HomeMy WebLinkAbout20100592.tiff Page 1 of 1
Brad Mueller
From: Trevor Jiricek
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 9:47 AM
To: Brad Mueller
Cc: Tom Haren; Charlotte Davis
Subject: Cozy Cow, USR-1543
Brad,
Char asked me to send this email. The applicant for this USR has addressed all Health Department related
conditions. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks!
Trevor Jiricek, M.A.
Director, Environmental Health Services
Weld County Department of Public Health & Environment
1555 N. 17th Ave
Greeley, Colorado 80631
970-304-6415, ext. 2214 (office)
970-304-6411 (fax)
2010-0592
S—o24—t-QDiD /2 /c1233
/10/MPItlf\L
Page 1 of 1
Brad Mueller
From: Charlotte Davis
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 10:41 AM
To: Brad Mueller
Subject: FW: Cozy Cow Dairy (The Brown Cow)
From: Deb Adamson
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 9:54 AM
To: Charlotte Davis
Subject: Cozy Cow Dairy (The Brown Cow)
Char:
I went out and did the final inspection at the Cozy Cow Dairy on August 16, 2006, and licensed them at that time.
Deb
na/91/90n6
Pie Charts Page 1 of 2
•
Brad Mueller
From: Brad Mueller
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 4:30 PM
To: Dusty McCormick; Pam Smith; Charlotte Davis
Cc: Tom Haren
Subject: RE: Cozy Cow USR# 1543
Dusty,
I believe your attachments are just a duplicate of the letter you brought to me on the 16th, right? If so, I think
everything has since been addressed by the e-mail sent to me, copied to Tom, from Char on 8/22/06. Below
is a copy of what she copied to Tom.
As you see in paragraph one, the fly, odor and pest plans are approved.
As you can see from paragraph three, Char is anticipating an Inventory List from you, in order to complete
Condition 1B.
As a practical matter, I understand that the restaurant license has been granted/released, which was the
owners' main priority; please let me know if this is not the case for some reason.
As to recording of the USR, that will take place after we can secure signatures from the Planning Commission
chair, which will be early September. I sent Tom an e-mail to that effect. To my knowledge, though, at this
point the recordation of the USR isn't holding up any other permits or activity on the site. Please let me know
if you disagree.
Health will still need that Inventory List, however, so please keep them and me appraised of whether and
when you are going to complete that. Thanks.
Brad
Brad, The following are my comments regarding conditions required prior to recording the plat for USR-1543.
Condition 1A Fly control, odor control and pest control plans. I am in receipt of these plans as submitted on
August 21, 2006 in the Nuisance plan. The plans have been reviewed and approved by this department.
This condition has been met.
Condition 1C Aboveground Storage tank Information received from the applicant's representative indicate
that the Fuel tank is only 300 gallons, thus, below the minimum volume threshold standard in accordance with
Aboveground Storage Tank regulations. This condition is not relevent in this case and can be removed.
Condition 1B Class V Permit The applicant's representative has indicated that this site does not warrent a
Class V Permit because it is not a motor vehicle maintence and repair facility or located in a designated
groundwater protection area. This is partially correct. The septic system serves 20 or more person and
does fall under the Class V designation for a large capacity septic system and must meet state federal
requirements. My referral comments required evidence of a permit, the comments on my referral should
have required the applicant to provide a copy of an inventory information report submitted to the state or EPA
regional UIC program. It is my understanding at this time that Tom Haren with AgPros is verifying this
information and will submit a copy to this department of the inventory information report for Cozy Cow. When
na /1/111A
Pie Charts Page 2 of 2
this information is received at this office this condition will be satisfied. I will respond with another e-mail
when this is provided.
Questions or comments? Contact me at your earliest convenience. Regards, Char
..................... ..
From: Dusty McCormick [mailto:dmccormick@agpros.com]
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 1:55 PM
To: Pam Smith; Charlotte Davis
Cc: Brad Mueller; Tom Haren
Subject: Cory Cow USR # 1543
Pam, Charlotte,
This email is in reference to the Cozy Cow Dairy on CR 17 near Windsor. In an email dated August 16, 2006
Charlotte Davis stated that the Dust Abatement Plan and Waste Handling Plan, had been received and
approved. This email also state that the WCDPHE has not received or approved the Fly Control Plan, Odor
Control Plan, and or the Pest Control Plan. I believe this is in error, as all of these plans are in one document
know as our Nuisance Management Plan, which was submitted with the USR application. If only part of the
plan was approved and the other parts were not,we should have been informed of the deficiencies. As a
courtesy I have attached another copy of our Nuisance Management Plan.
I will also attach the letter that I submitted to Planning Services, stating how the outstanding conditions of
USR# 1543 have been met. I appreciate your cooperation in this matter. Please, provide a written response
and approval of the conditions to USR# 1543 to Planning Services and myself.
Cordially,
Dusty McCormick
Planning and Building Coordinator
AGPROfessionals, LLC
4350 Hwy 66
Longmont, CO 80501
Office--970-535-9318 Ext. 109
Cell--303-877-7747
Fax--970-535-9854
Page 1 of 1
Brad Mueller
From: Brad Mueller
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 2:30 PM
To: 'Tom Haren'
Cc: Brad Mueller
Subject: Cozy Cow plan set
Tom,
It looks like we may not connect in person as you hoped today, so I'll provide written comments.
I e-mailed separately conditions of approval not yet completed for the Health Department. (Rusty also was by
today, and I gave him a hard copy.) Other than the plat notes below, the only other COA that I couldn't find
evidence of was addressing Windsor's request for ROW dedication and an annexation.agreement. I'm guessing
you aren't going to agree to these, but some evidence to that effect would be appropriate. (The Greeley
comments are incorporated in the plan.)
Plat notes:
• Property Owner's Signature should read "Cozy Cow LLC,"then signature blocks for Les (and Sherrill) in
their capacity within the LLC.
• The 65' ROW on Sheet 2 should read "65'future ROW". Recent court cases have determined the term
"reserved" can equate dedicated, and that's probably not your intent.
• On Sheet 2, change the text to read: "(4) directional signs—24" x 30""
• Please add a note to the north access easement(from the drive to CR 17), indicating the Court Case
Number (since there is no recorded easement). (This is listed as Condition 2E in the Resolution.)
Additionally, so you're aware, from the Clerk to the Board, the language for the revised Condition of Approval
#1.D for USR#1543 will be modified to read:
"The existing septic system shall be utilized in combination with portable toilets in the amount necessary to serve
the activities of people outlined in the Use by Special Review Permit application. At such time the septic system
fails, or is moved due the expansion of Weld County Road 17, adequate sewage facilities meeting regulations at
the time must be installed and approved."
That should cover everything. Let me know how you'd like to proceed.
Brad
no ii c VInnc
FAX TRANSMISSION
Brad Mueller, Assistant Director
Weld County
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
NORTH OFFICE
Altarig6
918 10TH Street
GREELEY,c .wC d.co 80631
bmueller(@,co.weld.co.us
us
COLORADO PHONE: (970) 353-6100, Ext. 3572
FAX: (970) 304-6498
To: Char Davis Date: August 21, 2006
Fax: 304-6411 Pages:
COMMENTS:
Attached is the information we discussed. Please don't hesitate to call if you have questions.
Thank you,
Brad
4350 Highway 66
Longmont, CO 80504
Office(970)535-9318
Fax: (970) 535-9854
August 16, 2006
Brad Mueller
Department of Planning Services
Weld County Administrative Offices
918 10th Street
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Cozy Cow —USR-1543
This letter is intended to clarify the remaining Conditions of Approval of the Cozy
Cow Dairy Use by Special Review# 1543. The remaining conditions as outlined in
your August 16, 2006 correspondence are addressed below:
L. Prior to recording the Use by Special Review Permit Plat Map, the,following /
shall be addressed, with evidence of completion provided to the Department of
Planning Services:
A. Dust Abatement, Fly Control, Odor Control, and Pest Control Plans
shall be submitted to the Weld County Department of Public Health
and Environment for review and approval.
Char Davis of Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment
indicated that a Dust Abatement and a Waste Handling Plan has been submitted and
approved but that a Fly Control, Odor Control and Pest Control Plan have not been
submitted. This is incorrect as the Dust Abatement Plan was submitted with the
USR application as part of a Nuisance Control Plan which included a Fly Control
Plan, Odor Control Plan, and Pest Control Plan. Ms. Davis indicates in an April 11,
2006 e-mail that a Dust Abatement Plan and Waste Control Plan was approved.
Since (1) the Department has been in receipt of the Nuisance Plan since the
submittal of the USR application, (2) at least a portion of the plan has been
approved, and (3) we have not been notified of any deficiencies in the remainder of
the plan, we are assuming and proceeding as if this condition has been met.
However, a copy of the Nuisance Plan is included for reference;. . . . . . . . . . your . . .nce.
August 16, 2006
Page 2
B. The applicant shall submit evidence of an Underground Injection
Control Class V Injection Well Permit from the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) for any large-capacity septic system (a
septic system with the capacity to serve 20 or more persons per day).
Alternately, the applicant can provide evidence from the EPA that they
are not subject to the EPA Class V requirements.
The Underground Injection Control Class V Injection Control Program for Class V
wells, including large capacity septic systems (LCSS), are incorporated by rule and
there is not a permit requirement or specific individual permit available for Class V
wells other than those classified as for a motor vehicle maintenance and repair
facility or sub-classes of Class V wells located in designated groundwater protection
areas determined to impair underground sources of drinking water. Cozy Cow's
septic system is not a motor vehicle maintenance and repair facility or located in a
designated groundwater protection area and is incorporated by rule.
According to the Federal Register Part V, 40 CFR Part 144 published Friday, June 7,
2002, outlining an EPA study of 23 categories of class V wells, including LCSS, the
EPA concluded from the data collected at the time for the Class V study that (1)the
actual contamination from LCSS is relatively isolated and (2) an additional layer of
federal UIC requirements beyond incorporation by rule would not be effective in
preventing endangerment from these wells. EPA further concluded that LCSS
requirements tailored to local conditions by State and local authorities, coupled with
implementation of EPA's Voluntary Management Guidelines is the most effective
way to protect underground sources of drinking water from contamination.
C. In accordance with the Underground and Above Ground Storage Tank
Regulations, a spillage retention berm shall be constructed around the
tank battery. The volume retained by the spillage berm should be
greater than the volume of the largest tank inside the berm.
Alternative protective measures may be allowed,provided they comply
with the Above Ground Storage Tank Regulations.
In accordance with the 1992 Oil Pollution Prevention Control (OPPC) Act, which
we are assuming the Condition 1.C. is referencing, aboveground petroleum storage
tanks with a single-tank volume of more than 660 gallons or aggregate tank battery
of more than 1,350 gallons are required to have secondary containment of at least
110% of the capacity of the individual tank or the largest tank in any tank battery in
addition to a written Spill Prevention, Countermeasures and Control Plan approved
by a registered professional engineer. Cozy Cow dairy only has one tank with a 300-
gallon capacity and is below the minimum volume threshold to require a spillage
retention berm in accordance with the regulations.
August 16, 2006
Page 3
There was also mention of compliance with the referral from Windsor. Attached is
a copy of a letter from Lauren Light, formerly of AGPRO,to Ms. Dianna Lonergan
of Windsor regarding the applicant's response to the Windsor referral that was sent
to Windsor on February 1, 2006.
I appreciate your cooperation in this matter. If you should have any questions, I can be
reached at 970-535-9318 Ext 109 or 303-877-7747, or by email at
dmccormi ckd(agpros.com.
Sincerely, il4
Dusty McCormi
Planning and Building Coordinator
COZY COW DAIRY, LLC
Northeast 'A, of Section 08, Township 05N, Range 67W of the 6th P.M.,
County of Weld, State of Colorado
Nuisance Management Plan
`j
Prepared By:
AGPRO 11 LANDPRO
ENGINEERING, PLANNING, CONSULTING & REAL ESTATE
AGPROfessionals, LLC/LANDPROfessionals, LLC
4350 Highway 66•Longmont,CO 80504
970.535.9318/office• 303.485.7838/metro•970.535.9854/fax • www.agpros.com
Cozy Cow Dairy
AGPROfessionals,LLC
Introduction
This supplemental Management Plan for Nuisance Control has been developed and implemented
to identify methods Cozy Cow Dairy, will use to minimize the inherent conditions that exist in
confinement feeding operations. This supplement outlines management practices generally
acceptable and proven effective at minimizing nuisance conditions. Neither nuisance
management nor this supplemental plan is required by Colorado State statute or specifically
outlined in the Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulations. This is a
proactive measure to assist integration into local communities. Cozy Cow Dairy will use these
management and control practices, to their best and practical extent.
Legal Owner, Contacts and Authorized Persons
Correspondence and Contacts should be made to:
Les Hardesty
Cozy Cow Dairy, LLC
28607 CR 17
Windsor, CO 80550
The individual(s) at this facility who is (are) responsible for developing the implementation,
maintenance and revision of this supplemental plan are listed below.
Les Hardesty Owner
(Name) (Title)
Legal Description
The confined animal feeding facility described in this Nuisance Management Plan is located in:
Part of the Northeast 'A, of Section 08, Township 05N, Range 67W of the 6th P.M.,
County of Weld, State of Colorado
2
Cozy Cow Dairy
AGPROfessionals,LLC
Air Quality
Air quality at and around animal feeding operations are affected primarily from the relationship
of soil/manure and available moisture. The two primary air quality concerns at dairies are dust
and odor. However, the management practices for dust or odor control are not inherently
compatible. Wet pens and manure produce odor. Dry pens are dusty. The two paragraphs
below outline the best management practices for the control of dust and odors that Cozy Cow
Dairy will use. The manager shall closely observe pen conditions and attempt to achieve a
balance between proper dust and odor control.
Dust
Dust from pen surfaces is usually controlled by intensive management of the pen surface by
routine cleaning and harrowing of the pen surface. The purpose of intensive surface
management is twofold; to keep cattle clean and to reduce pest habitat. The best management
systems for dust control involve moisture management. Management methods Cozy Cow Dairy
shall use to control dust are:
1. Pen density
Moisture can be managed by varying stocking rates and pen densities. The animals' wet
manure and urine keep the surface moist and control dust emissions.
2. Regular manure removal
Cozy Cow Dairy will continue to conduct regular manure removal. Typically, pens are
cleaned, conditioned and maintained as needed manure is removed at least annually.
3. Pen Sprinkling
Should nuisance dust conditions arise, pen sprinkling may be used for moisture control
on pens and internal roadways to minimize nuisance dust conditions.
Odor
Odors result from the natural decomposition processes that start as soon as the manure is
excreted and continue as long as any usable material remains as food for microorganisms. Odor
strength depends on the kind of manure, and the conditions under which it decomposes.
Although occasionally unpleasant, the odors are not dangerous to health in the quantities
customarily noticed around animal feeding operations and fields where manure is spread for
fertilizer. Key practices Cozy Cow Dairy may use to control odor are:
1. Establish good pen drainage
Dry manure is less odorous than moist manure. Maintaining good pen drainage can be
achieved by regular cleaning in pens and under fences. The dairy will conduct routine
pen cleaning to reduce standing water and remove wet manure.
3
Cozy Cow Dairy
AGPROfessionals,LLC
2. Regular manure removal
Reduce the overall quantity of odor producing sources. The dairy will conduct routine
pen cleaning and conditioning as needed.
3. Reduce standing water
Standing water can increase microbial digestion and odor producing by-products. Proper
pen maintenance and surface grading will be conducted by the dairy to reduce standing
water.
The wastewater ponds will be dewatered regularly in accordance with the Nutrient
Management Plan for Cozy Cow Dairy. No chemical additives or treatments of the
stormwater ponds for odor control are planned. Research to date indicates these products
have little, if any, effectiveness.
4. Composting
Proper composting turns manure into a nearly odorless, pathogen-free product that is
valuable for soil conditioning. Cozy Cow Dairy may practice manure composting if land
area is available for this purpose.
5. Land application timing
Typically air rises in the morning and sinks in the evening. Cozy Cow Dairy will
consider weather conditions and prevailing wind direction to minimize odors from land
application. Typically, land applications will be timed for early mornings.
Pest Control
Insects and Rodents
Insects and rodents inhabit areas that 1) have an adequate to good food supply and 2) foster
habitat prime for breeding and living. Key practices Cozy Cow Dairy may use to manage insects
and rodents are to first eliminate possible habitat, and then reduce the available food supply.
The dairy will work to control flies by applying one or more of the following practices as
needed:
1. Regular manure removal
Manure management removes both food sources and habitat
2. Reduce standing water
Standing water is a primary breeding ground for insects
4
Cozy Cow Dairy
AGPROfessionals, LLC
3. Minimize fly habitat
Standing water, weeds and grass, manure stockpiles, etc., are all prime habitat for
reproduction and protection. Reduce or eliminate these areas where practical.
4. Manage weeds and grass
Keep weeds and grassy areas to a minimum. These provide both protection and breeding
areas.
5. Minimize stockpiles or storage of manure
Stockpiles of manure provide both breeding and protective habitat. Keep stockpile use to
a minimum.
6. Biological treatments
Parasitic wasps are excellent biological fly control and are widely used. The wasps lay
their eggs in fly larvae hindering fly reproduction.
7. Baits and chemical treatments
Due to environmental and worker's safety concerns, chemical treatments are a last line of
defense for insect control. However, they are very effective. Baits and treatments must
be applied routinely.
Mortalities
Mortality is an unfortunate and unavoidable part of animal husbandry. Dead animals can
produce offensive odors, attract scavengers, and create deleterious conditions. Property and
timely disposal of dead animals prevents nuisance conditions from occurring. Key practices
Cozy Cow Dairy may use to handle and dispose of dead animals are:
1. Expedient removal from pens
Dead animals will be removed from pens daily and relocated to an area(s) away from the
pens.
2. Commercial Rendering Company removal
Dead animals will be removed by a commercial rendering company when possible and
economically feasible.
3. Burial Guidelines
a) Burials must be done at the site and on property owned by the dairy at which the
animal mortalities occur.
b) Burials must be done at least two feet underground with at least two feet of soil
cover. This must be done within 24 hours of the discovery of a mortality. If
severe weather conditions interfere,burials should occur as soon as reasonably
possible.
c) There shall be at least four feet of suitable soil separation, (not gravel), from the
bottom of the burial pit to the maximum seasonal groundwater table.
5
• Cozy Cow Dairy
AGPROfessionals,LLC
d) Burial sites shall be located at least 150 feet away from any well.
These practices represent the latest and most modem management and scientific information to
date for control of nuisance conditions for the livestock feeding industry.
6
AGPRO M LANDPRO
COMPLETE LAND AND RESOURCE SOLUTIONS
February 1, 2006
Town of Windsor
301 Walnut Street
Windsor, CO 80550
Attn: Diana Lonergan
Dear Ms. Lonergan:
Thank you for your response regarding the referral sent by Weld County concerning
Cozy Cow Dairy, LLC. The applicants realize their property may be annexed into
Windsor in the future due to the development that is occurring to the south.
However, at this time they would prefer to wait for annexation until infrastructure
can be extended to their parcel. The applicants would be willing to pursue a pre-
annexation agreement with the Town that is not tied to the recordation of the special
use permit. Please contact Lauren Light with any questions or concerns. Thank
you.
Sincerely,
Lauren Light
Senior Planner/Project Manager
ENGINEERING, PLANNING, CONSULTING & REAL ESTATE
AGPROfessionals, LLC/LANDPROfessionals,LLC tOr"
4350 Highway 66 •Longmont,CO 80504
970.535.9318/office• 303.485.7838/metro ■970.535.9854/fax• www.agpros.com
Page 1 of 1
Brad Mueller
From: Jennifer Luna
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 11:50 AM
To: tharen@agpros.com; hardle@greeleynet.com
Cc: Trevor Jiricek; Brad Mueller
Subject: USR#1543 - Cozy Cow Dairy, LLC
Per the Board's decision on August 16,2006, Condition of Approval#1.D for USR#1543 will be modified to read:
"The existing septic system shall be utilized in combination with portable toilets in the amount necessary to serve the
activities of people outlined in the Use by Special Review Permit application. At such time the septic system fails, or is
moved due the expansion of Weld County Road 17,adequate sewage facilities meeting regulations at the time must be
installed and approved."
Jenny Luna
CTB
Ext. 4228
Brad Mueller
From: Brad Mueller
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 8:15 PM
To: Tom Haren
Cc: Les Hardesty; Pam Smith; Trevor Jiricek; Bruce Barker; Brad Mueller
Subject: RE: Cozy Cow
Tom,
With consultation with Bruce and the Health Dept, we have concluded that the condition as
adopted in the USR resolution states what course of action should take place. Namely, the
septic system needs to be reviewed and, if necessary, brought into compliance, based on
observation of the system and a technical review of hydrolic load.
There are two main variables -- demand, and capacity. Since there' s too much room for
debate about whether current/proposed use is the same (demand) , and because of the
uncertainties of Commissioners' understanding and intent expressed in the hearing, staff
cannot come to a meaningful conclusion that modification shouldn't have to happen, if
required by Health.
It remains an option that the applicants may request to have the Board reconsider the
Condition. If that is your wish, please let me know, and I will make arrangements for
that to occur.
Thank you, Tom.
Brad
Original Message
From: Tom Haren [mailto:tharen@agpros.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 11:40 AM
To: Brad Mueller
Cc: Les Hardesty
Subject: RE: Cozy Cow
Thanks Brad,
My client is needing a resolve to this today. I will be in the office all day.
Original Message
From: Brad Mueller [mailto:bmueller@co.weld.co.us]
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 11:38 AM
To: Tom Haren
Subject: RE: Cozy Cow
I think that you and I talked/corresponded, but if I 'm not remembering correctly, I
continue to follow up with Pam and Bruce. I ' ll have additional opporutnity this PM and
will discuss with you ASAP.
Brad
From: Tom Haren [mailto:tharen@agpros.com]
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 5 :54 PM
To: Pam Smith; Brad Mueller; Bruce Barker
Cc: Les Hardesty
Subject: Cozy Cow
Brad,
1
Sorry we didn't hook up on Friday. Seemed everyone was hustling. Maybe this is the best
way to communicate and document this septic situation with Cozy Cow USR.
Pam and I had a long discussion last week and seemed to be on the same page for about 75%
of the issues. First, let me clarify that my discussions are related to the menu as
outlined in the USR application for pre-packaged food items and not food prep items as
proposed in an expanded menu by Cozy Cow.
It is my understanding the Les Hardesty was in the Health Department last week and revised
his menu in Cozy Cow's food license application back to pre-packaged food items as stated
in the USR application.
Pam, please clarify if this is not accurate. But, we had come to terms on:
1. We both understood and agree on what happened in the hearing and what the intent of the
commissioner' s was in the hearing regarding the USR application as submitted and the use
of the existing septic system. It is to be deemed as adequate for the load in the current
septic permit and that porta-potties were acceptable for use above the ability of the
septic system for any additional loads from the food service or visitors.
2 . The condition of approval, as written, does not follow what was discussed in the
hearing and Bruce Barker had advised staff that it is the condition in the resolution that
applies.
3 . To resolve the condition without going to a hearing with the commissioners we should
get with Brad and Bruce.
4 . Upon fixing the resolution issues, we can move forward with the plat and the use of the
property as outlined in the USR application materials and the hearing.
4 . Meanwhile, the business could operate under current conditions .
5 . A revised menu to include food prep will require an additional septic/waste system in
the future prior to approval of an expanded menu.
When my client, Les Hardesty came in last week to submit the revised menu for the food
service license in compliance with the USR menu, he left with the impression that the
Health Department was not going to OK anything without the plat being recorded.
If this is accurate, we can't record the plat without an OK from the Health Department; a
catch 22 that needs to be resolved between the Planning and Health Department.
I am prepared to submit a paper plat for staff review pending resolve of the condition in
question.
Bruce, I'm not qualified to challenge your legal position and your charge of representing
the county' s interest. Isn't the hearing record as much of the file as the resolution?
Haven't their been mistakes or omissions from resolutions in the past that were resolved
by reviewing the record? We've had Weld County cases where things said in testimony were
used for compliance in spite of what was in the conditions and development standards.
We were all in the hearing and, I believe, Pam and I are in agreement as to what was said.
My non-legal opinion and experience with hearings in many jurisdictions is the case
includes the documents, testimony and hearing in it' s entirety. Focusing on a subset of
the complete case is not in full context.
Regardless, I believe we can resolve this at the staff and legal level since the hearing
record is, in my onion, pretty clear. It was apparent that the Commissioners, especially
Commissioner Jerke, agreed 1) they approved this application recognizing its unique
agricultural nature, 2) there is not an accurate category for this type of operation and
3) they intended to approve this application by allowing the existing septic to handle a
part of the load and porta-potties handle what the septic couldn't. If you feel we need to
involve the commissioners, I 'm ready to do that immediately as my client needs and
deserves some timely resolve of this issue.
I would like to keep all communication via email or conference call so as to include both
planning and health depts. as well as legal counsel simultaneously since this could
potentially go in circles . Brad and Bruce, If this seems to stall and we can't work this
out by Wednesday of this week, please put on your radar that we need to request a work
2
session at the commissioner' s earliest convenience. I will go ahead and see what times
might be available and be ready if there is not a staff-level solution.
Thanks all .
Thomas Haren
AGPROfessionals, LLC
4350 Highway 66
Longmont, CO 80504
(970) 535-9318
tharen@agpros.com
3
Brad,
Sorry we didn't hook up on Friday. Seemed everyone was hustling. Maybe this is the best way to
communicate and document this septic situation with Cozy Cow USR.
Pam and I had a long discussion last week and seemed to be on the same page for about 75% of
the issues. First, let me clarify that my discussions are related to the menu as outlined in the
USR application for pre-packaged food items and not food prep items as proposed in an
expanded menu by Cozy Cow. It is my understanding the Les Hardesty was in the Health
Department last week and revised his menu in Cozy Cow's food license application back to pre-
packaged food items as stated in the USR application. Not that it changes anything, but just for a
point of clarification, the menu was amended to include prepackaged items that were previously
going to be made on site (pizza, sandwiches, pastries, etc)
Pam, please clarify if this is not accurate. But, we had come to terms on:
1.We both understood and agree on what happened in the hearing and what the intent of the
commissioner's was in the hearing regarding the USR application as submitted and the use of the
existing septic system. It is to be deemed as adequate for the load in the current septic permit
and that porta-potties were acceptable for use above the ability of the septic system for any
additional loads from the food service or visitors. Agreed
2. The condition of approval, as written, does not follow what was discussed in the hearing and
Bruce Barker had advised staff that it is the condition in the resolution that applies. Agreed
3. To resolve the condition without going to a hearing with the commissioners we should get with
Brad and Bruce. Agreed
4. Upon fixing the resolution issues, we can move forward with the plat and the use of the
property as outlined in the USR application materials and the hearing. Waiting on guidance from
Bruce. As we were told from Bruce, the resolution stands, and until there is clear direction, we
are going to use the resolution for direction.
4. Meanwhile, the business could operate under current conditions. Not exactly true. During my
conversation with Tom on July 13, 2006 we discussed options for bringing the septic system into
compliance with the resolution. The evaluation from Eric Dunker shows the existing septic
adequate for a restaurant with paper service for up to 21 seats (with no limit that the menu has to
be prepackaged foods only,just served on paper service). This system is not sized to handle the
400 visitors permitted under the USR, but only the proposed restaurant.
The septic permit file shows that the existing building (which contains the milk/cheese production
and will house the proposed restaurant AND a second building to the west are both connected to
the system. I suggested that one option might be to sever the west building from the existing
system and install a new septic system sized for the 400 visitors. There are site restrictions and
setback issues that have to be explored to see if this is a viable option.
Tom told me that he would meet with Eric Dunker and Les Hardesty to explore this option over
the weekend and that he would get back to me on Monday(that would have been July 171h)with
a proposal to satisfy the resolution requirement. I asked that this proposal include a timeframe for
completion and that once I received this proposal I would take it up with Brad, Trevor and Bruce
for review. If at that time we felt we had a workable, enforceable solution to the septic system
issue we would entertain the idea that the business could operate under the existing conditions
and with a USR-proposed menu until the system could be expanded. I also said that I wouldn't
agree to anything without Trevor and Bruce's approval.
It should also be noted that the existing business (the retail purchase of cheese and milk
products) began prior to the USR application and should have received a Food Service License
prior to initial operation.
5. A revised menu to include food prep will require an additional septic/waste system in the future
prior to approval of an expanded menu. Agreed
When my client, Les Hardesty came in last week to submit the revised menu for the food service
license in compliance with the USR menu, he left with the impression that the Health Department
was not going to OK anything without the plat being recorded. True, or clear direction from Bruce
that the record can be interpreted in another manner.
If this is accurate, we can't record the plat without an OK from the Health Department; a catch 22
that needs to be resolved between the Planning and Health Department.
I am prepared to submit a paper plat for staff review pending resolve of the condition in question.
Bruce, I'm not qualified to challenge your legal position and your charge of representing the
county's interest. Isn't the hearing record as much of the file as the resolution? Haven't there
been mistakes or omissions from resolutions in the past that were resolved by reviewing the
record? We've had Weld County cases where things said in testimony were used for compliance
in spite of what was in the conditions and development standards. We were all in the hearing
and, I believe, Pam and I are in agreement as to what was said. My non-legal opinion and
experience with hearings in many jurisdictions is the case includes the documents, testimony and
hearing in its entirety. Focusing on a subset of the complete case is not in full context.
Regardless, I believe we can resolve this at the staff and legal level since the hearing record is, in
my onion, pretty clear. It was apparent that the Commissioners, especially Commissioner Jerke,
agreed 1)they approved this application recognizing its unique agricultural nature, 2)there is not
an accurate category for this type of operation and 3)they intended to approve this application by
allowing the existing septic to handle a part of the load and porta-potties handle what the septic
couldn't. If you feel we need to involve the commissioners, I'm ready to do that immediately as my
client needs and deserves some timely resolve of this issue.
I would like to keep all communication via email or conference call so as to include both planning
and health depts. as well as legal counsel simultaneously since this could potentially go in
circles. Brad and Bruce, If this seems to stall and we can't work this out by Wednesday of this
week, please put on your radar that we need to request a work session at the commissioner's
earliest convenience. I will go ahead and see what times might be available and be ready if there
is not a staff-level solution.
What we are being asked to approve does not comply with several County and State rules that
our agency is obligated to enforce. The request does not comply with the Weld County Code
pertaining to septic systems, the State ISDS guideline, the resolution, or the Food Service
Regulations (Section 5-211). It would also set a precedent that our agency clearly does not feel
is appropriate. One of the fundamental principles of public health is prevention. Allowing the use
of an undersized septic system that would likely result in the discharge of un-treated water to
groundwater and possible surface failure (which could expose visitors to the facility to many
pathogens and viruses and disease found in human sewage)does not comply with this principle.
Therefore,we believe that a work session is probably the only way to resolve this issue as more
discussion and guidance is needed.
Thanks all.
Thomas Haren
AGPROfessionals, LLC
4350 Highway 66
Longmont, CO 80504
(970) 535-9318
tharen@aopros.com
Page 1 of 1
Brad Mueller
From: Charlotte Davis
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 1:35 PM
To: Brad Mueller
Subject: USR-1543 Cozy Cow
Brad, I am in receipt of the following information:
Condition 2A Dust Abatement plan A dust abatement plan has been submitted, reviewed and approved by this
department. This is one of four plans required for this condition. This condition is not met----Need fly control
plan, odor control plan and pest control plan.
Condition 2E Waste Handling plan A waste handling plan has been submitted, reviewed and approved by this
department. This condition has been met.
Best Regards, Char
Charlotte Davis, MPH
Weld County Department of Public Health & Environment
1555 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
(970) 304-6415 x2208
FAX (970) 304-6411
AGPRO ®1 LANDPRO
COMPLETE LAND AND RESOURCE SOLUTIONS
April 6, 2006
Pam Smith {ye�
County Department of Public Health and Environment d�
Weld °°°tyic
1555 N. 17th Avenue apt-eta/1O4c OPralmanf
Greeley, CO 80631 APR E
RE: Cozy Cow Septic System Evaluation for USR-1543 RE 1 I ?c�6
Dear Ms. Smith: CE/VFI)
AGPROfessionals, LLC has completed a technical review of the septic system located at 28607
Weld County Road 17. Results of the technical review are as follows:
1. The system was installed in 2003 using a 1,250-gallon septic tank and 72 infiltrator units,
having a rock &pipe equivalent area of 2,246.4 ft2. The percolation rate indicated on the permit
is 55 minutes per inch.
2. The leach field portion of the system is the limiting design component. Using the leach
field area, the design and average flow were back-calculated. The average flow is 543.7
gallons/day and the design flow is 815.5 gallons/day.
3. Using Weld County Sewage Systems Regulation, Appendix 30-A, employees are
classified as day workers at offices and will use 15 gallons per day on average.
4. Using Weld County Sewage Systems Regulation, Appendix 30-A, site visitors are
classified as restaurants w/paper service and will use 1.5 gallons per meal served, or visit, on
average.
5. Using the flow amounts from#3&4 above the Cozy Cow septic system can adequately
handle 5 full-time employees and up to 312 visitors per day, or 4 full-time employees and up to
322 visitors per day.
If you have questions about this review or need further information, please call.
Respectfully, Ream
33 '
Eric W. Dunker, P.E.
Environmental Engineer
Cc: Les Hardesty, Cozy Cow
NjBrad Mueller, Weld County Planning
ENGINEERING, PLANNING, CONSULTING & REAL ESTATE
AGPROfessionals, LLC/LANDPROfessionals, LLC
4350 Highway 66•Longmont,CO 80504
970.535.9318/office• 303.485.7838/metro.970.535.9854/fax• www.agpros.com
Hello