HomeMy WebLinkAbout20081294.tiff RESOLUTION OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Moved by Bill Hall that the following resolution be introduced for denial by the Weld County
• Planning Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the
application for:
CASE NUMBER: AMUSR-686
APPLICANT: Martin & Johanna Bangma 1989 Trust & Rocky Mountain Fuel
Company, represented by Mile High Dairy LLC.
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A parcel being part of the E2 and Lot B of RE-525, also being
part of the E2 of Section 17, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a
Livestock Confinement Operation (1,940 head dairy including
milking cows, dry cows, heifers, and calves) and one single
family dwelling unit per lot other than those permitted under
Section 23-3-20.A of the Weld County Code (two single family
employee homes) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 5 and north of and adjacent to CR
32.
SIZE: 183 +/-acres total - USR Boundary 60 +/- acres, more or less.
had no recommendation for approval or denial to the Board of County Commissioners.
The Department of Planning Services'Staff recommends that this request be denied 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 Department of Planning Services' staff that the applicant has not 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 22-5-30 for Wildlife Goals and Policies 3.W.Policy 1.3 states:"The County will identify
and attempt to protect critical or unique habitat areas of high public value,such as habitats of
endangered or unique species, significant viewing areas and breeding and spawning
areas."The Division of Wildlife, in their referral dated January 30,2008,states,"According to
the Colorado Division of Wildlife Natural Diversity Information Source Maps for Weld County,
this general area provides winter range for bald eagles,foraging areas and winter range and
winter concentration areas for ducks and geese,and is within the overall range for pheasant
and mule deer and white tailed deer. Raptors and songbirds have also been observed in the
area. In addition, a check with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as to the Preble's Meadow
Jumping Mouse may be appropriate for any development what would possible occur near
wetlands associating with the property. A row of cottonwood trees is located on the southern
edge of the property. A raptor surveyor may be warranted to determine utilization of the area
and potential impact to raptors if disturbance is expected. Native trees and downed or dead
wood on the property should be left in place for continued benefits to wildlife." They proceed
to state "Water quality may be impacted and any storage ponds should be built and
maintained to minimize impact to wildlife. Screening structure and water quality monitoring
and other measure may be necessary. Close coordination with the Colorado Division of
Wildlife may assist in minimizing impacts to wildlife while maintaining quality water resources
in the area."The Division of Wildlife also states that any heavy equipment that may come in
contact with any water resources in the area: if heavy equipment is acquired that was
previously working in another stream, river, lake, pond, or wetland within 10 days of working
. on this project a disinfection practice is necessary to prevent the spread of New Zealand Mud
EXHIBIT
I2008-1294
AnUSQ #IFS(o
Resolution AMUSR-686
Martin & Johanna Bangma 1989 Trust& Rocky Mountain Fuel Company
Page 2
• Snails and other aquatic hitchhikers into this drainage.
The Weld County Code allows for four(4)cattle per acre. The site is one hundred and eighty
three acres(183)which would allow for seven hundred and thirty two(732)cattle as a use by
right in the Agricultural Zone District. The applicant is proposing one thousand nine hundred
and forty(1940) cattle on the site.
The Department of Planning Services has determined from the referral from the Colorado
Division of Wildlife that there is a need to protect critical or unique habitat areas of high public
value, such as habitats of endangered or unique species in the area.
B. 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 zoned agricultural. The Town of Mead is located
approximately 1/8 mile to the south. SUP-334 for a reservoir is located approximately 1/2 mile
north of the site. USR-1419 for the parking of carnival equipment is located approximately
1/8 mile north of the site. USR-1421 for a single family dwelling is located approximately%:
mile west of the site. There are eighteen (18) property owners located within five hundred
feet (500') of the site. At this time, the Department of Planning Services has received
fourteen (14)letters. Two(2)of the letters are in support of the proposal. Twelve(12)letters
are opposed to the proposal. Two of the letters from the same individual recommend that the
dairy invest in an anaerobic digester for the manure which would reduce the odor, eliminate
the needs for settling ponds and could even be used to generate electricity to power some of
the operation. A majority of the letters opposed to the operation focused on the problems
• with the existing site including flies, odor, truck traffic and the reduction of property values.
The surrounding property owners are concerned that if the site is allowed to expand the
existing issues will get worse and that the expansion of the use will not be compatible with the
surrounding property. One letter outlines that the site is located in an area that is in the
planned growth areas for the Town of Mead and the City of Longmont. The letter also states
that the expansion of the dairy is inconsistent the Town of Meads growth plan.
Property owners have expressed concerns not only with the expansion of the facility but the
existing facility. Staff believes that the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards
will not be able to ensure that the use will be compatible with existing surrounding land uses.
C. 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.
Section 22-2-110.C.1.c UGB.Policy 3.1.3 states "The proposed use attempts to be
compatible with the adjacent municipality's comprehensive plan.
The property is within the three (3) mile referral area for the Town of Mead and the City of
Longmont along with Boulder County. The City of Longmont in their referral dated January
23, 2008 state that they have reviewed the request and find no conflict with their interests.
No comments were received from Boulder County. The Town of Mead in their referral dated
January 23, 2008 state the site is located in the Mead Planning Area and is designated as
medium to low density residential (1.1 to 2.0 dwelling units per acre). The Town of Mead
request that the applicant consider annexing into the Town. The Town of Mead also requests
• that if this application is approved that the accesses to the site be reviewed,that the manure
and waste disposal on site be handled appropriately including clear and enforceable
standards, that the landscaping on site needs to be increased to assist in screening, and
Resolution AMUSR-686
Martin &Johanna Bangma 1989 Trust& Rocky Mountain Fuel Company
Page 3
• finally that a lighted sign is not in keeping with the character of the area. The applicant is
proposing a twenty four(24)square foot illuminated sign on the property. The Weld County
Code allows for a sixteen (16)square foot sign in the agricultural zone district(Appendix 23-
D).
The Department of Planning Services has determined that the future growth projected for this
region as outlined in the referral from the Town of Mead is not compatible with the proposed
expansion of the facility from 900 head to 1940 head. The Department of Planning Services
also has determined that the proposed size of the sign (twenty four (24) square foot) is
compatible on the property but does not support the sign being internally illuminated.
D. Section 23-2-220.A.7—There is adequate provisions for the protection of health,safety,and
welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and County.
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 cannot
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.
Should the Planning Commission approve this request, the Department of Planning Services recommends
that the following conditions of approval and development standards be attached:
1. Prior to recording the plat:
•
A. The applicant shall submit a Landscape and Screening Plan to the Department of Planning
Services for review and approval. At a minimum staff is recommending that the facility be
screened on all sides except for the far western edge. The applicant shall place plant
material and/or screening to mitigate the impacts of the facility. The plant material and/or
screening shall be placed between the road right-of-way and adjacent properties. Upon
approval,the Landscape Plan shall be placed on the plat. (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.
(Department of Planning Services)
C. The applicant shall address the requirements of the Little Thompson Water District,as stated
in the referral response dated January 14,2008. Written evidence of such shall be submitted
in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning
Services)
D. The applicant shall address the requirements of the Mountain View Fire Protection District,as
stated in the referral response dated January 17, 2008. Written evidence of such shall be
submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of
Planning Services)
E. The applicant shall address the requirements of the Department of Planning Services
Landscape referral as stated in the response dated January 14, 2008. Written evidence of
• such shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services.
(Department of Planning Services)
Resolution AMUSR-686
Martin & Johanna Bangma 1989 Trust& Rocky Mountain Fuel Company
Page 4
• F. The applicant shall address the requirements of the Department of Building Inspection, as
stated in the referral response dated January 31, 2008. Written evidence of such shall be
submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of
Planning Services)
G. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements of the Town of Mead, as stated in
the referral response dated February 4,2008. Written evidence of such shall be submitted in
writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning
Services)
H. The application shall attempt to address the requirements of the Longmont Soil Conservation
District,as stated in the referral response dated February 5,2008. Written evidence of such
shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services.
(Department of Planning Services)
The applicant shall address the requirements of the Department of Public Works,as stated in
the referral response dated February 8,2008. Written evidence of such shall be submitted in
writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning
Services)
J. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements of the State of Colorado, Division of
Wildlife,as stated in the referral response dated January 30,2008. Written evidence of such
shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services.
(Department of Planning Services)
K. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements of the Sheriffs Office, as stated in
•
the referral response dated February 22,2008. Written evidence of such shall be submitted
in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning
Services)
L. The applicant shall submit a Private Improvements Agreement according to policy regarding
collateral for improvements and post adequate collateral for all landscaping, transportation
(access drive, parking areas,etc)and non-transportation(plant materials,fencing,screening,
water, signage etc). 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
Amended 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)
M. Provide documentation, prepared by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer, that all
wastewater impoundments for the confined animal feeding operation (CAFO) will meet
seepage rate standards of Colorado Water Quality Control Commission Regulation 81
[81.5(2)]. Evidence of approval by the Department of Public Health and Environment shall be
provided to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
N. Provide evidence that a Standard Operating Procedure for sludge and manure removal
(cleaning of impoundments to maintain capacity) has been submitted for approval to the
Colorado Water Quality Control Division required by Colorado Water Quality Control
Commission Regulation Number 81 [81.5 (3)]. Evidence of approval by the Department of
Public Health and Environment shall be provided to the Department of Planning Services.
• (Department of Public Health and Environment)
Resolution AMUSR-686
Martin & Johanna Bangma 1989 Trust& Rocky Mountain Fuel Company
Page 5
• O. Demonstrate that wastewater impoundments meet required setbacks to water wells and
groundwater required by Colorado Water Quality Control Commission Regulation Number
81.[81.5 (6)]. Evidence of approval by the Department of Public Health and Environment
shall be provided to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
P. Provide evidence that a CAFO Colorado Discharge Permit has been applied for or obtained
from the Colorado Water Quality Control Division. Evidence of approval by the Department of
Public Health and Environment shall be provided to the Department of Planning Services.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
Q. If septic permit G19810123 is abandoned it shall be abandoned in accordance with Section
30-7-70 of the Weld County Code pertaining to individual sewage disposal systems. In the
event the applicant intends to utilize the existing septic system, the septic system shall be
reviewed by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer. The review shall consist of
observation of the system and a technical review describing the systems ability to handle the
proposed hydraulic load.The review shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Services
Division of the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment. In the event the
system is found to be inadequately sized or constructed the system shall be brought into
compliance with current Regulations. Evidence of approval by the Department of Public
Health and Environment shall be provided to the Department of Planning Services.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
R. If the uses are changed for septic permits G19810124, G19860257 and G19850030, the
permits shall be evaluated by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer to ensure
• compliance with the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations. Evidence of
approval by the Department of Public Health and Environment shall be provided to the
Department of Planning Services. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
S. The applicant shall submit two (2) paper copies of the plat for preliminary approval to the
Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
T. The applicant shall provide a geo-technical study demonstrating definition of the groundwater
table of the site and the pond area. (Department of Public Works)
U. The plat shall be amended to delineate the following:
1. All sheets of the plat shall be labeled AMUSR-686. (Department of Planning
Services)
2. The attached Development Standards. (Department of Planning Services)
3. The Amended USR boundary shall be a solid heavy line. (Department of Planning
Services)
4. The approved access points to the proposed facility. (Department of Planning
Services)
5. County Road 5 is designated on the Weld County Road Classification Plan as a
collector road, which requires 80 feet of right-of-way at full build out. There is
presently 60 feet of right-of-way.The applicant shall verify and delineate on the plat
the existing and future right-of-way and the documents creating the right-of-way.
• (Department of Public Works)
Resolution AMUSR-686
Martin & Johanna Bangma 1989 Trust& Rocky Mountain Fuel Company
Page 6
• 6. The approved Lighting Plan. (Department of Planning Services)
7. The approved Landscape and Screening Plan. (Department of Planning Services)
8. The approved sign. (Department of Planning Services)
9. The plat shall be prepared in accordance with Section 23-2-260.D of the Weld
County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
10. The applicant shall delineate all drain tiles with easements within the site on the plat
map. (Department of Public Works)
3. Prior to the Issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the new milking parlor:
A. An individual sewage disposal system is required for the proposed facility and shall be
installed according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
4. Upon completion of 1. and 2. 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 thirty(30)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)
• 5. In accordance with Weld County Code Ordinance 2006-7 approved June 1,2006, should the plat not
be recorded within the required thirty (30) days from the date the Board of County Commissioners
resolution a $50.00 recording continuance charge shall added for each additional 3 month period.
6. The Department of Planning Services respectively requests the surveyor provide a digital copy of this
Amended Use by Special Review. Acceptable CAD formats are .dwg, .dxf, and .dgn (Microstation);
acceptable GIS formats are Arc View shape files,Arc Info Coverages and Arc Info 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)
7. The Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on the
property until the Special Review plat is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk
and Recorder. (Department of Planning Services)
•
SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Mile High Dairy LLC
•
AMUSR-686
1. The Amended Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit is for a Livestock
Confinement Operation (1,940 head dairy including milking cows,dry cows,heifers,and calves)and
one single family dwelling unit per lot other than those permitted under Section 23-3-20.A of the Weld
County Code(two single family employee homes) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District and 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 number of employees shall be limited to twenty(20). (Department of Planning Services)
4. The hours of operation are 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. Equipment operations, trucks,
farming activities and maintenance activities, other than emergencies, will occur primarily during
daylight hours as stated in the application materials. (Department of Planning Services)
5. The facility shall operate in compliance with Colorado Water Quality Control Commission Regulation
Number 81. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
6. The facility shall maintain CAFO Colorado Discharge Permit coverage and operate in compliance with
Colorado Water Quality Control Commission Regulation Number 61. There shall be no discharge of
manure or process wastewater,except as provided in the facilities CAFO Colorado Discharge Permit.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
7. Manure and process wastewater shall be applied at agronomic rates and in accordance with the
• Nutrient Management Plan or Manure&Wastewater Management Plan. There shall be no discharge
from land application areas except for agricultural storm water. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
8. The facility shall be operated and maintained in a manner to prevent nuisance conditions and operate
in accordance with the Management Plan for Nuisance Control Submitted with the application
materials. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
9. The facility shall control fugitive dust on this site and operate in accordance with their current
approved Management Plan for Nuisance Control. The facility shall be operated in accordance,at all
times, with their current approved Management Plan for Nuisance Control. (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
10. 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 and Environment)
11. 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 and
Environment)
Resolution AMUSR-686
Martin & Johanna Bangma 1989 Trust& Rocky Mountain Fuel Company
Page 8
12. The facility shall be operated in a manner to control odors. The facility shall be operated in
accordance,at all times,with their current approved Management Plan for Nuisance Control. 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 and Environment)
13. 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 and Environment)
14. Any 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 and Environment)
15. 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 and
Environment)
• 16. 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 and Environment)
17. 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 and
Environment)
18. 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 and Environment)
19. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of the Underground and Above Ground Storage
Tank Regulations (7 CCR 1101-14). (Department of Public Health and Environment)
20. Adequate hand washing and toilet facilities shall be provided for employees and patrons of the
facility. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
21. If applicable, the applicant shall obtain a Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment,Water Quality Control Division.(Department of Public
Health and Environment)
22. Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the lot will be required to adhere to the fee
structure of the Weld County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11)(Department of Planning
• Services)
Resolution AMUSR-686
Martin &Johanna Bangma 1989 Trust& Rocky Mountain Fuel Company
Page 9
23. Effective August 1,2005, Building permits issued on the subject site will be required to adhere to the
fee structure of the Capital Expansion Impact Fee and the Storm water/Drainage Impact Fee.
(Ordinance 2005-8 Section 5-8-40) (Department of Planning Services)
24. The property owner shall allow any mineral owner the right of ingress or egress for the purposes of
exploration development, completion, and recompletion, re-entry, production and maintenance
operations associated with existing or future operations located on these lands. (Department of
Planning Services)
25. The applicant shall adhere to the approved Lighting Plan. (Department of Planning Services)
26. The applicant shall adhere to the approved Landscape and Screening Plan. (Department of Planning
Services)
27. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of
Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code.
28. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of
Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code.
29. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Supplementary
Regulations regarding Livestock Confinement Operations (Section 23-4-350, Weld County Code).
30. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Miscellaneous Regulations
regarding Livestock Feeding Performance standards (Section 23-4-710, Weld County Code).
• 31. Building permits shall be obtained prior to the construction of any building. Buildings that meet the
definition of an Ag Exempt Building per the requirements of Section 29-1-20 and Section 29-3-20.6.13
of the Weld County Code do not need building permits, however,a Certificate of Compliance must be
filed with the Planning Department and an electrical and/or plumbing permit is required for any
electrical service to the building or water for watering or washing of livestock or poultry.(Department
of Building Inspection)
32. A plan review is required for each building for which a building permit is required. Plans shall include
a floor plan. Plans shall bear the wet stamp of a Colorado registered architect or engineer. Two
complete sets of plans are required when applying for each permit. Include a Code Analysis Data
sheet provided by the Weld County Building Department with each Building permits application.
(Department of Building Inspection)
33. Buildings shall conform to the requirements of the various codes adopted at the time of permit
application. Currently the following has been adopted by Weld County: 2003 International Building
Code; 2003 International Mechanical Code; 2003 International Plumbing Code; 2003 International
Fuel Gas Code; and the 2005 National Electrical Code and Chapter 29 of the Weld County Code.
(Department of Building Inspection)
34. All buildings used by the public, including the bathrooms shall be accessible to persons with
disabilities. Plans should include detailed drawings showing the exiting and how accessibility will be
maintained through out the facility. Fire resistance of walls and openings,construction requirements,
maximum building height and allowable areas will be reviewed at the plan review.Setback and offset
distances shall be determined by the Weld County Code (Department of Building Inspection)
35. Building height shall be measured in accordance with the 2003 International Building Code for the
• purpose of determining the maximum building size and height for various uses and types of
construction and to determine compliance with the Bulk Requirements from Chapter 23 of the Weld
County Code. Building height shall be measured in accordance with Chapter 23 of the Weld County
Resolution AMUSR-686
Martin & Johanna Bangma 1989 Trust& Rocky Mountain Fuel Company
• Page 10
Code in order to determine compliance with offset and setback requirements. When measuring
buildings to determine offset and setback requirements, buildings are measured to the farthest
projection from the building. Property lines shall be clearly identified and all property pins shall be
staked prior to the first site inspection. (Department of Building Inspection)
36. All building plans shall be submitted to Mountain View Fire Protection District for review and approval
prior to issue of Building Permits. (Department of Building Inspection)
37. The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the State and Federal agencies
and the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
38. Personnel from the Weld County Government 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.
39. 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.
40. 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.
41. No land applications shall occur during holidays or periods if high wind. (Department of Planning
Services)
42. WELD COUNTY'S RIGHT TO FARM: Weld County is one of the most productive agricultural
counties in the United States, ranking fifth in total market value of agricultural products sold. The rural
areas of Weld County may be open and spacious, but they are intensively used for agriculture.
Persons moving into a rural area must recognize and accept there are drawbacks, including conflicts
with longstanding agricultural practices and a lower level of services than in town. Along with the
drawbacks come the incentives which attract urban dwellers to relocate to rural area: open views,
spaciousness, wildlife, lack of city noise and congestion, and the rural atmosphere and way of life.
Without neighboring farms, those features which attract urban dwellers to rural Weld County would
quickly be gone forever.
Agricultural users of the land should not be expected to change their long-established agricultural
practices to accommodate the intrusions of urban users into a rural area. Well run agricultural
activities will generate off-site impacts, including noise from tractors and equipment; slow-moving
farm vehicles on rural roads;dust from animal pens,field work,harvest,and gravel roads;odor from
animal confinement,silage,and manure;smoke from ditch burning;flies and mosquitoes;and the use
of pesticides and fertilizers in the fields, including the use of aerial spraying. Ditches and reservoirs
cannot simply be moved out of the way of residential development without threatening the efficient
delivery of irrigation to fields which is essential to farm production.
Section 35-3.5-102, C. R. S., provides that an agricultural operation shall not be found to be a public
or private nuisance if the agricultural operation alleged to be a nuisance employs methods or
practices that are commonly or reasonably associated with agricultural production.
• Weld County covers a land area of over 4,000 square miles in size(twice the State of Delaware)with
more than 3,700 miles of State and County roads outside of municipalities. The sheer magnitude of
the area to be served stretches available resources. Law enforcement is based on responses to
Resolution AMUSR-686
Martin &Johanna Bangma 1989 Trust& Rocky Mountain Fuel Company
Page 11
• complaints more than on patrols of the county and the distances which must be traveled may delay all
emergency responses, including law enforcement, ambulance, and fire. Fire protection is usually
provided by volunteers who must leave their jobs and families to respond to emergencies. County
gravel roads,no matter how often they are bladed,will not provide the same kind of surface expected
from a paved road. Snow removal priorities mean that roads from subdivisions to arterials may not be
cleared for several days after a major snowstorm. Snow removal for roads within subdivisions are of
the lowest priority for public works or may be the private responsibility of the homeowners. Services
in rural areas, in many cases, will not be equivalent to municipal services. Rural dwellers must, by
necessity, be more self-sufficient than urban dwellers.
Children are exposed to different hazards in the county than in an urban or suburban setting. Farm
equipment and oil field equipment,ponds and irrigation ditches,electrical power for pumps and center
pivot operations, high speed traffic, sand burs, puncture vines, territorial farm dogs, and livestock
present real threats to children. Controlling children's activities is important, not only for their safety,
but also for the protection of the farmer's livelihood. Parents are responsible for their children.
Motion seconded by Erich Ehrlich.
VOTE:
For Denial Against Denial Absent
Doug Ochsner—Chair
Tom Holton —Vice Chair
• Paul Branham
Erich Ehrlich
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Mark Lawley
Nick Berryman
Roy Spitzer
The Chair declares the resolution passed and orders that a certified copy be placed in the file of this case
to serve as a permanent record of these proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I, Donita May, 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 March 18, 2008.
Dated the 18th of March, 2008.
Donita
Secretary
•
3 - /2- '.2`c?
Mark Lawley moved that the Consent Agenda,Cases USR-1646 and 3AMPF-431,be forwarded to the Board of County
• Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval. Second by Tom Holton. Motion carried.
— CASE NUMBER: AMUSR-686
APPLICANT: Martin &Johanna Bangma 1989 Trust&Rocky Mountain Fuel Company,
represented by Mile High Dairy LLC.
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A parcel being part of the E2 and Lot B of RE-525, also being part of the E2 of
Section 17,T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Livestock
Confinement Operation (1,940 head dairy including milking cows,dry cows,
heifers,and calves)and one single family dwelling unit per lot other than those
permitted under Section 23-3-20.A of the Weld County Code (two single family
employee homes)in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 5 and north of and adjacent to CR 32.
SIZE: 183+/-acres total- USR Boundary 60+/-acres, more or less.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning, said Martin and Johanna Bangma 1989 Trust and Rocky Mountain Fuel
Company represented by Mile High Dairy LLC,do Dusty McCormick with AGPROfessionals LLC, have applied for an
Amended Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Livestock Confinement Operation(1,940
head dairy including milking cows,dry cows,heifers,and calves)and one single family dwelling unit per lot other than
those permitted under Section 23-3-20.A of the Weld County Code (two single family employee homes) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
The sign announcing the Planning Commission hearing was posted on March 7,2008 by Staff.
The site is located west of and adjacent to CR 5 and north of and adjacent to CR 32.
The site consists of approximately 183+/-acres total,minus the USR Boundary of 60+/-acres. The dairy was originally
• approved for a total of 900 head dairy by the Board of County Commissioners on October 25, 1985. The applicant is
proposing to increase the number of head on site to 1940.
The Department of Planning Services'Staff recommends this request be denied for the following three reasons:
Section 22-5-30--for Wildlife Goals and Policies 3.W.Policy 1.3 states:"The County will identify and attempt to protect
critical or unique habitat areas of high public value,such as habitats of endangered or unique species,significant viewing
areas and breeding and spawning areas."
The Division of Wildlife,in their referral dated January 30,2008,state that,"According to the Colorado Division of Wildlife
Natural Diversity Information Source Maps for Weld County, this general area provides winter range for bald eagles,
foraging areas and winter range and winter concentration areas for ducks and geese,and is within the overall range for
pheasant and mule deer and white tailed deer. Raptors and songbirds have also been observed in the area. In addition,
a check with the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service as to the Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse may be appropriate for any
development what would possibly occur near wetlands associated with the property. A row of cottonwood trees is located
on the southern edge of the property. A raptor survey may be warranted to determine utilization of the area and potential
impact to raptors if disturbance is expected. Native trees and downed or dead wood on the property should be left in
place for continued benefits to wildlife." They proceed to state,"Water quality may be impacted and any storage ponds
should be built and maintained to minimize impact to wildlife. Screening structures and water quality monitoring and
other measures may be necessary. Close coordination with the Colorado Division of Wildlife may assist in minimizing
impacts to wildlife while maintaining quality water resources in the area."The Division of Wildlife also states that any
heavy equipment that may come in contact with any water resources in the area: if heavy equipment is acquired that was
previously working in another stream,river,lake,pond,or wetland within 10 days of working on this project,a disinfection
practice is necessary to prevent the spread of New Zealand Mud Snails and other aquatic hitchhikers into this drainage.
The Department of Planning Services has determined from the Colorado Division of Wildlife referral that there is a need
to protect critical or unique habitat areas of high public value,such as habitats of endangered or unique species in the
area.
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 zoned agricultural. The Town of Mead is located approximately 1/8 mile to the south. t
SUP-334 for a reservoir is located approximately 1/2 mile north of the site. USR-1419 for the parking of carnival CO
equipment is located approximately 1/8 mile north of the site. USR-1421 for a single family dwelling is located
3
c
smog%
approximately 1/2 mile west of the site.
• There are eighteen property owners located within five hundred feet of the site. At this time,the Department of Planning
Services has received fourteen letters that are included in your packets. Since that time an additional letter has been
submitted making it fifteen letters that have been submitted. Two of the letters are in support of the proposal. Thirteen
letters are opposed to the proposal. Two of the letters from the same individual recommend that the dairy invest in an
anaerobic digester for the manure which would reduce the odor,eliminate the needs for settling ponds and could even be
used to generate electricity to power some of the operation.
A majority of the letters opposed to the operation focused on the problems with the existing site including flies,odor,truck
traffic and the reduction of property values. The surrounding property owners are concerned that if the site is allowed to
expand the existing issues will get worse and that the expansion of the use will not be compatible with the surrounding
property.One letter outlines that the site is located in an area that is in the planned growth areas for the Town of Mead
and the City of Longmont. The letter also states that the expansion of the dairy is inconsistent the Town of Mead's
growth plan.
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.
Section 22-2-110.C.1.c UGB.Policy 3.1.3 states "The proposed use attempts to be compatible with the adjacent
municipality's comprehensive plan.
The property is within the three mile referral area for the Town of Mead and the City of Longmont along with Boulder
County. The City of Longmont in their referral dated January 23,2008,state that they have reviewed the request and
find no conflict with their interests. No comments were received from Boulder County. The Town of Mead in their referral
dated January 23,2008,state the site is located in the Mead Planning Area and is designated as medium to low density
residential(1.1 to 2.0 dwelling units per acre). The Town of Mead request the applicant consider annexing into the Town.
The Town of Mead also requests that if this application is approved, the accesses to the site be reviewed, that the
manure and waste disposal on site be handled appropriately including clear and enforceable standards, that the
landscaping on site needs to be increased to assist in screening,and finally that a lighted sign is not in keeping with the
• character of the area.
The Town of Mead has submitted the email I provided you today dated March 13,2008,that states they are in support of
the application with the following conditions: the sign light be downcast; there is an improved paved apron;landscaping
be installed; and serious consideration be given by the applicant to annex to the Town of Mead.
The applicant is proposing a twenty four square foot illuminated sign on the property. The Weld County Code allows for
a sixteen square foot sign in the agricultural zone district(Appendix 23-D). Staff is in support of the larger sign on site but
do not support the light being internally lit and agree with the Town of Mead that the light sign should be downcast.
Seventeen referral agencies reviewed this case. Four referral agencies had no comments. Ten referral agencies
included conditions that have been attempted to be addressed through the development standards and conditions of
approval.
The Weld County Department of Planning Services is recommending that this application be denied.
Mark Lawley asked if there were any formal complaints filed with the County. Lauren Light, Environmental Health
Department, said there was one complaint in 1991 for dumping water and sludge and excessive odor. The site was
brought into compliance and there have been no complaints since.
Robert Grand asked if the current operation was within the applicable standards established by the County and the State.
Ms. Hatch replied that USR-686 was originally approved by the Board of Count Commissioners on October 25, 1985.
They had a show cause/probable cause before the Board of County Commissioners in 1986,but this is a new owner at
this time and they are not in violation of any applicable County or State standards.
Tom Holton inquired if Public Works had addressed the access regarding the Town of Mead.
Don Dunker,Public Works,responded they were asking the applicant to eliminate the south access onto CR 5 which is
addressed in item I.of the development standards and conditions of approval. He added that CR 5 is a paved collector
• and requires eighty feet of right of way at full build out. Currently there is sixty feet of right of way. The most current
traffic counts from 2007 were 807 average daily trips. Storm drainage will be handled by a water retention collection
pond per Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Operations. Public Works would like to request the addition of a
development standard which requests the applicant provide a geo-tech study indicating exactly where the ground water is
located and another development standard that all drain tile easements that crisscross this particular parcel be
4
designated on the plat. Data provided by the applicant suggest an additional 78 trips per day on CR 5.
• Lauren Light, Environmental Health Department, said water to the site is provided by Little Thompson Water District.
They have four existing septic permits. The permit for the residential house and the two mobile homes will need to either
be abandoned of re-examined by an engineer. A new septic permit will be required for the milking parlor. Dust control,
as identified by development standards eight and nine, will be mitigated by water trucks or sprinklers. Odors are
addressed by development standards eight and twelve and will use standard management practices to control odor by
composting,the timing of land application,reduction of standing water,good pen drainage and regular manure removal.
Pest control is also addressed in development standards eight, ten and eleven. The applicant's management plan
outlines seven practices they will implement to control pest, including regular manure removal, reduction of standing
water,minimization of fly habitat,weed and grass management, minimizing stockpiling or storage of manure,biological
treatments. The applicant is required to provide evidence that a CAFO Colorado Discharge Permit has been applied for
through the State Health Department. Conditions of approval M., N., and O. are all regulated by the State Health
Department as well. Development standards five through twenty-one address additional Health Department
requirements. She repeated that the only complaint received was from 1991 and the previous owner. Odor is a concern,
but we have two people in our department certified to measure odor at the site if necessary. There are numerous State
regulations that will come into effect should this amendment be approved.
Doug Ochsner asked Ms.Light if the development standards and conditions of approval are listed on the current USR.
She said the only thing specified on the USR in 1986 were the guidelines for water pollution control through the State
Health Department. The development standards and conditions of approval for the current application would bring the
site into compliance with County and State regulations.
Dusty McCormick,AGPROfessionals LLC,4350 Hwy 66, Longmont,CO 80504, applicant's representative,said in his
presentation that: the Bangma family purchased the property in October,2006; their family currently operates it and they
wants to continue their dairy business for future generations;it is compatible and consistent with surrounding uses in the
area and the Comprehensive Plan as this is zoned agricultural; cited Section 22-2-60 of the County Code regarding
agricultural goals and policies;spoke about the intent of the agricultural zone district,specifically livestock confinement
operations;and the use is compatible as it already exists;there has been one complaint, but no complaints in the past
ten years.
• Mr.McCormick continued that this amendment application would: provide for the addition of 1140 head of cows,which is
the maximum number allowed in this zone district;there will be approximately 1400 milk cows on site;the applicants own
183 contiguous acres;they want to relocate the commodity area to a location along CR 5 and bring the calf huts from the
calf ranch closer to the facility;push the manure currently along the road,further away from the neighbors as possible;
relocate the heifers and springer cows close to a proposed new calving area and milk pens;and build a new storm water
processing pond so the facility can drain as nature intended, collected in a lined impoundment which will make
management easier.
Mr. McCormick added:they have support for the new facility from the Town of Mead;on opaque screening fence will be
installed as well as landscaping; property values will not be destroyed nor will the quality of life for surrounding property
owners; there are several examples of co-existence between livestock operations and housing;they have public and
irrigation water on the site;manure production records will be kept; nuisance controls will be mitigated through design
and management factors;traffic will be mitigated by closing the south CR 5 access; they will add two milk trucks per day
but cattle truck traffic will remain about the same. Thirty-three conditions and forty-one development standards have
been designated by the Planning Department to protect the neighboring properties. The Bangma family wants the
approval in order to expand and improve their family business. It will localize impacts where impacts already exist. The
County will have recourse for enforcement, if necessary,with the approval of this application He closed by requesting
approval of the application by the Planning Commission.
Mark Lawley asked Mr.McCormick to address the Division of Wildlife recommendations. Mr.McCormick said he felt the
DOW referral was somewhat vague and nothing has specifically designated the site hazardous for wildlife. He
emphasized they are willing to work with the DOW however necessary to maintain habitat and water resources in the
area.
Tom Holton asked Mr.McCormick if he had talked to the Town of Mead about an annexation agreement. Mr.McCormick
replied they had and were in the process of completing an annexation agreement. Tom then asked if the application
were denied, how many animals they would have on site. Mr. McCormick replied approximately nine hundred animals.
Erich Ehrlich asked about the specific acreage of the property for the existing USR. Mr. McCormick said the existing
USR is on seventy-nine acres. They propose the USR boundary be the production area boundary;the sixty acres,which
• includes the production area and also includes the pond.
Robert Grand asked with the right by use,how many animals were requested for this application with the addition of the
new property. Mr. McCormick replied 1544 head.
5
• Nick Berryman asked Bruce Barker for specific guidelines regarding future expansion through agricultural zoning or
special review applications or was it on a case by case judgment. Mr.Barker replied it was treated just like USR so you
would apply the same standards that you have for any USR. The specific request is to approve an increase but there is
no specific language either in the Comprehensive Plan of the zoning ordinance that addresses increase in intensity.
What you must do is review the criteria detailed in the Staff comments,which are the same for almost all USR's.
Roy Spitzer asked Ms. Hatch about the vagueness of the DOW referral and any special concerns or was this just a
general observation that wildlife occurred in the area. Ms.Hatch responded though the referral does seem vague,they
do speak specifically about the cotton wood trees on the southern edge of the property. She suggested the applicant and
the DOW meet to address water quality and wildlife concerns.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Ken Williamson, 224 Mulligan Lake Dr, Mead, CO 80542, said: he sent out petitions in the area and received 110
signatures requesting denial;strong odors emanate from the facility about thirty days each year;housing and land values
are affected; as the managing member of the Liberty Properties LLLP at CR 5 and 32 which consists of 158 acres
annexed by Mead and is zoned for 175 half acre home sites; spoke about another proposed subdivision in the area; if
this expansion is approved the facility would be within three quarters of a mile from a school and one mile from downtown
Mead;it is not compatible with the area and not consistent with present uses;this facility could operate for another twenty
years as the more money they put into the facility, the longer they need to operate to recoup that expenditure. Mr.
Williamson said this facility was not feasible given its proximity to the Town of Mead.
Don Abdow,15093 CR 5,Longmont,CO;addressed the closing of the access which would affect the use of his property;
felt the application was asking for too many cattle; knew there was a dairy when he purchased his property but the
operation is too large.
Bill Worrell, 15741 CR 5, Longmont, CO, resides across the ditch from the dairy and said he also knew what he was
buying into when he purchased property in the area. He did not like the addition of a center pivot to disperse liquids and
added that the odor is quite intense when he floods the fields with manure.
• Kevin Vendega, 1975 CR 32, Longmont,CO 80504,spoke for himself and his father-in-law Roger Monroe, 1875 CR 32
and said;there is an easement on his property for a twenty four hour,one hundred year flood;the original intent for this
easement was for 900 cows; additional animals would break the easement agreement and give him his land back; a
brand inspector said eleven hundred animals were on the site when the property changed hands;asked for ground water
testing and test wells for the dairy as they do for hog farms back east; and the roads at certain times of the year are
undriveable due to water saturation.
Bill Opperman, 2588 Meadow Ln, Mead, CO 80542, asked: isn't Weld County primarily agricultural rather than
residential; why would Mead want to annex this property;and how long will it take to get pollution mitigation in place. Mr.
Opperman added that: traffic has increased greatly due to residential growth in the area not due to agricultural traffic;he
did not feel odor and traffic would increase incrementally;one thousand cows will smell just as much as two thousand
cows; and he supported the application.
Andy Johnson, 1489 CR 32, Longmont, CO 80504,said: he has coexisted with agriculture and the dairy for thirty-eight
years and enjoys living in an agricultural area. But to be honest,barley,alfalfa and corn production is not the same as a
dairy. He has had no problems with the dairy. As far as odor goes,there is one periodically but it is not intense unless
the wind is blowing a certain direction or settles like an umbrella in the area. The only real concern he might have is with
the area to the west for corn silage and what will they spray it with as there is clean irrigation water in the area and if they
start spraying sludge that will present a different problem. He also expressed concern over the dairy size increasing and
asked if is it possible for the dairy to expand and add animals in the future just because they own the land.
Dennis Ruff, 15470 CR 5, Longmont, CO 80504, said he knew a dairy was there when he purchased his property but
odor was still a concern. Manure in the area has filled ditches on the east side of the road and is at least three to four
inches thick. He felt an increase in traffic would obviously occur. Mr. Ruff also opposed manure composting on area
farms as it has not been common in the area and concluded by saying that future growth and residential development in
the area will surround the dairy.
John Haley, 14491 CR 5, Longmont, CO 80504, said he is the owner of Haley Land, which has been in the area for
almost one hundred years and he fought against the original dairy. His primary concern is that the flow does not come
onto his farm ground.
• Richard Kraemer, 101 Silo Ct, Mead, CO 80542, said he had written a letter dated February 13,2008,addressing his
concerns. He said he knew the dairy was there at the time he purchased his property but is against the size of the
proposed increase as it seems they are moving more cattle into less space. Traffic is also a concern of his as it will pass
6
area schools and create a potential hazard. He suggested traffic go south to Hwy 66, not north on CR 34, rather than
• past schools or through the Town of Mead. Mr.Kraemer suggested the applicant should also pay for traffic signals. As
a former Mayor of Mead, he said he had helped develop their Comp Plan in conjunction with Weld County. The
expansion of the dairy is in the middle of residential zoning Weld County requested. He spoke about north/south
arterials and questioned adding more traffic to CR 5. He said he couldn't really complain about the odor as it was a given
but the expansion of this facility would make the odor more significant. Mr.Kraemer continued that he felt wildlife in the
area would be adversely affected and finally that this project was not compatible with current planning or anticipated
future development for the Town of Mead.
Larry Huddleston,PO Box 771,Castle Rock,CO,representing a partnership for property immediately across the street.
He agreed with much of what has been said previously. Mr. Huddleston said he had signed the petition against the
application because of his concern for the impact on property values and the possible impact the dairy would have in the
area. This expansion would also handicap the future of the 500 to 600 homes proposed in the area.
Erich Ehrlich asked Mr.Huddleston how the possible increase in dairy traffic was any different from the traffic generated
by a huge subdivision. Mr. Huddleston said his property rights do not trump anyone else's property rights, but this was
not a compatible use of the property and affected land values.
The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting.
Dusty McCormick,applicant's representative,addressed neighbor concerns and the access easement along the south
property line. The dairy would still use the road on the property but would give up the access to CR 5 as requested by
the Department of Public Works. The applicant would be happy to move those pens back to the west to establish an
internal road on the site.
Doug Ocshner asked Public Works about the access. Mr. Dunker said they do not want the dairy to use that specific
access on CR 5. Neighbors who have an access agreement for agricultural uses can continue to use the road especially
if it is on their property, but the dairy needs to stop using that access.
Mr. McCormick then addressed the concern regarding mixing irrigation and storm water to reduce impacts on the land.
They are proposing a pivot, low drip, low hanging nozzles which provide better land application. Addressing possible
. expansion, the use by right is only available on contiguous properties. Lastly,the milk is processed in Longmont by
Royal Crest Dairy and will be delivered in the area and will not be trucked to Greeley.
Robert Grand asked Mr. McCormick if there was ample ground in the area for manure application and where did the
manure go. Mr.McCormick said the majority of it is sold to third parties but some may be applied to the land as fertilizer.
Mr. Grand also inquired about the pond capabilities. Mr. McCormick explained that there is enough capacity to hold a
one hundred year event and added that the pond was created to prevent water issues and the easement would no longer
be required.
Mr.Spitzer asked Mr.McCormick if the calf and heifer operations would be part of this application and to address Mead's
willingness to annex. Mr. McCormick said they intend to localize their calf ranch and heifer facility onto a new location.
Regarding annexation, the Town of Mead has said their current zoning does not provide the protections that Weld
County can to his clients,but Mead is interested in possible annexation at some point in time.
Doug Ochsner asked for clarification from Lauren Light,Environmental Health Department,regarding water quality issues
and test wells. Ms. Light replied that under State regulation eighty-one, the pond must be lined though they do not
require well monitoring.
Ms. Hatch said the site was approximately 183 acres and the USR boundary is approximately 60 acres. If approved,
they would be limited to 1940 cattle on the 60 acres. If they wanted to increase the number of animals, they must
amend the application. She added that the 183 acres,times four animals(which is a use by right),allows for 732 animals
on the property without a use by special review. The property across CR 5 cannot be included in that because there is a
County road that divides that property.
Tom Holton asked if the property across the road has a use by right. Ms.Hatch said that it does,but the animals cannot
be transferred to the 183 acre property. You cannot have a USR on a property and also have cattle by right. The USR
exceeds the use by right numbers.
Bruce Barker clarified that the USR-686 as approved in 1985,allowed 900 head on the property. He did not think it was
proper to go ahead and say we have control of surrounding properties and those have a use by right that includes the
• additional property. It makes sense to put all of the animals on one property,the USR property. For example,Mr.Barker
said he could go out and obtain a USR and then buy multiple properties around there and multiple my number of animals
just by saying I have a USR and I can do so because I have all of these other properties. The USR-686 allows 900 head
on that specific property. If it exceeds that number, it is in violation.
7
Tom Holton asked if the amended USR changed the boundary. Mr. Barker said it does. Ms. Hatch said it was her
• understanding that the USR encumbers both parcels and it is the intent that it is for both parcels. The entire 183 acres is
not included because if they did, the Department of Public Works looks at the drainage calculations differently. To
minimize drainage calculations, people try to reduce their USR boundary down as small as they possibly can.
Mr. McCormick added that in Weld County you are allowed four cows per acres, so the 104 acres could contain 416
cattle. They are not trying to fool anyone. One hundred eighty-three acres with 1940 animals is what they are asking for.
Tom Holton said the fact is that the rest of the property is not in the USR.
General discussion continued by the Planning Commission as to the numbers of animals, locations of the USR's and
general re-clarification of the specifics of the application.
Don Dunker,Public Works Department,added the following statement as item T.,under prior to recording the plat,"The
applicant shall have a geotechnical study to define the groundwater table of the site and the pond." Existing item T.will
be re-lettered as item U.
Tom Holton motioned and Mark Lawley seconded to adopt the preceding condition of approval. Motion carried.
Don Dunker, Public Works Department, added a new number 10 to item U.,to read,"The applicant shall delineate all
drain tiles with easements within the site on the plat map."
Tom Holton motioned and Robert Grand seconded to adopt the preceding condition of approval. Motion carried.
The Chair asked Mr. McCormick he applicant had read and agreed with the amended conditions of approval and the
development standards as amended. Mr. McCormick replied he understood them and agreed.
Tom Holton expressed concern over the use of effluent in sprinklers,which tends to increase odor and could they place
time or wind limits if it is blowing. Mr.McCormick said they were not necessarily opposed to such a requirement as the
applicant wants to be a good neighbor.
• Ms. Hatch presented a suggestion for a new development standard number forty-one and renumber according on page
twelve of thirteen that,"No land applications shall occur during holidays or periods of high wind". Mr.McCormick agreed
to it.
Roy Spitzer motioned and Mark Lawley seconded to add a new development standard forty-one as stated. Motion
carried.
Nick Berryman asked Staff if the concerns have been adequately addressed for denial. Ms.Hatch said Planning Staff is
still recommending denial for compatibility reasons as well as DOW referral concerns until those items have been
addressed. Additionally,while the Town of Mead is in support of the application,the use is also not compatible with their
Comprehensive Plan.
Robert Grand asked the Chair if Weld County has an IGA with Mead. Bruce Barker, County Attorney,said we do not.
Nick Berryman asked Ms. Hatch if it would be necessary to allow more time to satisfy the DOW concerns. She
responded that if the applicant could have evidence prior to the Board of County Commission hearing that he had
mitigated all of the DOW concerns, and has full support from the Town of Mead, Staff would provide a memo to the
Board of County Commissioners stating the conditions had been met.
Roy Spitzer asked if there were eighteen surrounding property owners within five hundred feet of the site and does that
include the entire site or the USR. Ms. Hatch replied it was the entire property.
Robert Grand motioned to forward AMUSR-686 to the Board of County Commissioners with their recommendation of
approval and cited Section 35-3.5-102.of the Colorado Revised Statutes,and Sections 22-5-30,22-2-220 A.3,and 23-2-
220 A.4. of the County Code. As there was no second,the motion dies.
Bill Hall motioned that Case AMUSR-686, be denied per Staff recommendations. Second by Erich Ehrlich.
Bill Hall cited the incompatibility issue of a dairy in the area due to density.
• Erich Ehrlich said the applicant did what they did in order to amend the application. The public should be comfortable
knowing that there are State codes and statutes as well as County provisions in place that the applicant must comply
with. The concern regarding Mead is that we do not have an IGA with them and it is difficult for the applicant to continue
operation given the expected development in the surrounding area. The way the Code reads,the applicant can still place
8
four animals per acre on their property,adjoining sites,or across CR 5. He did not feel odor was an issue and added that
• transportation whether engaged in agriculture or residential development was part of the dynamic of being in Mead and is
not relevant to today's USR. Increasing the intensity in the area concerns him as well. Lastly he expressed his
disappoint that the Town of Mead did not attend the hearing to participate when they have concerned citizens present.
He charged those citizens with asking why Mead did not have representation.
Tom Holton said these cases are the hardest to rule on and he still does not know how he will vote. This is an older dairy
with some issues and if this USR is approved then all of the standards we have added and all of the plans the applicants
have for improvement will increase the odor. By the same token, we have a gentleman that just bought a piece of
property, installed sewer lines, has plans for 175 residences, and then there is Mead saying they don't really care.
Robert Grand said it sounds like we are penalizing the applicant for trying to run the most efficient business operation.
The second issue is the growth and development around the facility. He has empathy for all involved. Weld County is a
farming community and it is a tough issue. He had a hard time penalizing a guy for intensity when we have inferred that
this is a more efficient and better way to do business.
Roy Spitzer asked Ms.Hatch if there were other USR's or any other dairies within a two mile radius. She replied USR's
in the area existed for carnival equipment storage, single family residence, and Mead has a small USR.
Mark Lawley commented that there is a compatibility issue. We have approved several PUD's and large subdivisions
since his tenure and when we intensify the use of something like this, it causes issues in the long run.
Nick Berryman cited Sections 22 and 23 of the Code and said it struck him how often there were references to the
importance of agriculture and its businesses and that Weld County tries to promote. In his mind there is an issue in that
we do not have an IGA with Mead prioritizing what we are focusing on today. Agricultural uses should trump some of the
other concerns we might have. Though he also agrees with Mark that there are obviously impacts and compatibility
issues which we need to take into account as well.
Doug Ochsner agreed with Commissioner Grand that basically we are penalizing a company that wants to clean up their
operation and make it more compatible with the area. If we deny this,they can continue to run 900 head of cattle on this
property with basically no regulations. It will continue the way it is. For compatibility, it is already there. It may not
• change for one hundred years from 900 head. They are asking to improve the site and will comply with the forty two
restrictions to mitigate odor, pest control,drainage etc. We have seen dairies exist close to municipalities and we have
had very little if any complaints on a well run dairy. He thinks that is what the applicants are trying to do—clean up the
area and make it compatible. For him to deny it is basically makes compatibility worse as it will continue as it is. If we
were to approve the application,the County would have some control over prospective issues and could revoke the USR.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick Berryman, no;
Erich Ehrlich,yes;Robert Grand,no;Bill Hall,yes;Mark Lawley,yes;Roy Spitzer,yes;Tom Holton,no;Doug Ochsner,
no.
Motion tied so there was no recommendation made to the Board of County Commissioners.
The Chair reminded the members of the audience to attend the Board of County Commission hearing and express their
opinions again at that upcoming hearing.
Nick Berryman cited the section of the State and County Codes, previously outlined by Commissioner Grand, as his
reason for denial of the application.
Roy Spitzer commented he had three issues: the groundwater conditions are uncertain and there are three property
owners to the south who could be impacted;the compatibility issue;and that since the DOW referral was so vague,the
wildlife issue is a non-issue for him.
Doug Ochsner cited Section 22-2-60 of the Code to ensure continuation of agriculture as well as compatibility,because
the applicant is trying to make the site more compatible that it is currently.
CASE NUMBER: AMUSR-1394
APPLICANT: Zadel Family LLLP
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 3-7, part of Lot 11 and all of Lot 12 in Lupton Meadows Subdivision,together
• with the former right of way of the Denver Larimer and Northwestern Railroad all in
Section 24,T2N, R67W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Site Specific
Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Mineral Resource
9
Hello