HomeMy WebLinkAbout20070138.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, December 5, 2006
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Department of
Planning Services, Hearing Room, 918 10`h Street, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by
Chair, Chad Auer, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
•
Erich Ehrlich I-r!
Roy Spitzer
James Welch
Bruce Fitzgerald
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
Tom Holton
Paul Branham •
Mark Lawley
Also Present: Brad Mueller, Chris Gathman, Hannah Hippely, Kim Ogle, Don Carroll, Troy Swain
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on, November 21,
and November 7, 2006, was approved as read.
The following is on the Consent Agenda:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1584
APPLICANT: Garrand Family Limited Partnership LLLP
PLANNER: Brad Mueller
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SW4 of Section 18, T5N, 67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit for any use permitted
as a Use by Right, an Accessory Use or a Use by Special Review in the Industrial
Zone District (construction business with two shop buildings, an office and
outdoor storage) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 13; 1/2 mile south of Hwy 34.
Doug Ochsner moved to approve the consent agenda. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: 2AmUSR-1282
APPLICANT: John Johnson
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of AmRE-499; Lot B of RE-3535; Pt N2 and Pt N2SW4 of Section 1, T6N,
R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Amended Special Review Permit for an
Agricultural Service Establishment primarily engaged in performing agricultural,
animal husbandry. or horticultural services on a fee or contract basis including
Livestock Confinement Operations (a livestock feeding operation for a total of
11.240 head of cattle including a dairy operation and 20 horsed amended to
include an additional milk parlor. office/.scale house and additional pens) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 47; south of and adjacent to CR 74.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services presented Case 2AmUSR-1282 along with the
Development Standards and Conditions of Approval with the Planning Commission recommendation of
approval. John Johnson-JF Cattle C/O AGPRO Environmental Services, LLC has applied for a Site Specific
Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Livestock Confinement Operation (A Site Specific
Development Plan and Amended Special Review Permit for an Agricultural Service Establishment primarily
1
i; y I-IU-2oo-7 2007-0138
engaged in performing agricultural, animal husbandry. or horticultural services on a fee or contract basis
including Livestock Confinement Operations(a livestock feeding operation for a total of 11.240 head of cattle
including a dairy operation and 20 horses amended to include an additional milk parlor. office/.scale house,
additional pens and removing the limit of 2,000 dairy cattle(out of the 11,240 head total)associated with the
operation) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District) in the A(Agricultural)Zone district.
The site is located south of and adjacent to Weld County Road 74, east of and adjacent to Weld County
Road 47. Properties to the north consist of cropland and an existing feedlot(Booth feedlot). An existing
single family residence along with cropland is located to the west. Three single family residences and a
large ditch are located to the east of the site (adjacent to the existing dairy operations). Cropland and two
single-family residences are located to the south and immediately adjacent to the proposed USR. The site
slopes from west to east with the existing and proposed lagoons located along the eastern boundary of
the property. Twelve referral agencies reviewed this case; nine referral agencies responded favorably or
included conditions that have been addressed through development standards and conditions of approval.
A special use permit(AMUSR 1282)was approved on this site in the year 2003 for a livestock feeding
operation for a total of 11,240 head of cattle and 20 horses (a limit of 2,000 dairy cattle out of the overall
total was also a part of this approval). This facility will remain on the site. The applicants are not
requesting any additional head of cattle associated with the operation but are requesting that the limit of
2,000 dairy cattle out of the total of 11,240 be removed (so that there is no limit on the number of dairy
cattle on the property). The applicant is also proposing to add another milking parlor(in addition to the
existing parlor), a scale house and additional animal pens. The number of cattle associated with this
operation has not increased. However the#of employees associated with the use has expanded from a
total of 19 (under AMUSR-1282)to a total of 100 (proposed under 2n°AMUSR-1282). Also the use has
since expanded approx. 1,200 south of the original AMUSR-1282 boundary. This area has included feed
storage, manure composting/storage, cattle pens and calf pens. This has brought the boundaries of the
operation immediately adjacent to an existing residence (owned by the applicant's son) on the east side of
CR 47 and immediately across the street from an existing SF residence on the west side of CR 47. There
is also an existing SF residence approximately 1/8 mile to the south of the proposed compost area at the
south end of the permit area.
The Department of Planning Services is requiring a landscaping/screening plan to mitigate the impacts of
the encroachment of the dairy operation on these existing residences as a condition of approval. A traffic
and circulation plan is also being required as a condition of approval to address increased traffic as a
result of additional employees. 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 that the facility is operating in compliance with numerous conditions that would not be required
for a facility operating as a use by right. The Weld County Department of Planning Services has
determined that the Special Use Permit, conditions of approval and Development Standards will make the
proposal consistent with The Weld County Code and ensure that there are adequate provisions for the
protection of health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the County.
Tom Holton asked for the location of the original boundary. Mr. Gathman provided that information with
overheads. There was the addition of the milking parlor at the southern boundary. The pens and
compost shown on AmUSR-1282 do not encompass the entire triangular shaped area. This proposal will
encompass the majority of the site as well as the 70 acre site to the south that was purchased. There has
been an addition of retention and composting on the site since AmUSR-1282.
Paul Branham asked if there was a dairy on site prior to 2003. Mr. Gathman stated there was, the original
Special Use Permits was done in 1973 with four or five amendments since. The site has expanded to
11,240 head. Mr. Branham asked about the limits on the dairy cattle under previous permits. Mr.
Gathman added there was a limit on animals, not specifically dairy cows. The limit was proposed in the
amendment in 2003.
Tom Holton asked about the present construction activity that was occurring. Mr. Gathman stated there
have been no permits issued at this time and they may be doing some work on pens. The applicants have
not begun work on the new proposed milk parlor because it is contingent upon the Board of County
Commissioners.
2
Dustin McCormick, representative for the applicant, provided clarification on the proposal. Overheads of the
proposal were provided. The existing home is owned by the son. There have been cattle on site since 1973;the
dairy was done in an amendment in 2003 with the addition of the parlor. The intent is to build a new parlor and add
a scale house then remove the horse element from the existing use. The applicant has not applied to add more
animals to the facility. There are presently 11,000 animals on site which are feeder calves and heifers. Mr.Johnson
would like to milk the animals himself so as to not need to move them to another facility. They are currently building
pens to accommodate the larger animals and to better organize the site.
Tom Holton asked how many cows can be run through the parlor at a time. Mr. McCormick stated that at twice a day
there could be 7500 head through but at three times a day there could be 5500 head through the parlor. Mr. Holton
asked if the anticipation was half the cows on site would be milked and the other half would be dry. Mr. McCormick
added that there will be wet cows and dry cows. The feeding operation would be concentrated at a different location
thus giving the dairy cows more room.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Julie Walker, neighbors south of the existing dairy provided her concerns. In 1993 there were very few cattle.
Presently they have constant noise from traffic and cows. There is the constant nuisance of flies,dust and the
smell. The dairy is presently using flood lights and there are manure piles out their bedroom window. This is
not minimal impact. This is more of an industrial use with the flood lights and semi's in all hours of the day
and night. They were not notified when the amendment was done to put a dairy on the property since they
were more than 500 feet away. They are now notified because Mr. Johnson purchased the 70 acres to the
south. The odor,flies and the general smell travel more than 500 feet and the notification of such a small area
amounts to a travesty. In 1996 they added to their existing home and in 2003 they bought the 10 acres
adjacent to them. They were concerned that modular would be placed on site. They have had the additional
10 acres listed for two years and have lowered the price several times. There are two RE lots on those 10
acres. The dairy has caused financial damage to them. The Walkers have spoken with the applicant and
asked them to buy them out for what their land has appraised at($650,000+$80,000.) Ms.Walker would like
to know how a neighbor can damage property owners and turn around and profit. This proposal does this. If
this is approved they would like a condition added forcing Mr. Johnson to buy them out at their appraised
value. They are experience a financial hardship due to the neighbor.
Doug Ochsner asked what the flood lights were lighting. Mr. Walker stated it was the dairy operation.
Julie Walker would like to have an interpretation of minimal impact. Mr. Auer provided clarification on the
process. Mr. Holton added that they are not increasing the present number of animals and if this was denied
they could still operate under the existing USR.
Patty Winters,neighbor to the southeast provided her concerns. The residents in the area have worked to get
property value up to gain equity while the surrounding area deteriorates. The Walkers should be bought out at
their full appraisal value.
Les Ewing, neighbor to the south, indicated that adult cattle will impact the amount of waste and activity on
site. The concern is the smell and dust. Notification should require greater limits.
Chad Auer stated that County Code requires 500 feet notification. Staff also provides legal notification in the
paper as well as a sign posted on site.
Bill Hall, neighbor, commented that the Walker property has been shown and there has been no potential
buyers. The dairy was the determining factor in the sale. There is an impact to the Walkers.
Bob Hawe, neighbor to the west, provided his comments. There is an oil well next to the lots previously
mentioned. The oil well was a deterrent for the sale of the Walkers lots due to traffic associated with the well.
This is an agricultural area and that is what it is suppose to be.
Phil Johnson, brother to applicant, provided clarification. There is a tank battery to the north of the Walkers
lots as well as the Booth Feedlot;to the south is Peterson feedlot;a salvage yard is also in the area and there
is an existing dairy to the east. This site is surrounding by similar uses. There is no way to determine which
contributes to the odor and flies. The foreclosures in the area are rampant so the real estate market is bad
3
irregardless. Appraised values versus real value are very different. There are other factors that affect the real
estate market. The area is surrounded by a number of livestock feeding operations.
Roy Spitzer asked Mr. Johnson to point out the livestock feeding operation locations on map. Mr. Johnson
provided that information.
Tom Holton asked where the feed is from. Mr.Johnson stated the 50%of the feed is purchased within a 10
mile radius. If they are not able to buy locally they go no further than a 250-300 mile radius. This operation
provides for approximately 625 employees in Weld County with the utilization of hay, corn stalks and bean
stalks.
Les Walker, neighbor, indicated that the oil well on the lots were not affecting the sale due to them not being
installed when the properti4es were listed for sale.
The Chair closed the public portion.
John Johnson,applicant, provided clarification. They have spoken with the Walkers in an attempt to purchase
their property. They did purchase Bob Hawes home right across the road from the Walker property. They
also purchased the land adjacent to Walkers. The price they are asking for farm is unrealistic. The dairy and
feedlot were there when bought those lots for their speculation of modulars. He does not want to be held
hostage and put in a financial predicament to cover their bad investment for those lots. They could have also
purchased the 80 acres. The property was purchased for a buffering affect. The dairy could also be
jeopardized with the addition of the homes in not being able to sell it. They do not want the homes on the lots.
Mr. Johnson would welcome anyone to purchase the Walker property for what they are asking. He is not
trying to leverage anyone. The home with 15 acres will not be worth what they are asking irregardless of the
dairy.
Tom Holton asked how the dairy would operate should this not be approved. Mr. Johnson stated he would
continue to operate as normal. There is a functioning dairy on site; the intent of this application is to build
another dairy barn. The cattle volume will not change. The intent is to consolidate operation to dairy and also
to feedlot in separate locations. The heifers will move to the feedlot site.
Paul Branham stated the present allowance is 11000 with a limit of 2000 wet cows. If that limit is removed
how will this addition affect the surrounding neighbors? Mr. Johnson added that the majority of traffic is and
will continue to be along CR 74. The existing scale and office will continue to come off of CR 74. With the
additional dairy barn and scale the majority of traffic will come off CR 74 and continue through the dairy. The
new locations are closer to 74. This will help take some of traffic off the road since all will come from CR 74.
Mr. Branham asked if they will be generating additional waste from the dairy cows versus the heifers. Mr.
Johnson stated there are already the dairy cattle there. They are composting 100%of the manure and it will
be marketed through A-1 Organics. This is first year they have not had to spread raw manure offsite. It is
sent out as commercial material from the site. Mr. Branham asked for clarification on the lighting. Mr.
Johnson stated there are lights pointing to the north and this is for the safety for the milkers and the bulls in the
corrals.
Tom Holton asked about the height of the compost piles. Mr. Johnson added a manure pile will cook down
50% and the piles may start at around 10 feet but will finish at approximately 6 feet.
Dustin McCormick added that Development Standards 27-needs to be amended to reflect"milk" instead of
"hospital". Item 2A should be amended to reflect the manure area to the southern end of site. Condition of
Approval 1C that addresses the landscape plan will be addressed in the nuisance management plan that was
approved by Department of Public Health and Environment.
Erich Ehrlich asked about the traffic counts on CR 74, CR 49 and CR 47. Mr. Carroll added that CR 74 is a
strategic roadway and has 1300 vehicles; CR 47 is an arterial collector with 150-160 vehicles. Both counts
were taken in 2006.
Roy Spitzer asked if there had been any nuisance calls in area in the last three years. Mr.Swain,Department
of Public Health and Environment stated there was a discharge complaint. The Water Quality Control issued
4
a cease and desist order. This is reflected in Development Standards #12. There have been no other
complaints in the last three years. Mr.Swain added it was more of a question of the cause regarding whether
it was storm water, process water from the lagoon or wastewater and that has not been determined.
Erich Ehrlich asked if the Department of Public Health and Environment had any standards that were reviewed
in regards to the retention ponds and the overflow or sanitation of those ponds. Mr.Swain stated the applicant
has for a CAFO discharge permit and this would allow them to discharge in event of storm or such. The
permits include the estimates of the wastewater that will be generated and it is incorporated into the design of
facility.
Doug Ochsner moved to amend Development Standards #27 to reflect Milk parlor. Bruce Fitzgerald
seconded. Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner asked for clarification on the second request by the applicant. Mr.Gathman added he believes
that the language should remain. Mr.Auer added an additional request was to amend the language to reflect
the location of the manure pile. Mr. Gathman added he was describing the locations and technically it is
correct.
Chris Gathman asked the applicant if the composting on site was being sold at the site. Mr.McCormick stated
it will be hauled off by A-1 Organics.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked Mr. Gathman for clarification on "cut sheets." Mr. Gathman stated those are just a
detail and extent of the lighting. It could be a potential change to the current situation. The standard lighting
should be down cast and not shine onto other properties. If the lighting is affecting the neighbors it will need to
be addressed.
Paul Branham added he believes the neighbors are opposed to the dairy as it exists even prior to this
application. The dairy has approval for 11000 head and it will stay the same. This change will not make a
noticeable difference.
Doug Ochsner moved that Case 2AmUSR-1282, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along
with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation
of approval. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Mark
Lawley,yes; Roy Spitzer,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes;James Welch,yes;Chad Auer,yes;Tom Holton,yes,Doug
Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Mark Lawley commented this is not a new operation and will not increase in animal units. This proposal is
consistent with the current use.
Erich Ehrlich commented he is in agreement with this proposal based on the following Section 23-2-
220.A.2
Paul Branham commented he believes this proposal will not have any noticeable negative impacts.
Chris Gathman added that the Board of County Commissioners hearing will be Wednesday, December
20, 2006 at 10:00am.
Chad Auer excused himself due to a prior commitment.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1583
APPLICANT: Margaret DeHaan
PLANNER: Hannah Hippely
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot D of RE-4098 W2; Lot B of RE-965 W2NE4& NW4; Lot B of RE-1729 E2NE4 of
Section 17,T7N, R65W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Agriculture Service
Establishment primarily engaged in performing agriculture, animal husbandry or
horticultural services on a fee or contract basis, including Livestock Confinement
5
Operations (a dairy operation with a total of 8,000 head)in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Hwy 14;west of and adjacent to CR 41; north of and adjacent to
CR 80;east of and adjacent to CR 39.
Hannah Hippely, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1583 along with the Development
Standards and Conditions of Approval to the Planning Commission recommendation with a of approval.A
Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for an Agricultural Service Establishment
primarily engaged in performing agriculture, animal husbandry, or horticultural services on a fee or contract
basis, including Livestock Confinement Operations (a dairy operation with a total of 8,000 head) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District. The property is located approximately 1.5 miles east of Ault and 1.5 miles north of
Eaton. More specifically, the site lies South of and adjacent to State Highway 14, West of and adjacent to
County Road 41 and North of and adjacent to County Road 80, East of and adjacent to County Road 39. The
sign announcing the Planning Commission hearing was posted November 15,2006 by Planning Staff. All of
the surrounding property is zoned agricultural. Multiple rural residences are located in the area as shown on
the PowerPoint in yellow dots. A Confined Feeding Operation (AmUSR-199 for 3000 head of cattle) lies
directly north of the proposed dairy. Two feed lots are located within a mile to the west(SUP-148 and SUP-
219). USR-1349 for a dairy permitted for 2675 head lies within a mile to the east. USR- 1020 for sugar beet
storage lies across CR 39 to the northwest. 13 referral agencies reviewed this case,8 responded favorably or
included conditions that have been addressed through development standards and conditions of approval.2
agencies responded without comments. Responses were not received from the Weld County Sheriff's Office,
the Ault Fire Protection District or the North Weld County Water District.
The Department of Planning Services has received multiple letters of opposition from surrounding
property owners and other concerned County residents. The most common concerns expressed include:
> Traffic Impacts
> Noise and Light Pollution
> Air pollution—Dust and Odor
> Pests—specifically flies and mosquitoes
> Ground Water Contamination—its effect on local domestic wells
> Waste disposal
Staff feels that these concerns have been or can be addressed through the Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards.
I would at this time, like to add an additional Condition of Approval G.
The additional standard states: "Written evidence of a water agreement shall be provided to the
Department of Planning Services. Appropriate documentation shall be provided which indicates not only
that taps are available, but provide assurances that these connections will be made. The style of
assurance may take several forms, however pre-purchase of taps, line extension agreements, tap service
agreements, or another form of"participation agreement"will be acceptable. The agreements shall be
approved by the Weld County Attorney's Office prior to submittal to the Department of Planning Services.
If a commercial well is intended to supplement the Water District's service a copy of the well permit
application shall be provided." This condition would be added under conditions to be met prior to the
Board of County Commissioners as number G. Staff is recommending approval of this application.
Erich Ehrlich asked if there was other USR's with cattle in the area. Ms. Hippely provided that information
on a map in the presentation. There are SUP's in the area that are not limited. Mr. Fitzgerald asked
where the Eaton Country Club was on the map approximately 1.5 miles away.
Tom Haren, applicant representative, provided clarification on the proposal. The family does have a
facility east of Firestone and Frederick that they operate presently. This site is 365 acres but the use
permit will only be 165 acres. They also own several parcels. Several properties have been reviewed for
this operation. Dairies require several of the same utilities that residences require. The land use is what
is being reviewed today. Mr. Haren presented the design of the site on overheads. This will be a dry lot
dairy run which means the waste management is not flushed. There are lagoons per the law. There is
6
existing feedlot to the north west of this site; this site basically surrounds that site. There is one zone in
Weld County that allows for a dairy. The intent is to try to direct dairy's to areas where compatible uses
exist. With this proposal there will be several Development Standards and Conditions of Approval that the
applicant must adhere to.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the other dairy's the family owns. Mr. Haren stated one that is leased is on
west 10th near the missile site. There is another dairy for 5000 cows 1/2 mile east of Frederick and
Firestone.
Doug Ochsner asked about the existing feedlot. Mr. Haren stated it is not part of this property it is located
adjacent to the north, the property being considered basically surrounds that site. This dairy could be
considered as nothing more than an expansion of a use that already exists.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
The following comments have been added due to public comment on the previous case.
Bill Hutchinson, 39507 CR 37, one mile west of feedlot, provided his concerns. This operation will buy
products within the area but this will get very little product north of Hwy 14 since the City of Thornton bought
the water, will be no hay. This dairy will have hard time getting rid of manure.
Rip Cole, 1410 Falcon Ridge Rd, provided his concerns. He is the general manager of the Eaton Country
Club and a resident of Hawkstone Subdivision. This is poor site as this would make the site have twice as
many cows as people in Ault. The Eaton Country Club Board of Directors letter was read into the record, a
copy of the letter is in the original record. There are other areas for this to be located in.
Gary Schnell, 800 Hawk Stone Drive, provided concerns. Mr. Schnell is also the Mayor Pro-Tem for Eaton
but this issue has not been discussed by them so he will be speaking on his behalf only. The urban growth
boundary extends to CR 80. This is not within Eaton's Urban Growth Boundary but it will be adjacent to it. Mr.
Schnell disagrees with this being compatible use in area. There are towns in the area that will be experiencing
extensive growth. This is heavy industrial use not agricultural use.
Greg Mack, 1455 Falcon Ridge Court, provided his concerns. He is tired of hearing about development
complaining about agricultural uses. However,the Town of Eaton has grown approximately 1.5 miles. In 10
years there will be development in this area. Mr. Mack is in support feed lots that are in operation today but
this site could cause future problems. Greeley has had to use tax dollars to buy feedlots because
development grew to those uses. This could place the same burden on towns. There are water deficiencies
in the area already. The plan for the area should be reviewed for both agricultural and residences. Should
this be recommended approval there should be an independent firm hired to monitor the air and water quality
for the area and should those be altered this will give authority to cease and desist. Please protect people and
agricultural in business in the area.
Brad Bain, Ault Mayor on behalf of town board and himself, provided their concerns. During the October
board meeting it was voted on to not support the proposal. They are not against the dairy itself just the
location. Ault Comprehensive Plan is not done but the projected plan is to annex and extend the Urban
Growth Boundary one mile to CR 37. The long range plan is to increase this to a two mile radius to take
advantage of the growth around Ault. A one mile radius is planned for now but will increase to CR 39 in the
future which would make it adjacent to this site. That would be detrimental to the town in the future. The town
is surrounded by feedlots now but the smell and the dust will be a concern. There are feedlot to the east of
town that when full will contain 14000 head. The town and Mr. Bain would like to see another site that makes
more sense.
Tom Holton asked for clarification on the mentioned annexation. Mr. Bain stated they are looking at the shod
term to annex a one mile radius but the long term plan would be to annex two miles which would put them
adjacent to this site.
Jody Skyberg, neighbor, provided concerns. An operation this size should notify the surrounding property
owners for at least one mile. Their concerns are the odor, flies, rodents and pests. They built their home
7
away from the feed lots in the area. This site provided large farm land buffer. There is shale below the
surface and the wastewater will flow into domestic wells. The operation is said to be 24-7-365. The traffic
count was not done during harvest season. There is presently light pollution; increase in traffic and pests.
The size of this operation is not in best interest of the area. This does not blend with Comprehensive Plan in
area. They are in opposition to this.
Doug Ochsner asked for Mr.Skyberg to expand on the topography and whether the diary was higher or lower
than surrounding properties. Mr.Skyberg stated the dairy will sit on a high point that then slopes to south and
east.
Lisa Simpson, daughter for Mr. Bird, read letters of opposition from her mother and step-father since they
were unable to attend.
Doug Ochsner added there are Development Standards that address dust control.
Harry Schmidt, adjacent neighbor, provided concerns. Their property is 80 feet lower than the dairy site, on
their property with a heavy rain they have water on the farm and almost to house. The water drains to the
east,south and west and there can be nothing to stop this drainage. The water table is high in this area. They
have a domestic well for the house the dairy will affect the well. The closest dairy is two miles to the east.
They want to keep the farm and there is a need for dairy's but not at this location. The City of Thornton is
cutting off wells and there will be dry land which means no place to spread the manure. This is not a dairy but
a mass production dairy. Environ not safe for the community. There are plenty of places to build a dairy and
this is not it.
Roy Spitzer asked where his home was located. Mr. Schmidt stated it was to the east.
Maureen Martin, 19495 CR 80, neighbor, provided her concerns. They will not be able to live in the area if a
dairy is put in. She agrees with everyone else's comments.
Kenneth Powell, 1175 Eagle Drive, provided his concerns, and presented letters of opposition. The
subdivision was allowed in the area and he believes that this will produce more odors and such than what is
there now and this will affect the quality of life. Eaton Country Club presently has problems with getting
members and the additional odor may affect it in the future.
Doug Ochsner asked for the location of Hawkstone Subdivision and if it was in Eaton. Ms. Hippely stated it
was in Eaton and the county did not approve it.
Barry Pant, 1402 Prairie Hawk Road,developer of Hawkstone, provided his concerns. He still owns several
lots in Hawkstone. This does not meet with what is going on in the neighborhood. This is not an existing
facility expanding it is a new use. This does not make sense it needs to be either agricultural or residential.He
is opposed to this.
Doug Ochsner asked for the number of lots in Hawkstone. Mr. Pant indicated Hawkstone had 355 lots while
Eaton Commons has approximately 240. Eaton Commons is located further south. This is just the wrong
location for this proposal.
Josh Bailey, neighbor, added there will be a positive economic impact from this operation. There will be
several families that will benefit from this. The DeHaans will be good neighbors in the area. The number of
animals for the area and the economic benefit that it will afford will be tremendous. The benefits will apply to
grain operations, labor force that provides care for the animals, interest to banks, supplies for the operation;
utilities; fuel, oil; taxes; licenses and insurance. These are just a few things that will benefit from this
operation. Approximately$1200 dollars per animal goes back into the economy. It takes 9.5 million to support
a dairy of this size and that income will go back into the area. There would be several benefits to the area.
Mr. Bailey would like to know where urban sprawl ends to allow for the ability to sustain themselves to begin.
Angela Hower, neighbor, added she is in support of the dairy but the problem is the responsibility of the
location of the dairy. The development trend in the area is for residential. This may not be in the Urban
Growth Boundary but the County needs to look at the entire rural area. All the residents need to be
8
addressed. The Comprehensive Plan Section 22-2-60 Policy 1.3 addresses land uses that are directly related
to agricultural to locate in agricultural when impact is minimal. There is a definite impact of dairy for this size.
Apprised value is best way to gauge impact and should be considered to determine a minimal impact.
Municipalities have adopted Comprehensive Plan which impact Urban Growth Boundaries(UGB)and this will
eventually affect Ault when their boundaries increase. The UGB needs to be modified in this case. The UGB
needs to be modified from the three mile referral area. Efficient development surrounding municipalities
needs to be done with the referral process. When growth has incompatible adjacent land uses it needs to be
reviewed.
Richard Kobel, 1480 Hawk Ridge Road,added that the applicant is leasing the Hersky Dairy and why does he
not own that. The urban growth will happen around this site also. This is in the wrong spot.
Dennis Enchlaga, oppose this.
Tim Magnuson, neighbor, provided his support for the dairy. He farms and this gives him another outlet for
the crop. Ault is surrounded by the City of Thornton so it will be hard for them to grow product. The consent
of the day is Not in My Back Yard and what is going to happen when there is no more farm ground left.
Bill Sitzmen, added that 80%of his income comes from the DeHaans.
Jim Graham, 4056 CR 41, neighbor, believes that the 8000 head is in the wrong place.
Elaina Sanchez, 19352 Hwy 14, added she does not want to walk out her door and look at pile of manure.
Kacey Lind, north of Severance, added that a lot of their family income comes from DeHaan family. They
need outlet for local product and the DeHann's do buy lots of locally grown material. The farmers have to sell
there product some place and a residential development would not provide anything additional that the County
does not already have.
Adam Stanke, 525 Black Hawk Drive, added he is the one proponent of the dairy in Hawkstone. This is a
reactionary situation since the zoning was done for this type of operation it should not be changed. The dairy
should be allowed to go forward.
Don Anderson, CR 41, southwest of site, added they understand the dust and odors associated with this.
There are two concerns:groundwater and air quality. The groundwater is about 7 foot in the area. The dust is
a continuous problem and it is in the Weld County Code that if fugitive dust leaves the property that property is
in violation. Every diary has a place but this one is getting too dense for what the projected growth will be.
Brent Laymen, Greeley, added that he has a personal and professional relationship with the DeHaans. He
would like to support the operation as it is a top notch operation. They do have the resources needed to run
as good operation. In order to prevent development there is the desire to support viable and sustainable
agricultural business.
Bill Hemmerick, CEO of Colorado Livestock Association, added the applicant has been proactive with
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. The amended CAFO permit which addresses a
strong set of rules regarding surface and groundwater protection was accepted last Friday. The applicant will
have to comply with those regulations.
The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting.
Tom Haren,provided additional comments addressing concerns. The topics that were brought forward were:
manure, ground water, drainage and nuisance. There is a substantial amount of regulations the applicant
must adhere to by State and Federal Agencies. They must account for everything including manure. Some
properties in the area are permitted feedlots and dairy and they are presently operating without having to
Development Standards and Conditions of Approval applied by the County. State Regulation 81 protects
groundwater from Confined Feeding Operations. They are required to use a synthetic liner for the ponds to
prevent seepage. Regarding the nuisances, the application is willing to do what they can control. This new
facility has more standards and improved technology. They have the best designs intact. The agricultural
9
zone is the only place a facility like this can go. It is the County's obligation to protect that ability since these
are allowed in agricultural zone. The County needs to protect these uses in the agricultural zone district since
there are designated districts for residential development. It is the property owners responsibility to do due
diligence to review their possible property and look around to see what could be allowed in the area. When a
person chooses to live in an agricultural zone the allowed uses should be assumed to be able to develop next
door. Weld County Comprehensive Plan knows this therefore the reason for the plan and the Weld County
Code book. The Development Standards and Conditions of Approval along with state and federal regulations
will address the concerns from the neighbors.
Roy Spitzer asked for clarification on the composting on site and how that will be handled. Mr. Haren stated
composting is the best management tool it stabilizes manure and reduces the impact for fly and volume of
manure.
Erich Ehrlich added he believes in the rights of property owners but no one was spoken to regarding this. The
intensive use is the concern. Was there any type of conversation with the residents in the area addressing
this use? Mr. Haren stated there was no formal dialog. They have found that without the forum of a public
meeting those become one sided and difficult to manage. This meeting is a controlled forum and the proper
forum to discuss fairly. They have been planning this for a long time and it is difficult to believe all this
discussion waited until the last minute. The Town of Eaton had no conflict with this. Should Ault annex the
two miles it suggests that would be 35 times the present size of Ault. That proposed annexation gives the
applicant approximately 20 years to run this operation, given the current growth rate of Ault.
Troy Swain, Department of Public Health and Environment, addressed the issues raised by the public. Mr.
Swain pointed out the Development Standards addressed dust,rodents and groundwater. Dust is addressed
in Development Standards#9. The Department of Public Health and Environment requires the applicant to
submit Comprehensive Management Plan use control. As part of nuisance dust is also included as part of
odor in Development Standards#18 as well as#8 and#13. Odor is addressed in Development Standards
#12. Pests are addressed in Development Standard #10. Odor, dust and rodents are included in the
Management Plan for nuisance control. Groundwater protection is in Development Standards #5, #7 and
Conditions of Approval Prior to Recording the Plat in C, D and E. Those address the placement of the ponds
in relation to the ground water, wells. Regulation 81 is also incorporated. Surface water is addressed in
Development Standards #6, #7 and Prior to Recording the Plat F. The applicant will be getting a CAFO
permit. Noise is addressed in Development Standards#17. Mr. Swain added the Development Standards
and Conditions of Approval address all the concerns.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked how many animals by right can be placed on the facility. Ms. Hippely stated they could
have 1460 animal units.
Roy Spitzer asked if there was any formal Comprehensive Plan with Ault or Eaton. Ms. Hippely stated this
property is outside of both boundaries.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if there was IGA with both. Ms. Hippely stated the County does.
Paul Branham moved to add language proposed by staff in 1G. The language consists of"Written evidence
of a water agreement shall be provided to the Department of Planning Services. Appropriate documentation
shall be provided which indicates not only that taps are available, but provide assurances that these
connections will be made. The style of assurance may take several forms,however pre-purchase of taps,line
extension agreements, tap service agreements, or another form of "participation agreement" will be
acceptable.The agreements shall be approved by the Weld County Attorney's Office prior to submittal to the
Department of Planning Services. If a commercial well is intended to supplement the Water District's service
a copy of the well permit application shall be provided." Bruce Fitzgerald seconded. Motion carried.
Tom Haren has two small changes. One is the Conditions of Approval 4 and 5 regarding submitting the Mylar
within 30 days. The applicant is asking for 180 days due to the size of this. The second issue is in regards to
the parking requirements there are conditions that need to be amended due to this not being a public facility
specifically ADA requirements. Perhaps this is something that staff and the applicant can address with the
approval of the Planning Commission. Ms. Hippely stated some discussion could be done and finalized prior
to the Board of County Commissioners.
10
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to change the language to 180 days from 30 days in the appropriate places. Roy
Spitzer seconded. Motion carried.
Mr. Haren agrees to the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval.
Tom Holton asked about the PUD in the area. Ms. Hippely stated it was Stark Farms and a three lot PUD on
CR 43 between CR 17 & 18.
Paul Branham agrees this is too close to Ault and Eaton. With 8000 cows there will be an increase in traffic
and noise as well as the manure odor and flies will increase. The run off water is a concern. Mr. Branham
disagrees with staff and refers to Section 22-2-60.A. This refers to allowing a commercial business when the
impact is minimal; this is not a minimal impact. There are already a number of feedlots in the area but that
does not justify putting more intense uses in the same location. Section 23-2-220.a.4 also adds the County
will commit development when it is compatible with future development.
Bruce Fitzgerald added he lives close to the DeHaan's diary in Firestone and Frederick and very seldom
smells the odor. There is no way to determine whether this application is the source of the flies. This is a
good thing for the agricultural community in that they need places to sell their product due to Thornton drying
up the farms. The farmers in the area need other markets to sell in.
Roy Spitzer added there is development in the area and this will have an affect on the homeowners and could
have an affect on the dairy operation also. The only way to control what happens on adjacent properties is to
own the property. That is the downside of living in agricultural zone. He is concerned with the size but is
impressed with the advances in technology in the dairy operations. He will be for this issue. This is a
compatible use with the surrounding area and is adjacent to an existing feed lot.
Erich Ehrlich added the big picture is no matter what when there is no water nothing can grow,agricultural or
residence. The Planning Commission needs to figure out where to get water in order to sustain agricultural
and residences. City of Ault is looking at prison closer to Hwy 14 and in middle of the proposed area. Section
23-2-220.A.4 deals with the compatibility and this intensity of this may not be in the future development intent
for the area. With the growth in the area the concern should be where the water will come from. The dairy is
intense but there are also other factors. Regarding future development this is not in right area for this.
James Welch added he wants to be for application but only if he knew everything would be stagnant in the
area. It is the Planning Commission's job to look towards the future and this could be a train wreck in next
decade. The Planning Commission needs to prevent disasters when they can so he will be in opposition to
this.
Doug Ochsner added he was undecided. He usually is pro-property rights in the applicant being able to
choose what the best and highest use for the land is. The applicant should be able to do what they want as
long as impact is minimal. The question is whether the new dairy is that good that they would have no impact
within one mile away.
Tom Holton added he believes in property rights as well as the right to farm. A normal operation consists of
four cows per acre while this is an intensive use. The density of this is high. Should this have been located
further east it would have been better.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved that Case USR-1583,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Roy Spitzer seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Mark
Lawley, no; Roy Spitzer,yes; Erich Ehrlich, no;James Welch, no;Tom Holton, no, Doug Ochsner,no; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes; Paul Branham, no. Motion failed.
James Welch,Mark Lawley, Erich Ehrlich,Paul Branham and Doug Ochsner references Section 23-2-220.A.4
11
Tom Holton references Section 22-2-60 APolicy 1.3 and Section 23-2-220A.3 and A.4 and the interpretation of
the Weld County Right to Farm.
Mr. Ochsner added it may not be compatible with future or even existing uses.
Paul Branham moved that Case USR-1583, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
denial. Erich Ehrlich seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Mark
Lawley, yes; Roy Spitzer, no; Erich Ehrlich, yes; James Welch, yes; Tom Holton, yes, Doug Ochsner, yes;
Bruce Fitzgerald, no; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 5:18pm
Respectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
12
Hello