HomeMy WebLinkAbout20040340 Weld County Board of Commissioners
915 10`h Street
P.O. Box 758 . _.
Greeley, Colorado 80632
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Case No. USR 1444
Heard January 7, 2004
Dear Commissioners:
This is a request to reconsider the decision you made in this matter on January 7,
2004. The grounds for this request are:
1. The evidence and testimony presented clearly showed that an Asphalt
Plant is not compatible with the surrounding area.
2. The applicant's evidence on the water issues contained contradictions and
a number of the issues concerning the impact on water were not answered.
3. The proposed modifications to the roads on the proposed haul route do not
address all of the hazards that the testimony and evidence showed would be caused by
granting this application.
4. The procedures used favored the applicant and did not allow impacted
County Residents a full and fair opportunity to participate.
COMPATIBILITY ISSUE
The evidence and testimony showed that the area where the proposed facility would be
located is in an established residential and agricultural community. There are gravel
operations in the area,but none of them have an Asphalt Plant with them. The
applicant's attorney stated that the applicant"could live"with a condition that would
grant the permit without the Asphalt Plant. The commissioners did not discuss that
proposal, and one of the commissioners found that since the county had a gravel
operation there, it made this application compatible. That completely overlooks the
asphalt component which is clearly incompatible even if the gravel operation is. At the
very least, the commission should reconsider its decision and remove the asphalt plant
form the permit if the commission still desires to issue it.
WATER ISSUES
The evidence presented by the applicant included the testimony of Larry Ford, the long
time manager of the Southwest Adams County Water and Sanitation District, who has
vast experience both practical and technical about water issues. He stated that this type
dYwzvt Q 2004-0340
of operation could have impacts within one mile. The water expert presented by the
applicant only modeled impacts within 600 feet. The Commissioners were asked to take
notice of the testimony presented to them in USR—1436 by Tom Spain and Bob Sakata
that confirmed the testimony of Mr. Ford and also established that the impacts could be
within one mile. The evidence and testimony showed that there were wells and fields
within one mile that could be impacted that the applicant had not made provisions for.
The applicant tried to counter this evidence by citing a case dealing with a well that had
an adjudicated right to argue it would not be responsible for drying up fields. A gravel
pit is not an adjudicated water right, and the case cited does not relieve the applicant in
this matter of responsibility for impacts its operations will cause. The unanswered
concerns should be considered by the Commission and the application should be denied.
At the very least, the applicant should be required to be responsible for all impacts within
one (1) mile of the proposed operation.
TRAFFIC ISSUES
The evidence and testimony showed that numerous traffic hazards would be created by
granting this application. Some of these hazards were addressed by the agreements
county staff worked out with the applicant, however, some significant hazards were not.
The most glaring hazard that was not addressed concerns the "S" curve and bridge over
the irrigation ditch just west of US 85. The testimony showed that the speed limit on
Road 18 is 55 MPH, and that large gravel trucks cannot stay on the proper side of the
road when coming through this "S" curve and crossing the bridge. In fact, a photograph
of such a trucks on the wrong side of the road was presented to the Commission. Nothing
was done to eliminate this hazard. Additional issues that were not addressed were the
entrance to the proposed facility. The evidence and pictures presented established that
trucks would often be on the wrong side of the road while going in and out of the facility.
Finally, the intersection of US Highway 85 and WCR 18 is very dangerous, and the
evidence established a traffic light should be installed. The Fort Lupton Press of
Wednesday January 21, 2004 carries a story on page three (3) detailing a five car accident
at the intersection on January 17, 2004. This application will add to the hazard and no
provision has been made to eliminate this problem. The Commission should reconsider
it's decision and either deny the application or establish additional requirements that will
address all of the traffic hazards.
PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS
The Commission allowed unlimited time for the applicant to present its case. When it
came time for the opposition, a limit of five minutes was imposed for each County
Resident who was not part of a group. This is a prior restraint that unduly and unfairly
limits citizens in their right to petition their government. Here the evidence showed that
the applicants were basically from outside the county. All of the opponents were resident
citizens of the county. At least one of the opponents that testified was hurried and did not
get a full opportunity to present his views. Others obviously limited themselves to the
five minutes, and did not get a full opportunity to address the Commissioners with their
concerns. Additionally, the planning staff refused to talk to county citizens and residents
about the "merits"of the application and took the side of the applicants. Planning staff
would only discuss "procedural"matters with opponents. This obviously gave the
nonresident applicants an unfair advantage over the citizens of this county. This would
have been raised at the hearing, but the opponents did not have an opportunity to raise
additional issues or answer questions, an opportunity that WAS given to the applicants.
The Commissioners should reconsider their decision and deny the application.
For all of the above reasons, the Commissioners should reconsider the decision
they made on January 7, 2004 and deny USR 1444.
Respectfully submitted:
Robert E. Temmer
Lavenia Temmer
10691 WCR 25
Ft Lupton, Colorado 80621
On behalf of ourselves and the concerned citizens of
Volimar and Lupton Meadows
Hello