HomeMy WebLinkAbout20002757.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Fred Walker 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
PLANNER: Julie A. Chester
CASE NUMBER: USR-1289
APPLICANT: Terry Dye, Dyelands Dairy LLC, 1137 North County Line Road, Ft. Collins, CO 80524
cio AgPro Environmental Services, LLC (Sharyn Frazer), 2057 Alpine Sky Drive,
Berthoud, CO 80513
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for an Agricultural Service
Establishment primarily engaged in performing agricultural, animal husbandry, or
horticultural services on a fee or contract basis, including Livestock Confinement
Operations (4,000 Head Dairy) and Four Additional Accessory to the Farm Dwelling Units
for Employees restricted to manufacturec homes on a temporary foundation, a maxirr'urn
of 2,000 milking cows allowing for calves steers, replacement heifers, and dry cows for a
total of 4,000 head in the Agricultural Zone District,as indicated in the application materials
on file in the Department of Planning Services and subject to the Development Standards
stated hereon
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parts of the W2 of Section 5, T7N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to WCR 15, North of and adjacent to WCR 84
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 24.7 of the
Weld County Zoning Ordinance, as amended.
2. It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the applicant has shown compliance with Section
24.3 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance, as amended, as follows:
a. Section 24.3.1.1 --That the proposal is consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive
Plan. A.Goal 1 states,"Preserve prime farmland for agricultural purposes which foster the
economic health and continuance of agriculture." The U.S.D.A.soils map indicates that the
soils on the majority of this property are designated "prime" and a small strip through the
center of the parcel as "prime, if irrigated." The proposed dairy is an agriculture' use of
economic importance to Weld County. According to the Greeley Tribune,in an article in the
October 1, 2000 addition of Raised in Weld County, "There are 83,000 dairy cows in Weld
(ranked 29th in the nation). Those cows, in July alone, contributed $11.1 million to the
county's economy by producing 96.6 million pounds of milk." A.Policy 1 states,"Agricultural
zoning will be established and maintained to protect and promote the County's agricultural
industry." The proposal will also benefit those commercial and industrial uses directly
related to agriculture, as well as benefit the farmers in the area who will provide feed and
other products to the dairy.
b. Section 24.3.1 .2 --The proposal is consistent with the intent of the district in which the use
is located. The property is zoned Agricultural and section 31.4.2 states that Agricultural
Service Establishments primarily engaged in performing agricultural,animal husbandry, or
2000-2757
RESOLUTION, USR.-1289
Dyelands Dairy LLC, Terry Dye
Page 2
horticultural services on a fee or contract basis,including livestock confinement operations,
are permitted as a Use by Special Review in the Agricultural Zone District.
c. Section 24.3.1.3--The uses which would oe permitted will be compatible with the existing
surrounding land uses. Uses on adjacent properties are primarily agricultural, including
farmed fields and pasture lands. There is a newly developed five lot minor subdivision
(Remington Place, Les Gelvin, S-505) approved by the Board of County Commissioners
on December 8, 1999. A condition of approval for this subdivision was to recognize the
Right to Farm Covenant and place it on the Change of Zone and Final Plat mylars, notifying
any new residents of Agricultural uses in the area. There have been several letters of
opposition sent to the Department of Planning Services from neighbors regarding potential
problems with noise,odor,dust and flies, as well as a general incompatibility with the"rural
neighborhood" and the proposed dairy. Historically, this property has had livestock
confinement operations since approximately 1973 and is rural in nature.
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards will ensure that any incompatibilities
will be mitigated. The Conditions of Approval and Development Standards will ensure the
health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Weld County. The Department of Planring
Services' staff believes that this permit will provide greater regulation than what would be
in place if the dairy was a Use by Right. As a Use by Right, the applicant could tontine
1,112 animals (four per acre) on this 278 acre parcel If this proposal is approved, the
applicant must abide by all State Department of Public Health and Environment
regulations, in addition to the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards set forth
in this permit. The Conditions of Approval and Development Standards include, but are n �t
limited to, requiring the applicant to submit and receive approval for and operate in
accordance with dust, odor and fly abatement plans as well as a manure and wastewater
management plans. The Department of Planning Services' received thirteen (13) letters,
as well as forty-one additional signatures of support for the dairy.
d. Section 24.3.1.4 --The uses which would 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 the comprehensive plan or master plans of affected
municipalities. This proposal is not within a three mile referral area of any town, however,
it is within one mile of Latimer County Larimer County was sent a referral .:or th s
application and had no conflicts with their interests. Mr. Dye has an operating dein/ n
Larirner County, with apparently no problems with the County.
e. Section 24.3.1.5 -- This proposal does not lie within any Overlay Districts. Efective
December 1, 1999, Building Permits issued on this property lots may be required to adhere
to the fee structure of the Windsor Service Area Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 210)
f. Section 24.3 1.6 --If the use is proposed to be located in the A-District, the applicant snail
demonstrate a diligent effort to conserve prime agricultural land in the locational decision
for the proposed use. This property is designated as "prime" and "prime, if irrigated' as
designated on the U.S.D.A. Soils Map. The site has been historically utilized for animal
confinement and although some prime farmground will be taken out of field production,
agricultural uses will continue to located on this parcel. including pasture.
g. Section 24.3.1.7 -There is adequate provision for the protection of the health, safety and
welfare of the nhabitants of the neighborhood and the County.The attached Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards ensure the protection of the health, safety and
welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and the County.
RESOLUTION, USR-1289
Dyelands Dairy LLC., Terry Dye
Page 3
h. Section 47 --The applicant shall comply with the additional requirements of the Livestock
Feeding Performance Standards.
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's recommendation for approval is conditional upon the following:
1. The attached Development Standards for the Special Review Permit shall be adopted and placed
on the Special Review Plat prior to recording the plat. The completed plat shall be delivered to the
Department of Planning Services and be ready for recording in the Weld County Clerk and
Recorder's Office within 30 days of approval by the Board of County Commissioners. (Department
of Planning Services)
2. This application has been determined to be in compliance with the proposed Amendment 24 to the
Colorado Constitution of a new article XXVIII, as development of land is consistent with a valid
development application which had been filed as of September 13, 2000, pursuant to proposed
Article XXVIII 9 (2).
3. Prior to recording the plat:
A. The facility shall demonstrate compliance with the Confined Animal Feeding Operations
Control (CAFO) Regulations and the additional requirements outlined below. This shah be
demonstrated by submitting a comprehensive manure and waste water management p:an,
for a 4,000 head dairy, to the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment
for review and approval. This plan shall include, but not be limited to the following:
(1) Demonstration that all manure stockpile areas and waste water collect on,
conveyance,and retention facilities are adequately sized and constructed to handle
and retain the storm water run-off generated from a twenty-five year, twenty-tour
hour storm event. This shall be conducted by a Colorado Registered Professional
Engineer. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
(2) Demonstration that any existing or proposed waste water retention structure as
been, or will be constructed in accordance with the criteria described in the CAFO
Regulations. The demonstration shall be conducted by a Colorado Registered
Professional Engineer. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
(3) A site map demonstrating the layout of the site This should include the locations
of all pens,structures,feed storage areas,any water courses through the property,
manure storage areas, lagoons, etc. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
(4) A surface contour map which demonstrates all surface water control features on
the site. This should include surveyed surface elevations, indicate flow direction,
run-on control features, etc. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
(5) Demonstration that the facility has the ability to manage and/or land apply
manure and waste water at agronomic rates in accordance with the CAFO
regulations. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
RESOLUTION, USR-1289
Dyelands Dairy LLC, Terry Dye
Page 4
(6) Demonstration that adequate measures are in place to prevent any discharges
except those which are allowed by the CAFO Regulations. (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
(7) Other necessary measures which are required in order to comply with the CAFO
Regulations. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
B. A description of the types of records that will be maintained on the facility, as requirec by
the CAFO Regulations. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
C. In accordance with CAFO, the applicant snail submit the facility's manure and waste water
management plan to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment for review
and comment. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
D. A dust abatement plan shall be submitted to the Weld County Department of Public Health
and Environment for review and approval. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
E. A fly control plan shall be submitted to the Weld County Department of Public Health and
Environment for review and approval. (Department of Public Health and Envircrnmem)
F. An odor control plan shall be submitted to the Weld County Department of Public Health
and Environment for review and approval. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
G. The facility shall demonstrate compliance with Section 47 of the Weld County Zoring
Ordinance. (Department of Planning Services, Department of Public Health and
Environment)
H. The proposed accessory housing units shall access onto WCR 86 (public road)
(Department of Public Works)
Note: This County Road has only two residences and dead-ends at a quarter mile. This
would minimize new accesses and utilize existing public road right-of-ways.
The approach,parking areas and alley ways shall be graded and drained surface to provide
an all-weather access. (Department of Public Works)
J. If any work associated with this project requires the placement of dredge or fill material, and
any excavation associated with a dredged or fill project, either temporary or perrnaoent, in
waters of the United States which may include ephemeral, intermittent and perennial
streams, lakes, ponds, or wetlands at this site,this office should be notified by a proponent
of the project for proper Department of the Army permits or changes in permit requirements
pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. (Army Corps of Engineers)
K. The plat shall be amended to delineate the following:
1) All oil and gas equipment located on the property and a 150-foot setback radius
from any existing wells or 200-foot radius of any tank battery or other oil and gas
equipment. (Department of Planning Services)
2) Additional employee houses,driveways,existing cattle pens and all agricultural and
residential accesses to the property. (Department of Public Works)
RESOLUTION, USFt-1289
Dyelands Dairy LLC, Terry Dye
Page 5
3) To include all easements for ingress/egress and maintenance of any ditches
located on the subject property.
4. Prior to the release of building permits:
A. Proper building permits shall be obtained prior to any construction demolition, or
excavation. Part of the permit application process includes a complete plan review. (Some
buildings may be exempt from building permits. Check with Weld County Building
Department before any construction is started). (Weld County Building Inspections)
B. Electrical permits shall be obtained for site lighting, pumps, or other equipment located at
the dairy. (Weld County Building Inspect ons)
C. All manufactured homes shall have building permits. (Weld County Building Inspections)
D. Milking parlor or any buildings that would normally require engineering,shall be engineered
and have engineered foundations. Engineered foundations shall be based on a site-
specific geotechnical report or an open hole inspection performed by a Colorado Licensed
Engineer. Any fill material shall contain no rock or similar irreducible material with a
maximum dimension greater than 12 inches. All fills shall be compacted to a minimum of
90 percent of maximum density. Engineering reports shall be supplied for all fill mate ial.
(Weld County Building Inspections)
E. Occupancy separations may be required between different portions of the milking parlor or
in other mixed occupancy buildings. (302.1, 1997 Uniform Building Code-UBC) (Weld
County Building Inspections)
F. All buildings or structures shall maintain distances from property lines and adjacent
buildings as outlines in Section 503 and Table 5-A of the 1997 Uniform Building Code
(UBC). (Weld County Building Inspections)
G. The design and construction of accessible buildings and building elements shall be in
accordance with Chapter 11 and Appendix Chapter 11 of the UBC. (Weld County Building
Inspections)
H. Electrical work shall conform to the 1999 National Electrical Code(NEC). All wiring in damp
areas, such as where livestock are present, shall be suitable for that location. (Weld
County Building Inspections)
Separate building permits are required for all monument signs. Signs shall adhere to
Section 42 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. (Weld County Building Inspections)
J. Complete drawings shall be submitted to the Poudre Valley Fire District for review. (Weld
County Building Inspections)
K. Additional requirements or changes may be required when building applications or plans
are reviewed by the Weld County Building Inspection Department or the Fire District. (Weld
County Building Inspections)
L. The applicant shall attempt to address the concerns of the Poudre Fire Authority as
outlined in a letter dated September 13, 2000. Evidence of such shall be provided to the
Department of Planning Services. (Poudre Fire Authority)
RESOLUTION, USR-1289
Dyelands Dairy LLC, Terry Dye
Page 6
M. Effective December 1, 1999, Building Permits issued on this property may be required to
adhere to the fee structure of the Windsor Service Area Road Impact Program. (Ordinance
210)
5. The Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issuec 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)
Motion seconded by Stephen Mokray.
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Cristie Nicklas Michael Miller Arlan Marrs
Fred \Nalker Jack Epple
John Folsom
Bryant Gimlin
Stephen Mokray
Cathy Clamp
The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of thus
case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I, Trisha Swanson, 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 17, 2000.
Dated the 1r of October, 2000.
wt)-4A-L,
Trisha Swanson
Secretary
SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Terry Dye, Dyelands Dairy LLC, c/o AgPro
USR-1289
1. A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for an Agricultural Service
Establishment primarily engaged in performing agricultural, animal husbandry. or horticultural
services on a fee or contract basis,including Livestock Confinement Operations(4,000 Head Dairy)
and Four Additional Accessory to the Farm Dwelling Units for Employees restricted to manufactured
homes on a temporary foundation, a maximum of 2,000 milking cows allowing for calves, steers,
replacement heifers, and dry cows for a total of 4,000 head in the Agricultural Zone District as
indicated in the application materials on file in the Department of Planning Services 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 90 of the Wele County
Zoning Ordinance, as amended. (Department of Planning Services)
3. Fugitive dust shall be controlled on this site. The facility shall be operated in accordance with the
approved dust abatement plan at all times. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
4. All liquid and solid waste shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that protects
against surface and groundwater contamination. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
5. There shall be no permanent disposal of solid wastes, as defined in the Regulations Pertaining io
Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities(6 CCR 1007-2),at this site. (Department of Public Health
and Environment)
6. The facility shall maintain compliance with Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulations
(5 CCR 1002-19)and,Section 47 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance,as amended. (Department
of Public Health and Environment)
7. This facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the Light Industrial
Zone as delineated in 25-12-103 C.R.S., as amended. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
8. Any required NPDES Permit shall be maintained in compliance with the Water Quality Control
Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health&Environment. (Department of Public Health
and Environment)
9. The facility shall not discharge run-off or other waste waters to surface or groundwater with
exception to what is allowed by the Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regu ations.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
10. Waste materials, not specifically addressed by other development standards, snail be hand ed,
stored, and disposed in a manner that controls fugitive dust, blowing debris, and other potential
nuisance conditions. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
11. The applicant shall remove, handle, and stockpile manure from the livestock area in a manner That
will prevent nuisance conditions. The manure piles shall not be allowed to exist or deteriorate to
a condition that facilitates excessive odors, flies, insect pests, or pollutant runoff. The surface
beneath the manure storage areas shall be of materials which are protective of State waters. These
areas shall be constructed to minimize seepage or percolation of manure contaminated water In
no event shall the facility impact or degrade waters of the State in violation of the Confined Animal
Feeding Operations Control Regulation (5 CCR 1002-19). (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
12. The facility shall be operated in accordance with the approved odor abatement plan. Additional
controls shall be implemented at the request of the Weld County Department of Public Health and
Environment in the event odor levels detected off-site meet or exceed the level of fifteen-to-one
dilution threshold, as measured pursuant to Regulation 2 of the Colorado Air Pollution Control
Regulations, or in the judgement of the Weld County Health Officer, there exists an odor condition
requiring abatement. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
13 A spillage retention berm shall be required around any fuel container with a volume greater than 50
gallons. The volume retained by the spillage berm should be greater than the volume of the largest
tank inside the berm. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
14 The facility shall be operated in a manner to control flies. At all times, the facility shall be operated
in accordance with the approved fly control plan. Additional fly control measures shall be
implemented at the request of the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment in
the event that flies(which can be determined to be associated with the facility)are in such a number
to be considered a nuisance condition. The plan shall also be implemented in the event the Weld
County Department of Public Health and Environment receives a significant number of by
(associated with facility)complaints, and in the judgement of the Weld County Health Officer,there
exists a fly condition requiring abatement. (Department of Public Health and Environmert)
15 Any septic system located on the property must comply with all provisions of the Weld County
Individual Sewage Disposal System Regulations. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
16 There shall be no burning conducted at 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)
17 The facility shall be operated in accordance with the approved manure and waste water
management plan. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
18. The hours of operation are up to 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. Equipment operations,trucks,
farming activities and maintenance activities other than emergencies will occur primarily during
daylight hours. (Department of Planning Services)
19 All construction on the property shall be in accordance with the requirements of the Weld County
Building Code Ordinance, as amended. (Weld County Building Inspections)
20. Effective December 1, 1999, Building Permits issued on the property may be required to adhere to
the fee structure of the Windsor Service Area Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 210) (Department
of Planning Services)
21. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of
Section 24.5 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance, as amended. (Department of Planning
Services)
22. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of
Section 24.6 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance, as amended. (Department of Planning
Services)
23. Personnel from the Weld County Departments cf Public Health and Environment and Panning
Services 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.
24 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.
25 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.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
October 17, 2000
Page 6
Sharyn Frazer, AgPro Representative for the applicant, noted that Mr. Goss has been doing this on his
property for the past four years, he is just looking to protect his property for the future. Ms. Frazer noted that
this will allow Mr.Goss to continue training the animals he works with,that the cattle are for training purposes
then fattened back up and sold.
Cristie Nicklas asked why Mr. Goss is doing this as a commercial permit, rather than keeping it private. Mike
Goss, Applicant, noted that he would like to keep the property in the same use when the city has surroJnded
him. and that the USR will allow him to keep the animals he uses within the city limits. Michael Miller asked
if Mr. Goss only uses the animals for practice. Mr. Goss noted that he uses them to train his horses.
Cathy Clamp askec if he planned on using this for public performances,with heavy traffic or events. Mr Goss
noted that he does not plan on events on his property, that this is only for training of his animals.
Bryant Gimlin asked what problems the applicant has with the City of Greeley. Sharyn Frazer noted that the
City of Greeley wants Mr. Goss to pave his driveway and try to meet the City's animal unit requirements.
Cathy Clamp asked if Mr.Goss would have to lower his animal units if annexed. Tom Haren with AgPrc noted
that if this application is approved, it would act like a non-conforming use, allowing Mr. Goss to continue in
his current capacity.
John Folsom asked if the only animals on premises would be in training or if there would be animals trailered
in for several days. Mr. Goss noted that he is not looking to be a horse boarder, he will board some animals
he is training, but that these animals would be on his site for 30-60 days.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. NI)
one wished to speak.
Cristie Nicklas asked if the applicant is in agreement with the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval. Sharyn Frazer indicated that the applicant is in accordance.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case USR-1288, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval, noting that the application was in compliance with the proposed Amendment 24. Michael Miller
seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes, Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1289
APPLICANT: Terry Dye, Dyelands Dairy LLC
PLANNER: Julie Chester
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parts of the W2 of Section 5, T7N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for an Agricultural
Service Establishment primarily engaged in performing agricultural, animal husbandry or
horticultural services on a fee or contract basis, including Livestock Confinement
Operations (4,000 head Dairy).
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to WCR 15; north of and adjacent to WCR 84.
Cristie Nicklas noted that the Planning Commission would take several minutes to look over the large packet
of letters that had just been handed to them.
SUMMARY OF THE VVELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
October 17, 2000
Page 7
Julie Chester,Planner,presented USR-1289 and read the Department of Planning Services Recommendation
into the record. Julie noted that much of the letters were recently received and that the Department of
Planning Services has not had time to completely research them.
Cathy Clamp asked about the concerns with the application not being complete and the legal notification rot
being legal. Julie noted that the letter Ms. Clamp was referring to had just been received, but that the staff
felt the legal description was sufficient for notification and that the staff did feel the application was complete
when received on August 21, 2000. Julie further noted that the file has had several pieces show up missing
as there has been so much activity with surrounding properly owners.
Lee Morrison noted that from the number of public attendees that notification had been thorough enough Mr
Morrison further noted that the argument that the application was not complete could be argued each way
but that the application was believed complete when it was accepted. Mr. Morrison also noted that the
argument that the application might not be in accordance with Amendment 24 could be argued against oy the
county as this could be considered agricultural.
Michael Miller asked if the water would be acceptable for the use. Julie noted that the North Weld County
Water District has stated the ability to provide water for the site. Julie noted that the applicant will purchase
the water as they expand, not wanting to buy the taps and water without an approval for they site.
John Folsom asked if the case should be heard if the completeness of the application is in question. Lee
Morrison noted that the staff had determined the application complete. Mr. Morrison alsc noted that tie
Planning Commission could decide if they felt the application was incomplete and use that as a reason `or
denial if they chose. Julie Chester noted that the Department of Planning Services felt the application was
complete when turned in, but that certain records had since become missing from the file.
Discussion concerning covenants in the area followed. It was decided that this was for a neighboring property
not for the site.
Terry Dye, Applicant, noted that he will only be milking 2,000 cows at a time, that the rest will be dry cows or
calves,which is the reason they asked for 4,000 cows on the application. Mr. Dye also noted that the site will
only expand as the supply is demanded. Mr. Dye also noted that only about 60-70 acres of the 278 acres will
he part of the dairy,the rest will be farmed. Fred Walker asked if Mr. Dye was planning on keeping the young
and dry stock at a separate site and milking 4,000 cows at this site. Mr. Dye noted he does not plan to move
these cows off the site.
Cristie Nicklas asked at what hours the machinery and trucks will be run on the site. Terry Dye noted that
there will be employees during the day and machinery for feeding, but only from about 5:00 am to 5:00 pm
Michael Miller asked about the farming on site. Mr. Dye noted that the approximately 200 acres not in the
actual dairy will be farmed.
Michael Miller asked if Mr. Dye expected this much resistance from the neighboring property cwners. Mr.Cye
noted that he has rever had a complaint about his current dairy to the west (that he considered this a good
location for a dairy, surrounded by the farmland and agricultural uses). Mr. Dye noted that he feels that the
surrounding property owners would rather have a huge subdivision there instead which surprised him a lot
Terry Dye noted that the land is perfect for a dairy, that it is close to I-25 for transport of his product. and that
it is close to his current dairy. Michael asked if Mr. Dye planned to operate both dairies. Mr. Dye stated he
planned to operate both dairies.
John Folsom asked how many cows are at the current site. Mr.Dye noted there are 2,000 cows at his current
dairy in Larimer County, that the new dairy could have 1,100 as a use by right, but they wanted to plan ahead
for the future.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
October 17, 2000
Page 8
Cathy Clamp asked how many large trucks would be coming into the site per day. Mr. Dye noted tha:there
will be about 5 trucks per day into this site,for the feed, milk trucks, etcetera. Cathy asked about the on-site
accessory housing. Mr. Dye noted that dairies are starting to offer on-site housing to keep help, that he did
not originally want the housing, but wanted to plan for the possibility in the future.
Cristie Nicklas asked about the many signatures in favor of his new dairy. Mr. Dye noted That these were
sigratures of people who had been to his current dairy and were in support of his proposed dairy
Torn Haren with AgPro, Representative for the applicant, noted that this ,s a good dairy site, noting it is not
landlocked,that the natural hills leave very little of the dairy visible and that the dairy site has been placed 500'
from the south road and 600'from the west road. Mr. Haren noted that the number for the 4,000 head was
his idea, in order to keep close to 2,000 head milking. Mr. Haren noted that Mr. Dye's herd s a closed herd
that is registered, allowing for less disease and better milk. Tom Haren noted that the application he turned
in was complete,but that the Department of Planning Services file seemed to have some things missing from
the original.
Cathy Clamp asked if the applicant would be willing to move the ponds farther from the surrounding property
owners. Mr. Haren noted that the ponds have been set back quite a distance from the property line, but that
the applicant would be willing to berm to the west as well as the south. Mr. Haren also noted that the pords
are large, but that is because the system they are setting up for this dairy uses relatively little water, the larger
pond will be for emergency and storm runoff, probably being dry most of the time.
Discussion concerning an aerial photo taken of the site followed,with notes made that most of the homes are
to the south, west, and southwest. Julie noted that the aerial photo being discussed is from exhibit 20 from
Dr. Kimberlin.
Michael Miller asked why dairies were expanding if milk prices were so low. Mr. Haren noted that smaller
dairies are closing, while it is taking larger dairies to make a profit anymore.
Cathy Clamp noted that most of the opposition concerned he size of the dairy. Ms. Clamp wanted to know
if the applicant would be willing to lower the numbers at the dairy and amend the permit as they grew. Tom
Haren noted that this would change the entire balance of the dairy. John Folsom noted that he would prefer
they had a large enough dairy to meet the conditions that the Use by Special Review placed upon the
operation. Mr. Haren also noted that if they do not get the Use by Special Review, they will still be allowed
to have 1,100 cows by right and these cows will all be milkers, not dry cows and calves.
Cristie Nicklas asked the Planning Commission members their thoughts on the competeness of the
application and if they were concerned with continuing the hearing. Fred Walker noted that the applicaton
was complete. Michael Miller noted that the application essentially is complete, that all planning cases may
be needing some addlltional information,but that this is complete enough to continue. Cathy Clamp noted that
she has a concern with the legal notice given within 500'. Stephen Mokray noted that he feels that the number
of people at the hearing shows that enough people were contacted concerning this case.
Jack Epple moved that Case USR-1289 was a complete application and to continue the hearing. Stephen
Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes. Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Brent Coan, attorney for Mary Weiss, noted that his client is concerned with the health problems of dust.
property values lowering, as well as the groundwater and water supply for the site.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
October 17, 2000
Page 9
Mike Goss noted that he has been to Mr. Dye's current dairy and stated that it is one of the best dairies he
has ever been to for cleanliness and for management.
Dale Tanaka, Banker for Mr. Dye, noted that Mr. Dye has always made good concise decisions, and follows
the advice of professionals in order to do the best job possible.
Howard Ramsdell, a nearby property owner and CSU professor, noted he is concerned with the possible
health problems associated with living near a dairy. Mr. Ramsdell noted that there are several recent
subdivisions downwind of this site. Mr. Ramsdell noted that pulmonary disease has been linked to dairies,
as well as asthma and allergies. Cristie Nicklas asked for a date and study that linked dairies to pulmonary
disease. Mr. Ramsdell noted he did not have that information, but could try to find it. Michael Miller asked
where Mr. Ramsdell felt a good place for a dairy was, in his opinion Mr. Ramsdell stated, where there were
no residences nearby
Sonja Stonestreet noted that a buyer of her property is concerned with the possible trailers for on-site help
Ms. Stonestreet noted that the trailer homes would devalue her property. Ms. Stonestreet also noted a
concern about the water being available.
Linda Russell,surrounding property owner, noted that she and her husband have lived there'or 29 years and
that the area is small family farms, not commercial in scope. Ms. Russell noted that she does not feel this
dairy would be good for her grandchildren to play on her farm. Bryant Gimlin asked how the dairywoulc effect
ner grandchildren's safety. Ms. Russell noted that she feels there will be more traffic. Discussion concern ng
Ms. Russell's covenants followed, noting that this does not have any effect on Mr. Dye's dairy.
Lynn Russell, surrounding property owner, noted he had the same concerns as his wife.
Keith Mullins,a surrounding property owner,noted that the Planning Commission has allowed the subdivisions
in the area, changing the face of the area to a more residential feel. Mr. Mullins noted hat he feels :he
groundwater is too high for the ponds and that there will be more trucks than the 5 per day noted. Cathy
Clamp asked if Mr. Mullins has a problem with the use by right in the area. Mr. Mullins noted that he does not
feel there is enough water in the area for either the Use by Special Review or the use by right.
Jane Lens, a surrounding property owner, noted that she feels the area is becoming developed and that :he
trucks will be a problem.
Inge Dirmhein, a nearby property owner, noted that she does not feel the ponds will be able to hold the water
and might effect her land. Ms. Dirmhein noted that she also feels the scent will blow down the hill along with
dust.
Randolph Denney noted that he has worked with Mr. Dye for years and that he lives between the existing dairy
and the proposed dairy. Mr. Denney noted that Mr. Dye runs a very clean operation, controls flies, dust, and
is an excellent manager.
Caroline Cleary, a surrounding property owner, noted that she is opposed to the dairy, not Mr. Dye, and that
she is worried about her ditch being disturbed by the access.
David Haak, a surrounding property owner, noted that he would support a use by right but does not want the
Use by Special Review. Mr. Haak notes he feels the odors, noise, and property values can not be mitigated.
James Erthal, the property owner to the southwest of Mr. Dye, noted that they have had a petition against the
dairy at the site since July. Mr. Erthal noted that he does not want 4,000 milkers, that he wants the Planning
Commission to limit the number of milkers at the site. Bryant Gimlin noted that this is not a high density
residential area, that it is an agricultural area.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
October 17, 2000
Page 10
Les Gelvin, nol:ed that there are subdivisions in the area and that he feels the employees and the dairy will
have an impact on the roads. Cristie Nicklas noted that subdivisions tend to generate more traffic than the
dairy would generate. Fred Walker noted that the subdivision was allowed in the agricultural zone, which is
a newer use. Mr. Walker noted that this area was an agricultural zone first, then the subdivisions were
allowed in to the area.
Jeanne Gelvin,a surrounding property owner, noted that she feels this is more like a factory than agricultL re,
with all the lights and trucks.
Betsy Kimberling, a property owner for 32 years, noted that she feels the dairy will not be able to control :he
possible runoff and that this may effect her farm as well as other farms in the area.
Mike Katsampes,Mr.Dye's veterinarian,noted that this is ar immaculate facility,that Mr. Dye has a very good
management scheme, that the disease control is very good for his closed herd, and that Mr. Dye's dairy has
always been run better than dairies near his own home. Mr. Katsampes also noted that the cry dairy Mr. Dye
is proposing will have less odors than most dairies.
Tracy Eichheim,a nearby property owner, spoke for several minutes, using some of the surrounding property
owners time. Mr. Eichheim noted that the neighborhood is mostly retired people,that this daiywould ruin the
retirement financing many people are considering their land to be. Mr. Eichheim also noted that he does not
feel sure that the Department of Health and Environmental Services has looked at the waste management
plan proposed. Mr. Eichheim noted that he feels the groundwater is too high for this dairy, that the Cactus
Hill ditch on the northwest hill seeps and will effect the groundwater when run through the dairy. Mr. Eichheim
also noted that he feels the land proposed to be farmed will not be enough for the size of the dairy
Torn Haren, Representative for the applicant, noted that he would address the concerns that the property
owners had by answering questions of the Planning Commission.
Cristie Nicklas noted that the availability of water for the site seemed to be one of the main concerns. Mr.
Haren noted that the water is expensive, but available and that Mr. Dye will buy this water if the application
is approved, as buying it now would be expensive unless he were to get this new dairy.
John Folsom asked about the groundwater questions raised. Mr. Haren noted that there is some water at the
site, but that most of the water is standing on bedrock. Mr. Haren also noted that the ditch does seep, hut that
the applicant is willing to work with this, by either placing concrete in the ditch or other means. Mr. Ha-en
further noted that a major portion of the lagoon is above grade.
Cathy Clamp asked how the applicant would deal with the manure if there are times of no c.tops. Mr. Haren
noted that the manure is generally applied when there is no crop,that the CAFO regulations are followed, and
that constant monitoring is involved to keep an even amount of chemicals in the ground at an agronomic rate.
Mr. Haren also noted that the fines for not following CAFO regulations are very high and more strict than the
county could impose. Cathy Clamp asked where the dewatering would be done. Mr. Haren noted hat the
devvatering will still be done at agronomic rates and that storm water has less nitrogen, making it easier to
devvater,but that the excess will not be placed on saturated ground. Cathy Clamp asked about the odor,dust,
and insects associated with the dairy. Mr. Haren noted that dairies have to keep their animals clean and that
dairies generally do not have much problem keeping within the bounds required. Mr. Haren noted tnat the
dairy works to balance the moisture and dust to keep the animals in the best health and the site as clear as
possible.
Cristie Nicklas asked about the acreage being enough to dewater the storm water retention pond. Mr. Haren
noted that because this is a very low water facility the 10 day 10 year pond will be able to hold the water until
the excess can be assimilated by the crop land.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
October 17, 2000
Page 11
Fred Walker asked about the composting being applied to the land. Mr. Haren noted that the compost is sold
to local landscaping companies, but the composting materials will all be from the site, not brought in from
outside sources.
Fred Walker asked about the irrigating structures being noted on the plat. Mr. Haren noted that the applicant
would be willing to reinforce these and place them on the plat, allowing the continued delivery of water.
Fred Walker asked about the number of cows being milker possibly increasing. Mr. Haren stated that he
milking barn will be designed for 2,000 cows, that it will not allow more than that many to be milked.
Fred Walker asked if the applicant would be willing to place more trees along the south side. Tom Haren
noted that they would be willing to place these as well as trees to the west.
Stephen Mokray asked if the cornposting would create more dust. Mr. Haren noted that the compost nas to
be kept moist,that the dust would possibly come from traffic. but that the local traffic on the dirt roads already
created an equivalent amount of dust.
Trevor Jiricek, Department of Public Health and Environment, noted that they respond to complaints and
check out the facility for violations of dust and insects.
Bryant Gimlin asked for clarification concerning the homes proposed. Mr. Haren noted that these will De
modular and only placed on the site if needed. Tom Haren noted that this housing would be for people who
are on site during the nights and for higher salaries.
Bryant Gimlin asked about the storm water information. Mr Haren noted that the penalties are quick for this
type of infraction and that the major infractions seem to be oider dairies that are not designed to deal with the
new regulations, but that this dairy should have no problem complying.
Cathy Clamp had questions concerning the harrowing versus the ditch water seepage. Mr. Haren noted that
the harrowing will not be digging deep into the ground, that it simply evens the level in the pens and that the
ground will not allow seepage after a short time of the animals being in the pens.
Cristie Nickles asked if the applicant is in agreement with the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval. Mr. Haren noted that the applicant is in agreement.
Julie noted language for Condition of Approval #3. K. 3, adding language to include all easements for
ingress/egress.
Mr. Haren noted that the applicant has no problem with the manufactured home definition applying to the
homes allowed on the property and would even be willing to remove the manufactured homes if that would
be more agreeable to the Planning Commission. Lee Morrison noted that leaving the condition n and
modifying it might limit the use by right in the area.
Fred Walker noted that he does not have any affiliation with the applicant, even though he lives in the area.
Stephen Mokray moved to amend Development Standard#1 to read as follows,"A Site Specific Development
Plan and Special Review Permit for an Agricultural Service Establishment primarily engaged in performing
agricultural, animal husbandry, or horticultural services on a fee or contract basis, including Livestock
Confinement Operations (4,000 Head) and Four Additional Accessory to the Farm Dwelling Ur its for
Employees restricted to manufactured homes on a temporary foundation, a maximum of 2,000 milking cows
allowing for calves,steers,replacement heifers and dry cows for a total of 4,000 head in the Agricultural Zcne
District, as indicated in th application material on file in the Department of Planning Service; and subject to
the Development Standards stated hereon." Bryant Gimlin seconded the motion.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
October 17, 2000
Page 12
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Cathy C
yes; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Haren noted that the applicant is in agreement with this change.
Bryant Gimlin moved to add Condition of Approval #3. K. 3 to read: "To include all easements for
ingress/egress and maintenance of any ditches located on the subject property." Stephen Mo<ray seconded
the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple,yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Cathy Clamp
yes; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Bryant Gimlin commented to the surrounding property owners that this is an agricultural zone, even if there
are small farms, that this is an agricultural purpose. Mr. Gimlin also noted that this Use by Special Review
gives the county policing authority and the applicant has regulations to follow. Mr. Gimlin noted that :his is
compatible with the zoning of the area and the Use by Special Review is the best way to control the standards
of the dairy.
Michael Miller commented that if he had to have a dairy built next to him, this is the dairy he would like to see
but hat he understands the concerns of the surrounding property owners. Mr. Miller noted that he agrees wth
the surrounding property owners that three times the number of animals allowed is scary. Mr. Miller also
noted that he is not sure there is not some detriment to the health of the surrounding property owners.
Fred Walker noted that there will be a dairy at this site whether or not this application is approved, but the Use
by Special Review will regulate the dairy. Mr.Walker also noted that the surrounding property owners should
try to work with the applicant in a non-combative manner, that the attacks and anger do not accomplish
anything.
Cathy Clamp noted that she lives by a turkey farm and the smell may be strong 5 days out of the year, that
the berms will be a benefit and that the dairy's effect will not be as large as the surrounding property owners
think.
John Folsom noted that he lives by a feedlot, a dairy, and two turkey farms and that there is some odor, but
that houses are selling very well in the area. Mr. Folsom noted that there is a fine line between property rights
and the rights of society and the choice may be hard, but that this dairy does not seem to be as bad a thing
as the property owners seem to think.
Stephen Mokray noted that humans resent change,but that the world always changes. Mr. Mokray noted that
there are a lot of pre-set minds in the crowd and that this would be one of the best dairies to have near their
land. Mr. Mokray noted that the surrounding property owners should look at this with more open minds and
to try to work with Mr. Dye.
Cristie Nicklas commented that she owns a feedlot and that dairies are usually better run than feedlots. Ms
Nicklas noted that it is economical to maintain the clean dairy for the health and welfare of the cows. Ms
Nicklas also noted that she would be more understanding of the surrounding property owners if they could say
they had complaints on how Mr. Dye's current dairy is run, but they have stated none. Ms. Nicklas noted that
this seems to be a fear of the future, not existing problems. Ms. Nicklas also noted that taking the -isk to
expand in today's agriculture market is a brave and scary step.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
October 17, 2000
Page 13
Fred Walker moved that Case USR-1289 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with tie
amended Conditions of Approval and amended Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval, noting that the application was in compliance with the proposed Amendment
24. Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision Join
Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller, no;Jack Epple, no; Bryant Gimlin,yes;Cathy Clamp,yes.
Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nickles, yes. Motion carried.
Michael Miller commented that the number allowed as a use by right are appropriate and that this applicatior.
has too high a number. Mr. Miller noted that he has to balance the rights of the surrounding property owners
with the applicant and he feels the 4,000 cattle will adversely effect the neighbors beyond an acceptable level
and cause damages to their property value and quality of life.
Jack Epple commented that he feels the application is correct and the manure management plan is
acceptable, but that there is a compatibility issue with the surrounding property owners.
John Folsom commented the duties of the Planning Commission are to find if the applicant has met the
standards required and that the applicant has met those suostantially.
Cathy Clamp commented that this appears to be a slow process across several years and that the effect upon
surrounding property owners will be minimal for a long period of time.
Bryant Gimlin noted that there may be more odor in Greeley and to encourage the surrounding property
owners to work with the applicant as they are going to be neighbors and that would be the best choice no
matter what the final outcome of this case
Meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
Trisha Swanson
Secretary
Hello