HomeMy WebLinkAbout20033180.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by James Rohn, along with additional language in Development Standard #13, that the following
resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld
County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1437
APPLICANT: Moises Rodriguez, do Fred Otis
PLANNER: Kim Ogle •
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Tract 12, Ireland Gardens; being part of SW4 of Section 2, Ti N, R65W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for Multi-Family
Dwellings for persons principally employed at or engaged in Farming,
Ranching or Gardening in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Hwy 52 and 1/4 mile east of Beech Street
(CR 45).
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 23-2-260 of
the Weld County Code.
2. It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the applicant has shown compliance with Section
23-2-220 of the Weld County Code as follows:
A. Section 23-2-220.A.1 -- The proposed use is consistent with Chapter 22 and any other
applicable code provisions or ordinance in effect. Section 22-2-180.H, states "Residential
development on agricultural zoned land is provided to aid in the continuation of agricultural
production and/or to accommodate low intensity development." Section 22-2-190.F.1
(R.Policy 6.1)states "Opportunities for housing developments including, but not limited to,
multi-family and manufactured homes,should be provided to encourage lower cost renter or
owner occupied housing or employee housing." The existing two - ten unit migrant farm
houses with an unattached Public Bath House was established in 1977 through CUP-25 to
assist the American Products pickle operation. The two labor housing units were permitted
to provide housing for up to 100 person during the months of May through September,with
one unit occupied full time for the purpose of protection and maintenance. The property,
including all structures were acquired by the applicant in January 2001.
This application is for 60 migrant farm laborers between May 1 and September 30 of each
calendar year and 20 migrant farm laborers between October 1 and April 30 of each calendar
year.
B. Section 23-2-220.A.2--The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the A(Agricultural)
Zone District. Section 23-3-40.M of the Weld County Code provides for Multi-Family
Dwellings for persons principally employed at or engaged in Farming,Ranching or Gardening
as a Use by Special Review in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
C. Section 23-2-220.A.3--The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with the existing
surrounding land uses. Surrounding parcels to the east are predominately residential,to the
south is the Hudson Fire Station, a Baptist Church, the Town of Hudson Park and Town of
Hudson Housing Authority residential structures all located within the Town Limits. To the
west are the incorporated Town Limits for Hudson. To the north is the Burlington Northern
rail tracks, residential properties and the 1-76 corridor. The site has been used for migrant
farm labor housing for approximately 26 years under the present Conditional Use Permit,
i^ CUP-25.
D. Section 23-2-220.A.4 -- The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with future
development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zoning and with the future
development as projected by Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code and any other applicable
code provisions or ordinances in effect, or the adopted Master Plans of affectad
2003-3180
Resolution USR-1437
Moises Rodriguez
Page 2
municipalities. The Town of Hudson was provided a Notice of Inquiry dated January 30,
2003 advising the town that the subject property was within their Urban Growth Boundary.
In a letter dated February 6, 2003 from Jim Landeck, Town Administrator, he stated, "the
Board of Trustees is reluctant to consider any annexation petition for the property until the
issues and concerns could be satisfactorily resolved." Further, Landecks letter states,"the
property is not compatible with the Town's current Comprehensive Plan for the area." In a
referral response dated July 23, 2003, the Board of Trustees of Hudson"strongly objects to
the consideration and approval of the proposed Special Review permit for this property.
Ordinance 2003-XX, Article XIV, Chapter 19 , the Inter-governmental Agreement (IGA)
boundary with the Town of Hudson will [presently] influence this site. The Department of
Planning Services and the County Attorney's office determined that when the application was
submitted and under review there was not an IGA in place between Weld County and the
Town of Hudson,therefore, it was determined by the Weld County Attorney's office that this
application would not be subject to Ordinance 2003-XX,Article XIV, Chapter 19 ,given that
Ordinance 2003-XX, Article XIV, Chapter 19 was not adopted prior to the submittal of the
Use by Special Review, (USR-1437) application.
E. Section 23-2-220.A.5--The application complies with Section 23-5 of the Weld County Code.
Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to
adhere to the fee structure of the County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11)
F. Section 23-2-220.A.6--The applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort to conserve prime
agricultural land in the locational decision for the proposed use.The subject site has a limited
amount of prime agricultural land. The site has historically been utilized as migrant farm
labor housing.
G. Section 23-2-220.A.7 -- The Design Standards (Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code),
Operation Standards (Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code), Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards ensure that there are adequate provisions for the protection of
health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and County.
This recommendation is based,in part, upon a review of the application materials submitted by the applicant,
other relevant information regarding the request, and responses from referral entities.
The Planning Commission recommendation for approval is conditional upon the following:
A. Prior to scheduling a Board of County Commissioners hearing:
1) The applicant shall provide written evidence from the appropriate regulatory authority of the
steps being taken to address the Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations,including the
establishment of an approved Public Water System recognized and conditionally approved
by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. (Department of Planning
Services)
2) The applicant shall provide written evidence from the appropriate regulatory authority of the
steps being taken to address the Colorado Primary Drinking Water violations as addressed
in their letter dated August 8, 2003 from Brad Simons, District Engineer, Water Quality
Control Division. (Department of Planning Services)
2) Prior to recording the plat:
A The plat shall be amended to delineate the following:
1. The Plat shall be prepared in accordance with Section 23-2-260.D of the Weld
County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
2. All plats shall be labeled USR-1435 (Department of Planning Services)
Resolution USR-1437
Moises Rodriguez
Page 3
3. The attached Development Standards. (Department of Planning Services)
4. The Permit Boundary for the facility shall include all septic leach fields and
subsurface encumbrances associated with this development. (Department of
Planning Services)
5. The plat shall reflect the current site conditions, including the location of all existing
structures associated with the labor house. (Department of Planning Services)
6. The fence enclosure, including man gates for the facility. (Department of Planning
Services)
7. The location of all on-site lighting. (Department of Planning Services)
8. The location of the screened trash enclosure and dumpster. (Department of
Planning Services)
9. The location of the graveled or equivalent parking area. This includes curb stops.
(Department of Public Works and Planning Services)
B. The applicant shall submit an application for the attached two single wide mobile homes to
both the Department of Building Inspection and to the Department of Planning Services for
review and approval. (Department of Planning Services)
C. The applicant shall schedule a walk through with the Sheriff's office to participate in a
program entitled"Crime Prevention through Environmental Design". This program reduces
the likelihood of criminal activity at a specific location by"hardening" it to crime. (Sheriff's
,-� Office)
D. The applicant shall provide evidence of compliance with Section 22-2-60.J (A.Goal 10.)that
states"Promote a quality environment which is free of unsightly materials, including but not
limited to, derelict vehicles, refuse and litter"; further, the applicant shall show compliance
with Section 22-2-60.J.1 (A.Policy 10.1) that states "Property owners should demonstrate
responsibility of ownership by minimizing safety and health hazards resulting from, but not
limited to, derelict structures, derelict vehicles and noncommercial junkyards"; and finally,
Section 22-2-60.J.2 (A.Policy 10.2) that states "Develop programs for cleanup of derelict
property,junk and weeds. (Weld County Code Ordinance 2002-6)"
Visual inspection of the property determined that there are numerous vehicles, including
buses, and accident remnant vehicles parked around the property. Cursory inspection
identified several without current tags and in some instances plates. All vehicles shall have
current plates and tags,and be in operating order. If not in compliance with the Weld County
Code,these vehicles shall be removed from the property. (Department of Planning Services)
E. The applicant shall remove from the property all mobile homes,fifth wheels and other living
accommodations that are not permitted under the Weld County Code. Further,the applicant
shall schedule a field inspection with the Department of Planning Services upon completion
of this activity. (Department of Planning Services)
F. Submit a dust abatement plan to the Environmental Health Services, Weld County
Department of Public Health& Environment,for approval prior to operation. (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
G. Environmental Health Services and the Department of Planning Services conducted a site
visit on July 31, 2003. Staff observed a marshy area near the west property line and fence.
The marshy area is located in close proximity to the septic system leach field as indicated
by the applicant on the Statement of Existing for a septic system. Upon examination of this
area, a non-sewage odor was detected as well as what appeared to be soap suds.
Environmental Health Services has concerns that the "marshy water" may be caused by
either the failing septic leach field or from grey water from the laundry facility.
Resolution USR-1437
Moises Rodriguez
Page 4
Environmental Health Services and the Department of Planning Services conducted an
additional site visit on August 8, 2003. The purpose of the site visit was to evaluate the
source of water that has allowed a stand of cattails to grow in the railroad easement. At the
time of inspection several washing machines were operating in the laundry building, and
although there was no obvious area where wash water was leaving the absorption field (no
wet ground, etc), or where it was entering the wetlands area (some absorption field sized
rock, but no pipe), it appeared that a portion of the water in the wetlands was coming from
the laundry facility as evidenced by slightly soapy water. No sewage odor was detected at
the time of inspection.
A further observation around the property found that the Hudson City Park lies north of
Highway 52 and that between the park and the Rodriguez property is a small ditch that
directs runoff into the railroad easement. An old discharge pond lies in the southwest corner
of the Rodriguez property left over from the Dean Pickle food processor. This pond is lined
(the liner is visible), fenced and holding some water from recent storm events. My
understanding is that the processing plant was on the west side of the railroad tracks and
brine water was pumped under the railroad tracks to the pond. At the time of inspection, no
discharge pipe could be located that appeared to contribute to the source of any wetlands
water(a capped, above-ground discharge pipe was found between the pond and wetlands).
Mr. Javier Rodriguez stated that after a recent storm, a nearby property owner told him that
water was overflowing from the east wetlands area to the west side of the railroad tracks
through a pipe.
The septic system for the migrant housing facility has failed in the past(Summer 2002)and
enforcement action was initiated at that time. The system has been preliminarily evaluated
for a dequacy by a registered professional engineer and determined t hat the system i s
undersized for the facility. Because of the size of the facility and number of people inhabiting
it, any repairs/modifications/enhancements must be conducted through the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment,Water Quality Control Division(WQCD),Site
Application regulations. Brad Simons,WQCD,gave a preliminary assessment of the septic
system in his August 8, 2003 comments and came to the same conclusion.
It is imperative that the following information be submitted in a timely manner.
1. Submit evidence that the Site Application process has been initiated with the
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control
Division. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
2. The applicant shall submit evidence to the Department of Planning Services, from
the Colorado Division of Water Resources, demonstrating that the well is
appropriately permitted for the multi-family use. (Domestic Well Permit Number
21904-F and Public Water System No. 162360) (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
3. The facility shall comply with the Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations (5
CCR 1003-1). Evidence shall be provided to the Weld County Department of Public
Health and Environment that the system complies with the Regulations.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
H. The applicant shall provide written evidence that all violations, including the testing and
monitoring of the public water system have been resolved to the satisfaction of the Technical
Services Unit of the Water Quality Control Division of the Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment. (Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment)
The applicant shall submit Landscape Plan map as stated in the application materials to the
Department of Planning Services for review and approval. ( Department of Planning
Services)
Resolution USR-1437
Moises Rodriguez
Page 5
J. 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)
3. 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)
4. The Department of Planning Services respectively requests the surveyor provide a digital copy of this
Use by Special Review/. Acceptable CAD formats are.dwg, .dxf,and.dgn(Microstation); acceptable
GIS formats are ArcView shapefiles,Arclnfo Coverages and Arclnfo Export files format type is .e00.
The preferred format for Images is .tif(Group 4).(Group 6 is not acceptable). This digital file may be
sent to mapsco.weld.co.us. (Department of Planning Services)
5. 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
MOISES RODRIGUEZ
USR-1437
1. Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for Multi-Family Dwellings for persons
principally employed at or engaged in Farming, Ranching or Gardening in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District, as indicated in the application materials on file 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. Prior to occupancy of the migrant housing facility in May 2004(or any year)the applicant must show
evidence of Site Application approval, and construction of the approved domestic wastewater
treatment works must be completed. Included with this approval is evidence that a Wastewater
Discharge Permit has been obtained. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
4. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Site Application approval permit at all times.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
5. All liquid and solid wastes (as defined in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, 30-20-
100.5, C.R.S.,as amended)shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that protects
against surface and groundwater contamination. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
6. No permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted 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)
7. Waste materials shall be handled, stored, and disposed in a manner that controls fugitive dust,
fugitive particulate emissions, blowing debris, and other potential nuisance conditions.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
8. Fugitive dust and fugitive particulate emissions shall be controlled on this site. (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
9. There shall be no open burning conducted on the site, with exception to burning defined as
"agricultural open burning" as defined by Regulation No. 1 of the Colorado Air Quality Control
Commission Regulations. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
10. This facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the Residential Zone
as delineated in 25-12-103 C.R.S., as amended. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
11. All potentially hazardous chemicals must be stored and handled in a safe manner in accordance
with product labeling and in a manner that minimizes the release of hazardous air pollutants
(HAP's) and volatile organic compounds (VOC's).(Department of Public Health and Environment)
12. Adequate handwashing and toilet facilities shall be provided.(Department of Public Health and
Environment)
13. Once the facility infrastructure is in place, the water system shall comply with the Public Water
System as defined in the Primary Drinking Water Regulations (5 CCR 1003-1)
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
14. Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to adhere
to the fee structure of the County Road Impact Program.(Ordinance 2002-11)
15. The landscape treatment on site shall be maintained in accordance with the Approved Landscape
Plan. (Department of Planning Services)
Resolution USR-1437
Moises Rodriguez
Page 2
16. The property owner shall allow any mineral owner the right of ingress or egress for the purposes
of exploration development, completion, recompletion, re-entry, production and maintenance
operations associated with existing or future operations located on these lands. (Department of
Planning Services)
17. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of
Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code.
18. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards
of Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code.
19. Personnel from 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
Motion seconded by Bruce Fitzgerald
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Michael Miller
John Folsom
John Hutson
Bryant Gimlin
Stephen Mokray
Bruce Fitzgerald
James Rohn
Tim Tracy
Doug Ochsner
The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of
this case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I, Voneen Macklin, 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 October 21, 2003.
Drted the 21st of October, 20 0 3.n of
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
UMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, September 16, 2003
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2003, in the Southwest Weld
County Building, Conference Room, 4209 CR 24 /, Longmont, Colorado. The meeting was called to order
by Chair, Michael Miller, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin
James Rohn
John Folsom
Stephan Mokray Absent
John Hutson
Bruce Fitzgerald
Also Present:Pam Smith,Don Carroll,Peter Schei,Chris Gathman,Kim Ogle,Monica Mika,Jacqueline Hatch
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on September 2,
2003, was approved as read.
The following Case will be continued:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1437
APPLICANT: Moises Rodriguez, do Fred Otis
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Tract 12, Ireland Gardens; being part of SW4 of Section 2, Ti N, R65W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for Multi-Family
Dwellings for persons principally employed at or engaged in Farming,
Ranching or Gardening in the A (Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Hwy 52 and 1/4 mile east of Beech Street
(CR 45).
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, is requesting a continuance to October 21, 2003. There was a
legal notification error by the newspaper.
PLANNER: Monica Mika
REQUEST: Weld County Code Changes to Chapters 23, 24, and 27.
Monica Mika,Department of Planning Services,presented the proposed changes but requested the decision
be deferred to the October 7, 2003 meeting. Ms. Mika reviewed some changes that were not present in the
packet given including handouts and email.
Michael Miller stated it would be better to review at the October 7, 2003 meeting.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to continue to October 7, 2003. James Rohn seconded. Motion carried
i'^ CASE NUMBER: PZ-521
APPLICANT: Don & Linda Owens - Gloraloma Estates
Page -1-
/O cauZits
z
John Folsom moved to include the additional reference to Public Works. James Rohn seconded. Motion
carried
James Rohn moved to include the additional language referencing the list of owners per parcel. John
Folsom seconded. Motion carried
James Rohn moved to approve the amendments to Chapter 27. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tim Tracy,yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
Chapter 23 Article 5
These modifications are in relationship to FEMA and the changes need to be consistent with the
standards. It is merely a modification to the lowest floor elevation.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to approve the amendments to Chapter 23 Article 5. Tim Tracy seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tim Tracy, yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1444
APPLICANT: Heit Farms LTD
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part N2SE4 & part N2 SE4 Section 13, T2N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit for Mineral
Resource Development Facility including wet & dry open pit mining and
materials processing and an asphalt and concrete batch plant in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 25; north of and adjacent to CR 20 1/4.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services indicated that opposition has requested on continuance
due to their attorney having to withdraw because of conflict of interest. The neighborhood group requests
additional time to adequately prepare for the hearing. The applicant does not wish to continue the
proposal.
Chris Gathman indicated that there was a letter sent by the attorney requesting to withdraw the request for
continuance. The surrounding neighbors are willing to proceed with their presentation.
Bryant Gimlin added that since there is no request for a continuance the case will be heard but it will be
heard after the case USR-1437. This case will be lengthy.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1437
APPLICANT: Moises Rodriguez, do Fred Otis
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Tract 12, Ireland Gardens; being part of SW4 of Section 2,TIN, R65W of
the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for Multi-
Family Dwellings for persons principally employed at or engaged in
Farming, Ranching or Gardening in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Hwy 52 and 1/4 mile east of Beech Street
(CR 45).
8
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1437, read the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services recommended approval of the
application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
Bryant Gimlin asked about the status of the septic system, is it still failing or have there been repairs
made? Ms. Smith, Weld County Public Health and Environment, stated there is no raw sewage on the
ground but there is wash water from the laundry room visible on the ground. There was soapy water
adjacent to the wetlands area, north of the brine water pond. The number of people that live in the
structures on-site places the septic requirements into a higher site application process. This issue is
something that can be remedied, but it is expensive. The site application process takes approximately
one year to complete, and is administered by the State. Ms. Smith has told the applicant to minimize the
number of people that live there, such that the issue of sanitary wastes is under control. Ms. Smith further
stated that to her knowledge, there has been repairs completed to the septic system, however, is
uncertain as to the extent of said repairs. Ms. Smith noted that this is not a standard residential structure
and system. There is also a private well on site providing water service to the site. It is the number of
people residing on-site that causes the well to not comply with the State drinking water requirements. The
water is adequate, but the facility is not in compliance with the requirements for a public water system.
These two issues, public water system and sanitary sewer require attention by the applicant and need to
be dealt with. Mr. Gimlin asked about the pipe adjacent to the railroad tracks. Ms. Smith stated there is a
pipe visible but it might have been from the pickle factory to feed water into the brine water pond. Mr.
Mokray asked if the boundary is inclusive of the pond. Mr. Ogle stated that the Property Deed specifically
addresses the brine water pond as being part of the parcel. In conversation with the Dean Pickle
Company representative, it has been determined that the brine water pond has always been located on
this parcel. Mr. Mokray asked about the referral from the town of Hudson. Is there evidence of a permit
process for the pond? Mr. Ogle stated that the pond is within the County and that there is not a record of
any permitting process,further, Mr. Ogle surmised that the permitting process may have been under the
Special Use Permit. Mr. Ogle added that based on the property deed and conversation with the Dean
Pickle Company representative, the brine water pond is the responsibility of the Rodriguez family. When
acquired by Mr. Rodriguez the property was purchased with the understanding that the property included
all improvements and encumbrances. Mr. Mokray asked about the septic system. Ms. Smith indicated
that there are no records with regard to the septic system or the leach field location. The three 1500
gallon septic tanks are located in front of the laundry room, in the fenced yard.
James Rohn asked Mr. Ogle about the code violations. Mr. Ogle stated the operation of the facility was
limited to three months from June to September. This operation is year round, presently. Second, there
are multiple mobile homes. The Department of Planning Services provided Javier Rodriguez, the property
owner's son with a letter approving one mobile home for the purpose of a single-family residence; a use
allowed by right given the property is zoned agricultural. The mobile home was located on site without
building permits or mobile home permit as required by Code. Mr. Ogle further stated there are multiple
derelict vehicles on site without current tags and in a condition of disrepair, further, there are two additional
mobile homes that have no permits. Mr. Rohn asked if there was ever building permits for the three
original buildings. Mr. Ogle stated that there are no building permits of record; the structures were
constructed prior to 1972.
John Folsom asked for clarification with regard to the Conditional Use Permit(CUP)and the Use by
special Review(USR), and if everything was open for consideration concerning both permits. Mr. Ogle
indicated they presently are approved under the existing CUP and all the conditions are open for
discussion. Mr. Folsom asked about the setbacks of the leach fields and the wells. Ms. Smith indicated
the setbacks meet the requirements for both the septic tanks and the leach fields.
James Rohn asked Mr. Ogle about the Hudson referral indicating there is not dedicated public access to
the site, and that the ditch company easement is being utilized. Commissioner Rohn further inquired
about the dust complaints, respective to the town due to the amount of traffic in the area. Is there a
dedicated right of way for access? Mr. Ogle indicated the applicant has a recorded easement for access
adjacent to the Ditch. This document was submitted as part of the application.
John Folsom asked if it was the intent of the USR that all the occupants will be employees of the pickle
plant. Mr. Ogle stated that in the original CUP application, the majority of the occupants were employees
of the pickle plant. Further, there is correspondence in the CUP File that states the surrounding farms
9
welcomed the migrant housing because they were unable to provide for it. Under this application, it is
stated that the occupants be engaged The conditions of the USR presently is the occupants must be
persons principally employed at or engaged in Farming, Ranching or Gardening.
Fred Otis, representative of the applicant, provided clarification to the project. There is a Conditional Use
Permit presently approved for 100 people on the property. The applicant is willing vacate the existing CUP
permit, if an approval is granted for the USR. The applicant will also bring the operation and the property
into compliance. If this application is denied, the Conditional Use Permit will remain for the property. Mr.
Otis noted there are some issues that have been brought forth and the applicant is willing to
accommodate each of them. The applicant has hired an engineer to address the water issues and make
recommendations. The recommendations are very expensive and the client would like to have some of
the requirements for this application is amended. The applicant would like to amend the condition dealing
with the public water system, indicating that the applicant does not have to come into compliance until
there are more than 24 occupants. The cost of changing the water system is expensive and the applicant
has limited funds. The applicant is willing to limit themselves to 24 occupants on the facility until the
money and improvements are in place, which will allow them to increase to 60 during the agricultural
season. Mr. Otis indicated there is a legal access to the property. He noted that the conditions of
approval and development standards will be met. The county is protected by those requirements.
John Folsom asked if there was a water source to the property or was the property utilizing a well. Mr.
Otis stated the well is the only option right now. The Town of Hudson is adjacent to this property and that
is another possible option but it would be expensive and time consuming to connect to their system. The
Town of Hudson would impose fees for the water connection and the costs for such a connection are
beyond the means of the applicant.
Stephen Mokray asked Ms. Smith about a letter from the State regarding water issues and how does the
applicant circumvent the State regulations or do those regulations need to be met first. Ms. Smith stated
that when the application was referred to the State for consideration it was determined that 25 occupants
resided in the structures and that would force them to comply with State regulations. The applicant could
go to fewer than 25 occupants and they would not be subject to the drinking water conditions by the State.
Mr. Mokray asked what the new proposal was for as proposed by Mr. Otis. Mr. Otis indicated the
applicant would "self restrict"the number of inhabitants to 24 occupants. The applicant would like to move
forward and restrict the occupancy to less than 25 until the improvements to water and sewer can be
made. Mr. Mokray asked how the county could enforce the "self-restrictions"? Mr. Ogle stated staff would
require evidence that there are less than 24 occupants. The application indicates 60 during the summer
months and 20 occupants during the remainder. Mr. Ogle added that a limitation of 20 people year around
could be added to the application at this juncture. If the application was amended, this would address the
issue of the water system. Mr. Mokray asked how to deal with the septic issue. Ms. Smith indicated that
the reduction in number of occupants and limitations on using only the lower floors of the structures would
place less of a strain on the existing system. Per Ms. Smith's calculations and research it would cost
approximately$20,000 for repair of the septic system. Mr. Mokray stated there is a need for migrant
housing but it needs to be done properly. Ms. Smith indicated that she spoke with an agency(Rural
Community Assistance Corporation) in an attempt to get assistance for the applicant. Ms. Smith
addressed the issues (water and sewer)for this application in an electronic mailing that were of concern to
the State and County. Ms. Smith received a letter from the RCAC concerning the ability of this agency to
assist the applicant. Ms. Smith read the response from RCAC into the record. . Ms. Smith stated that the
challenge with this type of situation is there is money available if a person can provide housing for a
personal farm.The money is not available for this situation because it is a migrant housing complex and
not specifically a private farm. Ms. Smith attempted to contact the Weld County Housing Authority for
assistance and was told that since the case was not directly related to a farm there was no funding for
them. Ms. Smith noted there is available funding that does not require the attachment to a farm.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked Mr. Ogle if the Conditional Use Permit would be vacated with the approval of this
USR. Mr. Ogle stated that if the request is approved the CUP will be vacated but if the USR is denied the
CUP remains in effect.
Tim Tracy questioned whether the water and sewer will have to be addressed regardless of the case and
what are the advantages to the property owners in going from a Conditional Use Permit to a Use by
Special Review. Mr. Ogle stated that the CUP is for 100 occupants from May to September. The USR is
for 60 occupants from June to September and 20 occupants throughout the remainder of the year. The
10
CUP would permit one person to stay on site for the purpose of security for the remainder of the year
during October to April. The advantage would be to the applicant to utilize the facility on a year round
basis and to also bring the property into compliance.
James Rohn asked if there were enough farms to need the housing for the area. Mr. Ogle stated that
there are farms that would benefit from this complex due to the fact many farms are unable to provide this
source of housing to workers.
John Folsom asked how to quickly bring the operation in compliance. Is it feasible to have both the CUP
and the USR in violation? Mr. Ogle stated this case began as a violation and staff determined that is
would be beneficial to both the applicant and the County to work with each other in an attempt to bring the
property into compliance thus avoiding the violation hearing process. Staff directed the applicant to
submit the USR application or be placed in violation with a scheduled hearing date with the Board of
County Commissioners. The violation was not scheduled before the Board as the USR application was
submitted within the allowable time parameters. As previously stated the case was a violation due to the
failure of a septic system. At the time of this incident, staff was unaware of the full scope of the situation.
John Folsom commented that if this is case is forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners
Conditions 1.A& 1.B and Development Standard 13 will need to be amended to remove the State
reference.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Jim Lanbeck, Town of Hudson, opposes the approval of the permit request. The brine pond is an
additional problem for the town it has no outlet. After a passing rainstorm it becomes a stagnant pond and
is a mosquito breeding ground. This site poses a negative impact to the community. The community has
experienced a burden because of the overflow use of the bathrooms in the park. There have been other
instances with the discharge of weapons on the site. Stray bullets in the vicinity of the park pose a issue
with the safety of the community. This facility is not a compatible use in the area. There is a concern
about safety with regard to construction of the structures. The well water supply and wastewater systems
are overburdened by the extensive use of the facility. The Town of Hudson would strongly recommend
denial of the current permit. A violation process should be started immediately as the facility is not in
compliance with the original CUP conditions of approval and standards.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked what would the Town like to have happen to this area. Mr. Lanbeck stated that the
property will ultimately be a commercial/industrial area adjacent to the railroad. Mr. Fitzgerald asked why
it has not been annexed into the town. Mr. Lanbeck stated that the cost for connection of the water and
sewer and the purchase of the water rights have made it financially impossible for Mr. Rodriguez to
proceed. Mr. Fitzgerald indicated that the CUP will not go away and it is for 100 seasonal workers. Mr.
Lanbeck stated that the CUP allows for that many but there have been consistently more occupants. The
site has been in violation and without proper land use enforcement the problem does not get better.
John Folsom asked about the violation and if they have been reported and the county has not responded.
Mr. Lanbeck stated it has been reported to the health department. Mr. Lanbeck clarified the issue of
access. The access is not entirely on the ditch company easement; presently the vehicles accessing the
Rodriguez property cross over approximately 10 to 12 feet of land owned by the Town.
James Rohn asked Mr. Lanbeck if the Conditions of Approval were met would the Town of Hudson
approve of this or not at all. Mr. Lanbeck stated the problem is assuring that the applicant will be
conforming to those conditions of approval. Mr. Lanbeck stated it would be a miracle if everything were
brought into compliance with this approval.
Stephen Mokray asked when the Conditional Use Permit was approved for the property. Mr. Ogle stated
the CUP was approved in 1977. Mr. Mokray inquired as to there being evidence of the site being in
violation from 1977 to present. Mr. Ogle stated that there is record that the Town of Hudson was
contacted by the Sheriffs Office at the time of the septic failure. It is Ogle's understanding that there was
no contact by the Town or adjacent property owners regarding this facility prior to this time.
Mr. Ogle stated that the Department of Public Health and Environment was contacted regarding the failure
of the septic system and that this Department working in conjunction with Planning Code Compliance
11
Staff met with the applicants to discuss what needed to be done and recommended certain action with the
water and septic systems. The meeting took place in January 2003.
James Rohn asked how many years the Town of Hudson knew this location was in violation. Mr. Lanbeck
stated that he has been with the town 21/2 years and it has been in continual violation. Mr. Lanbeck stated
there have been problems with vandalism and damage in the park. The occupants of the facility have
been in Town Court for different infractions and it is an ongoing situation. It is Mr. Landeck's opinion that
the occupants appear to work in Denver and not in the local agricultural community. Mr. Landeck stated
that Weld County Code Enforcement was notified 2 years ago about derelict vehicles, debris and numbers
of individuals utilizing the facility.
The Chair inquired if there were others desiring to speak on this application. Seeing none, the Chair
closed the public portion of the hearing.
Fred Otis, the applicant's representative, stated that it is hard to associate all the problems in the area with
these specific tenants. According to a police report, retained by Mr. Ogle,there have been 16 contacts in
the past three years. This facility should not be blamed or implicated for all the bad wills that have been
happening in the town.
Mr. Otis stated that the process has been relatively simple. The applicants met with staff in January
retained an attorney in May, the application was filed in July and the application has been in processing
ever since. The applicant's have been diligent but there has been a lack of desire to fix things due to the
uncertainty of the situation. There is an easement in place for access to the property, and if there is an
issue with that easement it needs to be corrected as stated by the Town, Mr. Otis requests the town
contact him such that a resolution to the situation may be obtained.
Bryant Gimlin asked about the brine pond being lined and holding water, does it pose risk of standing
water and infestation. Ms. Smith stated that the chlorides used in the pickle production would minimize
the possibility of any breeding mosquito's occurring.
John Folsom asked Mr. Ogle if all the conditions and standards are met will all the objections of the Town
of Hudson be satisfied. Mr. Ogle stated that staff will address the concerns of the town. The enforcement
of the conditions would be the only concern.
Tim Tracy asked how desperate are the water and sewer situations now. Ms. Smith stated that she has
no authority over the water. The nitrate level is in the acceptable range for the water. Part of the problem
with the water is the violations. There has been a failure to monitor the water system, thus to show there
is not a problem. Ms. Smith continued, there are certain tests that need to be done and those tests have
not been done. There is a well permit on file from 1976. Mr. Mokray asked if they reduce the number of
occupants to 24 or less they still have to comply. Ms. Smith indicated that if they fall below 25 occupants
there does not have to be any testing done. Mr. Folsom asked if the number is 24 total residents including
kids. Ms. Smith indicated it would be total occupants served by the public water system. Ms. Smith added
the understanding is to have 24 occupants until the public water system can get into compliance. At that
time they would like to go back to the 60 occupants during the summer and 20 year around. This will
cause issues with the septic system, they would still need approval at the State Health Department. The
septic system will need to be shown it is large enough for the 60 occupants on a year around basis. The
process will require some engineering, application with the state and it is a six-month to a year process.
There will need to be monitor wells installed to maintain the levels required by the State. If a level fails
there are mitigation that will need to be done. The septic systems will need to be monitored according to
number of occupants. Ms. Smith stated she has no indication of if the system can accommodate the 24
occupants. There is a history of failure with the system. There is a very old system in operation and it has
been repaired but there is still gray water that is leaving the property. For them to accommodate 60
people they will need to go through the State application process.
Mr. Folsom asked Mr. Ogle if all the conditions have to be met prior to recording the plat, there is no
limitation of time before the plat must be recorded. Mr. Ogle stated the plat typically must be recorded in
30 days. The applicant can ask for an extension given extenuating circumstances. The facility is still
under the conditions of the CUP; technically no one is to be residing in the structures. There could be a
stipulation to limit the residents until all the issues are addressed. Mr. Mokray added there is not a plan or
a time line. There is no way of monitoring the possible progress. Mr. Ogle stated a request for
12
documentation of a time line is a good suggestion and staff will consider adding this condition to the staff
comment, if directed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Mokray stated, the issue is working with the State
in the water area, County staff for septic and trying to bring the proposal into compliance.
James Rohn asked about the CUP and the number of people it allowed for. Mr. Ogle stated that under
the existing CUP it would be 100 occupants from May to September. Mr. Rohn asked the size and
number of units. Mr. Ogle stated there are 10 units per building and the size of those units is unknown.
Mr. Rohn indicated that it was five people per unit but that would be "packing them in." Mr. Otis indicated
he did not know the square feet of the units. Mr. Barker added the size of the units was not relevant to
approving the USR at hand. Mr. Ogle stated that his ballpark calculations showed there are two structures
at 3600 square feet total.
Fred Otis indicated concerns with the conditions 1.A and 1.B concerning the public water system. This will
not be a public water system with the recommended 24 occupants. The applicant will need to bring the
facility up to standard of a public water system when there are more than 25 occupants. The applicant
has indicated they will "self-limit" themselves to 24 occupants. Language can be added to indicate the
limiting to 24 occupants. Item G.3 addresses the water regulations also. The applicant would like to
reference the "self-limitations." Development Standard#13 refers to the drinking water regulations and
the limitation is recommended there also.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the self-regulation of occupants. Mr. Otis indicated there will be three
agencies that have jurisdiction over this site. The meaning of"self-regulation" is that the Rodriguez will
have to stay below 24 occupants or pay for the upgrades for the water and septic systems.
Stephen Mokray asked to have a time line condition of approval added. The language would consist of
"the applicant shall provide a plan with a time line for correcting the water system, septic system and the
brine pond to the Department of Planning Services and Department of Health and Environment for
approval." Mr. Ogle suggested putting this in 1.C. Mr. Barker added that the plan should address how to
comply with 1.A.
Bryant Gimlin stated he is uncomfortable with the self-regulation of the 24 occupants. It would be more
acceptable if the conditions would limit the number of occupants. Mr. Fitzgerald stated he agrees until the
issues with water and septic come into compliance.
John Folsom suggested deleting 1.A& 1.6, G.3 and H, and substitute into 1.A language consisting of"the
occupancy of the dwellings are limited to 24 persons." 1.B would them become the language suggested
by Mr. Mokray. Mr. Otis commented that placing the limitation in the standard for 24 occupants is fine but
the issue of having the applicant come back through the process will be cumbersome and costly. The
applicant would like to be able to increase the occupancy once the water and septic issues has been
addressed without having to come back and amend the permit. Mr. Gimlin indicated that the issue with
the Planning Commission is not knowing when the number would eventually increase. Mr. Otis stated that
if the requirements are written to indicate the applicant must provide evidence of this and staff is
comfortable before the numbers can increase. In the interim there is 24 occupants and when an
inspection takes place there is more a violation can be established. Mr. Barker asked how the regulatory
process was going to take place. Mr. Otis indicated that there could be self-reporting but the applicant still
has to comply with both the State and the County.
Tim Tracy asked if the intent of the application was being changed asking for 24 occupants year around
and not the original approved number. Mr.Tracy would like to see the case come back with all the
stipulations in written format so there is no question as to what is being approved and asked for. This
seems restrictive to the landowners because if they can limit the use then there is no need for a public
water system. The first issue that needs addressed is the septic system or nothing else will be beneficial.
It seems as though this would be better if the case would go back to the drawing board and address the
issue and additional considerations. Mr. Otis indicted that they are limited to 20 occupants and are not
trying to get to the 24 occupants but that is the benchmark limit.
Bryant Gimlin asked if the State will enforce with regards to the drinking water. Ms. Smith stated the State
will regulate that process. Mr. Gimlin asked if the applicant is under 25,will the State hold them to a lower
set of regulations. Ms. Smith stated if they are under 25 the State will not hold them to any regulations.
Mr. Gimlin asked if the language is needed. Ms. Smith stated the intent of the applicant is to work to be in
13
compliance with the monitoring requirements. Ms. Smith added that until a letter from the State is received
indicating approval the applicant intends to stay under the threshold. The applicant will still be working to
get all the testing done to meet compliance requirements for a public water system. Mr. Barker added that
a letter could be sent to the State indicating they are limiting the occupants to 24 asking for a letter in
return stating they do not have to comply with the public drinking water regulations for that number. This
would comply with one of the conditions in question. Ms. Smith added the two conditions are tied
together. Mr. Folsom commented that a new condition 1.A could indicate that occupancy will be limited to
20 persons until such time as the original conditions can be met at which time 60 persons will be allowed.
Bruce Barker commented that if the conditions are left as delineated, the state will do the regulating. The
evidence that staff will be looking for is the limitation to 24 occupants and the letter to the State indicating
this and receipt of a letter in return addressing the regulations will accomplish this. The other concerns
indicated will be addressed in the same way. The only issue that is not addressed is the septic system
and how it will be dealt with. Ms. Smith stated that the septic system has been addressed in G.1 and
Development Standard#3. These conditions give the applicant latitude to work on correcting the issue
and then increasing the number of occupants. This allows for approximately a seven-month time frame.
Mr. Gimlin added that the conditions and the way the applications with the State will work will also address
the time line that Mr. Mokray was asking for. Ms. Smith added that conditions 1.A& 1.B indicated that
evidence must be provided of the steps that are being taken to address. This would put them on a type of
schedule to address the time line.
James Rohn asked if there were conditions to address some of the issues from Hudson or should it be
added. Mr. Ogle stated that a specific concern could be addressed if the language was not included in
staff comments. Mr. Gimlin added that the park issue will be addressed through the septic and water
requirements. The other issues of discharge of firearms are legal issues.
Tim Tracy indicated it looks as though a time line has been addressed with an approximate seven-month
period for application to the State and receipt of recommendations in return.
Mr. Mokray stated again, he wants a time line for the whole operation. What is addressed is imbedded
into the text. Mr. Mokray wants something succinctly spelled out to force the applicant to think out a plan
of action, including the financing of such a project based on what needs to be accomplished. Mr. Gimlin
added that if the applicant wants the 60 occupants the water requirements are to be addressed as well as
the septic. Mr. Mokray stated he would like to see this activity completed prior to scheduling the Board of
County Commissioners hearing.
Mr. Mokray moved that there should be a section added to 1.C stating "the applicant shall provide a plan
with a time line for correcting the water system, septic system and brine water pond for the approval of the
Department of Planning Services and Weld County Health and Environment." No second. Motion failed.
James Rohn asked Mr. Ogle about other violations of trash and the property being clean. Mr. Ogle stated
that the issue is with derelict vehicles. Mr. Ogle stated that many of the are owned by the tenants. Mr.
Ogle continued but stating that the facility is to be vacated on September 30, and the problem should
resolve itself. If not, Code Compliance will visit and begin the necessary violation processes. Mr. Rohn
stated that he does not want to make this a condition, but would like to see the issue addressed.
Pam Smith suggested adding language to Development Standard#13 stating "Once the facility
infrastructure is in place,the water system shall comply with the Public Water System as defined at all
times." James Rohn moved to accept the language from Ms. Smith for Development Standard#13. Tim
Tracy seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Stephen Mokray, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tim
Tracy, yes. Motion carried unanimously
James Rohn commented that this is a case in violation. It is evident that the applicant is willing to change
and amend the property. That being stated, Mr. Rohn moved that Case USR-1437, be forwarded to the
Board of County Commissioners along with the amended Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded the
motion.
14
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Stephen Mokray, no; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tim Tracy,
yes. Motion carried unanimously
Stephen Mokray commented the case is not complete without the time line.
Tim Tracy commented that this is a chance to get this property cleaned up and he hopes the owners take
advantage of it.
John Folsom commented that the problem of enforcement is the larger issue. There are issues that are
expensive and the viability of the operations may not be able to accommodate them. The County is
reactive to land use enforcement, if citizens of Hudson see any violations, please report them to the
County.
James Rohn commented he hopes this is cleaned up and the issues are resolved so the much needed
service can be provided.
Bryant Gimlin commented that by going into the USR there is a better chance of cleaning things up than
what the CUP allows for.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1444
APPLICANT: Heit Farms LTD
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part N2SE4 & part N2 SE4 Section 13,T2N, R67W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit for Mineral Resource
Development Facility including wet&dry open pit mining and materials
processing and an asphalt and concrete batch plant in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 25; north of and adjacent to CR 20 1/4.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1444, read the recommendation
and comments into the record.The Department of Planning Services recommended approval of the
application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
James Rohn asked about Mr. Ogles letter about reclamation. Mr. Gathman stated that there is no referral
from Division of Wildlife (DOW). Therefore, there is no way of knowing what their issues or concerns are.
There is a time consuming process with the DOW.
Paul Gesso, representative for the applicant, provided clarification. There are several guests present to
answer any possible questions that arise. Mr. Heit, property owner, indicated they have owned the
property for several years. Last year the ground was leased and the crop was onion. The reason for
getting out of farming is the difficulty and all are getting on in age. The interest was to have the gravel
mined then provide future water storage,which will benefit the area. Mr. Gesso stated that the water
storage is important. Of the 102 total acres only 68 acres of the property will be mined. The remaining 34
acres will be preserved. The mining is an interim use; the end use will be the water storage. The
Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology did grant approval last month for the mining operation. There
is a findings and fact letter that will be submitted here on the case. The document goes into detail on what
was approved. The groundwater was one of the important aspects. There is a well monitoring plan that
was approved by all the appropriate State agencies. There is also a mitigation plan that was approved.
There have been studies on the wetlands area and mitigation for it. There are agreements on how to
handle the groundwater analysis and what the mitigation is going to be. There is an agreement between
the applicant and a concerned neighbor describing how the groundwater issues will be addressed. The
Windells withdrew their objections, as it states in the agreement. Division of Minerals and Geology placed
the financial warranty of one million on the project. Tug Martin, Banks and Gesso, addressed some
issues that will be presented by the opponents. This type of industry requires several different permits
before operation. The County permits and State permits are only two of the several permits that need to
be done. A requirement by State statute is a temporary substance supply plan. This will address
augmentation for all consumptive use at the operations. The ground water impact will be minimal. There
15
Hello