The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20082449.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION • RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Moved by Robert Grand,that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for: 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. be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons: 1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 23-2-260 of the Weld County Code. 2. It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the applicant has shown compliance with Section 23-2-220 of the Weld County Code as follows: a. Section 23-2-220.A.1 --The proposed use is consistent with Chapter 22 and any other applicable code provisions or ordinance in effect. Section 22-2-60 A.Policy 1.3 states "Allow commercial and industrial uses, which are directly related to, or dependent upon agriculture, to locate within the A(Agricultural)Zone District when the impact to surrounding properties is minimal, and where adequate services are currently available • and reasonably obtainable. Agricultural businesses and industries will be encouraged to locate in areas that minimize the removal of agricultural land from production." Sec. 22-4-190.a states: "Agricultural waste results from the raising of crops or animals, including animal manures, that are returned to the soils as fertilizer or soil conditioners. Improperly managed agricultural waste can impact public health. Agricultural waste must be managed and processed appropriately to protect human and environmental health." This use is proposed on vacant farm ground. Feedlots are agricultural related uses. The Department of Planning Services is requiring the wastewater pond and sediment basins be screened by berms and be located a minimum of 50-feet from edge of road right-of- way to provide buffering from the nearest residences (at the corner of County Roads 45 and 90). There is also a requirement that the applicant demonstrate how adjacent residences to the southeast will be protected from discharges from the waste water pond or relocate the pond to prevent discharges onto these properties. Additionally there is a requirement that any manure storage be located toward the center of the site to mitigate odor and dust impacts on neighboring properties. b. Section 23-2-220.A.2--The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the A(Agricultural) Zone District. Section 23-3-40 B.16 of the Weld County Code provides for livestock confinement operations as a Use by Special Review in the A(Agricultural)Zone District. c. Section 23-2-220.A.3--The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with the existing surrounding land uses. 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 EXHIBIT 2008-2449 r Resolution USR-1661 Hasbrouck Holdings, LLC Page 2 • 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% mile to the west of the site. One single family residence is located 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. The applicant will be required to 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. d. Section 23-2-220.A.4 -- The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with future development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zoning and with the future development as projected by Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code and any other applicable code provisions or ordinances in effect, or the adopted Master Plans of affected municipalities. The site is not located within the 3-mile referral area nor urban growth boundary of any municipality. e. Section 23-2-220.A.5--The application complies with Section 23-5 of the Weld County Code. The proposed facility site does not lie within the boundaries of any overlay district. • Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to adhere to the fee structure of the County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11) Effective August 1, 2005, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to adhere to the fee structure of the Capital Expansion Impact Fee and the Stormwater/Drainage Impact Fee. (Ordinance 2005-8 Section 5-8-40) f. Section 23-2-220.A.6--The applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort to conserve prime agricultural land in the locational decision for the proposed use.The proposed Use by Special Review will be located on that part of the property considered (Prime) according to the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Map, dated 1979. The use of the land will remain in an agriculturally related use. g. Section 23-2-220.A.7 -- The Design Standards (Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code), Operation Standards (Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code), Conditions of Approval and Development Standards ensure that there are adequate provisions for the protection of health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and County. This recommendation is based, in part, upon a review of the application materials submitted by the applicant, other relevant information regarding the request, and responses from referral entities. The Department of Planning Services met with the applicant on July 23,2008 to discuss the referrals received The Conditions of Approval outlined below are the remaining items that still need to be addressed. The Planning Commission recommendation for approval is conditional upon the following: • 1. Prior to recording the plat: A. The plat shall be amended to delineate the following: Resolution USR-1661 • Hasbrouck Holdings, LLC Page 3 1) All sheets of the plat shall be labeled USR-1661. (Department of Planning Services) 2) The plat shall be prepared in accordance with Section 23-2-260.D of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services) 3) The plat shall show the entire parcel and clearly delineate the area covered by this permit. (Department of Planning Services) 4) Oil and Gas drilling envelopes (if no surface use agreement or memorandum of understanding is reached or locations specified under the approved Surface Use Agreement). (Department of Planning Services) 5) All feed alleys shall be surfaced with gravel and shall be graded to prevent drainage problems. Indicate on the plat that there is adequate parking and circulation throughout the feedlot and office buildings. (Department of Public Works) 6) County Road 90 is a collector road that requires 80-feet of right-of-way at full build out.There is presently 60-feet of right-of-way. A total of 40-feet from the centerline of County Road 90 shall be designated as future road right-of-way for County Road 90. The applicant shall verify the existing right-of-way and the documents creating the right-of-way shall be noted on the plat. All setbacks shall be measured from the edge of future county road right-of-way. (Department of Public Works) • 7) The internal road(s)shall enter onto County Road 90 at a 90°angle,for a minimum of one vehicle length to provide adequate site distance in both directions.This shall be indicated on the plat. (Department of Public Works) 8) A stop sign shall be placed at the intersection of County Road 90 and the access into the USR facility to stop southbound traffic entering onto County Road 90.This shall be indicated on the plat. (Department of Public Works) 9) The offsite drainage shall be addressed as to quantity and manner(swale sizing and erosion stability)it will be routed through the site or around the site and address any impacts to adjacent properties and roadways. 10) All Engineering calculations and drawings submitted to Public Works shall be stamped and signed by a registered Engineer able to practice within the State of Colorado. 11) The approved landscape and screening plan. (Department of Planning Services) 12) Location of proposed lighting as outlined in the approved lighting plan.(Department of Planning Services) 13) The proposed wastewater pond is located directly across the intersection from County Roads 90 and 45 from two existing residences. This is a proposed new feedlot.The wastewater pond and sedimentation ponds shall be set back a minimum of 50-feet from the edge of future road right-of-way for County Road 90 and 50-feet from the eastern property line.The setback shall be from the toe of the slope of the wastewater pond.The wastewater pond should be bermed on the south and east to • screen neighboring residences. (Department of Planning Services) Resolution USR-1661 • Hasbrouck Holdings, LLC Page 4 14) The edge of the feedlot operation shall be set back a minimum of 50-feet from the edge of future road right-of-way for County Road 90. (Department of Planning Services) 15) Manure storage and/or composting areas shall be indicated on the plat to provide adequate storage for the facility at full build-out.These areas shall be located toward the center of the property to buffer from neighboring properties. (Department of Planning Services) B. The applicant shall either submit to the Weld County Department of Planning Services a copy of an agreement with the properties mineral owners/operators stipulating that the oil and gas activities have adequately been incorporated into the design of the site or show evidence that an adequate attempt has been made to mitigate the concerns of the mineral owners. Drill envelopes can be delineated on the plat in accordance with the State requirements as an attempt to mitigate concerns. The plat shall be amended to include any possible future drilling sites. (Department of Planning Services) C. A Lighting Plan, including cut sheets of the intended lights, shall be provided to the Department of Planning Services for review and approval. The lighting plan shall adhere to the lighting requirements for off-street parking spaces per Section 23-4-30.E of the Weld County Code and shall adhere to the lighting standards, in accordance with Section 23-3- 360.F and Section 23-2-250.D of the Weld County Code. Further,the approved Lighting Plan shall be delineated on the plat. (Department of Planning Services) • D. The applicant shall address the concerns and requirements of the Weld County Department of Public Works as outlined in their referral dated 7/23/2008 and in their e-mails dated 8/20/2008 at 11:56 AM and 8/20/2008 at 3:25 PM.Written evidence that these concerns have been addressed shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services.(Department of Planning Services) E. Just east of this property crossing CR-90 there is a waterway flowing southeast and then to the south of CR-88 this same waterway becomes a FEMA regulated floodplain. There are two residences located immediately to the southeast of the proposed wastewater pond in the vicinity of the waterway which could be immediately impacted by a discharge.The applicant shall: 1) Provide evidence that the waterway and adjacent residences are protected from a discharge. OR 2)Relocate the wastewater pond towards the center of the site to prevent discharges into the waterway to the east/southeast of the site. (Departments of Public Works & Planning Services) F. Demonstrate that the proposed impoundment meets setbacks to water wells and groundwater for new an expanded impoundments found in the groundwater protection requirements of Colorado Water Quality Control Commission Regulation Number 81 (5 CCR 1002-81). Evidence of such shall be provided to the Departments of Public Health and Environment and Planning Services. (Department of Public Health & Environment) • Resolution USR-1661 • Hasbrouck Holdings, LLC Page 5 G. Demonstrate that the facility has adequate manure storage in the event that off-site composting becomes unavailable or not economically feasible. The application materials state that manure produced will be composted or hauled off and provided to local farmers. No composting area or manure storage areas are designated on the site plan map. (Department of Public Health & Environment) H. The applicant shall submit a Landscape Plan/Screening Plan to the Department of Planning Services for review and approval. The applicant shall place "plant material" or other acceptable screening material to mitigate the impacts of the facility from adjacent properties to the southeast and west of the site. Further, the applicant shall adhere to all landscape requirements of Section 23-3-350.G.1 and Section 23-3-350.G.2 of the Weld County Code. Upon approval, the Landscape Plan shall be placed on the plat. (Department of Planning Services) The applicant shall submit a Private Improvements Agreement according to policy regarding collateral for improvements and post adequate collateral for landscaping and parking improvements. The applicant shall submit to the Department of Planning Services an itemized landscaping bid for review. The agreement and form of collateral shall be reviewed by County Staff and accepted by the Board of County Commissioners prior to recording the Use by Special Review plat. Or the applicant may submit evidence that all the work has been completed and approved by the Department of Planning Services and the Department of Public Works. (Department of Planning Services) J. The applicant shall submit a finalized Water Service Agreement between the applicant and • the North Weld County Water District for service to the site. (Department of Planning Services) K. If a sign is proposed, the applicant shall submit a detailed signage plan to the Department of Planning Services, including location and size. Signs shall be in compliance with Article VI, Division II and Appendices C through E of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services) L. 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. (Department of Planning Services) 2. Upon completion of 1.above the applicant shall submit a Mylar plat along with all other documentation required as Conditions of Approval.The Mylar plat shall be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder by Department of Planning Services' Staff. The plat shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 23-2-260.D of the Weld County Code. The Mylar plat and additional requirements shall be submitted within one-hundred eighty(180)days from the date of the Board of County Commissioners resolution. The applicant shall be responsible for paying the recording fee. (Department of Planning Services) 3. The Department of Planning Services respectively requests the surveyor provide a digital copy of this Use by Special Review. Acceptable CAD formats are .dwg, .dxf, and .dgn(Microstation); acceptable GIS formats are ArcView shapefiles,Arclnfo Coverages and Arclnfo Export files format type is .e00. The preferred format for Images is.tif(Group 4).(Group 6 is not acceptable). This digital file may be sent to mapsco.weld.co.us. (Department of Planning Services) 4. In accordance with Weld County Code Ordinance 2005-7 approved June 1,2005, should the plat not • be recorded within the required sixty(60)days from the date the Administrative Review was signed a $50.00 recording continuance charge may be added for each additional 3 month period.(Department of Planning Services) SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT • Hasbrouck LLC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS USR-1661 1. A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Livestock Confinement Operation (feedlot for 15,000 head of buffalo or 24,000 head of cattle) in the A(Agricultural) Zone District subject to the Development Standards stated hereon. (Department of Planning Services) 2. Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Section 23-8-10 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services) 3. The facility will operate during daylight hours. Equipment operations, trucks, farming activities and maintenance activities, other than emergencies, will occur during daylight hours. (Department of Planning Services) 4. The total number of on-site employees shall be limited to ten (10) as stated in the application materials. (Department of Planning Services) 5. The open lot wastewater impoundment described in the submitted application materials shall be constructed to contain the design storm event and the liner shall meet seepage rate requirements prior to the acceptance of waste water. (Department of Public Health & Environment) 6. The facility shall design, construct, operate, and maintain their open lot wastewater impoundments using the standards for new impoundments set forth in the groundwater protection requirements of Colorado Water Quality Control Commission Regulation Number 81, part 81.8 (5 CCR 1002- 81). (Department of Public Health & Environment) • 7. The facility shall operate in compliance with Colorado Water Quality Control Commission Regulation Number 81 and 61. (Department of Public Health & Environment) 8. There shall be no discharge of manure or wastewater to surface waters, unless allowed by Water Quality Control Commission Regulation Number 81 or by CAFO Colorado Discharge Permit issued under Regulation 61. (Department of Public Health & Environment) 9. Any land applications of manure and wastewater shall be made at agronomic rates using practices and procedures, which are protective of ground and surface waters. Land applications shall be in accordance with the facilities Manure and Wastewater Management Plan, Facility Management Plan, or Nutrient Management Plan. There shall be no discharge from land application areas except for agricultural stormwater. (Department of Public Health & Environment) 10. The facility shall be operated and maintained in a manner to prevent nuisance conditions and operated in accordance with their current approved Management Plan for Nuisance Control. (Department of Public Health & Environment) 11. The facility shall control fugitive dust on this site and operate in accordance with their current approved Management Plan for Nuisance Control. (Department of Public Health & Environment) 12. The facility shall be operated in a manner to control pests. The facility shall be operated in accordance, at all times, with their current approved Management Plan for Nuisance Control. Additional control measures shall be implemented at the request of the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment in the event that rodents (which can be determined to be associated with the facility)are in such a number to be considered a nuisance condition. (Department of Public Health & Environment) • Resolution USR-1661 Hasbrouck Holdings, LLC Page 7 • 13. The facility shall be operated in a manner to control flies. The facility shall be operated in accordance, at all times, with their current approved Management Plan for Nuisance Control. Additional fly control measures shall be implemented at the request of the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment in the event that flies (which can be determined to be associated with the facility) are in such a number to be considered a nuisance condition. Additional controls shall also be implemented in the event the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment receives a significant number of fly(associated with facility)complaints, and in the judgment of the Weld County Health Officer, there exists a fly condition requiring abatement. (Department of Public Health & Environment) 14. The facility shall be operated in accordance with the approved nuisance control plan. Odors detected off site shall not equal or exceed the level of fifteen-to-one dilution threshold, as measured using methods set forth in Regulation 2 of the Colorado Air Pollution Control Regulations. Additional controls shall be implemented at the request of the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment in the event odor levels detected off site of the facility meet or exceed the level of fifteen-to-one dilution threshold, or in the judgment of the Weld County Health Officer, there exists an odor condition requiring abatement. (Department of Public Health & Environment) 15. The applicant shall remove, handle, and stockpile manure from the livestock area in a manner that will prevent nuisance conditions. The manure piles shall not be allowed to exist or deteriorate to a condition that facilitates excessive odors, flies, insect pests, or pollutant runoff. The surface beneath the manure storage areas shall be of materials which are protective of State waters. These areas shall be constructed to minimize seepage or percolation of manure contaminated • water. In no event shall the facility impact or degrade waters of the State in violation of Colorado Water Quality Control Commission Regulation Number 81. (Department of Public Health & Environment) 16. Any individual sewage disposal system (I.S.D.S.)on the property shall be permitted, installed, maintained, and operated in compliance with Weld County I.S.D.S. Regulations. (Department of Public Health & Environment) 17. The facility shall operate in compliance with applicable Colorado Air Quality Control Commission Regulations. There shall be no open burning except"agricultural open burning" as defined by Colorado Air Quality Control Commission's Regulation 9. (Department of Public Health & Environment) 18. There shall be no permanent disposal of solid wastes, as defined in the Regulations Pertaining to Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities (6 CCR 1007-2), at this site. This is not meant to include those wastes specifically excluded from the definition of a solid waste in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, 30-20-100.5, C.R.S., as amended. (Department of Public Health & Environment) 19. Waste materials, not specifically addressed by other development standards, shall be handled, stored, and disposed in a manner that controls fugitive dust, blowing debris, and other potential nuisance conditions. (Department of Public Health & Environment) 20. The facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the Light Industrial Zone as delineated in Section 25-12-103 C.R.S, as amended. (Department of Public Health & Environment) • 21. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of the Underground and Above Ground Storage Tank Regulations (7 CCR 1101-14). (Department of Public Health & Environment) Resolution USR-1661 Hasbrouck Holdings, LLC Page 8 • 22. Adequate drinking water, hand washing, and toilet facilities shall be provided for employees and patrons of the facility. (Department of Public Health & Environment) 23. If required, a stormwater discharge permit shall be obtained from the Colorado Water Quality Control Division for construction activities. (Department of Public Health & Environment) 24. The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of State and Federal agencies and the Weld County Code. (Department of Public Health & Environment) 25. Should this facility be converted from 15,000 head of buffalo to 24,000 head of cattle, Evidence of adequate water shall be provided to the Department of Planning Services prior to the conversion. (Department of Planning Services) 26. Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to adhere to the fee structure of the County Road Impact Program.(Ordinance 2002-11) (Department of Planning Services) 28. Effective August 1, 2005, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to adhere to the fee structure of the Capital Expansion Impact Fee and the Stormwater/Drainage Impact Fee. (Ordinance 2005-8 Section 5-8-40) (Department of Planning Services) 29. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services) 30. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services) • 31. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Livestock confinement operations Operation Standards of Section 23-4-350 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services) 32. Weld County personnel shall be granted access onto the property at any reasonable time in order to ensure the activities carried out on the property comply with the Development Standards stated herein and all applicable Weld County regulations. (Department of Planning Services) 33. The Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shown hereon and governed by the foregoing standards and all applicable Weld County regulations. Substantial changes from the plans or Development Standards as shown or stated shall require the approval of an amendment of the Permit by the Weld County Board of County Commissioners before such changes from the plans or Development Standards are permitted. Any other changes shall be filed in the office of the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services) 34. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing Development Standards. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Development Standards may be reason for revocation of the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners. (Department of Planning Services) 35. The property owner or operator shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of State and Federal agencies, including but not limited to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission rules and regulations, and the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services) Motion seconded by Tom Holton. • Resolution USR-1661 Hasbrouck Holdings, LLC Page 9 • VOTE: For Passage Against Passage Absent Robert Grand Bill Hall Tom Holton Doug Ochsner Erich Ehrlich Roy Spitzer Paul Branham Mark Lawley Nick Berryman The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings. CERTIFICATION OF COPY I, Kristine Ranslem, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission,do hereby certify that the above and foregoing resolution is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County, Colorado, adopted on September 2, 2008. • Dated the 2n°of September, 2008. Kristine Ranslem Secretary • q- - 2008 — 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 'A mile to the west of the site. One single family residence is located Y 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 11 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.B 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 85th 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 4th 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 1/2 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'A 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 staffs 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