HomeMy WebLinkAbout20051747.tiff BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' SIGN POSTING
CERTIFICATE
THE LAST DAY TO POST THE SIGN IS JUNE 19, 2005 THE SIGN SHALL BE POSTED
ADJACENT TO AND VISIBLE FROM A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY.
IN THE EVENT THE PROPERTY BEING CONSIDERED FOR A SPECIAL REVIEW IS NOT
ADJACENT TO A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE DEPARTMENT
OF PLANNING SERVICES SHALL POST ONE SIGN IN THE MOST PROMINENT PLACE ON
THE PROPERTY AND POST A SECOND SIGN AT THE POINT AT WHICH THE DRIVEWAY
(ACCESS DRIVE) INTERSECTS A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY.
I, VONEEN MACKLIN, HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT THE
SIGN WAS POSTED ON THE PROPERTY AT LEAST TEN DAYS BEFORE THE BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS HEARING FOR USR-1504 IN THE AGRICULTURAL ZONE DISTRICT.
VONEEN MACKLIN
Name of Person Posting Sign
ignature of Persan Tsti0g Sign
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF WELD ) ((
The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to me this �') day ofd LI ,(U , 200,V
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
—BILLIE J. MOORE
Notary Public" NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF COLORADO
My Commission Expires: /0/,:),;20 )
EXHIBIT
_Aces - 179 1
¢ ,Lai
.. . •...,
k zd-:sr+ r g ..,w. ----t. '''' r ms's
. ,: , h ' ' 4' 4
v
71:th..''4 Y + .0 t ,� ',*4-113.,n4:14,
: 11 .� ''
4c 4 r �, E. „ xt ;;.
,f, �+ 134 N. „ LI ,a.
ite,lltiiiiers a 1. : t •�a.- � . i
c s a a4 rt F �," r `w. j.
'r'+. t a}ry_,4'r<* s t?'' 4 tax { aa� t. :4 7: '^1. •-: , t lkyy ;a rs
#Ji { t $ � ��{{Y �Y �}�A yy v ! Y "\:::.,
ip ,. )
L1 +S .a � � ay'` Xt wX -t 'lia^ r. k %*n1r , } � �,' f �x»
June 29, 2005
Jeffrey L. Boock
396 Portsmouth Dr.
St. Charles, MO 63303
Board of County Commissioners of Weld County
915 10th Street
Greeley, CO 80631
To: Members of the Board of County Commissioners
Ref: Case# USR-1504
Docket# 2005-4
I am writing this letter on behalf of my mother, Dorothy L. Boock, and co-owner, Pat Kugel who
own the %2 section of property south of CR 26 and just to the east of the proposed airstrip and
aerial spraying operation requested thru USR-1504. Our families have owned this land for over
sixty years. I am a registered architect in Missouri, but have done hospital planning on behalf of
my employer in Loveland, Denver, Grand Junction, Westminster and La Junta, Colorado.
As I have stated in my letter to Sheri Lockman - Department of Planning Services - dated May 9,
2005 it is my intent to build our retirement home on this '/z section of land south of CR 26 and
just to the east of the proposed airstrip and aerial spraying operation requested thru USR-1504. I
have enclosed a copy of this letter stating my concerns with the adverse effect this proposed
business operation would have on our future home as well as on current adjoining property
owners. To date we have received no assurance that any of these concerns have been addressed
by either local or state agencies. As well there has been no attempt by the applicant to mitigate
any of our concerns of possible chemical migration thru the soil, noise abatement, and hazards
created by low flying aircraft adjacent to homeowners. Ray's current plans show the end of the
runway only 250 feet from our west property line. I have asked Ray if he could move his
runway,hangers, and storage facilities further to the west, but have had no cooperation from Ray
to date.
Section 23-2-230 duties of the Board of County Commissioners states that the commissioners
assure that any special use permit be compatible with future development of the surrounding
area. Even though this is currently as agricultural area it is a real stretch to classify this
commercial spaying operation and airstrip as agricultural. This is primarily a risk-associated
business due to the inherent nature of its operations. How can a commercial spraying operation
and airstrip with its inherent storage, handling and usage of chemicals, refueling and fuel storage
adjacent to our property, on which we plan to build our home, be compatible?
EXHIBIT
I r
What accommodations can be made to limit the impact on current as well as future homeowners
in the surrounding areas? Again, I refer you to our concerns expressed in my letter to the Weld
County Department of Planning Services. What safeguards will the Board of County
Commissioners impose that will insure that our rights as adjoining property owners will not be
violated?
Thank you very much for your attention to this very important matter.
Sincerely,
<4r 1501.3-44---
Jeffrey L. Boock
On behalf of the Dorothy L. Boock Revocable Trust and Patricia Kugel
Cc: Joseph C. French
French & Stone P.C.
Attorneys at Law
720 Pearl Street
Boulder, CO 80302
' ' . . . . .._ . • __
- 1_ ii , .
: , I
i ,. , i
. „ i
• . ! 1_
0
•
i I i ii11 �fl
des
I i { iJI�ul 65'alai:
.7-., -, I I1 ' nq t H •
1. I"'
iwo : lira
IN ^a Cr, -i' i - V Iwo �:
f____ . - co -3 SI
I s
111 i'lit
1 i 4 1 j I s .22Lu :2. §.di
h.it
N r•-• I — o : i izg- t
' i in 82 moo, I ,
- 6IR
9 eat
gio
..
15 i
I in
I 4-
a �S aleiS L
_ ,-.-t, 1
• ..Y. k 1 a
ate L--, I 1
C I1 . g
/ ,--4 r•;; ion i • H
ri � Ii r
bfi ii 4
i . I IIIL4,' `
I fI • I
I , , ,_ jv ' I !
I i �a I i ! -A
Ei ion �.� ( I
I i m j r•! '--�•
' 2 1 1 I
I_ c ,
1
r II
1 s R-i
I ;te ��
• t
• - i /
.
May 9, 2005
Jeffrey L. Boock/Dorothy L. Boock
396 Portsmouth Dr.
St. Charles, MO 63303
Ms. Sheri Lockman
Weld County Department of Planning Services
918 10'h Street
Greeley, CO 80631
Ref: Case # USR-1504
Dear Ms. Lockman,
I am writing this letter on behalf of my mother, Dorothy L. Boock, and co-
owner, Pat Kugel, expressing our strong objection to the construction of a
crop dusting facility and airstrip proposed for construction on PT of N2
section 5, T2N, R66W of the en P.M. Weld County, Colorado.
I am a registered architect in Missouri, but have done hospital design work
on behalf of my employer in Loveland, Denver, Grand Junction,
Westminster, and La Junta, Colorado. I have durable power of attorney for
my mother and I will inherit this property upon her death. She is currently
in a skilled nursing facility. Pat Kugel is wheelchair bound. Neither of
these elderly women can attend the public hearing before the Weld County
Planning Commission scheduled for Tuesday, May 17, 2005 at 1:30 p.m.
We have employed Joseph French of French & Stone P.C. to represent us at
this public hearing. I am also trying to attend to represent the Dorothy L.
Boock Revocable Trust agreement. The revocable trust and Pat Kugel are
co-owners of the %2 section of property south of CR 26 and just to the east of
the proposed airstrip and aerial spraying operation requested thru USR-1504.
I am representing the ownership interest of my mother, Dorothy L. Boock as
well as Pat Kugel. I recently received the file on USR-1504, and am in the
process of reviewing same. Below are my preliminary comments, but I
reserve the right to supplement the submittal with additional items upon
further review.
1. This is not just a crop dusting operation; it is an airstrip as well. It is
going to be utilized not only for landings and take offs of a
commercial spraying operation, but also an airstrip for a fluctuating
amount of family and friends private aircraft. What F.A.A.
regulations pertain to an airstrip so close to adjacent property owners?
My wife and I plan to build our retirement home on this property in
two years. We plan to landscape and plant trees. Will the chemicals
and pesticides harm our plantings? At what altitude will the aircraft
be as they cross our property line? Are there noise restrictions that
these aircraft must follow? Who will enforce these restrictions? The
recommendation from Charlotte Davis of Environmental Health is
that this facility adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels
allowed in the commercial zone as described in 25-12-103 C.R.S. as
amended, in her comments dated March 14, 2005.
2. The application claims that if the wind speed is above 10 mph that
planes used for the spraying operation will not fly. What about the
other family and friends' planes stored on site. They also claim take
offs will primarily occur to the west and landings to the east. My
father was Vice-President of Ozark Airlines for 35 years; as well I
have taken hundreds of flights on our corporate Lear for my job
related trips. It is a fundamental aviation principal that you take off
and land into the wind. Not land downwind. With the primary winds
coming from the West their aircraft would make there landing
approach directly over our property. With the proposed airstrip
immediately to the west of our property what altitude will aircraft be
as they cross over our property line? 50 feet, 100 feet or?
3. Who will provide fire protection in case there is an aircraft accident?
Have these firefighters received proper training to fight aircraft fires.
How far away is the fire department? Do they have the proper
equipment to control aircraft fires, or will the county have to purchase
additional equipment?
4. As I mentioned earlier we have planned for some time to build our
retirement home on our adjacent property as well as develop some of
the land for additional residences. Sec 23-2-230 duties of Board of
County Commissioners states that the applicant requesting a special
review permit must demonstrate that "the uses which would be
permitted will be compatible with future development of the
surrounding areas as permitted by the existing zone and with future
development as projected, by Chapter 22 of this code and any other
applicable code provisions or ordinances in effort, of the mapped
master plans of affected municipalities." How can a commercial
spraying operation and airstrip with its inherent storage, handling and
usage of chemicals, refueling and fuel storage adjacent to our
property, which we plan to develop into residential property, be
compatible? This is primarily a risk-associated business due to the
inherent nature of its operations. With the storage of pesticides,
chemicals and fuel there is always the potential of migration of these
liquids through the soil to adjacent properties and water sources if a
spill should occur.
5. Sec 23-2-220 duties of planning commission also states in item 6
"That if the Use permit is proposed to be located in the "A"
(agricultural) zone district the applicant has to demonstrate a diligent
effort has been made to conserve "Prime Farmland" in the locational
decision for the proposed use". How did the applicant identify the 80
acre parcel of land from the larger parcel that is left over? Did they
choose the best, the worst?
6. A special use permit will require a site plan review. Sec 23-2-160
Application requirements for site plan reviews states that the
following document be submitted under item F; "evidence that the
zone district shall have an adequate source of potable water and meet
the requirements of the zone district" The applicants own statement
regarding water provision states "a well permit will be applied for
through the state division of water resources once the special use
permit has been approved. The 80 acre parcel is liable for a well
permit per the State Division of Water Resource, but must be
surveyed first. The property will not be surveyed unless the special
use permit is approved." How can this statement possibly assure the
planning commission that an adequate supply of potable water will be
on site. The letter from Scott Parker, Anderson Consulting
Engineers only gives the restriction for a commercially exempt well, it
does not assure that there will be an adequate supply of potable water
on site. What are the specific demands in total gallons/day that they
will need? Normally when well water is used for crop irrigation it is
returned back to the land to replenish the water supply. The water
used in this operation will be used off site.
7. The applicants soils map show that the soils in the area of the
proposed airstrip and storage/hanger facilities is Renohill clay
loam with 3 to 9 percent slopes. Their own soil information states
"this soil has poor potential for urban and recreational development".
The chief limiting features are the underlying shale, the low strength,
and the moderate to high shrink swell. These features present severe
problems in dwelling and road construction and in use of septic
tank absorption fields and sewage lagoons." With this highly unstable
soil in the proposed storage and airstrip site it seems to suggest the
potential for leaks and deteriation. Who will monitor that the facility
is properly maintained and potentially dangerous chemicals and
pesticides are not leaking into the soil?
8. Item G under section 23-2-160 states that a document be submitted that
the applicant shows "evidence that the use in the zone district shall
have adequate sewage disposal facilities and must meet the
requirements of the zone district". The applicants own soils
information states that the site is also made up of Nelson fine sand
loam as well as Renoihill clay loam. To quote their soils information
again "the underlying sandstone is the most limiting feature of this
soil". "Neither septic absorption fields nor sewage lagoons operate
properly." Who will be responsible to assure that the sewage on site is
being properly handled to not cause a health problem to adjacent
property owners?
9. The applicants application states that their aircraft will operate from
4:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Will this airstrip have runway lights? Will there
be instrument landings? What F.A.A. regulations must be met to
operate under these conditions?
10.Who will monitor the "United Agricultural Products" pickups of
chemical containers and drop off of new chemical containers and
pesticides that they are following proper and correct procedures? How
will they assure that there will be no spills as they fill the large storage
tanks? What affect will their trucks have on CR 26 as well as the
existing well access road that they plan to access the site? Who will
maintain these roads? The county? And what effect will it have on the
taxpayers? As I stated earlier in item 4, this is a risk related operation.
We need more specific information from the applicant on how they will
avoid such risks and specific steps that they will take if an accident
should occur.
11.The applicant's "plans for small to medium-sized agricultural chemical
bulk storage and mix/load facilities" is a very general set of diagrams
by Midwest Plan Services out of Ames, Iowa in 1991 and are not
specific to this site with its highly unstable soil conditions. There is no
information in the application on how the airstrip is to be constructed.
The letter from PUCD dated February 10, 2005 states their concerns of
to the application. "Soils in the area of proposed buildings and runway
have moderate to severe limitations for foundations, septic tanks and
roads. Special engineering design may be required. Site soils have a
high potential for wind erosion." The letter from Roger Vigil, building
official, with the Department of Building Inspection, Weld County
Administrative offices dated March 4, 2005 states that a plan review for
such building for which a building permit is required bear the wet
stamp of a Colorado registered architect or engineer. He also states
numerous codes that the applicant must follow to obtain a building
permit. As an architect registered in Missouri I know how thorough
these plan reviews are by local building officials. Is there adequate
information in these general diagrams to allow The Department of
Building Inspection to review and grant a building permit?
12.The letter from Donald Carroll, engineering administrator, dated
February 25, 2005 states that "applicant needs to identify on the Plat
Plan Drawing all public rights of way with dimensions. "The applicant
Shall complete a nonexclusive license agreement for the upgrade and
Maintenance of Weld County right-of-way." "This is associated with
the Proposed access shown adjacent to this section line utilities, public
of-way to the proposed USR facility." Have these items been taken care
of to Mr. Carroll's satisfaction?
13.The three page letter from Charlotte Davis from the Department of
Environmental Health lists many recommendations to the Planning
Commission that, "numerous requirements be incorporated into the
Permit as conditions that must be met prior to the issuance of the
Certificate of occupancy" as well as "be incorporated into the permit
As development standards." There are over two dozen recommendations
to this planning commission. How will these very specific
Environmental Health issues be analyzed, and who will enforce them?
14. Under section 23-2-160 application requirements for site plan review
item "2" "the applicant shall submit to the Department of Planning
Services a copy of an agreement with the owner of any ditch located on
or adjacent to the site, or shall provide written evidence than an adequate
attempt has been made to mitigate the concerns of the ditch owners. The
agreement shall stipulate that ditch activities have adequately been
incorporated into the design of the site." I note the letter from Platteville
Irrigating and Milling Company dated February 21, 2005, stating
"please be advised that the concern the Platteville Irrigating and Milling
Company has concerning this facility is the possibility of a chemical spill
into the ditch which is on western border of the said property. This
company wants the assurance that there will be no such occurrence of a
chemical spill." Accidents happen. I did not see any letter of agreement
of their concerns from the applicant.
15.What effect will this airstrip have on the existing wildlife and their
habitat? M you noted there are numerous prairie dogs as well as
rabbits on this site.
On Thursday, May 5, 2005, I received a telephone call from Mr. Ray
Edmiston asking to talk to my mother who is currently in a nursing home
with failing health. Ray explained his operation and I related our
concerns. I asked if he could move his runway and storage
faculties to the west. The end of the runway on his current site plan is
approximately, 250 feet from our west property line. He stated that
"this was where the runway had to be". I have not heard back from Ray
Edmiston regarding our other concerns with his proposal.
Sheri these are only my preliminary comments since, I recently
received this packet of information and I reserve the right for Mr. French
and myself to further document our concerns and objections. I would hope
that with numerous discrepancies in the applicants application for a
special use permit that the Planning Commission recommends to the
County Commissioners that they refuse the applicants request for a
special use permit. Section 23-2-200 clearly states "the intent of the
special review is to protect and promote the health, safety, connivance and
general welfare of the present and future residents of the county."
In summary this is a risk related operation. The burden is on the applicant
requesting this special use permit to safe guard the rights of surrounding
property owners. I don't see documentation in the application that this has
been accomplished.
Thank you for your time in this matter.
Jeff Boock in behalf of Dorothy L. Boock and Pat Kugel.
Cc: Joseph C. French
French & Stone P.C.
Attorneys at Law
720 Pearl Street
Boulder, CO 80302
Hello