HomeMy WebLinkAbout20090337.tiffSUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Department of
Planning Services, Hearing Room, 918 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by
Chair, Doug Ochsner, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Doug Ochsner - Chair
Tom Holton - Vice Chair
Nick Berryman
Erich Ehrlich
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Mark Lawley —J
Roy Spitzer
Also Present: Chris Gathman, Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services; Janet Carter, Department of
Public Works; Troy Swain, Department of Health; Cyndy Giauque, County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem,
Secretary.
Robert Grand moved to approve the January 20, 2009 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, seconded
by Nick Berryman. Motion carried.
Paul Branham
-n
The Chair read the first case into record.
w v
CASE NUMBER: USR-1680
APPLICANT: North Weld County Water District
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for Major
Facility of Public Utility or Public Agency (two 5 million gallon water storage
tanks) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of AmRE-2992; located in SW4 of Section 6, T7N, R67W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: Approximately 1/8 mile east of CR 13 and 1/2 mile south of CR 86.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, commented that staff is requesting that this case be continued to March 3,
2009 in order to address surrounding property owner notification. He has received correspondence from
Chrysten Hinze with Lind, Lawrence and Ottenhoff, who is representing the applicant, and they are requesting
that date as well.
The Chair asked the applicant if she wished to add any further comment. The applicant indicated no.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against continuing this case.
No one wished to speak.
Bill Hall moved to continue Case USR-1680 to the March 3, 2009 Planning Commission meeting, seconded by
Roy Spitzer. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair read the next case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1667
APPLICANT: Mark Brinkman
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Use
Permitted as a Use by Right, Accessory Use, or Use by Special Review in the
Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts (landscaping company) in the A
(Agricultural) Zone District.
f
(j f1 lit Li)/FL;,lu; )t,7
=C1-ll-.PLC(
2ooq - 0 337
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part NE4 Section 22, T6N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Highway 392 and West of CR 21.
Michelle Martin, Planning Services, recommended that this case remain on the consent agenda. This case
was presented today to correct a typo in the legal description.
Roy Spitzer moved that Case USR-1667, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval, seconded by Robert Grand. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair read the next case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1675
APPLICANT: Rusco Land & Cattle
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Use by Special Review Permit for a
Livestock Confinement Operation (expansion of an existing feeding operation for
a total of 9,000 head of cattle, new pens, working areas, commodity area, feed
mill, feed storage area, and associated storm water retention ponds) in the A
(Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the E2 of Section 26, T7N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
LOCATION: Southwest of and adjacent to the intersection of County Roads 78 and 35.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, commented that this application is for a Site Specific Development
Plan and Special Review Permit for a Livestock Confinement Operation (feedlot for a total of 9,000 head
of head of cattle, new pens, working areas, commodity area, feed mill, feed storage area, and associated
storm water retention ponds) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District
There is an existing single-family residence located within 500 feet to the east of the facility across County
Road 35 and an additional single-family residence, owned by the applicant, which is located immediately to the
north of the facility. Other residences in proximity of the site are located approximately 1/2 mile to the east,
north, south and west.
The proposed feedlot expansion is located %] mile north of an existing compost processing facility
(AMUSR-930), 1.5 miles to the east of an existing 400 -head feedlot (USR-747), and approximately 3 miles
to the northeast of an existing 10,000 -head livestock confinement operation (USR-529).
Nineteen referrals were sent out and 13 referrals with comments were received. Referrals were not received
from the following:
Colorado Division of Wildlife
Colorado State University Extension
USDA -APHIS Veterinary Services
Windsor -Severance Fire Protection District
Weld County Sheriffs Office
Town of Ault
The site is located within the 3 -mile referral area for the Towns of Eaton and Ault.
The Town of Severance indicated no conflicts with their interests and no referral response has been received
from the Town of Ault.
The Town of Eaton, in their referral response dated November 4, 2008 indicated that the proposed feedlot
expansion is immediately to the northwest of the comprehensive plan area for the Town of Eaton. This area is
designated as "suburban residential" per the Town of Eaton comprehensive plan and that the proposed feedlot
expansion will be very near to the future residential areas when growth takes place in this area. The Town is
also concerned that prevailing winds will create severe odor problems for residents in Eaton.
A subsequent letter was submitted by the Town of Eaton dated January 16, 2009 signed by the Mayor. In this
2
letter the Town of Eaton Board of Trustees indicated that they remained neutral on the proposal but have
several serious concerns about the project. These concerns consisted of the proximity of the proposal
adjacent to the area designated as suburban residential per the Town of Eaton comprehensive plan, concerns
with odor due to prevailing winds and the proximity of the feedlot to the existing town limits of Eaton and its
impacts on town citizens and future residents of Eaton. In addition, the potential for additional dust that this
expansion may release and also traffic concerns.
The Town of Eaton is concerned that the feed area and corrals are separated by the Town Boyd Lateral Ditch.
The feed trucks will need to pull out onto County Road 35 each time that they load and again each time when
they deliver to the corral. This is a concern given the amount of traffic on County Road 35.
The Town of Eaton and Weld County have an intergovernmental agreement. The intergovernmental
agreement boundary for the Town of Eaton is immediately across County Road 35 from the subject site.
The intergovernmental agreement addresses development within the 3 -mile referral area for the Town of
Eaton but outside of the Urban Growth Area (intergovernmental agreement area) as follows:
Section 19-7-50.B (Coordinated Planning Agreement with Eaton) states: "To the extent legally possible, the
County will disapprove proposals for Urban Development in areas of the Municipal Referral Area outside the
Urban Growth Area. In reviewing proposals for Non -Urban Development in such areas, the County will apply
its Comprehensive Plan and zoning and subdivision ordinances, and, where appropriate, the MUD Plan."
Additionally, under Section 19-7-40 (Coordinated Planning Agreement with Eaton) Defines Non -Urban
Development as "Land uses which typically do not require services such as central water and sewer systems,
road networks, park and recreation services, storm drainage and the like, and which are generally considered
to be rural in nature, expressly including land used or capable of being used for agricultural production and
including developments which combine clustered residential uses and agricultural uses in a manner that the
agricultural lands are suitable for farming and ranching operations for the next forty (40) years."
The proposed feedlot expansion is located approximately 1.25 miles northwest of the current town limits of
the Town of Eaton. The surrounding area is presently agricultural in nature. Also feedlots are considered
to be a non -urban use and this is defined as a non -urban area. The facility will be required to comply with
the attached development standards requiring the facility to operate in a manner to control dust, flies,
odors and other nuisance conditions.
Mr. Gathman received calls from two surrounding property owners. One property owner indicated that
there may be a petition of opposition to the application that may be submitted. He also received 16 letters
and emails of opposition from the surrounding neighbors. He also received 5 letters and emails of support
in regard to this application. Mr. Gathman indicated that most of the emails and letters in opposition are
from people who live within the town limits of Eaton.
Reasons for opposition stated in the emails and letters were: 1) negative impacts on property values, 2)
odor concerns, 3) the large size of the operation, 4) the proximity to the town (that there are more
appropriate locations for this type of use, 5) flies, 6) adverse health impacts affecting people's allergies,
asthma, etc, 7) it will prevent new people from moving into the Town of Eaton, 8) traffic impacts on County
Road 35, 9) the location of the feedlot would carry odor into the town based on the prevailing wind
direction, and 10) the feedlot already creates odors and expanding this feedlot will make it worse.
Reasons for support stated in these emails and letters were: 1) economic benefits to the Town, 2) it is an
expansion of an already existing feedlot, 3) the feedlot was already present before the Town grew into the
area, 4) the feedlot has not impacted anyone in the past, 5) agriculture supports the economy and Town,
and 6) feedlots are already heavily regulated by the Health Department both County and State Health.
Staff requested that the applicant hold a community meeting with neighboring property owners. The
applicant's representative, at that time was Cody Hollingsworth of AgPro, indicated that he would be
meeting with property owners on an individual basis. This case is now being represented by Tom Haren
and Tim Naler of AgPro.
3
There are several attached conditions of approval and development standards that attempt to address
and mitigate concerns with this application. Staff is requiring the following:
• Lighting Plan.
• A Landscaping Plan is required to address screening of adjacent properties (specifically neighbors
who live immediately to the east and north of the site).
• The applicant shall supply a summary/documentation of where manure from the feedlot will be
stored (on -site or offsite) as no manure storage area is indicated on the plat. It should be noted
that the applicant owns land immediately to the north and south of the USR boundary.
• The application indicates water will be supplied by an existing well along with the North Weld
County Water District. The applicant shall address the requirements of the Office of State
Engineer — Division of Water Resources as stated in their referral dated October 29, 2008. Written
evidence of such shall be provided to the Department of Planning Services. The applicant shall
provide clarification on whether or not the existing well (permit no. 14534) shall be utilized in
association with the feedlot. If the existing well is to be utilized, then evidence of an approved
water augmentation plan for the existing well shall be submitted to the Department of Planning
Services.
Mr. Gathman added that it is his understanding that the applicant is proposing to use North Weld
County Water District and potentially in the future they would use the well. At this time, however,
they are relying on water use from North Weld County Water District.
• Demonstrate that proposed open lot wastewater impoundments will meet the setbacks to water
wells and groundwater for new and expanded impoundments required by Colorado Water Quality
Control Commission. Evidence of such shall be provided to the Departments of Public Health and
Environment and Planning Services. Additional geotechnical testing on site may reveal high water
levels requiring a larger lagoon than shown on the draft site map submitted with the application.
Therefore, staff is requiring that the minimum setback of the lagoon from County Road 35 shall
match the setback of the proposed lagoon indicated on the draft plat map submitted with this
application.
The Department of Planning Services is requiring that the applicant adhere to specific Development
Standards imposed by the County as well as Confined Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) regulations.
This will ensure the facility is operating in compliance with numerous conditions which would not be
required for a facility operating as a use -by -right.
The Department of Planning Services has determined that there are adequate provisions for the
protection of health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and County and is
therefore recommending approval of this application.
Commissioner Ochsner referred to the comment that mentioned that currently there is no manure storage
designated on the plat. If the applicant decided to store that manure on their other land they own, would
that be an option or would that require another USR. Mr. Gathman replied that it would be an option. He
added that staff just wants that information for clarification if we receive calls about it. It would not require
a separate permit.
Commissioner Lawley asked how many head of cattle the applicant is currently feeding. Mr. Gathman
said that based on the information he has received it is approximately 4,000 head of cattle. He added that
it is an old facility and it appears to be a grandfathered facility as there are no records of an old special use
permit for this existing facility. This would be the first use by special review permit for this site.
Tom Haren, AgProfessionals, 4350 Hwy 66, Longmont CO. Mr. Haren stated that he is representing
Rusco Land and Cattle, owned by Russ Moss. This project is also known by its historical name, the
Dalton feed yard.
4
This request is to approve a Use by Special Review Permit to expand a historically, existing feed yard
from its current capacity of approximately 4,500 head to 9,000 head of cattle on a 40 acre portion of this
112 acre parcel. This is historically known as one of the oldest feed yards in Weld County.
The request is to approve the modernization of an old feed yard. The history of this facility traces back to
1940. Some of the records found shows that this was the feed yard that shipped the first load of cattle to
the Monfort Packing Plant. The modernization would include reconstruction in stages to the latest design
of environmental standards and also place conditions and development standards on a use that was
established prior to Weld County zoning in 1972. He added that currently those conditions and
development standards do not exist for this facility.
Mr. Haren said that the owner, Mr. Moss, has been a long standing member of the community. In addition
to Rusco Cattle Company, Mr. Moss is a part of and manages Producers Livestock and Sales Facility on
Highway 85 just north of Greeley. Mr. Moss and his organization also leases and operates the Servey
feed yard east of Greeley which is approximately a 40,000 head facility. Rusco owns and operates
several small feed yards within the surrounding 5 -mile area of this feedlot. In addition to the Dalton yard
there are several older feedlots of 1,500 head or more. The applicant's purpose is to consolidate for
improvements and operation and management, efficiently modernize and update to the latest standards,
improve livestock conditions and conditions in the surrounding area, and reduce impacts from traffic
(moving loaders, feed trucks, and employees) around to the different smaller feed yards.
Mr. Haren commented that the area around Ault and Eaton is prolific with livestock operations,
predominately feed yards. There are about 18 livestock operations on the west side of Highway 85 and
about 16 on the east side of Highway 85.
The existing feed yard takes up about 22 acres and the whole site the applicant is proposing to expand is
40 acres.
The applicant is not proposing to build any additional buildings or structures on this site. The applicant
intends to only add the pens and the required environmental controls.
Mr. Haren indicated that this is not prime land and has been confirmed by staff as well as the West
Greeley Soil Conservation District. He also added that this site is not located in any overlay district. It is
not located in a floodplain, geologic hazard area, IGA, Urban Growth Boundary, or other Municipal Comp
Plan area.
There are numerous citations in the Weld County Comprehensive Plan regarding the history of
importance and also the protections given to agriculture. He added that it states facts that we have
thousands of operations in Weld County; they are a main stay of Weld County and supporting agriculture
will continue to be a significant goal of the County.
With regard to provisions for protection of health, safety and welfare, the standard in the code is adequate.
There are a lot of provisions for the County, State, and Federal requirements. With this application due to
mandatory State and Federal requirements all the run on water onto the feed yard must either be
eliminated or contained which is included in this plan. All stormwater and any water from operations must
be contained and a pond lined to meet standards tested and certified by a registered engineer. The
feedlot itself with compaction from the cattle has a hard pen cap preventing migration of water. The Weld
County's Health Department has reviewed this application and the plans and has been accepted or has
placed conditions of approval and development standards on the project.
Mr. Haren reiterated that this is an existing historical use with none of these conditions of approval or
development standards in place. Other than the mandatory state regulations, those conditions will not be
applied if this application does not get approved.
There is a % inch service tap from North Weld County Water District. The well on site was drilled in 1940
and is adjudicated and is decreed for 150 gallons per minute and it is augmented under the Poudre Plan.
Mr. Haren stated that they will provide all the details of that as requested to staff. Well setbacks for the
ponds are met at 300 feet and there are private existing septic systems for the office and houses.
5
Stormwater retention capability is another State regulation and Mr. Haren stated that the site is 130%
design capacity in the plan. He pointed out that the feed yard is located in a depression. He indicated that
the whole site would flood before anything could run off this site.
Mr. Haren said that with regard to land application, the applicant has a total of 310 acres of which 250
acres is irrigated and available for land application. Not only is that 3 times the amount necessary for
management but that allows them to dilute the water more when they land apply it. The stormwater would
be applied via flood irrigation which is the method least likely to cause odor nuisance.
Mr. Haren commented that some of the biggest things put into this plan are both design and management
factors. When they redesign the pond, both the depths and keeping the solids out of the ponds are some
of the things to control odors. Also the proper drainage of the facility so there is no standing water.
Management factors of this plan include the timing of dewatering, cleaning the facility, lagoons, and the
pens. Dust is predominantly a management issue. Stocking rates is why rebuilding and reconfiguring this
feed yard are important and it can improve the situation over where it is now. Mr. Haren pointed out that
this feed yard is being laid out with a permanent dust suppression system.
Housekeeping and habitat removal are the number one issues. Mr. Haren stated that there is a complete
Nuisance Management Plan included in the application and was reviewed by staff.
Mr. Haren commented that there is a bridge over the lateral ditch to where the feed yard is so it does not
have to go outside the facility to get from the feed area to the feed yard. The main access to the site is
from County Road 35 of which Public Works is asking to define the accesses better so that they are
perpendicular on and off County Road 35. Mr. Haren indicated that they are going to put in some controls
to support that request.
Noise is limited by code and light will only be on the applicant's property and will be shielded.
Mr. Haren said that there have been no registered complaints or a violation on this facility as well as Mr.
Moss's other feedlots.
This area is prolific with other agricultural operations. Other uses immediately around the site include
irrigated agriculture and some rural residential. This facility is 1 % miles from the existing city limits of
Eaton. Mr. Haren added that they have met with the Towns of Eaton and Ault to talk about the plans and
indicated that the towns have expressed their concerns. He stated that they feel they have met those
concerns with the conditions of approval and development standards and the mitigation plans that they
have included in the application.
Mr. Haren stated that this is the only zone district that allows this facility. The agricultural zone is
established to maintain and promote agriculture. It is established to protect agriculture from uses which
can hinder the operation.
There is a Right to Farm statement included in the Ag Zone District. They feel between the referrals, the
application and the additional materials in the file, they have met the seven criteria an applicant must
prove in order to be approved for a special use permit. They respectfully request approval of this
application.
Commissioner Holton commented that currently this feedlot is grandfathered. He asked if it is under less
or more state regulation than what the County's Use by Special Review Permit is. Mr. Haren said that the
state environmental regulations are for protection of surface water and groundwater and apply to all feed
yards over 1,000 head. All of the county's remaining development standards and conditions of approval
for traffic, lights, odor, dust, flies, etc. would not apply to the existing facility.
Commissioner Ochsner asked Mr. Haren to explain the separation between feed area and the corrals with
regard to traffic. Mr. Haren pointed out the lateral on a visual slide and said that the feed area is in the
northeast corner and the feed yard is southwest of the lateral. He added that there was a bridge put in to
6
come across without going out on County Road 35.
Commissioner Ochsner asked if all incoming traffic would be directed. He commented that you can see
tracks on the road where they are coming out and going back in. It is his main concern of how that will be
taken care of. Mr. Haren said that internal traffic is operational traffic and will not need to go out on the
County Road to operate. Employees, feed trucks, livestock, harvest, and manure hauling will be going
external onto County Roads. He indicated that they have worked with Public Works to have three
accesses to the site. They will gate one of the accesses and will put in some fencing to define the
accesses and make perpendicular entrances.
The Chair asked for comments from Environmental Health.
Troy Swain, Environmental Health, commented that as far as the county related nuisances they are
outlined in development standards 8 through 12, 13, and 16. More of the state related nuisances are
outlined in development standards 5, 6, and 7 and in conditions of approval E, F and F. Staff have
reviewed the proposed waste capacity volumes and recommended approval for the application with those
development standards that are health department related. The most significant standard was to require
a sprinkler system for dust control.
The Chair asked for comments from Public Works.
Janet Carter, Public Works, commented that the applicant is proposing three (3) accesses onto County
Road 35 which is paved. She added that they are working out those accesses so that they will be safely
located to allow acceptable site distance on County Road 35.
County Road 35 is a major arterial road which requires 140 foot right-of-way at full build out. There is
presently 60 foot of right-of-way. The most current traffic counts for County Road 35 are 626 ADT in
2006. The applicant has indicated that there will be approximately 36 trips per day. The applicant is
proposing that the external traffic will not be greatly increased from the expansion of the cattle to 9,000
head. However, the internal traffic of the site would be increased; therefore they will have to manage
internal roadways with dust control, etc. to handle the increase.
Ms. Carter stated that Public Works will be requesting stop signs at the accesses and also 60 foot
radiuses to accommodate larger trucks.
This site is not located in a 100 -year floodplain.
The applicant is required to comply with CAFO regulations which manage the drainage policies. Staff
does require that all engineering calculations and drawings that are submitted be signed and stamped by
a registered engineer able to practice within the State of Colorado.
Commissioner Ochsner complimented Public Works and the applicant for coming into agreement with the
accesses. In viewing the area it currently seems pretty dangerous and through this application it will help
the traffic and safety situation.
Commissioner Berryman asked Mr. Gathman to clarify the understanding between the Town of Eaton and
the applicant. Mr. Gathman said that officially the recommendation from the Town of Eaton's Board of
Trustees is that they are neutral on this application but they did outline several concerns regarding traffic,
odor, dust, etc.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Gary Carston, Eaton Town Manager, reiterated that the Town Board spent two months thinking about this
and receiving comments from a lot of the citizens. He stated that the Town Board is neutral but they did
receive a lot of negative comments primarily because of the perceived odors. He added that people are
concerned primarily with the wind from this location. They are aware that there are a lot of feed operations
in the area and the concern is that they don't want to keep adding to them. He believes that there is a
balance that can be struck between agriculture and cities and towns. He hopes that the Planning
7
Commission will take that into consideration.
Commissioner Spitzer asked if most of the citizens who expressed concerns were aware that this was an
existing operation. Mr. Carston replied yes but added that most of the growth for Eaton is from Larimer
County and they are not accustomed to the feed yards.
Forrest Leaf, JR Engineering, 2620 E Prospect Rd, Ste 190, Ft. Collins CO, represents Debora and Kirk
Kindsfater and Andy Mill. He noted that the biggest concerns of his clients are the odor concerns. In his
opinion what is going to drive the proper management of this facility is going to be the adequate water
supply. He is a little perplexed as to why Mr. Haren said that the stock well is augmented under the Cache
la Poudre Plan when he verified today that they can't find any record of that. In fact the State Engineer's
office can't find any record that the well is augmented. His purpose isn't to raise an issue about
augmentation as much as it is to point out that if you are going to have an adequate feeding operation it is
going to have to have good dust suppression and be cognizant of the existing health and welfare of the
community. He stated that he hasn't seen in any of these plans where there has been any evaluation by
staff or the applicant's consultant to demonstrate and provide evidence that there is sufficient water to
meet a dust control plan. He hopes that the Planning Commission will take that into consideration, and at
a minimum to require that they have a decreed augmentation plan if they are going to use that well as well
as demonstrate that they have an adequate water supply plan through North Weld County Water District.
Mr. Leaf encouraged the staff and Planning Commission to question whether or not North Weld County
Water District has a contract to provide that kind of water. He is also curious if staff has reviewed if this is
an existing operation and if that well is truly operating legally.
Mr. Leaf agreed with Mr. Haren that it is compatible and believes that these concerns can be solved. His
clients do not wish to hinder this process but they are concerned with their property values and want
everyone to play by the same rules.
He understands that this facility is subject to CAFO regulations and that the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) will be reviewing that. They have requested from the applicant's
consultant that they receive copies of all that and they will continue to want to be involved in the process.
He commented that they would like to invite a meeting with the applicant and his consultants to work out
some of these issues so that a happy resolution can be made.
Mr. Leaf urged the Planning Commission to take a look and see if this is really ready to go forward without
really having all the information and knowledge on the water rights.
Roy Miller, 17541 CR 76, stated that he has farmed across the road from the feedlot since 1981. He can't
imagine what will be done with all the water that will accumulate on a flash flood.
Barbara Holcomb, 37730 CR 35, lives directly across the road. She is not necessarily against it but has
concerns about trying to sell her house and questioned what it is going to do to her land value. She said
that the biggest problem they have is dust. She can't say that the traffic is any worse from the feedlot than
it is just from people driving up and down the road 80 to 90 mph.
Ms. Holcomb's stated that they have done a good job with the flies this year but if you add that many more
cows you will have that many more flies. She added that the dust is a big problem and that there was a lot
of odor this morning. She moved in knowing that there was a feedlot there anticipating that at some point
it might go away because it was close to town and that the town would grow that way. Ms. Holcomb is
concerned that the land value will change and she will not get it sold for the price that they could have
since it is close to the feedlot.
Ken Starman, 37431 CR 53. He stated that he is the owner of Starman Grinding and he processes feed
for several dairies and feedlots in Weld County. He commented that in over 20 years of being in business
there has been more feedlots closed than has been expanded or opened. He is one of those guys that
are directly affected by that and it means that there are less tax dollars going through town.
Justin Felker, 444 Magnolia Ct, Eaton CO, is a resident of Eaton. He commented that they already get
stench from the dairies in the area. They are proposing a 9,000 head feed operation and asked what they
8
are going to do with all of the trucks when they get in there. He further asked if they will be allowed to sit
on County Road 35 and hold up traffic. He asked the Planning Commission to take into consideration the
location of the feedlots.
Amy Antommariu, 1356 Plains Ct, Eaton CO, owns a home in Governors Ranch which is very close to this
feedlot. Her concern is that they have said that the nuisance issues are a management issue and they
are not hiring any additional staff with twice the amount of cattle. She asked how the same numbers of
employees are going to manage all those nuisance issues.
Ms. Antommariu expressed concern that this will lower her property value as they already have the odor at
her house 4 or 5 days a week. This expansion will substantially create more odor and decrease their
property value.
Susan Magnuson, 38093 CR 33, Eaton CO, said that her family owns the farm directly north of this
feedlot. She stated that she supports it 100%. She added that her property value has gone up since
Rusco has moved in because they have built fences that work.
She stated that Weld County is the number 1 cattle feeding and birthing county in the nation. She
commented that we are about cattle and its time that we started thinking that way. She added that cattle
is what built this county and is what paid for her farm.
Mike Schelm, 660 Maple Av, Eaton CO, lives on the north side of Eaton and is strongly opposed to the
expansion. He added that the warm weather season of 2008 was a miserable time to reside in his
neighborhood. He frequently suffered the loss of enjoyment of his property due to the highly offensive
feedlot odors. Many evenings he could not enjoy the leisure of relaxing in a lawn chair and couldn't
reliably hang clothes out on the line because they would smell like the feedlot. It was hard to plan any
social activities due to the smell. In summers past he would open the windows in the evening to cool off
the house but this last summer he was awakened from sleep due to the strong odor. Mr. Schelm has
lived there since 2002 and when he moved there and for several years after the odor from the feedlot was
non existent. He commented that now this feedlot is producing persistent odors and the value of his
property will be negatively impacted.
Because of the odor and dust problems at his property he feels like he is somewhat hostage of the feedlot
even with the existing 4,500 head of cattle. The feedlot is 1.3 miles northwest of his property and noted
that Island Grove is 1.3 miles of today's hearing. He asked if they would want to open the windows given
the prevailing winds in Colorado. He feels that the feedlot is simply too close to his property and the Town
of Eaton to be allowed to expand.
Mr. Schelm quoted the mission statement of the Weld County Planning Commission which states "To
protect and enhance the quality of life for county residents". As a Weld County resident he is requesting
that the Planning Commission protect his quality of life at his residence and deny the application.
Mr. Schelm commented that the first 22 years of his life he spent living in a small town in Nebraska with a
feedlot about 1 mile northwest of town and added that he worked at that feedlot. He has also spent three
years working on a 5,000 head hog operation.
Mr. Schelm referred to a comment by Mr. Haren that there have been no registered complaints. He
added that he called the County last year during the summer and was told to take it up with the local
municipality. He then called Eaton and was told that he needed to take it up with the county; therefore he
can understand why there are no registered complaints.
Jeanette Miller, 17541 CR 76, lives right next to this facility and agrees that we do need cattle. She and
her husband had fed cattle as well. However there is a place for them but not next to town. She does
oppose this facility and hopes that the Planning Commissioners will listen to their pleas.
Debbie Kindsfater, 16285 CR 76, commented that her husband and she own the property southwest of
the proposed site. They also own a farm on Highway 392 south of Eaton. She is not opposed to
agriculture but she is opposed to this expansion. She stressed that they are not opposed to the 4,500
9
head already there and believes that Mr. Moss is a nice man. They do support agriculture in Weld County;
however they feel that this kind of expansion that close to town is inappropriate.
In addition Andy Mill wanted to have Mr. Leaf look into making sure that the requirements are met with this
facility. She indicated that Mr. Mill has significant concerns for his agricultural operation which is a tree
farm. She added that he is very concerned with the toxicity of the dust coming up and causing damage to
the leaves on his trees.
Keith Schuett, 445 Cedar Av, Eaton CO, has lived in Eaton for over 25 years. He moved to Eaton
because it was a rural community and he expected certain things such as odors and dust because they
are encroaching into agriculture. He hears people make comments about having odors and dust in town
and added that if we want places that are free of those kinds of things, then we need to move to a
community that doesn't have that. You are going to have to put up with those things if you are going to
live in a rural community.
He commented that we need to remember that Weld County is a right to farm county and believes that we
should really support this. He believes that with the conditions of approval that are in place with this facility
it will help protect the health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the County. He highly recommended
that the Planning Commission approve this case with the conditions of approval and development
standards as written.
Russ Moss, along with Kenny Elrich, own Rusco Land & Cattle. He said that they have operated the
Dalton feedlot since 2001. He apologized for all the dust and odor problems last summer but they were
rebuilding some of the existing pens and the Dalton feed yard was empty last summer.
With no further public comment, the Chair closed the public portion of the meeting.
The Chair called a recess at 2:56 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 3:02 p.m.
The Chair asked the applicant to address the concerns from the public testimony.
Mr. Haren commented that when his client purchased the property his attorney at the time combed
through the water issue and is unsure if Mr. Leaf was referring to what is known now as the New Cache la
Poudre Plan or what his client is covered under which is known as the old Poudre Plan. He indicated that
he does have the records and will provide information from the court decree to Mr. Gathman as well as
the bills showing that his client has been paying for augmentation for almost 300 acre feet since he bought
the feed yard.
With regard to some of the odor and nuisance issues, he pointed out that this area is an intensively
managed agricultural area. With the history of Mr. Moss and the history of this feed yard he thinks it is
better, safer and cleaner and hopes that the Planning Commission can approve this application.
Commissioner Holton asked to explain the dust control plan. Mr. Haren replied that they will be putting an
engineered design permanent underground sprinkler system throughout this facility. Mr. Holton asked if
they would be able to turn those on in individual pens. Mr. Haren commented that it will be sequenced like
a sprinkler system for pressure and time. The way it is managed is through pen moisture and density.
Commissioner Ochsner asked if the sprinkler system will be installed in the current 4,500 head. Mr.
Haren said yes and added that Mr. Moss is currently in the process of rebuilding the old pens whether or
not this is approved. He has been installing the pipes for the system in the old part of the feed yard.
Commissioner Ehrlich asked Mr. Haren to break down the capacity. Mr. Haren commented that they did
not design this to max out the property.
Commissioner Holton asked if they are going to finish cattle here. Mr. Haren said that this is basically a
calf yard.
Commissioner Holton asked about using the same five (5) employees for the additional 4,500 head of
10
cattle. He asked if that is because the feedlot will be upgraded and it will be more efficient. Mr. Haren
replied that in this case the operation will be more efficient and easier to manage and therefore feels that
the five employees will be able to handle the facility according to the design.
Commissioner Ochsner referred to some additional comments in public testimony regarding stormwater
and truck parking.
Ms. Carter said that this site is not located within the 100 -year floodplain. With regard to parking and
staging on county roads it will not be allowed. If there is any staging or parking it will need to be internal to
their site. She did a preliminary check of this site and found that there was one accident north of the
intersection of County Roads 78 and 35. There were no fatalities, it was only property damage. She
added that speed limits are approximately 55 to 56 mph.
Commissioner Ochsner asked if the water can or will be pumped into the lateral for dispersal. Mr. Swain
said no and added that it would be a contamination issue. He stated that the CAFO regulations are pretty
stringent. Mr. Swain indicated that staff is comfortable with the volumes as proposed by the applicant.
The chair asked if staff had any changes to the conditions of approval or the development standards. Mr.
Gathman said that under Condition of Approval 1.1, rather than call out the specific improvements, he
would like to make that statement more general. Therefore the first sentence should be amended to read
"The applicant shall submit a Private Improvements Agreement according to policy regarding collateral for
improvements and post adequate collateral for onsite improvements."
In addition, Condition of Approval 1.K should be amended to include the referral from the Town of Eaton
on January 16, 2009.
Tom Holton moved to amend Condition of Approval 1.1 and 1.K per staff recommendations, seconded by
Roy Spitzer. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Holton asked Mr. Swain who the citizens should talk to if they have a complaint. Mr. Swain
said that the Health Department will take the complaints and then evaluate the complaint and if any
standards apply to the case. Mr. Swain added that with this use there will be standards that will be
enforceable and could potentially be put into violation if they don't comply.
Commissioner Ehrlich asked if there was any condition of approval or development standard about the
North Weld County Water District based on the concerns presented by Mr. Leaf. Mr. Gathman said that it
is not but suggested adding that the applicant provides verification. He added that he did get some
clarification from Mr. Haren and he indicated that they intended to use the water tap for watering the cattle
and the well would be used for the dust control on site.
Mr. Gathman suggested that a new Condition of Approval 1.J be added to read "The applicant shall
demonstrate that they have sufficient water available for dust suppression and all other requirements of
the operation."
Roy Spitzer moved to add Condition of Approval 1.J per staff recommendation and reletter accordingly,
seconded by Erich Ehrlich. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions
of Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Mark Lawley moved that Case USR-1675, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval, seconded by Tom Holton.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, yes with comment; Paul Branham, absent; Erich Ehrlich, yes with comment; Robert Grand, yes with
comment; Bill Hall, yes with comment; Mark Lawley, yes with comment; Roy Spitzer, yes; Tom Holton, yes;
Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
11
Commissioner Ehrlich cited Section 22-1-120 Comprehensive Plan Guiding Principles Paragraph B of respect
for our agricultural traditions.
Commissioner Grand commented that the existing facility under the grandfathered rights has significantly less
restrictions on operation than the new operation will have. He felt that in terms of the overall improvement to
the area, although they are increasing the herd size, it will effectively bring it up to today's compliance
regulations.
Commissioner Berryman echoed Mr. Grand's statements.
Commissioner Hall agreed with Mr. Grand and added that with the new sprinkler system and the controls that
will be in place he believes that it will be a much better operation than what has happened in the past.
Commissioner Lawley commented that it improves the public health and welfare under this USR.
Mr. Gathman announced that this case is scheduled to be heard with the Board of County Commissioners on
February 25, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. at the Board of County Commissioner's Hearing Room located at 915 10th
Street.
The Chair asked the public if there were other items of business that they would like to discuss. No one
wished to speak.
The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if there was any new business to discuss. No one had
any further business to discuss.
Meeting adjourned at 3:32 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
12
Hello