U0zco08He3fpgP1nm+O9fMNP9BFrztjd8 WUy/+iOQUJ+6EgO3b4pEfcOEaH3 S
MIK3b5amkRrxZh/QSgYQekuw2wnLUstSttvgTN5j hN1L7GGjAc+BztsTQnjuYyQcOzRn
k4S9DEdnV O V a45uQwsLtFtIfDiwKEr892o V G3Nuyzj sP/xBzpU/9uFCQTGOe5JxfnZ9s
V uyvFtB/yKgAIKnIUuMzCSDLa96 WJ+uAs/yAYYoz4oc2QB3mCywnOTXEO W DpJQX
BO7En
RIEw==
Received: by 10.152.105.241 with SMTP id gp17mr153733631ab.21.1333470368572;
Tue, 03 Apr 2012 09:26:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.112.58.138 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 09:25:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michael Miller <mike.m@superioroilfield.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 10:25:48 -0600
Message-ID:
<CAK6ZU4SJdo+EjRibbGm=VGtzgWbmrjDZ5 WGMs4UtQA22Hco6yA@mail.gmail.com>
• Subject: USR 12-0003
To: mevett@co.weld.co.os
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0407152ba3247504bcc8c394
2
l
X-Gm-Message-State:
ALoCoQmT1u81dFckSaIwo8fFoZ5JjbL5 PU2ygs01 w/dYKm0X8gHk++RKP/NzsJ4rLb5X3 W+J
stBS
• Mary,
In response to our conversation this morning I would like to clear up
a few issues.
1. The number of employees using the office/shop daily will not exceed 8
or 9. The remaining employees report directly to the job sites from home
and only come to the office once a week to drop off paperwork.
2. The vault at the temporary office has never filled or been pumped. We
just began using the hose last week when the weather got warm. When the
tank fills we will have it pumped by a licensed pumper. We have bottled
drinking water in the office.
3. The temporary office will be removed after approval of the USR and
completion of the offices in the shop.
4. We have decided to not have a tank cleaning service on the site so
that part of the application can be deleted.
If you have any further questions please give me a call. Thanks, Mike
Miller
• Michael Miller President
Superior Oilfield Services Co., LTD
PO Box 336356
Greeley, CO 80633
office 970-454-3222
cell 970-381-0325
fax 970-454-8723
mike.m@superioroilfield.com
superioroilfield.com
•
3
April 3, 2012
•
To; Michelle Martin
RE: Case USR12-0003
Michael & Kimberlea Miller
Dear Michelle:
We purchased our ag property, (34556 WCR 29) 14 years ago because it
was out in the country and peaceful. There has since been several changes
take place with more houses & buildings being built and mostly the heavy
traffic seems to be increasing daily.
We share our neighbors concerns with the effect this project would have on
this known ag community. The environmental changes that would affect
us are that we have an alfalfa/grass field that we use the runoff water from
the Coal Bank Creek to irrigate our crop with. God forbid, if any leakage
•
or chemicals would get into that creek. How many farmers going south
could that affect? Since we live south of WCR 74 on WCR 29 our
property would receive higher traffic volume than we already have. These
roads are depleting so bad with all the heavy traffic that currently uses this
road and maintenance of the roads as we know are not one of the counties
highest priorities.
This is an ag community and if an industrial site is approved the value of our
properties will probably go down, as well as the quality of living conditions.
We all have financially invested a sum of money to make our homes on
these properties. This project is obviously not a place where they plan on
building a home like the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, this
industrial project just doesn't belong in an ag community.
We appreciate your consideration and trust that if you put yourselves in our
position for just a moment you may see our concerns
Sincerely,
• Allen & Dawn Skoglund EXHIBIT
/Ii G.
Weld County Dept. of Planning services
• 1555 N. 17th Ave
Greeley,Co 80631
To: Planning Commission and Weld County Board of Commissioners
From: Dale A. Sanders
Date:April 3, 2012
Re: USR12—0003
To Whom It May Concern;
This letter is to offer my opinion regarding the Commercial Business which is located directly west of my property
line. Since Mr. Miller decided to run a commercial business next door,my private access road has been used in the
operation of Mr. Miller's Oil and Gas operation. This has affected the privacy of my property. The access road is
used by all of his employees and truck drivers between the hours of 5:00 AM to as late as 10:00 PM,and on
weekends. During early morning and late night hours their headlights shine directly into my home coming in from
the north and from the west and the amount of dust has increased tremendously as well. I am constantly
jumping up to see what is entering my property because of the sound of the large trucks. The number of vehicles
entering to the foot of my property has me concerned about the possibilities of theft and vandalism.
• Furthermore my future intensions are to run an agricultural business. I have invested a great deal of my time and
money to improve my property for nearly 8 years. My greatest concern is that the property value will drop
tremendously and therefore directly affect my financial future. I moved to this rural area to get away from the
high traffic in the city,but Mr. Miller has created a great deal of traffic at the direct entrance of my property
without any regard to how this has affected myself and the neighboring farmers and ranchers.
I ask that the Planning Board decide to turn down Mr. Millers permit to operate a commercial business in this area.
It will totally change this environment and will bring down the property value of all the neighboring properties.
Dale A.Sanders
14520 WCR 72
Greeley,Co 80631
• EXHIBIT
(o.
a,
• Date: April 3, 2012
To: The Planning and Zoning Committee
Regarding: Case #U6R12-0003 for the Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review
Permit for an Oil and Gas Support Service in the Zone A District
From: Martie Harrison-Dumm/Dumm Land and Cattle, LLC (owning 34824 WCR 29)
While reading the Special Review Permit Administrative Review, I had a few comments on what
was written:
Rick and I are new property owners that are just to the west of the proposed development site.
We, of course, would like to better get to know all of our neighbors and have a"live and let live"
motto because we all are hard working people and believe that we all have a right to enjoy our
properties and want everyone to have the high quality of life.
I have read the application for the Development Plan, and though I don't like to encroach on
others' activities, I believe this Plan could have the potential to impact our property, other
neighboring properties, and hence tict quality of life. I have listed some of my concerns below
• and would ask the committee to please take more time to do the environmental/neighboring
impact due diligence or to not grant the Plan because there are a number of risk factors that we
do not fully know or understand yet.
Specifically, here are my key points:
#1:
It was stated that the opinion of the Services' staff was that the applicant has shown compliance
with Section 23-2-220 of the WCC. Specifically in section 22-2-150D.A Goal#4, it states that,
"...The Conditions of Approval will ensure that the proposed use will be compatible with the
area." And that the applicant will be required to "screen the outdoor storage and parking areas
associated with the business from the surrounding property owners and the public rights of way."
I believe compatibility is a large encompassing word and means a great deal to the County to
meet their requirements, as well as to the environment so that water isn't affected, and includes
the agricultural area and neighbors that are there.
I believe that to be compatible in this area means more than to install a screen or buffer and also
believe that no matter how high or large a screen is to be installed, that it could provide an
enough buffer for the neighbors affected, including the nearest which is only 120 feet away.
•
EXHIBIT
•
#2:
• In Paragraph C, 23-2-220.A.3 addresses the compatibility with the existing surrounding land use.
While it states that surrounding property owners had concerns, it doesn't give a detail listing of
how those concerns will be met,just that the "approval will ensure that this use will be
compatible with the surrounding land use."
SUMMARY:
There are many other areas in the application that I would like to address, but the overall feeling
I have is why are we trying so hard to grant a variance request when there is zoning present that
would have a better fit for this business purpose, specifically the industrial zoning.
I have listed below the Intent of Industrial Zone Districts under the WCC as well as the Uses
Allowed by Right, #12 —Oil and Gas Production Facilities. I believe that the Miller Family and
their business operation would be bette suited in this zoning environment, so as to not limit him
from his rights as a business owner, to ottly protect the neighboring agriculture and
residences and equality of life.
Division 4 Industrial Zone Districts
Sec.23-3-300.Intent.
The purpose of the Industrial Zone Districts is to provide protective zones for the DEVELOPMENT and operation of
industrial USES.The regulations contained herein have been established so as to provide a healthful operating
• environment for industry;to protect industry from the encroachment of COMMERCIAL and residential USES which
may be adverse to the operation and expansion of such industry;to protect industries within the district from the
adverse effect of other,incompatible industries;to reduce to a minimum the impact of industries on surrounding,
nonindustrial land USES to prevent detrimental impacts which may negatively affect the future USE or
DEVELOPMENT of ADJACENT properties or the general NEIGHBORHOOD as defined in Chapter 22 of this Code;and
to promote the health,safety and general welfare of the present and future residents of the COUNTY. (Weld
County Codification Ordinance 2000-1)
B.Uses Allowed by Right.
12. OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION FACILITIES.
Sincerely,
Martie R. Harrison-Dumm,
Dumm Land& Cattle, LLC
•
Hello