HomeMy WebLinkAbout20082504.tiff • SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
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 o
Paul Branham
Erich Ehrlich U •
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Mark Lawley
Roy Spitzer
Also Present: Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services; Don Dunker, Department of Public Works;
Troy Swain, Department of Health; Bruce Barker, County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Doug Ochsner commented that he would like to amend the August 19,2008 minutes. He indicated that after
the first case on the Consent Agenda (AmUSR-1356), he asked if there was anyone in the audience who
wished to speak for or against this application and there was someone who did wish to speak. Therefore he
would like to strike that sentence on page 1 of the minutes.
• Robert Grand moved to approve the amended August 19,2008 Weld County Planning Commission minutes,
seconded by Tom Holton. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1651
APPLICANT: Jay&Sherrie Woods
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SW4SE4 of Section 36,T6N,R66W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit for any use permitted as a
Use by Right,an ACCESSORY USE,or a Use by Special Review in the COMMERCIAL
or Industrial Zone Districts,(Lawn Tree and Care Business)provided that the property is
not a Lot in an approved or recorded subdivision plat or lots parts of a map or plan filed
prior to adoption of any regulations controlling subdivision and One(1)SINGLE-FAMILY
DWELLING UNIT per LOT other than those permitted under Section 23-3-20.A(addition
of future single-family home)in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to"F"Street and 1/8 mile west of"C"Street.
The Chair asked Mr. Gathman if staff wishes to continue this item. Chris Gathman, Department of Planning
Services, replied that staff does wish for this case to be continued. He indicated that the applicant is currently
in the hospital and added that staff is still dealing with regulations from the City of Greeley in regard to their
sewer service. Mr.Gathman commented that they have had phone conversations with the City of Greeley as
to whether or not they would require the applicant to tie into sewer. It is unclear if the City of Greeley would
require annexing them immediately or have an annexation agreement. Mr. Gathman stated that until we can
get resolution on that issue we have conditions of approval that the applicant technically could not meet.
Therefore, until staff hears back from the City of Greeley we would recommend that this case be continued out
to the November 4, 2008 hearing. Mr. Gathman indicated that he is confident that he should be hearing
something back from the City of Greeley within the next week.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against continuing this case
• to the November 4, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. No one wished to speak.
Roy Spitzer moved to continue Case USR-1651 to the November 4, 2008 Planning Commission hearing,
seconded by Nick Berryman. Motion carried unanimously.
C ,(.1ttLevo 9 f5.1v°`≥ 2008-2504
CASE NUMBER: USR-1661
• APPLICANT: Hasbrouck Holdings, LLC
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for Livestock
Confinement Operation(feedlot for 15,000 head of buffalo or 24,000 head of cattle)
in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-620; being part of the SE4 of Section 22,T8N, R65W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 90 and 1/2 mile east of CR 43.
Bill Hall stated that he is friends with the applicant. However, he has no business interest with them. He
mentioned that there are other people who are neighbors to the applicant that he is friends with as well.
He wanted to note on record to avoid any possible conflicts of interest. Mr. Hall stated that he feels that
he can make a decision based solely on the facts given.
The Chair read the case into record.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, stated the surrounding properties are all zoned
agricultural.
A Confined Feeding Operation (SUP-174 for 10,000 head of cattle) lies 2.5 miles west of the proposed
feedlot. A dairy facility(SUP-178) is located approximately 2 miles to the northwest and another dairy
facility(USR-1395 for 10,000 head of dairy cattle) is located 3-4 miles to the northwest of this site.
Eight single-family residences are located in the vicinity of the proposed feedlot. A single-family residence
is located immediately to the southwest of the site and two single-family residences are located
immediately to the southeast of the site. Two single family residences are located 1/8 of a mile to the west
of the site and two single-family residences are located 1/2 mile to the west of the site. One single family
• residence is located 1/2 mile to the north of the site.
The Department of Planning Services is requiring the wastewater pond and sediment basins be screened
by berms and be located a minimum 50-feet from the edge of road right-of-way to provide buffering from
the nearest residences at the corner of County Roads 45 and 90 and that any on-site manure storage be
located toward the center of the site to mitigate odor and dust impacts on neighboring properties. The
applicant is additionally required to submit a Landscape and Screening Plan demonstrating how they have
mitigated the impact to the neighboring residences.
Twelve referrals were sent out; nine referrals were received and either indicated no concerns or is
addressed through Development Standards and Conditions of Approval. No referral responses were
received from the Colorado Division of Wildlife, Nunn Fire Protection District and the North Weld County
Water District.
The site is not located within the 3-mile referral area or urban growth boundary area of any municipality.
Mr. Gathman indicated that several e-mails and letters have been received from surrounding property
owners including 4 letters that were handed out that came in since packets were sent out last week. He
commented that concerns expressed in this correspondence include: traffic, odor and pest concerns.
Increased erosion of soil and dust caused by the feedlot operation, not sufficient time from westbound
traffic coming from the east to stop or avoid trucks accessing County Road 90, the possibility of
contaminating neighboring properties and ditches due to the proximity of Owl Creek to the east of the site,
potential contamination of neighboring wells due to soil conditions in the area, detrimental impact on
property values, disease concerns, detrimental health impacts on adjacent property owners who have
asthmatic conditions, concerns regarding the ability of the facility to handle the number of bison proposed,
concerns that bison will be able to break out of the facility, concerns that the facility will house too many
bison on not enough land, and concerns about the potential for adverse impacts on smaller bison
• producers.
Staff requested that the applicant hold a community meeting with neighboring property owners. The
applicant elected to meet with individual property owners on a one-on-one basis. Summaries of these
2
• meetings where provided by the applicant's representative and were included in the Planning Commission
packets.
Mr. Gathman stated that there are several Conditions of Approval and Development Standards which
attempt to address and mitigate these concerns. They are as follows:
• Additional setback required from County Road 90. County Road 90 is presently a 60' right-of-way
and is designated as a collector road which would require an additional 10 feet of right-of-way.
• Landscaping Plan required to address screening of adjacent properties. Specifically neighbors
who live immediately to the southeast and to the west of the site.
• Demonstrate that sufficient manure storage is available onsite in the event that off-site
composting becomes unavailable or not economically feasible. Additionally, there is a requirement
that any on-site manure storage, if stored on-site, be placed toward the center of the site.
• Requirement that the applicant demonstrate that the Owl Creek waterway and adjacent
residences are protected from an offsite discharge—or redesign the facility in a manner to prevent
off-site discharge. Which would mean that they would need to relocate their wastewater pond.
• In regard to animal health and disease concerns, land use referrals were received from the USDA
Veterinary Services Office and from the Colorado State University Extension that both indicated
no conflicts and/or concerns with this application.
• Department of Public Works has provided an updated traffic count and is requiring a westbound
acceleration lane. Their comments include a minimum of 400-feet in length on County Road 90.
• The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with all of the attached
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. The items stated above are only a portion of these
conditions. The Department of Planning Services believes that these conditions adequately address the
compatibility, health, traffic and concerns regarding this application. It should be noted that these
Conditions and Development Standards would not be required for a facility operating as a Use-by-Right
facility.
Mr. Gathman indicated that Troy Swain with the Department of Public Health and Don Dunker with the
Department of Public Works are available to answer any questions as well.
The Chair asked the applicant for any comments.
Tom Haren, AgProfessionals, LLC, 4350 Hwy 66, Longmont CO. Mr. Haren stated that they are
representing Hasbrouck Holdings, LLC, Jay Hasbrouk and his family. He said that they have requested
this Special Use Permit for 15,000 head of bison.
Mr. Haren commented that this case is definitely a unique design when compared to the designs that they
have for feedlots and dairies. This is a small size area for building a typical cattle feeding operation today.
It is on a large parcel of land because the bison are given double the amount needed. This is one of the
first feed yards specifically customized for this use.
The site consists of about 154 acres. The total contiguous land is about 204 acres.
Mr. Haren stated that this facility does not produce wastewater like a dairy facility. There is no processed
water; the only water they contain will be runoff from the regulatory required storm events.
On Section 22, the USR boundary is approximately the footprint of the site. It sits on a full quarter section
• and the ponds do sit back 50 feet with berms to screen the ponds from the road.
The access to the facility is on County Road 90. There is primarily one pond on this property. The long
legs are for either separating solids or where they are required to contain the runoff from their feed areas
3
as well.
• Mr. Haren commented that as Mr. Gathman had stated this site is historically an Agricultural area. He
showed the Planning Commission the areas of animal feeding operations with relation to the proposed
site.
Mr. Haren indicated that what they are required to do is show that this application is consistent with the
Comp Plan, the Ag Zone, existing surrounding uses and compatible with future development. In addition
to comply with any overlay districts, conserve prime farm land, and have adequate provisions for health,
safety, and welfare.
Mr. Haren stated that Sections 22-2-30 through 22-2-60 show the historical patterns of how agricultural
development or development in general has occurred in Weld County. However in Section 22-2-40.6 it
states that there is approximately 3000 operators of livestock, poultry, vegetable and grain farms in the
County. Mr. Haren commented that it reflects the importance of agriculture for the economics of the area
and that food is recognized as a universal necessity. In Section 22-240.C it states that Agriculture is an
important element in the County economy and he citied Section 22-2-30.A which states that Weld County
is the most productive County in the State and ranks in the top of the nation.
Mr. Haren pointed out that these Sections refer to consideration with an eye on quality but protection of the
County residences. In Section 22-50 C and D it states that supporting Agriculture includes protecting
Agriculture and protecting the welfare of the County. Mr. Haren commented that the County has sent this
application to all the necessary referral agencies and have received their comments back.
Mr. Haren commented that the County will develop policies to recognize the changing dynamics of
agricultural production such as the size and scope of these operations. He added that these operations
are getting more sophisticated and somewhat larger. He further added that supporting these will continue
to be a significant goal of the County while recognizing that conversion of ag lands to other uses will
• continue.
Mr. Haren stated that Ag Zone it is set aside for promoting Agriculture. It is intended to provide areas for
the conduct of agricultural activities without the interference of other incompatible land uses. He pointed
out that in the Zoning Code there is a long list of Uses by Special Review for the Ag Zone. He pointed out
that in the code livestock confinement operations are called out as a Use by Special Review. He
commented that livestock confinement operations are specifically called out so they can't be defined as
something else.
Mr Haren stated that one of the requirements that they have to prove is conservation of prime farm land.
He indicated that the Planning Staff has concurred that this site is not prime farm land but in providing a
value added agricultural operation they do support other agricultural uses that would help conservation of
prime farm land.
Mr. Haren said that every land use process must have provisions of protection of health, safety and
welfare. He pointed out that adequate protections of health, safety and welfare include but are not limited
to surface water, groundwater, water supply, septic and sanitation and the management plans for manure,
stormwater, air, odor, dust, flies, vectors, etc. He stated that water and water protection is probably the
single most important factor in the site design. He indicated that State and Federal laws have set the
design standards that require collection of all storm water for a 25 year/24 hour storm event or a 10
year/10 day storm even, whichever is greater, and in this case the 10 year/10 day is greater. He added
that for protection they catch everything that runs off. The pens themselves develop a hard pan which
create a barrier by the cattle compacting the ground and the manure so there is no leaching from the
corrals themselves. Mr. Haren commented that anything else that is not made of roads is going to be
covered in concrete. He added that the liners for the lagoons have to be designed to State and Federal
standards to protect groundwater and there is also setback requirements from groundwater which they
meet. The plans documenting this have been submitted and reviewed by Weld County Department of
• Public Health and Environment and are included in the packets which were sent to the Planning
Commission members.
4
Mr. Haren stated that the single main pond allows for one collection site. The other ponds are required for
• either settling solids or the feed area. It is designed as such that all the water is contained. The ponds
are designed to contain 30 acre feet from the 10 year/10 day storm but the storage capacity there is 52
acre feet which is almost twice the capacity required.
Mr. Haren stated that the water will be supplied by a North Weld County Water District tap. It is a 1-inch
tap and there is an agreement for an additional tap at full build-out. The three irrigation wells are under a
Lone Tree Irrigation Company augmentation plan and will be changed to mixed use.
Mr. Haren commented that a septic permit will be applied to service the office and scale house. They
have already performed the soil investigations to show that septic suitability exists.
Mr. Haren said that a big concern is the manure produced by these many animals and what they are going
to do about it. He stated that they have developed a Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan which
was submitted to staff and he indicated that they have reviewed it. Mr. Haren said that anything that goes
out on the ground from this feedlot has to be applied at an agronomic rate because that is what protects
the groundwater. It is a mandatory requirement by the State and they have to provide those records to
them. He reiterated that this whole process has been submitted to the Health Department for their review.
Mr. Haren stated that he realizes that odors are a concern and they have built that into the design from the
beginning. He commented that there are two different ways to manage odors. One is by design and the
other is through management. With the design they try to keep the pond shallow. When the ponds are at
around 10 feet the lagoons can become anaerobic and will off gas and produce some side effects. The
pond in which they are proposing is only 3 feet deep. Mr. Haren commented that they have 150 percent
capacity but it is designed shallow for odor control and for maintenance. Since they don't produce
wastewater they expect those ponds to be dry a considerable part of the time. The design and depth of
those ponds also allow them to mow and maintain the surface.
• Mr. Haren said that with regard to the management side of odor control, one of the big things is to keep
the manure out of the ponds to begin with. He added that when you get manure in the ponds you get
biologic activity and that gives off odor which is why they designed settling for easy cleaning. The other
management factor for odor control is keeping the water out of the ponds. Once it is collected it is land
applied.
Mr. Haren commented that is a constant battle managing odor from the pens. He added that dry pens can
be dusty; wet pens can have odor. He stated that they design it with proper drainage so they don't have
any standing water. He added that they can manage the moisture with the stocking rate of the animals
themselves and they can also have regular pen cleaning. Mr. Haren commented that typically on feedlots
they have 150-200 square feet per head, and this facility is designed for 400 square feet per head of
bison. Mr. Haren added that the application also requests for up to 28,000 head of cattle. He added that
there will be some cattle in the feedlot at times or some bison, but if the property ever changed it would be
permitted for cattle. They do have double the pen space for bison that they normally design for cattle
feedlots due to the particular habits of bison.
Mr. Haren said that feed types are really important on dust control. When you are in a finishing feedlot for
cattle you typically use a higher energy ration. It produces a finer manure, finer dust. He added that this is
still primarily a forage based ration. For bison, you will have free choice hay feeders. Mr. Haren noted
that they will use calcium chloride to keep the dust down on the roads. However, for the pens they
designed a full-scale pen sprinkler system for this facility.
Mr. Haren emphasized that cleanliness is the number one factor to controlling flies, mosquitoes, rodents
and birds. He indicated that they have also submitted a nuisance plan to the Health Department for their
review. He stated that they will keep the used feed cleaned up, the pens dry, eliminate standing water,
eliminate the habitat, mow, and spray. He stressed that housecleaning is the number method of vector
control,
• The main access is from County Road 90 which is paved all the way into the entrance of the facility. Mr.
Haren stated that they agree to any of the right-of-ways on that collector road and have set up the facility
5
• to have those right-of-ways. The average daily count from Public Works on August 25, 2008 was 251
vehicle trips per day which calculates up to about a vehicle every six minutes. Mr. Haren commented that
the request for a turn lane is something that has recently come up. He stated that the facility would
produce about 10 commodity trucks per day and about 10 employees at full build-out. (He noted that this
is a phased plan). He added that bison coming back and forth would be about 6 trips per day. Owners,
vendors, service providers, and other miscellaneous would add about 2-3 trips per day. Mr. Haren
indicated that they would like to request any improvements be subject to a traffic study or trigger because
their experience with regulations show that they have not yet achieved the traffic counts to trigger a turn
lane or an acceleration lane westbound off of County Road 90. They would agree to that if the limits that
are typical thresholds for traffic counts on roads of this type with this speed limit.
Mr. Haren concluded by saying that they feel they have covered all of the seven requirements that they
need to prove to get acceptance of this application. They are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
consistent with the intent of the district, consistent with surrounding uses and future development, overlay
district(staff has shown that this facility is not located within an overlay district), conserves prime farm land
and does have adequate provisions for health, safety, and welfare. He thanked the Planning
Commissioners for their time and added that he would be happy to answer any questions they might have.
Commissioner Ehrlich clarified that the depth of the pond was 3 feet. Mr. Haren stated that he was correct
and added that it is a 5-foot pond with a 3-foot working depth. They are required to have 2-feet of
freeboard by regulation.
Commissioner Ehrlich further clarified that 400 square feet is required per head of buffalo. Mr. Haren
replied that was correct. Mr. Ehrlich asked about the size of the pen. Mr. Haren commented that the pen
sizes range from small sorting pens or receiving pens up to 100 head pens. Those are all designed for
approximately 400 square feet per head. He added that with designing it you have to maintain a feed
bunk to pen space ratio so that the animals have the pen space required plus the ability to get to the feed.
• Commissioner Holton referred to one of the letters of objection included in their packets about a statement
of Brucellosis. He asked if the applicant has a management plan for this so that it will not be a danger.
Mr. Haren commented that two of the referrals, both the Extension Office and the USDA APHIS Office,
reviewed this application and did not find any concerns or had any conflicts with their application. He
stated that Colorado is a Brucellosis free state. He added that anything that comes in you need to have
vaccinations and health papers. The only prevalent area that Brucellosis is in the country is still around
the Yellowstone area, primarily coming from the wild herds or elk. Mr. Haren commented that the other
disease is typically from sheep to buffalo. Therefore any sheep in the neighborhood could impact the feed
yard but the buffalo would not impact the sheep.
Commissioner Holton commented that the Development Standards don't seem to match the application
request. He commented that Mr. Haren had mentioned having a combination of buffalo and cattle on site
at the same time. Mr. Haren stated that Mr. Holton was correct with stating that they are requesting a
combination of both animals. Mr. Holton pointed out Development Standard #25 and commented that if it
is converted from buffalo to cattle then they will have to come back in for staff review. Mr. Gathman
commented that it was his understanding that it was an either/or application. The original application
indicated it was buffalo or cattle or a combination thereof, but after further conversations with AgPro, it
was his understanding that it was going to be one or the other. Mr. Haren stated that his client is in the
bison business and it is designed as a bison feed yard. There would be too much pen space to have the
bunk space for a cattle feedlot. Mr. Haren stated that their client is a bison producer and that is how it was
presented to staff. Mr. Holton asked to clarify if they do plan to have a combination of buffalo and cattle.
Mr. Haren replied that it is a possibility.
Commissioner Holton referred to Mr. Haren's comment of 28,000 head and asked for him to clarify that as
it is stated in the application of up to 24,000 head. Mr. Haren apologized and stated that it is for 24,000
head.
• Commissioner Spitzer commented that Mr. Haren had alluded to the differences in design of this facility
for buffalo and asked what makes this design unique for buffalo. Mr. Haren commented that the safety
and security of this facility. This is designed for a bison facility where the fences are higher and are
6
• substantially heavier. The working areas are designed to work bison from outside the working areas.
Therefore those design considerations were all built in from the ground up as probably one of the first
custom-specific bison feed yards that he is aware of.
Commissioner Spitzer asked if it was automated-loading feed bunks. Mr. Haren said that on a bison feed
yard there are two ways. It would be provided by feed bunks through conventional feed trucks, and they
are also provided hay. There are forage feeders over the fence which is unique in this case as well. Pen
space, construction of the movement for the way bison act and react, the size and height of the fence, pen
density are all unique to a specific bison feed yard.
Commissioner Spitzer commented that Mr. Haren stated that there would be no water coming off of this
facility for the exception of stormwater. However Mr. Haren commented that the pens would be sprinkled.
Mr. Spitzer asked if there were any safeguards for extra runoff. Mr. Haren replied that he mentioned
earlier that it is a management act. Wet pens can produce odor and dry pens produce dust. He added
that you want to have moisture control on the pens, but you absolutely do not want to sprinkle pens to the
point of runoff as you are wasting water and you are creating wet pens which aren't good for the livestock
as well as creating an odor situation. He reiterated that it is a management act.
Commissioner Spitzer commented on the neighborhood meetings with Mr. Hasbrouck. He added that
some of the neighbors talked about the blood on flies and asked if this operation is in existence currently.
Mr. Haren stated that it is not and added that what they are referring to is a separate case on a separate
parcel. He clarified that it is a separate issue not related to this site.
Commissioner Berryman commented that the applicant may be stock piling manure from the pen
cleanings and is wondering where that will all get piled on the property. Mr. Haren responded that the
manure is in the pens until you remove it for land application. The pens themselves are where the manure
is kept for the year. He added that it will be hauled out once, possibly twice depending on the bedding and
the winter. The pens will get scraped and leveled and that material will be brought into a mound. When
•
they get to a certain size it will be brought out every year. There is not a specific manure stock pile area
that is designated; it will be hauled from the pens on a regular basis.
Commissioner Ochsner asked if there are any design standards through other regulatory agencies or
through building permit requirements that focus on the design of the corrals. Mr. Haren stated that for
animal health and safety and animal care and comfort, there are not agencies that have regulations, but
they do use a veterinarian from CSU. She is a known specialist in animal ethics and who is part of the
designing for handling facilities. He adds that his client also sells product to whole foods and other types
of natural good organizations. He further added that those clients will come and inspect both the
processing facilities and the animal facilities, their care, their humane function, the design. Mr. Haren
commented that there is quite a high focus on humane comfort and handling for these facilities. However,
to his knowledge there is not a regulatory standard.
Commissioner Ochsner asked about in their pond stormwater drainage if they have a pumping or
dewatering system for that pond or if is it by evaporation. Mr. Haren stated that there will be a backup
plan for pumping but it is designed primarily for evaporation
Commissioner Ochsner referred to the agreement from North Weld County Water District which appeared
to be a tentative agreement. Mr. Ochsner indicated that in the agreement the District commits to furnish
the bison feedlot a customary supply of potable water for a total of not more than 8,000 head of bison. He
asked if that agreement has changed. Mr. Haren stated that there should be another letter included in the
file. He said that with it being a two-phased plan, North Weld County Water District has provided a letter
for one tap for the first 8,000 head and upon continuation of the expansion to 15,000 head they would •
provide a second tap. Mr. Haren read from the letter of North Weld Water dated August 27, 2008
regarding the additional tap.
The Chair asked the Department of Public Works for any comments.
•
Don Dunker, Public Works, commented that County Road 90 is a paved collector road and is a main
east/west truck route between State Highways 85 and 14. April 2007 traffic counts indicate that there is
7
297 Average Daily Traffic(ADT)with the 85`h percentile speed of 68 mph and 26% truck traffic. August
•
25, 2008 traffic counts indicated there were 251 ADT and the 85th percentile speed was 69 mph and 35%
truck traffic. Mr. Dunker speculates that the road way will be used by British Petroleum as a haul route for
the next phase of wind turbines in the northeast portion of the county. Public Works is requiring a
westbound acceleration lane with a minimum length of 400 feet. CDOT would require 960 feet per their
access code, however due to the number of ADT Mr. Dunker said that they felt that 400 feet would be
enough as they could line their trucks up and then merge in safely and not take up both lanes when they
pulled out to the west. Also, since the posted speed limit is 55 mph the speed seems to be much greater
than that as shown. The applicant estimates approximately 60 trips per day, 32 of those which would be
livestock and commodity trucks. The access shall create an angle of 90 degrees to County Road 90 with
40 foot radiuses. A stop sign will be required to be placed at the access to stop site traffic before they
enter County Road 90. Public Works would request that if a spillway is designed for the pond that the
direction of the spillway be toward the animal pens and away from County Road 90 and adjacent
properties. The on-site drainage will be per CAFO requirements. Mr. Dunker referred to the additional
items in his memo for off-site drainage and all engineering calculations drawings submitted to PW shall be
stamped and signed by a registered engineer able to practice in the state of Colorado.
Commissioner Holton referred to the trigger for the acceleration lane mentioned by the applicant. He
asked Mr. Dunker for any suggestions with regard to that. Mr. Dunker stated that they would like to see it
from the start as they believe there is a health and safety issue with getting those big trucks to turn around
so they can merge safely with traffic.
Commissioner Holton mentioned that with the documented speeds it sounds like there should be a cop
out there. Mr. Dunker said that the speed is high, but the signs are posted at 55 mph.
Commissioner Ehrlich asked Mr. Dunker to clarify on what they are requesting for drainage. Mr. Dunker
replied that if there was an emergency spillway that it would go back to the pens and not toward County
Road 90.
•
The Chair asked the Health Department for their comments.
Troy Swain, Health Department, stated that they have reviewed the application materials and
recommended approval in their referral to the Planning Department. He added that the Health
Department provided some Development Standards. Mr. Swain requested to modify Development
Standard #6 to add to the end of the paragraph ", part 81.8". He commented that they are referring to
specific design standards for the wastewater impalement that are found in the CAFO regulations. The
reason they are pulling these out and refer to them is because CAFO covers cattle and not buffalo. The
application is to construct the pond so that it meets the CAFO requirements.
Commissioner Ochsner asked if the operation has to follow CAFO regulations even though it is a bison
operation. Mr. Swain replied that if the operation is only bison they have to follow the best management
practices portion of the regulation because buffalo is not a listed species. He added that there is no
separate standard for buffalo.
Commissioner Ocshner asked that if they approve it as a buffalo/cattle operation wouldn't it have to be
designed to standard. Mr. Swain replied that for their purposes it would need to be. However, the State
looks at the number of animals on the ground. He stated that if you never exceeded 1,000 head of cattle
you wouldn't have to meet any of the specific confined animal feeding operation rules. You would just
have to meet the best management practices. Mr. Swain stated that in essence if you are going to have
cattle it would be foolish to put in a pond and not meet the standard and that is why the applicant proposed
meeting the standard with the installation.
The Chair asked Mr. Haren if he wished to respond to any of the questions.
• Mr. Haren commented that Mr. Swain is correct and added that when they started designing this feedlot
they never caught that in the regulations and never thought of designing this any less than the CAFO
standards. Therefore when Mr. Swain brought it to their attention they stated that they would comply fully
with all the CAFO rules to the maximum extent.
8
• Commissioner Hall clarified that they are actually meeting or exceed the State requirements. Mr. Haren
indicated yes.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Karen King, 43950 CR 45,Ault CO. Ms. King stated that she lives directly across from the proposed feedlot
and more specifically the drainage pond. She is concerned because she has asthma and her bedroom
window is exactly 158 feet from the center of the road. Therefore, that would put where she is sleeping on a
regular basis within 250 feet of the proposed drainage pond. Ms. King referred to Mr. Haren's comments
about adequate health and safety and added that what may be adequate for 90%of the population very well
may not be adequate for her. She brought document from her Doctor's office that she does have asthma.
She expressed her concern about her ability to breathe. She heard the discussion of dust control but even
any small amount of dust could make it so where it is very difficult for her to breathe and if that occurs they are
about 20 miles from the nearest hospital and that could be disastrous if she had a really big asthma episode.
Ms. King expressed concern about containing the water if there is a runoff in that pond area. She indicated
that her property is lower than the property across the road so if there did happen to be a large amount of
water that was not able to be contained that refuse from the pond would end up in her living room and in Owl
Creek.
Ms. King also express another large concern over property values. She doesn't know of anybody who would
want to live 250 feet from a waste pond of a feedlot. She added that they are concerned that if her health
deteriorates to a point that they cannot live there that they will have a hard time finding anyone who would be
willing to buy the property.
Ms. King stated that her final concern was the disease that goes from sheep to buffalo. She referred to that
disease as Malignant Catarrhal Fever. The reason is it is important to her is that she has sheep. She looked
•
up some information about this disease from the Washington State University website and it is not known
exactly how it is transmitted but it is suggested that it can be an airborne disease and it can travel for several
miles. Ms. King indicated that Mr. Hasbrouck is aware of that and spoke to her husband about the possibility
of buying their sheep, of which they are not wanting to sell, but they don't want to be blamed for that in the
event that there is a concern that this disease goes from her sheep to their buffalo. Ms.King wished to submit
her information to the Planning Commission board.
Bruce Barker, County Attorney, left it up to the applicant if she wished to leave the information from the
Doctor's office. He noted that the representation that she made of having asthma is sufficient for the record.
Jim Reeman, 35710 CR 39. Mr. Reeman said that he is representing Dorothy Nelson and read a letter from
which she wrote "I object to the feedlot in this area. I have not received notification of any land use. My
property values will be adversely affected in Sections 2, 10, 11, 14, and 22. I am concerned about
contamination of Owl Creek and underground water."
Mr. Reeman commented that he is in a tough position as Mr. Hasbrouck is his second cousin and yet he is
very concerned about why the August 4`h meeting with the Commissioners was not put in this docket. He
added that Mr. Hasbrouck has been convicted three times of dumping blood illegally in the community. He
further added that Mr. Hasbrouck was given 30 days to clean up the blood and take it to an uncontaminated
area. Mr. Reeman indicated that Mr. Hasbrouck is now dumping it into his feedlot to be spread onto the
ground. He expressed his concern of health, safety and welfare and commented that there has been none.
Mr. Reeman stated that there has been so many past problems in that area because of the misuse of
priorities. He stated that in 1965 there was a flood that came down from Wyoming and came through Owl
Creek.
• Mr. Reeman reiterated that he was surprised that the August 4`h meeting documents are not included in here
because those requirements were supposed to be met before anything else was to happen.
Mr. Reeman presented two articles that were published this week regarding Brucellosis and read portions of
9
them to the Planning Commission.
•
Commissioner Grand asked staff about the August 4th meeting that Mr. Reeman mentioned. Mr. Gathman
stated that it is a separate issue from the application today. He added that it did involve the applicant but it is a
separate site and land use application. At this point there is not a hearing scheduled for that application.
Gary Simpson, 43910 CR 45, Ault CO. Mr. Simpson stated that his property is southwest of the site. He
commented that he is in a unique situation also as he has known Mr. Hasbrouck for many years. He added
that he has lived in this area for 71 years.
Mr. Simpson expressed concern over the lower property values. He added that it will be hard to sell their
property when it is adjacent to a lagoon which brings about odor and flies,etc. He lives in the country and has
had two Use Permits of his own. He has raised hogs and alligators for a time and commented that he is very
familiar with the regulations. He believes that as long as the applicant runs this operation right and they are
good custodians it would be fine. His concern is if they sell it, it could turn into a real problem.
Mr. Simpson commented that he is pretty experienced with water as he has served on Ditch Boards and
Water Boards for over 30 years and he is concerned about water contamination. Mr. Simpson commented
that he is not sure if those wells are capable of supplying enough sprinkler water to keep the dust down as the
capacity has been reduced because of the drought. He is also concerned that the water from the wells can be
used for industrial purposes. He thought that they were adjudicated as irrigation wells. Mr. Simpson attested
to the 1965 flood and that is was 3 feet deep and moving south at a pretty good rate of speed. The house that
Ms. King lived in was 2 feet deep in water.
Mr. Simpson expressed concern about the visibility to the west on County Road 90. He added that trucks
come off of there at a very high rate of speed. He commented that the property at the top of the hill was sold
to a State Patrolman who parks his car in his yard and it seems to help. Mr. Simpson reiterated that as long
as this property is designed and ran right it would be okay.
•
The Chair stated that they would accept further public testimony after a short recess at 2:54 p.m. The hearing
was reconvened at 3:05p.m.
Judy May,44033 CR 49. Ms. May stated that she is a cow/calf operator and is considered to have a confined
feeding operation. She has lived in the area her entire life. She commented that if the flood of 1965 were to
happen again the holding pond, where it is positioned, would have been completely washed out and would
have spread over a large area and would have contaminated. She recalled her parents talking about the area
being flooded prior to the flood of 1965. Ms. May asked the Commissioners to consider that as long as Jay is
in control of this it would not be a problem and added that if this operation ever changed hands it would be a
big problem.
Ms. May commented that she dealt with Brucellosis about 20 years ago. She worked very close with the State
Veterinarians office. She commented that they would not have gotten through that except that her herd of
cows was probably 99%vaccinated. After three years of struggling, they got out from under the quarantine.
She added that it is an insidious disease and can sneak up on you and be there before you can locate it. Ms.
May said that there is no way to vaccinate these buffalo females and if we have some coming in from areas
that we are not familiar with the chance of them breaking out and causing some problems is minor but is
possible. She commented that one of the major problems in Brucellosis is that you get abortions and there
are animals such as coyotes and stray dogs that can drag these abortions around. She indicated that they
never located the source of the disease when they were struggling with it. She asked the Commissioners to
consider this when making their decision.
Martha Killion, 21003 CR 90. Ms. Killion is '/] mile east of the intersection of County Roads 90 and 43. She
commented that notification did not go out to all of the surrounding property owners. The property owner
immediately to the west of the site did not receive notification. She noted that she has talked to the County
• Commissioners regarding the 500 feet limit and she indicated that they are trying to change that. There is one
adjacent property owner(King)with severe asthma. Ms.Killion pointed out that%mile south of her property is
a foster home with severe handicapped children. She commented that the foster father indicated that this
facility would cause severe problems for two of the children.
10
• Ms. Killion expressed her belief that the composting facility can be tied in with this application although that
application is not being considered because her animals were miserable this summer with the biting flies from
the blood that they were dumping illegally.
Ms. Killion stated that there was a fatality at the intersection of County Roads 90 and 43. She reiterated the
evidence from Public Works with regard to the speed limits on that road and expressed great concern for that.
Another concern she has is that this is a school bus route.
Ms. Killion commented that their property is located in the middle of the proposed super slab. She said that
after talking to the realtors in Wellington her property has decreased 10%because of that. She further stated
that now with this proposal it will decrease another 10%.
Ms. Killion commented that in addition to the traffic listed here, she heard that Mr. Hasbrouck will be running
tour busses in and out of the facility.
Ms. Killion noted that the 4 inch rain that they received a few weeks ago left standing water in the pond. She
added that feedlots stink the most after you wet down the facility and after rains(evidenced by the feedlot 2.5
miles to the west). Ms. Killion further added that the applicant will not be able to prevent dirt from blowing off
the property.
Ms. Killion asked about the notifications that were sent out with different sets of numbers for the bison and
cattle.
Phil Brink, Brink Inc. Mr. Brink stated that there have been concerns expressed regarding health, safety and
welfare about the proposed bison facility. He commented that he doesn't have anything to do with the bison
facility; however he has an Environmental Compliance Consulting Company which focuses on the livestock
industry. Mr. Brink said that Mr. Hasbrouck has called upon them from time to time over the years to help him
•
make sure that he is in compliance with the regulations. He wished to give some background facts on how
that has gone. In 1999, Mr. Hasbrouck hired his company to develop manure and waste management plans
and nuisance management plans for his two facilities. Mr. Brink testified to instances where Mr. Hasbrouck
has met or exceeded all of the requirements from the Health Department and the State and Federal Agencies.
Mr. Brink concluded that when Mr..Hasbrouck has learned of a change in the regulations he has been
proactive and he has taken action to make sure that he is fully compliant.
Teddy Reeman, 21678 CR 92. Ms. Reeman read from a letter she submitted to the Planning Department
which was included in the Planning Commissioners' packets.
Jack Reeman, 21678 CR 92. Mr. Reeman stated that Mr. Hasbrouck says that the compost facility has
nothing to do with the feedlot. However, he believes that Mr. Hasbrouck's character of taking care of it does
have something to do with it. He emphasized his request for the Planning Commissioners to look at what he
has pulled on the County as well as where the pile of manure came from. He noted that Mr. Hasbrouck has
no feedlot within 10 miles of this proposed site, however there is a large pile of manure stock piled on-site and
it does smell.
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing. He asked the applicant to come forward and answer some
concerns addressed by the public.
Mr. Haren commented that Ted Turner's name was mentioned. He clarified that Ted Turner has no ownership
stake or involvement in this property at all.
Mr. Haren commented that it brings up the question of ownership and what if the Hasbrouck's sell this
property. He asked the Commissioners to consider Mr. Hasbrouck's history and character. He further
commented that this is a land use process with regulations. With the rules that are set forth,the referrals and
the agencies that have been involved and those seven criteria included in the application, he asked if this
•
location is an appropriate location for a feedlot. They are at the edge of the area containing appropriate
infrastructure for this type of an operation. Mr. Haren feels that they have proven that this is an appropriate
land use and that they have adequately met the criteria set forth and that this location is suitable.
11
• Mr. Haren stated that they have requirements from the State and the County with regard to the floodplain. He
added that they cannot locate this facility nor any controlled structure in the 100 year floodplain. He pointed
out that the design and the conditions from the County show that this property is elevated so there is additional
protection and berms on the south side of the facility if anything should happen.
Mr. Haren gave a brief explanation with regard to the compost facility and the blood that was dumped illegally.
Mr. Hasbrouck had permitted bioresource land application sites for blood from his facility in Pierce. The issue
that is currently being worked out with the County is not the blood but a carbon source of which are wood
chips. Mr. Haren commented that they made some contacts and it was discussed about applying the blood
onto the wood chips when there was snow on the ground. He added that by bringing in that material,although
it is wood chips, falls under the solid waste regulations of the State of Colorado unbeknownst to his client's
contractor at the time. Mr. Haren stated that before this happened they had already submitted a full Class I
designated solid waste compost facility for the site in question. It is in process and it has the most stringent
controls of any composting classification. Mr. Haren re-emphasized that this is a separate property and does
not have anything to do with this application.
Mr. Haren commented that they have adequate plans to self support this facility for the manure. However if
you have a fully permitted Class I compost facility adjacent to this it makes sense to use the manure for that.
Mr. Haren said that he has received two referrals from the USDA APHIS and the Colorado State Extension
office with regard to Brucellosis and they both commented that they had no concerns about this application.
This is a terminal feedlot and these animals are for harvest. Most of the concerns expressed,especially about
the sheep,can be airborne and can travel from sheep to bison. He commented that his client,Mr. Hasbrouck
has evaluated that liability and has concluded that it is not a concern for him.
Mr. Haren said that with regard to traffic they can work on their entrance and work with Mr. Dunker to design a
radius. He still would like to have the board evaluate the necessity and add a trigger for the turning lanes. He
•
agreed that the speed limit is high out there and it is an enforcement/compliance issue but in his opinion the
traffic count is rather low. He gave a couple of examples of other large dairies along County Road 39 and
Highway 66 where the traffic counts are almost double or triple this and they were not required to have turning
lanes or they were assessed on some sort of trigger. He reiterated that he is willing to work something out
with Public Works on this.
Mr. Haren addressed the water wells. He clarified that the water taps are for the animals and the wells are for
the dust control.
Commissioner Hall commented that he doesn't know the diet or the feeding operation of the buffalo and asked
if he had any information with the differences between a bison feeding operation versus a cattle operation. Mr.
Haren replied that feedlots have a high concentration ration and they are trying to put both gain and fat on the
cattle. Dairies do have a higher forage ration but a very high volume ration as well. They tend to produce a
substantial amount of wetter manure. He would categorize bison a little differently in that they do have a high
forage ration. In feeding bison you are not fattening them or putting weight on them, you are trying to
standardize, sort and group them and get them consistent.
Commissioner Holton asked about an earlier comment regarding tour busses to this facility. Mr. Haren replied
that tour busses will not be of a substantial nature to consider including it in the traffic count. He added that
being one of the specific designed bison facilities we may get people who are interested and want to take a
look. He commented that they are working with livestock organizations and the National Bison Association in
Denver and if they have dignitaries or people from out of town, it will not be uncommon to get requests from
even CSU to bring a group of people through. We consider that a good thing for people to want to see a well
run facility.
Commissioner Holton referred to earlier comments about the stock pile of manure on this property and asked
• if that was part of the separate part of property that they are working on. Mr. Haren said that it is manure to be
land applied as soon as the silage comes off.
Commissioner Grand referenced a July 2, 2008 letter from the Division of Water Resources addressing the
12
irrigation question versus the application used for dust control. He commented that this letter did not indicate
•
that there has been any resolution of that. He asked if it would be unreasonable to expect a letter from the
Division of Water Resources that says that this application and use of that water fits the needs and
requirements of the permit associated with the property. Mr. Haren said that it would not be unreasonable for
the Board to ask for some surety on that. However, he recommended for his council to talk about comparative
cases and the process through Division I Water Court. Mr. Haren stated that anytime you look at changing the
use you go through water court and they look at augmentation and historical consumptive use. He added that
you are allowed to retain the historical consumptive use and not what would have been recharged or gone
back to the aquifer. Within that consumptive use,which typically is a reduction, the total historic capacity of
the well is what gets converted. He feels that their assessment is more than adequate water for the dust
control. He commented that they can either supply a letter to staff or prepare for the County Commissioners
to bring council and discuss the water use conversion process.
Commissioner Grand commented that some clarification that the consumptive use will be less than in the past
should further reduce concerns from the neighbors on the levels of their wells. Mr. Haren commented that he
can provide that and added that under the court process they cannot impact the water rights of anyone else's
wells.
Commissioner Ochsner asked about the earlier concerns with regard to the flood issue. He asked if Owl
Creek or Eaton Ditch were contacted or sent referrals for this application. Mr. Haren commented that they
have not had any conversations with them. Mr. Gathman added that referrals were not sent to Owl Creek or
Eaton Ditch. He clarified that typically they send a referral if the ditch is located on the property or directly
adjacent to the property.
Commissioner Ochsner asked Mr. Dunker if they are comfortable with the pond supporting the runoff. Mr.
Dunker said that he evaluates the off-site items and the on-site items are handled by the Health Department.
Mr. Swain stated that the applicant is going to divert clean water from coming across his site so he does not
have to provide storage for everyone in the neighborhood. He added that anything that falls on his site he will
•
be required to capture and hold that.
Commissioner Ochsner commented that he is confused about the separate compost facility that was brought
up. He asked Mr. Swain for further clarification. Mr. Swain commented that the adjacent facility is totally
separate and they are asking the applicant to provide a plan with adequate manure storage in the event this
other facility is not approved.
Mr. Haren added that they have had discussions on this issue with the Health Department and they did define
some pens that they would take out if the compost site was not approved. He showed them according to his
diagram that they would be located directly centered and above the large separation pond.
Commissioner Ehrlich asked what type of landscaping is being required. Mr. Haren stated that the
landscaping requirement around the pond is to berm it to an elevation that you cannot see into the pond from
a normal vehicle height. He added that they are also required to provide a detailed landscape plan for the
front and entrance of the property.
Commissioner Ehrlich inquired if there is a house located on this property. Mr. Haren stated that the area Mr.
Ehrlich is referring to is a feed commodity area. He added that there is an office and scale house located
there. He commented that there will be a reduced crew for after hours.
The Chair asked Mr. Haren if he had any Conditions of Approval or Development Standards that he would like
the board to reconsider. Mr. Haren commented that they would like to continue working with Public Works on
a safe solution for the turning lane.
Commissioner Holton asked Mr. Dunker how he felt about handling the acceleration and deceleration lane.
Mr. Dunker said that if they wanted to look at a trigger then they could do the design by the start and then have
• it installed by the 8,000 head of the confined feeding operation whether it is bison or cattle. Mr. Holton asked
him if he was comfortable with that. Mr. Dunker replied that he would rather see it from the start, however it
would be something that they could compromise on.
13
• Commissioner Hall suggested to have staff work it out. He commented that the traffic counts are not really
justified as they are at the minimum amounts on a paved road.
Commissioner Holton stated that he believes staff can work it out as they mentioned the possibility of
compromising with the applicant. However, he stressed that there needs to be some traffic control out there.
Commissioner Ochsner commented that the traffic count is a major trigger and relies on staff if they feel it is
needed at day one then he would put his confidence in staff's suggestions.
Since there was no further discussion on that issue, Commissioner Ochsner stated that the Planning
Commission is leaving it up to staff if they feel that it needs to be in place at the beginning or if they feel they
can compromise and phase it in as was mentioned.
The Chair noted the additional Conditions of Approval from Public Works and the addition to a Development
Standard for the Department of Health.
Tom Holton moved to add a new Condition of Approval 1.A.9 and 1.A.10 and renumber accordingly per staff •
recommendations, seconded by Robert Grand. Motion carried unanimously.
Roy Spitzer moved to amend Development Standard#6 as recommended by staff,seconded by Mark Lawley.
Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Gathman asked to add a condition with regard to the issue that Commissioner Grand brought up about the
well. He added that they did receive a referral from the Division of Water Resources and he would like to
insert a Condition of Approval reflecting that. Mr.Gathman requested adding a Condition of Approval L stating
"The applicant shall address the Division of Water Resources letter dated July 2, 2008 regarding the change
of use of well water from irrigation to other uses."
• Roy Spizer moved to add a new Condition of Approval L as stated by staff, seconded by Robert Grand.
Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Gathman also wished to clarify the issue of notification of surrounding property owners. He indicated that
the list was produced from the County Assessor's link from the website. He said that according to this
information the property owner immediately to the southwest of the facility is under Anne Leaf and David
Bacon and the address was 21515 County Road 90 which was included in the list and was sent a notification.
Commissioner Ochsner asked the members of the audience that if their information has changed to please
update that with Mr. Gathman at the end of the meeting.
Commissioner Holton pointed out that we need to resolve Development Standard #1 with regard to the
number of head per bison or cattle or combination thereof.
The Chair asked for clarification on this issue. Mr. Gathman stated that when the application was originally
received, the language in the application indicated a combination of which you could have up to 24,000 head
of cattle or 15,000 head of buffalo. In his conversations with AgPro they indicated that it would be either one
or the other. Mr. Gathmant stated that when the case was originally set up it did allow for the combination, but
after receiving clarification on that the applicant did provide an updated questionnaire that reflected that
change that it was one or the other. As it stands right now it is either 15,000 head of buffalo or 24,000 head of
cattle and not a combination.
Mr. Haren stated that Mr. Hasbrouck first came to him for a bison feed yard. However, as land use planners
they recommended that he include a dual purpose just from a planning standpoint. He indicated that they
would be fine with a total of 15,000 head bison or as a cattle feed yard and to restructure the conditions
appropriately to match that.
• Commissioner Holton clarified that Mr. Hasbrouck approves of having the Development Standards as stated
currently. Mr. Haren replied yes and added that in their original application it said bison or cattle. He added
that they would like to follow the basic intent and premise of the application. If there is a bison in a pen or a
cow in a pen he would ask staff to be.reasonable with that type of thing.
14
• Commissioner Ochsner commented that they want to understand this correctly so the applicant will not get
into trouble in the future. He understands right now that it is one or the other. Mr. Haren intended that there
be some practicality if there is bovine in the pen. However it was originally written as a bison feed yard. He
would be more than happy if the board would restructure the language for ease of staff and their purposes to
make a practical, reasonable combination. He stated that the design is specific to bunk space and pen space
and he added that they could provide some information to staff on what those are so that those limits are not
exceeded either by bunk space or pen space.
The Planning Commissioners asked Mr. Gathman how he understands it to be currently. Mr. Gathman
commented that he knew there was a limit on buffalo of which they couldn't exceed 15,000 head because they
do not have the room. He added that if you have a combination the buffalo numbers would have to go down.
He stated that it would be good to have some kind of a number as we are trying to set what the limits are.
Mr. Haren asked if they would be allowed to leave an open ended statement for staff and then they could
provide a chart of animal unit equivalences between buffalo and feed lot cattle both on a pen space and bunk
space basis.
Commissioner Grand commented that we are being very specific with Development Standard #1 and he
expressed that it would be appropriate to put some flexibility in that rather than leave it up to the
Commissioners to decide.
Commissioner Holton commented that if the applicant provides information to staff, then staff can make a
recommendation to the County Commissioners since we do not have the specific information on numbers at
this time.
The Chair asked the applicant if they read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
•
Robert Grand moved that Case USR-1661, 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; Paul Branham, absent; Erich Ehrlich,yes; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall,yes;Mark Lawley,yes;
Roy Spitzer, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair reminded the public that there is a Board of County Commissioners hearing on Wednesday,
September 17, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. where they will make the final decision.
The Chair asked if there was any new business to discuss. No one had any further business to discuss.
The Chair asked the public if there were other items of business that they would like to discuss. No one
wished to speak.
Meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
•
15
Hello