HomeMy WebLinkAbout20101561.tiff jW
• `8°. _ 2o..Q co-�f 62/41- 4-;-0. s
E' o W
o �
C-O N fly„ - -/ _` re! 6-0 . V -17-4 [ cat C J
d J y �� ��-��--''
2, c%
w sL a �we �i r u
moo.- , c-.
i/ke/WL ' - --inevsneCernat Jam'` -eo``�.
r d r �- � � � IXn. zov C.P.Q.
� V ,
ze. tau, cato .arA 4
. Of, y a . � ,,.r
cent-
. o - /0/41
w .
J n � `
Q' Dese (va! r
c2-4, Ana
: emt ycer- cam. sM.. 4,lc_o
. ,ed1 mar .� .a-ea .-Lava-
pi
Leo, zr,
EXHIBIT
1 /2010-1561 � 2 •
1111 Date: 27 April2010
can,
To: Gathman—Planner
Weld County Dept. of Planning
From: Vladimir Boiko
Vicky J. Boiko
We are writing in regards to Case/4 USR-1741, which is a USR for the expansion
of an existing dairy, belonging to Roswell & Kerry Checketts, to a total of 1900 animals
in the Agricultural Zone District.
We are OPPOSED to this expansion. Our property borders the Checketts
property along the entire V2 mile distance (East to West)on the Checketts North
boundary. When we first purchased our property it was for a total of 78+/- acres. Since
that time we have Recorded Exempted(RE)the original property twice. The first time,
we RE the property into two parcels a 27+/- acre parcel and a 51+/- acre parcel. The
second RE was to divide the 27 acres into a 2acre and a 25 acre parcels. In the future, our
intent is to divide the 27 acres into a Minor Subdivision of approximately 4-5 parcels.
As is evident from the above, our residential parcels are (2 acres)/or will be
developed (25 acres) in the near future. The impact of expanding a dairy from 350 head
• to a proposed 1900 head as described in the Checketts Proposed Use Statement will have
a devastating impact on the residential development/value of our property.
We fully understand the fact that Weld County is a right to farm county but when
we bought our land in April 1999 the Checketts, having bought their land in January
1999, did not have an operating dairy on their property. That dairy did not begin
operation until well into the 2000's. That said, we do not have a problem with a 350 head
dairy next to us, but, as in the case of a person buying into a neighborhood with a 7
Eleven which operates on a 24/7 schedule; to have that 7 Eleven turn into a Super Wal
Mart is a destruction of the character/use of the neighborhood, not to mention the
economic impact on our land (and other properties of our neighborhood) for future
development.
In regards to the character of the neighborhood, bordering our property to the
north are 3 residential lots, with a 5 additional residential lots in the Latham View Estate
development just to the north of that.
The area of the Checketts proposal is also within the Long Range Growth
Boundary of the Town of LaSalle's Transportation Plan and just 1/2 mile from LaSalle's
Secondary Growth Boundary (exhibit provided).
The character of the area is changing and will continue to change as the older
farms will be subdivided into residential properties. The reason for this are two fold; that
•
water will migrate to the nearby cities, and, the dried up farms will have the only option
EXHIBIT
of residential subdivisions. Using the Checketts own statistics, the closest herd facilities
to their proposed facility are 2 '/2 miles away (a feed lot and another dairy).
If there is to be more development of Dairies,then more out-lining dairies should
be allowed to expand and not close-in dairies such as the Checketts. This process will
still allow revenue to accrue to Weld County but not impact residential development
(development that the county approved within 1/2 mile of the Checkett's property within
the last 8 years)that is already taking place in this vicinity.
The county should also take into account the water needs for a minimum 5 fold
increase in herd population at the Checketts dairy. Would that water be better used for
residential/industrial development which would provide enhanced tax revenue for the
county?
Our final point is addressing the area of Environmental impact. The immediate
area surrounding the Checketts dairy is farms in pasture or growing corn, along with
residential lots. These operations are a minimum intrusion into the surrounding
residential area. Most impact occurs during spring planting and/or fall harvesting, with a
couple of mowing operations taking place through out the summer months.
The Checketts state that the closest head operations are a feed lot and a dairy
which are 2 '/2 mile away. These operations cover hundreds of acres of area, as in the
• case of the Timmerman feed lot (located within 2 '/2 miles), whereas, the Checketts are
proposing to have 1900 animals in an area less than 45 acres (The remaining area is a
residential lot, pasture for spreading waste, a large waste holding pond and worker
housing). The liquid waste off such concentration of animals is staggering. Liquid waste
in such concentrations is bound to adversely affect local ground water wells.
Presently there is no landscaping nor buffered areas consisting as barriers between
the Checkett's and our property as contended in the Checkett's answer#6 on the
Questionnaire section of their proposal. Also, one can just imagine the solid waste
generated by the proposed operation. The increase impact of tractor trailer traffic for
moving waste and feed into and out of the proposed area, we believe, will have a
detrimental impact on the quality of life in the immediate area.
In conclusion we believe the negatives for this proposal are far too compelling to
ignore. We can be contacted by telephone at 970.284.6270 or by e-mail at either
Vladimir.Boiko@usps.gov or Vicky.Boiko@eeoc.gov.
Sincerely:
•
Vladimir Boiko Vicky J. o b�
Of(,/,' Siliivit, \ 4t 44a Settee, efleetetele TOWN HALL
�+\, VV
(r if ta_�„• i 128 N.SECOND ST LASALLE,CO 80645
al "� ,;lam (970)284-6931 FAX(970)284-6983 viti\ OQPpRgtO�,/
June 24, 2010
Chris Gatham
Weld County Planning Dept
918 10"' Street
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: USR-1741 -Roswell & Kerry Checketts
Dear Mr. Gatham:
The Town of LaSalle Board of Trustees has reviewed all materials associated with the above
referenced Use by Special Review to expand an existing dairy to 1,400 head. This expansion
• having already occurred does not provide adequate assurances that future compliance will take place.
There are several conditions outlined with the County's land use application summary sheet that do
not appear to impose a deadline for compliance. Important conditions concerning state and county
regulations, lack enforcement measures which will ensure the applicant does indeed become
compliant in a timely manner.
The board's review was based upon the current IGA with Weld County, in addition to our own
Comprehensive Plan. According to this IGA, it does not appear that this "applicant has
demonstrated that no such conflict or incompatibility will reasonably occur or that suitable
mitigation measures to be imposed by the County as conditions of approval will eliminate or
adequately mitigate adverse consequences of incompatibility or conflict." (IGA - Coordinated
Planning Agreement Dated November 6, 2000, Page 4).
LaSalle Comprehensive Plan:
Growth Strategy G1.1.3, Page 9, states the Town should continue to review County development
proposals in this area to ensure proposed changes will not negatively impact LaSalle.
Environmental Strategy E1.1.4, Page 49, contact the local feedlots and encourage them to water in
the evening to control dust.
Environmental Strategy E.1.2.1, Page 49, develop a right to farm policy that recognizes that
agricultural activities shall not be considered nuisances as long as they are operated within the law
in a non-negligent manner.
• EXHIBIT
I (p .E
USR-1741 -Roswell &Kerry Checketts
1111
Page 2 of 2
Based upon different inquiries, there appears to be an interest in "estate lots" in the primary and
possible secondary growth boundaries of LaSalle.The desirability of this type of development will
lessen greatly for a developer to locate within the proximity of this dairy/feedlot. This use may also
impact the town's new Transportation Plan which is expected some time in July.
This applicant has already proceeded in a negligent manner with this expansion. In review of the
materials contained, there appears to be inconsistencies between the number of cattle and
terminology of dairy vs. feed lot. " Elimination or adequately mitigating adverse consequences"
which potentially surround this use appear to be addressed in the Management Plan for Nuisance
Control. Nuisances such as dust and odor are discussed in the plan.However,further review indicate
complaints would need to made with the Weld County Health Department and based upon the
number of complaints,the health department would then determine if the site was the source of such
nuisance. This may be difficult due to the high concentration of feedlots/dairies within a two-mile
radius of each other.
Enforcement after the fact,does not produce effect results without some type of penalty. The town
strongly encourages the County Planning Department and Board of County Commissioners impose
deadlines in addition to requiring adequate documentation from the appropriate agency. (Colorado
Water Quality Control Commission,Weld County Environmental Health Services Division,and any
others)
• Feel free to contact the Planning Department of the Town of LaSalle if you require additional
information. Thank you for allowing the town the opportunity to review this project.
Sincerely,
Andrew Martinez
Mayor
•
1.-
o ' v
V
(e
L
et d
, 3 Cl)
Oall to \
CC
2
cp o 'CC
� w U to
CC tt J
... o 8
Do
LI
WCR 47
o w
i
C.D
a)
cn
M v WCR 45
Jro ti,
W 'St
CE
1 1
\ WCR 43
t
r %
cr
1
ti
ft-
( \ WCR 41
ti '
cli
c
a
---..~' . . , Walnut St
WCR 39
\\ Main St
) X.
Industrial 1 P,0 ' �O#0
Pkwy ,�y� 0pp�
- •
1 ` �•�6
C
WCR 37
'•
1
C ) , i
(U i '
CL '— WCR 35
35th Ave.
0Gs
00 N.1- Sti
L 2 \WCR33
Q. co ° ao 1 r 3 a,i co U L
F- � . —2 m r
co cCE D o D co
W '
'CO WO o • :t .
.,• am cnm if
al1 i s ..
(n o •
6 ti
CZ z
J Z
Hello