The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20011833.tiff Weld County Planning Dept, (t _ KF --)CH l RECEIVED This letter is written in response to the proposed expansion of the Scott Busker dairy farm. We are pretty new to this area though we have lived in Colorado for most of our lives. We moved to 7772 WCR 16 this last January. Since then.we have learned of the proposed expansion of the dairy through conversations with Scott. the dairy owner. We have further been witness to the concerns expressed by our other neighbors through both telephone conversations and in-person interviews and have come up with the following points. 1. The original petition made by the Mr. Busker and accepted by his neighbors was for the development of a small, family owned dairy. Now it might have been a misunderstanding but I do not see how the current 800 plus cow dairy farm can be considered a small family dairy. 2. With the operation of this rather sizable enterprise just off the northeast comer of our property have come all the less desirable attributes associated with this industry. The all too regular and overpowering scent of cattle waste from the holding ponds and dung heaps can not go unnoticed and pervades the air for miles around his facility. The dust.noise. and smell of the diesel trucks,which are constantly coming and going from his place,are both an inconvenience and a hazard on these small dirt roads and uncontrolled intersections. We have not yet experienced the flies which our neighbors have complained about which they say were not a problem before this industry moved in but I have seen their dead remains piled up within the walls of my own outbuildings and this seems to be tangible evidence which supports their claim that 'on a bad day the screen doors arc black with the flies from that dairy'. 3. The Busker dairy has been cited in the past or numerous operational and environmental practices regarded as unsafe and/or illegal. These have included the use of the cheaper to construct unlined holding ponds used to distribute effluent waste and the unseemly practice of grinding untreated turkey carcasses into his cow manure in order to pump up the volume of his fertilizer production destined for local area retail sellers. 4. In my own conversations with Scott Busker wherein he stated that he wants to expand his operation by some 500 cows on the south property, and further expand by an allotment of four cows per acre on an additional 140 acres which he holds within the Firestone expansion area. Effectively he wants to more than double his current operations. He says he wants this expansion so that he may become more competitive through the economies of scale and so reap even greater personal profits than lie currently enjoys. When I asked him how this would benefit the community, he was at a loss to cite a single example. 5. The value of our(neighbors of the dairy farm)properties is directly proportional to our distance from this smelly eyesore. 6. The Firestone/Dacono area will soon become the premier north metro expansion zone for the Denver overflow. We are seeing Denver area expansion trend in the form of high technology and light industry and corporate general offices. We in the north have a unique opportunity to raise our economic base through providing a clean and healthy environment for the middle and upper income populations which are expanding in our direction and looking for small to medium acreages with pastoral settings where they can escape from their stressful high tech jobs and enjoy the serenity of immaculate hobby farms and small communities. Based on these points I have concluded the following. Scott Busker.my neighbor and the owner/operator of the Busker dairy has employed deception and illegal practices in the initiation EXHIBIT 2001-1833 and operation of his business. I can find no evidence that he has tried to reduce the noise or dust or air pollution that his operations inflict on the community or his immediate neighbors. He might have directed the truck traffic directly to paved roads; he might have had the dirt roads treated to reduce the dust pollution. He just does not seem concerned about the welfare of the community and I just do not think that is the sort of person or industry that we should allow to expand within our community. Not only should the development of this type of industry be encouraged towards outlying areas and away from population centers but this particular dairy should be reduccd to a size that accommodates the original idea of the `small family operation' that his neighbors agreed to in the first place. Once a positive and supportive relationship has been gained between this business and its surrounding community, an expansion of operations should be considered if there is consensus that the proposed expansion is in the best interest of the community. At this time I think Scott Busker needs to focus his resources on the embetterment of his community and gaining the support of his neighbors through more environmentally healthy practices and a greater soundness within his business practices, and not on the forwarding of a not so hidden agenda in which he is the sole beneficiary. At this time I do not believe his operation is conducive to the forwarding of the Firestone/Dacono area as the premier expansion area for rurally minded metropolitan families and I think Mr. Busker personally needs to regain the confidence of his community before being allowed to expand his business practices locally. No expansion of his operations should be considered at this time. Sincerely Daniel 0 LeMaster LeMaster, Stevens 7772 WCR#16 Weld County Planning Dept. Fort Lupton, Co 80621 June 8, 2001 i LOA Julie Chester RE: SCH19 RECEIVED We purchased property at the SW corner from the Scott Busker dairy farm in January of 2001. The East Side of our property is on County Road 17, which is a dirt road to the dairy. There is an incredible amount of large semis that speed back and forth to the dairy farm every day, creating very dusty conditions. I see where no attempt was ever made by the dairy to have the dust control solution put on the roads to help alleviate this. The smells from the dairy are very offensive at times, and are of course worse when they are mucking the pens. We are plagued with an incredible amount of large black flies. I realize that flies come with country and livestock, but these flies are in excess. These problems would intensify with the expansion of the dairy. Last but understandably most important are our and our neighbor's property values. The only person who is benefiting from this expansion is Scott Busker. The folks who will suffer are all the folks that own property in this area. Most people that live around here have lived here 20 years or longer, and were here before the Diary farm. It is my understanding that Scott Busker wanted only to start a"small family dairy" when he took around his petition to his neighbors. Now it appears that he wants to crowd as many Holsteins as he possibly can into the small acreage that he owns. To summarize my views on the expansion of the Dairy, I am totally against it. Being from an agriculture background I understand all the positive and negative of dairy farming. I am totally supportive of anyone that is contributing to the agriculture world. We certainly need folks to continue farming, raising livestock and supplying the commodities that our nation depends on. The fact is, though., that we live only 1 mile from the City limits, and our feelings are that if Scott Busker wants a larger scaled operation than it should be moved further out where he won't be infringing on the rights of the other folks that share this community. Our town is expanding and we want businesses like grocery stores, medical facilities, restaurants, etc to come into our community. I am very concerned that future development will not happen in our area if this dairy continues to grow. Another point in case is this, my understanding is that any conditions that were out of control and then corrected at the dairy, (I am referring to the flies, the circumstances that warranted the Weld County Health Department to investigate conditions, the pollution control of the odors and lagoons, etc.) all had to be enforced by the efforts of the community. I think most of us have better things to do with our time than trying to keep the conditions at the dairy acceptable to the community. EXHIBIT It is my opinion that the diary doesn't try to alleviate any negative issues on it's own. The expansion of the diary will only bring on new problems for both the dairy and the community. Respectively, Judy Stevens Gilbert C. & Diana L. Evans 7987 Weld CouipT Rd. #19 Fort Lupton, ColEfki @W ty Plan June 11,2001 ePt. I 41007 Weld County Dept. of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Ave. Greeley,Colorado 80631 R E1 v C I/.D Attn.: Julie Chester Ref: SCH 19- Request for Substantial Change-Scott& Susan Busker Dairy Dear Julie, We have lived and farmed at this location for 19 years. We stand firmly opposed to the request by the Busker's for the opportunity to reopen the previously denied Use by Special Review application #1202 for their dairy. By Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners they were denied their last USR request on Feb. 3, 1999 based on the Weld County Zoning Ordinance 24.4.2. (Attach.#1). Reconfiguring the legal descriptions of his parcels of land is in no way a substantial change. It appears Scott wants the best of both,a USR for part of his land and then operates his dairy on the portion governed by the USR and includes the use by right for the additional head he wants on the remainder of his property. Scott has made it very clear in meeting with the neighbors that he will also have the additional head with use by right. He also states that he will retain the manure composting operation on the north side of his property but"it will only contain manure from the pens on that parcel". 1 know of no one in the county that determines WHERE the manure comes from. Also at issue in his denial of the USR 1202 was the fact that appeared he was not in compliance with the Confined Animal Feeding Operation Regulations(provision"C"of the Resolution). It took quite some time for Scott to find someone to certify his lagoons and come into compliance. I must emphasize that the number of dairy head in CAFOR is 714,not 1,000. His Use by Right head is approximately 880 head, therefore he must meet the CAFOR regulations with his current dairy operation. The houses in the immediate vicinity of the dairy have increased by at least 5 since the denial. He says in Item 2 of his Substantial Change Questionnaire (attach#2)"Surrounding land-uses have changed with the amendment to Weld County Recorded Exemption#2098 completed in April of 2001 etc.". We assert the ONLY changes pertain to his particular property and not surrounding properties as appears the intent of the ordinance. The area continues to become more residential not less. Provisions A (compatible with current uses) and B (future uses) are addressed in the Board of County Commissioners Resolution. He cannot satisfy the burden of proof that there has been a substantial change to justify this application. His request does reduce the number of head from the number in his original application,but with the ditch dissecting the parcel, it separates nearly 1/3 of it from the dairy area. It also greatly increases the head density of the operation on the western portion of the parcel where the pens,barn and lagoons are located. Also note that 3 lagoons and 3 pens remain on the north parcel in addition to the existing manure composting facility. If these are to contain milking head should they not also be included in the USR? The stock in those pens are also a part of the dairy. With his requested 1450 head plus the additional 560 head he has as use by right it takes the head count to over 2000 more or less. That is an intense density of cattle. The density is similar to what he requested and was denied on his previous application. Being farmers(recently retired and now share-cropping)and coming from a long time Colorado ranching family it is very difficult for us to take this stance against his application. He has shown that he didn't follow the rules before and we assert that he will not follow a new set of rules now. We had no objection when his uncle requested a USR on his dairy about a half-mile from Scott's dairy. His uncle had demonstrated he operated a dairy in a way compatible with the surrounding land uses. We must point out that it is about equal distance from us to his uncle's dairy and to the 80-acre parcel for this proposed expansion. Sincerely,yit0 l6` r. 9 C c EXHIBIT Gilbert C. Evans Diana L. Evans Gilbert C.Evans p "'!I'h � � � Diana L Evans ° d a � e 7987 Weld County Road#19 Fort Lupton,Colorado 80621 RESOLUTION CWt 11 RE: DENIAL OF USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT #1202 FOR AN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT FOR A LIVESTOCK CONFINEMENT OPERATION (DAIRY) FOR 3,500 HEAD OF CATTLE LOCATED IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT -SCOTT BUSKER WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on the 3rd day of February, 1999, at the hour of 10:00 a.m. in the Chambers of the Board for the purpose of hearing the application of Scott Busker, 7678 Weld County Road 17, Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621, for a Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit#1202 for an Agricultural Service Establishment for a Livestock Confinement Operation (Dairy) for 3,500 head of cattle located in the A (Agricultural) Zone District on the following described real estate, to-wit: Part of Section 28, Township 2 North, Range 67 West of the 6°h P.M. Weld County, Colorado WHEREAS, said applicant was represented by Tom Haren, Enviro Stock, Inc., at said hearing, and WHEREAS, Section 24.4.2 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance provides standards for review of said Special Review Permit, and - WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners heard all of the testimony and statements of those present, studied the request of the applicant and the recommendations of the Weld County Planning Commission and all of the exhibits and evidence presented in this matter and, having been fully informed, finds that this request shall be denied for the following reasons: 1. It is the opinion of the Board of County Commissioners that the applicant has not met the burden of proof, nor has he demonstrated compliance with Section 24.4.2 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance, as follows: a. Section 24.4.2.3— That the USES which would be permitted will be compatible with the existing surrounding land USES. The Board of County Commissioners finds that the proposal is not consistent with the existing surrounding land uses. These uses include rural residential subdivisions which are not compatible with expansion of a dairy to the proposed size. b. Section 24.4.2.4-- That the USES which would be permitted will be compatible with the future DEVELOPMENT of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zone and with future DEVELOPMENT as projected by the COMPREHENSIVE PLAN of the COUNTY or the adopted MASTER PLANS of affected municipalities. The Board finds that the applicant has not proven this proposal is compatible with future 990189 �. /e „ PI �9RA Gilbert C.Evans Diana L Evans �_J-�-,�� 7987 Weld County Road#19 ajjaa"i I el, Fort Lupton,Colorado 80621 RE: DENY USR #1202 - SCOTT BUSKER, BUSKER DAIRY PAGE 2 development as projected by the Town of Firestone in its Comprehensive Plan. Urban development has already occurred in this area and residential development will continue by means of several annexations, thereby making the expansion of this existing use incompatible. The dairy is situated within one-half mile of the limits of the Town of Firestone, with approximately one-half of the site located in the Firestone Urban Growth Boundary Area. c. Section 24.4.2.7— That there is adequate provision for the protection of the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the NEIGHBORHOOD and the COUNTY. The Board of County Commissioners finds the applicant does not appear to currently be in compliance, nor has he demonstrated his ability to comply in the future with Conditions of Approval and Development Standards necessary for the protection of the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants in the terms of the proposed Use by Special Review. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the application of Scott Busker for a Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit#1202 for an Agricultural Service Establishment for a Livestock Confinement Operation (Dairy) for 3,500 head of cattle located in the A (Agricultural) Zone District, on the hereinabove described parcel of land be, and hereby is, denied. The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 3rd day of February, A. D. 1999. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ��COUNTY, COL DO ATTEST: 44/ ��{�' j , !// ` (AYE) Date K. Hall, Chair Weld County Clerk to B - • •r mo 1 , Li urtci ( 0 -,4h,G„.„ f--Barbar J. Kirkmeyer, Pro-Tem tY BY: Deputy Clerk to the I \W { ;de (AYE) eorge . axter OV AS TO FORM: (AYE) . J. eile my Attorney (NAY) Glenn Va Hera nn Gilbert C.Evans Diana L.Evans 7987 Weld County Road#19 0-hick Fort Lupton,Colorado 80621 y( SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE QUESTIONAIRE Scott and Susan Busker Neither an applicant nor a successor in interest may submit any type of land use application within a 5 year period (10 years in the case of multiple recorded exemption applications) following denial of a previous application involving the same property, unless the Board of County Commissioners has found, based on the applicant's rehearing petition,the Planning Commission's recommendation, oral testimony at the public hearings, written related information, and any other relevant material in making its decision until at least one of the following criteria has been satisfied. A. Within the concept of a new application, the facts and circumstances of which are substantially changed from the initial application) 1. Has the land-use application substantially changed? (e.g.,substantial changes in lot size or density, In internal or external roads, or. in the case of a rezoning, in the uses proposed The land use application has substantially changed. The application area has been reduced from 4500 head of dairy cattle on 130 acres to 1450 head of dairy cattle on 80 acres. The configuration of the parcels and improvements has substantially changed. _ 2. Have the surrounding land-uses substantially changed? (e.g., has the adjacent land use changed during the period of time since the last application such that what would be compatible with the adjacent use?) The surrounding land uses have changed with the amendment to Weld County Recorded Exemption t 2098 completed in April of 2001 and the reconfiguration of the proposed Use-by-Special review request. The proposed dairy USR is no longer within the City of Firestone's Urban Growth Boundary. 3. Have applicable provisions of the law substantially changed. (e.g., the applicant is proposing using a different procedure so a different set of criteria applies or the applicable ordinance has been amended by the Board so the criteria has substantially changed?) Applicable provisions of the Colorado State Statute regarding e4ra-territorial Jurisdiction extending 1 mile beyond the existing municipal boundaries and allowing municipalities regulatory authority of dairies has been repealed since the original application was denied. OR B. Wdhin the concept of rehearing the previously denied application. • 1. Is there newly discovered evidence that the applicant could not have discovered with diligent effort at the time of the original application? I ^ i / 3 a co l Weld County Planning Department 1555 N. 17th Ave. Greeley, Colorado 80631 To: Julie Chester I want to protest Scott Busker's expansion of his dairy. I have lived here since 1971 when my husband and I sold our farm (dairy) in Nebraska and moved here. Scott has not been a good neighbor. I have had good neighbors all around since I lived here. They helped me when I was widowed and still help me. Scott has done nothing but make problems for me. My laundry smells like sewage when I hang it out. In the summer flies are terrible. The worst thing is that the day after he was denied his expansion he put up a gate and keeps me out from the back of my property. I own the oil rights and the road is my access to my hay field. With his gate I couldn't go to my hay field by the oil road. He locked it and didn't give me a key. He doesn't keep it locked anymore but since his gate is there I know he doesn't want me to go through. It is like he is spiteful. That is my road and he hasn't allowed me to go there. That was over two years ago and I have had to go to the hay field through my pasture. The gate doesn't have a fence or anything, just a gate. He comes here after I have been here all these years and does this. That is not a good neighbor. We had a dairy in Nebraska and our neighbors never complained about these things. We tried to be good neighbors. I have farmed my whole life and never had a neighbor like him. og - v c . Ail Irene Schutt 7707 Road 19 Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 EXHIBIT 1 /9 Chester D. and Niki G. Rozean 8600 Weld County Road #18 Ft. Lupton, CO 80621 (303)833-5224 June 11, 2001 Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Case Number USR-1202 Scott& Susan Busker Gentlemen: We would like to respond to the Busker's application for Substantial Change. We have some concerns which we would like to share with you. We have been in this immediate area for the last 17 years, living for 15 of those years no more than 1000 feet from a small family dairy. We found that particular dairy to be a very good neighbor. There was of course the inevitable times when due to weather conditions that odor was obvious, however, as there was no composting operation the agricultural smell was not nearly as offensive as we have found the Busker operation to be. Two years ago we sat in on the hearing for the Buskers first application for the enlargement of his current dairy. At that time we were there on behalf of the interest of our parents, E.H. and Elva Marino who lived at the above address since 1990. The Marino's had not found Mr. Busker to be a man of his word and felt that he was more prone to mislead and prevaricate than tell the truth. We found, in listening to the all day hearing that they had not overstated the case. Since that time our interest has become more immediate as Mr. Marino has passed away and we have purchased the property from Mrs. Marino and are currently caring for her at that residence. As we understand this issue, Mr. Busker is not eligible for this application unless at least one of three criteria has been met. We respectfully would like to suggest that none of these have been satisfied. We will address them in order. A. Within the concept of a new application, the facts and circumstances of which are substantially changed from the initial application. 1. Has the land-use application substantially changed? (e.g., substantial changes in lot size or density, in internal or external roads, or, in the case of a rezoning, in the uses proposed?) Busker's Position: The land use application has substantially changed. The application area has been reduced from 4500 head of dairy cattle on 130 acres to 1450 head of dairy cattle on 80 acres. The configuration of the parcels and improvements has substantially changed. EXHIBIT Rozean Rebuttal: The land use application has NOT substantially changed. The concentration of cattle remains ESSENTIALLY the same if not more. When Mr. Busker presented this to us in an effort to gain our support, he advised us immediately upon introducing himself,that he wanted to be up-front and honest. In the 20 minutes he was with us he admitted that the number of cattle would REALLY not be 1450 but closer to 2000 due to the 4 head per acre allowance which he will have on the remainder of his land which he is asking YOU not to consider. We feel that this was an effort to work with fuzzy numbers which Mr. Busker was manipulating in an effort to gain support under FALSE pretenses. The only REAL change is that Mr. Busker is trying to uninvolve the 80 acres which are of concern to the City of Firestone and the IGA agieeuient. Being in visual sight of the Busker Dairy we have not been able to discern ANY change in the configuration of the parcels or the supposed improvements. Any improvement in overall concentration of animals will be minimal. 2. Have the surrounding land-uses substantially changed? (e.g.,has the adjacent land use changed during the period of time since the last application such that what would be compatible with the adjacent use?) Busker Position: The surrounding land uses have changed with the amendment to Weld County Recorded Exemption#2098 completed in April of 2001 and the reconfiguration of the proposed Use-by-Special review request The proposed dairy USR is no longer within the City of Firestone's Urban Growth Boundary. Rozean Rebuttal: We would agree with Mr. Busker that the surrounding land uses have indeed changed. We would disagree that it has changed since the last application"such that what would be compatible with the adjacent use." Mr. Busker is proposing to put 2000 cows ON the boundary line of the Urban Growth. He is attempting by the technicality of excluding the 80 acres which fall into this Urban Growth to push through his growth plans. The City of Firestone's concerns with this issue will not have been soothed by this maneuver. We would like to point out some of the more noticeable changes which Mr.Busker has chosen to ignore. A world class PGA golf course is nearly complete less than two miles from the proposed dairy site. A major Safeway Store is to be completed in a few months on the corner of Road 13 and Road 18, again less than two miles distant. Thirty thousand houses are planned in the immediate area. We contend that this is an area that is not moving more towards agriculture but more towards the urban. In refusing Mr. Buskers first application two years ago,the conmhisioners showed an incredible far sightedness in trying to advise Mr. Busker that to put lots of money into the expansion of a Dairy which is sitting virtually in "City Park",was not a good business decision. Whereas, many dairies are moving farther east to avoid the confrontation with the I-25 urban corridor, Mr. Busker is becoming more offensive. 3. Have applicable provision of the law substantially changed. (e.g.,the applicant is proposing using a different procedure so a different set of criteria applies or the applicable ordinance has been amended by the Board so the criteria has substantially changed?) Busker Position: Applicable provision of the Colorado State Statute regarding extra territorial jurisdiction extending 1 mile beyond the existing municipal boundaries and allowing municipalities regulatory authority of dairies has been repealed since the original application was denied. Rozean Rebuttal: The IGA agreement between Weld County and the City of Firestone predates the new changes in the law. The essence of the issue which Mr. Busker has with the City of Firestone remains in tact. In conclusion,we would like to state that in our discussion with Mr. Busker,we raised the issue of some of our concerns. We explained that his operation is extremely odiferous now and that we had concerns that it would be even worse when the numbers were raised to 2000. We explained that the composting is not just a powerful smell but an offensive one. We addressed our concerns with the size of his operation and the growth which we are all facing in this immediate area. When our house was built in 1990 it sat 2 V2 miles from Firestone. It is now 1 mile from Firestone. We haven't changed our location. Mr. Busker said he realized that the growth in this area was a real problem to his dairy,but that he was not planning on being here permanently. We fear that he is lying. He again assured us that he is trying to be up-front with his neighbors and told us that he really did not have to inform any neighbor who is more than 500 feet away. Nearly everyone is farther than 500 feet! We like cows,in reasonable numbers,we like dairymen, if they are honest,we are not against people making money, even lots of it. Which of us isn't trying to better his situation? However, it is interesting to note that Mr. Busker's own residence is situated farther away from his own dairy than the neighbors whose concerns he is trying to bypass. We still feel that if,as Mr. Busker assures us,this is only a temporary location for his dairy,that he and his neighbors would be far better served to keep the dairy at it's present size thereby preserving the lifestyle of those who were here before the dairy and will be still be here after the dairy. Additionally this would save Mr. Busker money which would be better used in establishing his dairy in its ultimately final location. If he in fact was not being as straight forward with us as he would have us believe, and is in fact planning to be a permanent dairy in the area,then we feel that the board would not be acting in the best interest of all concerned to place Mr. Busker on a firm collision course with the City of Firestone,the current residents, and the future residents of the immediate area. We are firm supporters of the agricultural lifestyle and its protection,but there will far more animosity towards dairies and agriculture in the future if this direct confrontation is allowed to happen Cheste D. iki Rozean � Weld County Planning Dept:J00 zoo\ RECEIVED June 14, 2001 Weld County Planning Commission Dear Planning Commission Board Member, I, as representative of the surrounding property owners of SCH 19, went to planning services today and found that the packets have been mailed out and do not include letters from surrounding property owners received after 6/11/01. We are very concerned about Mr. Busker being allowed to re-apply for a USR (prior to the 5 year requirement) after being previously denied. This packet contains the letters omitted from your packet sent by Planning Services. Julie Chester suggested that 1 send the letters to you directly and I am sending the original letters to her for the file. Thank you for your participation on our County Planning Board and we appreciate your reviewing these letters and other information in the packet sent by the county. We hope having read this information before the meeting will allow you to hear the matter objectively. Sincerely, Diana Evans 7987 WCR 19 Fort Lupton, Co. 80621 P.S. We hope you were provided with "Outline of Reasons for Denial-December 15, 1998" the 13 page document from the Planning Board of reasons for denial from Scott Busker's hearing 12/15/98. This is a concise report of the justification of his denial at the origional Planning Hearing. It could be very informative for our z.v - `moo EXHIBIT 1� � M Weld County Planning Dept. O June 14 , 2001 • 8 ZOO( R ECEI V ED To the Department of Planning Services : I have been a property owner at 8275 wcr 16 since August of 1993. When I moved to this property there were 10 homes on the section. One year later a dairy was built in the middle of all the properties. In Feburary of 1999 Busker Dairy was denied his petition to add 3500 cows to his 130 acres. He now says he has made substantial changes and is reapplying to grow to 1400 cows . The onle thing that has changed is he wants to move the operations on to another piece of his property and out of the Firestone growth area. In fact one of the towns in the area are in the process of developing land within one mile of the dairy. The only obvious thing he has done to toward Compliance to Approval Standard is he now has Orkin come in to spray for flies. The smell from the D airy has not changed one bit. I run a dog boarding kennel and lose customers do to the smell that city people think is my kennel. When people check the kennel out they use their noses to see how clean the place is. The ponds that exsist now are bad enough, if he adds two more ponds and three pens it will only intensify. I hope before you make your decision you drive out to the site and see the impact of what he wants to do. Wayne and Mary Lockwood 8275 WCR 16 Ft. Lupton, CO 80621 303-833-4846 EXHIBIT - 1 - 1 a5- EXHIBIT A., Weld County Planning Dept. g<o L / 4 Wwr �t �� JUN 8 2001 —7 Nog_ )7 RECEIVED 119 eT L"Pre)/J noz/ �3 ©3� g33 - 5780 RC: Cytsr N u,aB2 oz- x6-r cg-Svs4A) RvsAve_ CHI zoo / P /iv otij Co nim, ss/OA-) 2-/kE 7'a s ►e yvt oT l N I o n15 A our -rot- $vs/c,e-5 Ar?c , cA-not✓ rote— c0 srANnt_ coo, J & E7 A- Me Y l •u�r✓L gCQitS " F Iz S7E-a) 11 C Da NO-r- '771-/A))< l H�1'l'- A-A r op T/1-C Fo L_ ` a vt) /Ai e7 -r"(-4g cR I --1 q / fl'1/Z CWMeitt SvS5ThA)TI -1. c/A3cc `r3tr‘ cuS barine +1$ l4-Pts tioup-List tPpLi c , IonJ v&5T*,uT Y C )0 67 w F-2 a ='7" BAS AI o T c a5-774A nA- LY c-0, G 7 o N MkS o Nit TRIG 7b 2I w1/A)A-TE--- A mAS0 tz- 60-11 OF 17 �, 1 jY /JoT (Nct,uv)tJ b1 590 oF TF-I'b oe-1 Gi/A✓4YL�,� 130 A c-2-E S Gl go t-O 73k AP-M-14-4. fl \)J ► L S'R� L u5C Tf►'- 5-o Act zi ear— USE 3 �L ANT- .-Al1) v 4 A CoN FINED A /JI Y1'"L tend OPERA-77 159C7•3701-2,Li /ri 771c Srrm S P®%. Po No T To )c TH-1t" MoVJN4 rW-c- 2Aig f /s OF /1- M1LE L 15 4 �vesi73 AM2A2 G#444 b 20 1-11I 5 tf C Cg Ro() JUTD//J 4 LA AID U5r S STAJT7ktLY eAi-Fl-N6, ED ? ,swim : i k LR-ti_D use iN r 4R-e--4 Pfri S SuThsTl4}AY7A-I eibtFA14O> T 4Voie ., �;✓U Ong EN r— -r 4 -rNir JI 4e set /APvs77eiAt_ F5 am of A ,ee jicco2d7/Al7 tkELD Cow,f-ry roPc1GAF-770AI Sr/61STcS .hC T wJ5 6I= rie-i-vnestcy� AND F P-FSlu E— kat) 13r t cm. c 7O ,4Aid .09 % r� 1 ` 86 m 1991 . 7 s 17A AY Fog- ps(z5 g atcfru G/go IA)n7t a1A-1 Eirait S 3t 2 5 ,D--S. a ibh)i, icA-LE r -0 V,5/ dE S ear 7 2 Sv€3577 AI 7Ati C NG�� A-Aisw S /*opts/AJ4j ESSc,vrnA-L Y a SAME SPccthi U SC t M4 e7L 7W 5A-1Oc e i i 4 AS w ) I tvks DEN e-D Oki Fe3. 3J I: / ) ec cz_ 5/ ©A/ No L.,)ia412Y PL 77H LAN5 NEST 7D A 4- AA) ► jv1k./A c,— t 'sr g v g ?R l o e_ Tf4-r✓ R AD Pa c )h45r j r ' art' WI-n-\ A k e-243 Cov,ir-y PLA-Jug _ I4F t O v/A 1,- e F 77k S /,✓bids 7-x,/,42 J< saiy OF A 6R ) c u L ►z- C —Ms Le c, 7o1/4/ W a AIaT ?r cod vs i sr/1.v 7- aJX 7J "MC auIPZ /4ES se---c- F g:TTI C Y Me- 1 ? 9 -1;6 6'r/f��A�lyl vi0/ E Weld County Planning Deft. June 14, 2001 R E c E/ VIED Weld County Planning Commission 1555 N. 17th Ave. Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Scott Busker Dairy Planning Commission Members : As fairly new home owner to the area ( 1998 ) , we wish to voice our objection to the expansion of the Scott Busker dairy. In the 1970 ' s and 1980 ' s the county allowed the farmer/landowner to subdivids the farm in to small acre- ages ( 9 to 29 acres ) on Road 16 directly south of the present dairy. These small acreages are nice for the country minded people who want a few animals and enjoy country living. Then in the 1990 ' s the dairy was started in the middle of these small acreages . The dairy has not been the best of neighbor . We have had an extremely large number of flies, lots of noise and dust from the traffic to the dairy, and times of extreme odor from the lagoons . If the dairy is allowed to expand, it will put additional amounts of odor , dust, and flies into the neighborhood, greatly impacting our enjoyment of our property, and reduce our property value immensely. Sincerely, (_'JL2d � . Albert and Violet Betz 8179 County Rd 16 Ft . Lupton, CO 80621 EXHIBIT 7543 WCR 16 Ft. Lupton, CO 80621 Weld June 14, 2001 C°lintyPian 'ngDept Weld County Planning Commission / cU01 CE/ VE0 Dear Planning Commissioners: My name is Dave Mallory. I live at 7543 Rd. 16, ''A section at the NW corner of roads 16 and 17, directly west of the dairy across road 17. I have lived on this property since 1983. I am a full-time farmer and make my living growing alfalfa on this farm. My home is located on the southwest corner of my property approximately '/2 mile from the dairy and away from the prevailing north and westerly winds. Being in agriculture myself,I am generally tolerant of the smell, noise,traffic,and lighting that are a normal byproduct of the existing use of the dairy as a right to use operation. If my home were located in the northeast corner of my property, it would certainly not be tolerable. I support everyone's property right to fully enjoy their property as they wish, as long as the use of their property does not infringe on adjacent property owners' rights of the same. My property is bordered on the west by the town of Frederick's growth boundary and on the north by Firestone's growth boundary. I intend to continue my present use of my property as long as I am physically able to continue farming myself My children are not involved in the farm operation and have not expressed interest in continuing farming in my absence. Should I become unable to continue to produce income by farming my property, the next logical use would be to develop the property into multiple home sites. In my opinion, allowing the dairy to expand under a use by special review will directly impede the future use of my property and infringe on my right to enjoy my property and my ability to produce income for my family and myself. In my opinion the existing land uses around the dairy have not changed and there has been no significant change in the dairy expansion proposal. I recommend denying their request on the grounds that there have been no substantial changes and that the dairy expansion is incompatible with existing rural residential subdivisions and with future development of surrounding areas, as ruled previously by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County. Sincerely, Dave Mallory EXHIBIT Recorded at . o:hek —M.. Reception No __ ..—._ Recorder. SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED AR,2313'332 THIS DEED, Made int. 7th day of June . IY 94 . ' between ENEFGY MINI RAIS CORPORATION, a Colorado p STATE DOCUMENTARY FEE Cororatio i - nr the • Date County of Denver .State of Colorado.gismos%).and ; �• �� SCOTT D. BUSKER and SUSAN J. BUSKER, in joint tenancy whose legal addre>.is 1804 Eastshore Drive Detroit Lakes, MN. 56501 Minnesota Minnesota of the County of .Stain of IRMPOIllo.grameeta • • WITNESSETH.Thai the gianhrrst.for and in consideration of the sum of One Hundred Seventy Orye Thousand and 00/l0oths DOLLARS . OC Fee thenccrpt and%aslant%„riot..h is hereby acknowledged.ha S granted.bargained,sold and onbeytd.and by thesepresentsdo es grant. 7.10 bargain.sell.cnnves-and..a+1.1111 unto the granteetci, tlj,.q heirs and assigns hncser all the teal property.together with improvements. if any,situate. lying and heutc in the County of jceld .Stale of Colorado. described a follows- SEE EXHIBTT "?" ATTACHED HERETO B 1446 REC 02393332 06/14/94 16 : 13 $10. 00 1/002 F 1476 MARY ANN FEUERSTEIN CLERK & RECORDER WELD CO, CO • • EXHIBIT • also known bs street and nundvr a. TOGETHER with all .Sul •mgulte the hereditament%and appurtenances thereto belonging. or in anywise appertaining, and the minion and merawm.. remainder and r,rnantdc .. rents. issues and profits thereof:and all the estate,right.title, interest.claim and demand whatsoever of the gtantodt .either in law or,you,.or, at and to the above bargained premises. with the hereditament%and appurtenances: • TO HAVE AND TO HOI.II the said premises above bargained and descnbed with the appurtenances.unto the gnawers). his heirs and assigns fimner. The'motorise:,.r 1tS sel f its heirs and personal representatives or successors.does covenant and agree that it shall and will v.MIRAN7 AND FOREVER DEFEND the above-bargained premises to the quiet and peaceable possession of the ganteefsl. •I his heirs and a.vyn, against all and every person or persons claiming the whole or any pan thereof,by.through or under the gnmortsl. (N WITNESS WHEREt tf he grantortsl ha Ve executed this deed on the dam set forth above. is rnERGY MINERALS OnRPORATICSI, a Colorado Corporation t , i • 8 1446 Nr: 733332 06/14/94 16 : 13 510 . 00 2/002 F 1417 MAL • ANN FEUERSTEIN CLERK & RECORDER WELD CO, CO "EXHIBIT A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION The N1/2 of the SW1/4 and the S1/2 of the NE1/4 of Section 28 , Townst North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M. , County of Weld, State of Colon EXCEPTING THEREFROM the East 1487 . 41 feet of the N1/2 of the S1/2 of NE1/4 of said Section 28 ; ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM a strip of land 55 feet in width, extending feet to the right and 25 feet to the left of the center line of the f Canal, said center line passing through the points of traverse line hereinafter described, and varying not more than 8 feet from the lin( connecting the points of said traverse line, said traverse line beinc described as follows: Beginning at a point on the South line of the N1/2 of the SW1/4 of Section 28 , 1350 feet East of the West line of said Section 28 , said point being designated as Station 1016 + 00; thence North 13 degrees 28 minutes East, 305 feet to Station 1018 + thence North 36 degrees 53 minutes East, 499. 9 feet to Station 1023 4 thence North 40 degrees 46 minutes East, 50 feet to Station 1024 + OC thence North 45 degrees 24 minutes East, 885 feet to Station 1032 + 8 said Station 1032 + 85 being a point on the North line of the N1/2 of SW1/4 of said Section 28 , 2930 feet West of the East line of said Sec 28, as conveyed to the Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company by de recorded July 9 ; 1917 in Book 478, Page 427 . Together with all that part of the S1/2 of the NW1/4 of Section 28, Township 2 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M. , County of Weld, Stet Colorado, lying South and East of the Bull Canal . EXCEPTING THEREFROM a parcel of land conveyed to the Farmers Reservoi and Irrigation Company by deed recorded October 30, 1909 in Book 755 Page 311 RESERVING HagE'VER, unto Grantor, all oil, gas and other minerals presently awned by said grantor, if any, in, on, under, upon and that maybe produced fran said premises, TOGETHER WITH the rights of ingress and egress necessary to explore for, nine and remove such oil, gas and other minerals. Hello