HomeMy WebLinkAbout20010232 January 10, 2000
yield County Planning Dept.
.ANN 2 20. 01
Weld Co. Colorado
Department of Planning Services R,E C E I\VO E
1555 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, Co. 80631
CASE #AmUSR-820
Re: Kerb's Dairy
We would like to file the following complaints against the Kerb's Dairy improvement
request.
1. The public hearing notice was posted late. Adequate time was not given from the
posting date as required by Department of Planning. Notice was posted on
November 6th, 2000.
2. There was a misrepresentation on the original letter sent out as to when the
hearing would be held. An additional letter was sent out later, which did not give
adequate time to prepare for the hearing and change schedules in order to attend.
3. The Weld County Health Department needed to control the dairy open sewage
problem instead of letting the problem go for months. This sewage flowed into
the watershed of the South Platte River for at least 3 months.
4. The proposed property was not abandoned for several years as stated in the
paperwork.
5. When the original use permit for the dairy was issued, there were a lot less single-
family residents in the area than what there is now. Has this been taken into
consideration?
6. Operation hours have changed at the dairy. Now we hear yelling and whistling at
all times of the night and day, plus vehicles doing the same in our back yard at all
hours. It is very hard to sleep and raise children in this environment.
7. Parties are going on at the dairy every weekend and loud music is played at all
hours of the night with beer cans littering the yard, street and ditches.
8. Their sewage proposal only accounts for one mobile home. What about the other
existing home or homes that may be built later?
9. The heavy increase of traffic use on WCR 55 due to the dairy keeps the road in
bad condition. A big pot-hole right in front of our driveway has been there for
months and was due to a silage spill from the dairy.
10. The dairy started their construction on this property before the proposal hearing
date. They claim the start date is dependent on economics?
11. They claim not to do any landscaping when their site layout shows some plans.
Which is correct?
2001-0232
EXHIBIT
12. They claim under solid manure management, Kerbs Dairy does not utilize solid
manure on its own land. When in fact, they have already spread manure this Fall
on their own land.
13. Odor conditions exist now, with the increase of the Dairy site they will worsen.
14. In November they were required to close a second traffic access and this has not
been done yet.
15. Since Kerbs Dairy's existence at this location, they have violated several county
and state laws. Who is to govern them? They can't seem to do it themselves and
yet County and State officials have ignored their wrong doings. We speak against
the expansion of Kerb's Dairy based upon their past performance.
16. If correct solid waste management is not maintained it could contaminate all
underground water and minerals. Since we have a property close by, this is a
concern for our welfare and our children.
Thank you for you consideration of our concerns. We will be attending the hearing if our
schedules will allow.
Dale & }Crystal Dilka
33501 WCR 55
Gill, Co. 80624
9700-)352-4100
33504 WCR 53
Gill, CO 80624
Weld County Planning and Zoning Board
1555 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
January 11, 2001 Weld County Planning Dept.
Subject: Kerb Dairy Expansion Concerns JAN 12 2001
USR 820 `0
Dear Weld County Planning and Zoning Board: R E C E I V E
D
Please consider the following concerns before you make your final decision regarding the
expansion of Kerb Dairy located at 33450 Weld County Road 55:
1. In the fall of 2000,this Planning and Zoning Board approved a subdivision of six Estate
lots of four acres each, and one Agricultural lot of 33 acres for Affordable Country
Homes. This subdivision is located one-forth of a mile west and across Road 55 from the
proposed dairy expansion. At the time this subdivision was approved, the dairy was
vacant. The Planning staff did a site visit and their report indicated that the approval of
the subdivision was consistent with the surrounding lands. How can the Planning staff
say the dairy expansion is consistent with the surrounding lands now that a subdivision
has been approved in such close proximity?
2. The site layout drawing for the detention ponds, corrals and barns does not have any
dimensions and there aren't any sections cut through the detention ponds, therefore how
can these be built correctly since there are no specifications to follow?
3. According to the contour map, drainage will flow south from the ponds. Overflow
points are not shown on any of the pond drawings. These overflow points should be
indicated on the drawings. In addition, there should be a plan for the wastewater
overflow to be retained on the dairy property.
4. There should be a one-foot concrete cut-off wall around the southwest corner of the new
proposed pond to ensure the corner does not erode and flood farms to the south.
5. The Kerb Dairy"25-year, 24-hour Storm Event"report shows the dairy will occupy 60
acres and an additional 48 acres will be farmed. This totals 108 acres. The total site has
155 acres (a difference of 47 acres); therefore,the calculations for the surface area of the
drainage basin that the dairy will occupy should be calculated for more than 60 acres, or
the 47 acres should be calculated as another drainage basin to get the correct pond sizes
per the regulations.
6. Currently manure is stockpiled at the dairy and then removed by local farmers and placed
on their lands. Does the dairy have signed contracts from these farmers to ensure the
stockpiles will be removed and their soils tested for nitrates as required?
IEXHIBIT
I 02 2--
Weld County Planning and Zoning Board
Kerb Dairy Expansion—USR 820
Page 2
7. What is the fly and dust control plan? This plan should be part of the dairy's permit, if
approved.
8. What did the soils test on the 48 farmed acres of the dairy's land show for nitrate
content?
9. The soils report says the maximum slope of the soil is 3 to 1. This is not indicated on the
pond drawings, so will this specification be met and how can it be verified?
10. Who will enforce the regulation that stipulates processed waste is not to be applied on
frozen ground or during a rainfall event?
We feel these issues should be addressed and resolved prior to the Planning and Zoning Board
making a final decision about the proposed dairy expansion.
Sincerely,
Don and Lynann Dunker
Weld County Planning Dept.
:AN 10 2001
RECEIVE ® Kent&CindyVance
33020 WCR 55
Dear Weld County Planning and Zoning
This letter is in response to the recent application for expansion by the Kerb's
Dairy.AmUSR-820. I would like to ask for disapproval of the expansion request and I
will give ample reason as follows. I will also ask for several additions to the approval
requirements if you decide to allow the expansion.
The reasons I would like you to not allow this expansion are many:
1) This dairy has an extensive history of running manure off the property and onto my
property as well as into the South Platte drainage. These state law violations are
well documented and can be verified by the Weld County Health Dept. This dairy
has been one of the worst violators in the entire Weld County region and should not
be rewarded for poor waste management practices.
2) The owners and Management of this dairy come from Duo Dairy in Larimer County
where they have an extensive record of manure runoff problems that are well
documented at the Latimer County Health Dept. and the Colorado State Health
Dept. Their problems in Larimer County have been turned over to the State Health
Dept for the severity of violations there.
3) The numbers that are quoted in the planning document for nitrogen application to
the soil are incorrect and seem to have drastic calculation errors. With 1100 head of
cattle they show they are bringing onto the property 40,000+gallons of water per
day and they claim they are only going to release 15,000 gallons of waste per day
with 5,000 head of cows. This is either a calculation error or a poor estimate on
their engineering companies part, and as an engineer myself I have to laugh at these
numbers. If extrapolated out with the assumption of a constant 8,000 gallons of
wash the amount of water that will be brought onto the property will be in excess of
180,000 gallons. There is very little chance that 15,000 gallons is even close. The
nitrogen application for the 15,000 gallons of liquid waste are right on the edge of
the allowable applicable nitrogen and if there are any error in the calculations then
they will be over the allowable limit of nitrogen. Their plan does not call for a
regular schedule of nitrogen testing and does not call for any ground water
monitoring of the nitrogen levels.
4) The plan submitted by Kerb's dairy calls for no application of dry manure to the 48
acres of crop land owned by them and yet on December 17 they were applying a
heavy application of dry manure to the land in order to vacate their dairy of as much
dry manure as they could prior to approval of their expansion. This has already been
a violation of any good faith intentions to abide by any rules set forth by Weld
County.
5) The County required a neighbor across the road from the dairy to put in an above
ground septic system because the ground water was too close to the surface to allow
a below ground septic system. The state law requires all lagoons that are within two
feet of the ground water to have monitoring wells installed for nitrogen
contamination of any ground water.
EXHIBIT
6) The citizens using WCR 55 has already been complained about the extensive traffic
on this road. Weld County has acknowledged a problem here by applying an
envirotec application on this road. Any additional traffic on this road would require
further maintenance and probably a hard surfacing of the road.
7) Weld County allowed a rezoning of property to the east of this property to 6 estate
lots and one 35-acre estate lot in case number Z-547. Most of the property owners
in the immediate vicinity of the dairy are small acreage parcels and therefore this
expansion is in conflict with the established normal operations set forth by the Weld
County Planning and Zoning.
8) The money gained by allowing this expansion would be very insignificant because
of the nature of the expansion request. The dairy is not asking to expand it's
milking operation it is asking for an expansion of it's breading operations. The
request only asks for 1800 head of milking cows and 220 head of dry cows. The tax
increase would be minor and there will not be any additional milk produced at this
sight. All the calves that get raised at this sight would then be moved either to the
Larimer county sight or to a Nebraska sight. Any additional grain and hay that
would be bought is already being brought in from out of county and out of state and
will not benefit the local farmers and feed providers in any way.
With these considerations there is very little reason for allowing this dairy to expand.
The expansion of this dairy is putting a huge liability on the county because the county
is very much aware of past violations and has not levied any fines or forced any
compliance. With this expansion the county would be rewarding poor management and
violations of it's own laws as well as state laws. This would allow a suit against Weld
County for any thither violations that may occur. The liability would not be worth the
minor gains that may be reaped.
If this diary is allowed to expand I would like to ask for the following additions to the
plan as submitted.
1) I would like to ask for ground water monitoring wells put in as recommended by
the state of Colorado to allow for detecting any change in the nitrogen levels in
the ground water.
2) I would like to request that the dairy be asked to pave WCR 55 from HWY 392 to
WCR 70 to allow for the additional traffic that will be on this road.
3) I would like to ask that the permit specify that there will not be more that 2500
head of cows over 2 years old on this property at any time.
All of these requests are reasonable and have merit in the operation requirements and
should be added to the requirements for this expansion if allowed to go forward.
Thank you /1\' 7-7
Kent R. Vance
Hello