HomeMy WebLinkAbout20003000.tiff gyi,(eari
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
PHONE (970) 356-4000, Ext. 4391
FAX: (970) 352-0242
P. O. BOX 758
GREELEY, COLORADO 80332
COLORADO
November 7, 2000
JEANETTE SEWALD
7496 WCR 84
FT COLLINS CO 80524
RE: USR#1289 Terry Dye, Dye Lands Dairy
LLC
Dear Ms. Sewald
I am responding to a series of letters regarding the October 17,2000 Planning Commission.
The Board of County Commissioners is not at liberty to discuss this case outside the hearing
process but your letter will be added to the case record and the Board will have an opportunity to
review it before the Board hearing on this matter. You may also raise these issue in your testimony
to the Board but you should consider whether it might be more useful to focus on your concerns
regarding the merits of the Dairy as opposed to the Planning Commission process since the Board
of County Commissioners makes the ultimate decision. To help you in preparing for the Board
hearing, I have attached excerpts from the Zoning Ordinance.
1. One concern was that some people entitled to notice because they owned property
within 500'of the application did not receive a mailed notice. Staff indicated during
the hearing that those persons were, in fact, aware of the hearing and had the
opportunity to participate in the process. A party who has actual notice and the
opportunity to participate is not able to object to a lack of notice. Additionally, those
individuals will be added to the mailing list so that they are assured of notice of the
Board hearing.
2. Concern was regarding the timing of the hearing as opposed to the time shown on
the notice. The notice gives the time of the commencement of the hearings and
predicting how long each particular item would take is not possible. To attempt to
do so would run the risk of predicting a later starting time only have people wishing
to attend miss the meeting. The Chair called the Dye case shortly after 2:30 p.m.
although testimony did not start until 3:00 p.m. because of the sheer volume of
written materials submitted at the last minute from those attending. The delay was
to allow the Planning Commission an opportunity to review the written materials.
3. The determination of the adequacy of an application is made at an administrative
level before it gets to the Planning Commission. The adequacy of the application
is an issue for the Planning Commission only in the sense that the burden is on the
applicant to go forward with the merits of the application but it is not a separate
jurisdictional issue. In this instance, the Planning Commission concurred in the
administrative determination although the Zoning Ordinance does not require it to
make such a finding. EXHIBIT
2000-3000 Use 4ti.nq de_ /, /fit/
Response Letter - USR#1289 - Terry Dye
Page 2
4. Quasi-judicial hearings conducted at a local government level must meet a basic
standard of fairness. The Planning Commission limited oral testimony in the public
portion of the hearing, both pro and con, to give everyone present who wanted to
speak the opportunity to speak within a reasonable time and to avoid unduly
repetitious or cumulative evidence. They did not limit filing of written testimony and
accepted documents immediately before and during the hearing. The Planning
Commission devoted more than five hours, not counting reviewing the written
material distributed prior to the day of the hearing, to considering the arguments in
this matter. Basic fairness does not require that anyone wishing to speak be
allotted unlimited time to present their arguments in any venue. There is a principal
in evidence, applicable to even the most formal of processes that the number of
people does not determine the weight of the evidence testifying to a particular fact.
Spending more time on an issue does not insure a more thoughtful or careful
decision.
5. The information provided the Planning Commission will be in the record for the
Board of County Commissioners to review. If information were not presented to the
Planning Commission because of the time limits, I would suggest those testifying
place a priority on those comments that were not previously presented for the
record.
6. There was concern that the party, Mr. Eichheim, to whom they had allotted some
of the other opponent's time, was not given the full 30 minutes of time. During his
testimony the Chair sought to speed him up and indicated she may seek to shorten
the time allotted but after discussion allowed him to proceed. Mr. Eichheirn
continued his remarks and concluded on his own after speaking for at least 22
minutes (based upon a review of the tape).
7. Some opponents have suggested that they were not aware of the need to sign up
to speak although the Chair made the announcement on several occasions and 29
people heard the announcement and signed up to speak. Persons who did not
speak before the Planning Commission will not be precluded from testifying before
the Board of County Commissioners.
Thank you for your interest in this matter. It is the goal of the County Attorney's office to assure
that hearings before the Planning Commission are fair but fairness does not require that no
attention be given to conducting the hearings expeditiously. I encourage you to participate in the
Board of County Commissioners hearings scheduled for December 6,2000 at or about 10:00 a.m.
in the First Floor Conference Room of the Centennial Center, 915, 10th Street, Greeley. This letter
will be in the record and you may raise these issues with the Board at that time.
Siricrely,
eeP
ni
Assistant County Attorney
attachment
pc: Hearing File
Department of Planning Services
Response Letter - USR#1289 - Terry Dye
Page 3
24.4.2 The Board of County Commissioners shall hold a public hearing to consider the application
and to take final action thereon. In making a decision on the proposed Use by Special
Review, the Board shall consider the recommendation of the Planning Commission and,
from the facts presented at the public hearing and the information contained in the official
record which includes the Department of Planning Services case file, the Board of County
Commissioners shall approve the request for the Special Review Permit only if it finds that
the applicant has met the standards or conditions of Sections 24.4.2, 24.5 and 24.6. The
applicant has the burden of proof to show that the standards and conditions of 24.4.2, 24.5
and 24.6 are met. The applicant shall demonstrate:
24.4.2.1 That the proposal is consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan.
24.4.2.2 That the proposal is consistent with the intent of the district in which the USE is
located.
24.4.2.3 That the USES which would be permitted will be compatible with the existing
surrounding land USES.
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.
24 4.2.5 That the application complies with the Weld County Zoning Ordinance, Section 50,
Overlay District Regulations if the proposal is located within any Overlay District
Area identified by maps officially adopted by Weld County.
24.4.2.6 That if the USE is proposed to be located in the A-District, that the applicant has
demonstrated a diligent effort has been made to conserve prime agricultural land
in the locational decision for the proposed USE.
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.
24.4.3 Where reasonable methods or techniques are available to mitigate any negative impacts
which could be generated by the proposed USE upon the surrounding area, the Board of
County Commissioners may condition the decision to approve the Special Review Permit
upon implementation of such methods or techniques and may require sufficient
performance guarantees to be posted with the COUNTY to guarantee such implementation.
October 23, 2000
Weld County Commissioners
915 10Th Street
P. O. Box 758
Greeley, Colorado 80632
ATTENTION:
George Baxter, District 1 Dale Hall, At-Large
Glenn Vaad, District 2 Mike Geile, At-Large
Barbara Kirkmeyer, District 3
Reference Case Number USR-1289 Terry Dye, Dyelands Dairy LLC
Commissioners:
On Tuesday, October 17 I attended a hearing before the Weld County Planning
Commission on the above referenced case. I would just like to say that I am
appalled at the way the hearing was handled from beginning to end. A few of
the many infractions are listed below:
1. Hearing notices were not sent out to everyone that owned property
within 500 feet.
2. The meeting room was not large enough to seat all the residents
opposing the dairy, thus spilling into a breakroom where hearing was
difficult.
3. Approximately 3:00 pm the meeting began even though our letter from
Weld County said 1:30 pm.
4. Those attending the hearing were informed there were errors and
omissions in this application and most of the applications received in
Weld County. We were also informed that case file contents have
disappeared.
5. Planning Services had reserved the room till 10:30 pm that night but
the meeting was closed at 7:30 pm. Many more community concerns
would have and should have been allowed.
6. People in opposition of this 4,000 cow dairy attended the hearing in
Greeley because they had something to say and/or were in total support
of their community's opposition. They should have been allowed to
speak a reasonable time and without intimidating questions being thrown
at them after their three minutes were up.
7. Rude and obnoxious are some of the words I will use to describe one
member of the Planning Commission.
A. Speakers were only allowed 3 minutes to speak and cut off in
the middle of sentences with complete disregard for anything
being said.
B. Many speakers gave their three minutes to our main speaker,
only to discover near the end of the hearing this was not
granted, much to everyone's regret.
C. Our main speaker should have been entitled to his 30 minutes
at least but was axed at 15 minutes. I believe his comment
that no one had read the manual was directed at the entire
room and was not a direct insult to the Planning Commission.
The rude reprimand was uncalled for.
D. A lady in the audience tried to politely help the Committee
locate a piece of information on "covenants" they were unable
to find in their files. Since it was her letter they were
looking for she stood and offered her help. She was
immediately yelled at and ordered to "SIT DOWN".
E. I never saw or was passed the clipboard to sign my name to
either speak or pass my 3 minutes on to our main speaker.
Upon approaching the table in front of the commission, I, of
course, received a discourteous "THE PUBLIC PORTION IS
CLOSED" repeated loudly to everything I said.
In conclusion I would like to say that the hearing proceedings and the manner
in which the public were treated were inappropriate and undesirable. Perhaps
Weld County can gain from the information in this letter. Some volunteers,
and/or appointees and/or employees seem to lack respect and direction not only
for the public but also for their colleagues. A neutral facilitator to build,
announce, and ABIDE by the rules would improve the process and change the
overall flavor. A public hearing like the one I attended certainly leaves a bad
taste and cannot make a favorable impression for Weld County.
Thank you in advance for your time, your attention and your consideration to
my letter.
7,7
Jeanette Sewald (970) 493-9151
7496 Weld County Road 84
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
Weld County Board of Commissioners
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: USR 1289
Attn: Greeley Planning and Zoning Department
To Whom It May Concern:
I'm writing to comment on a planning and zoning board meeting that occurred on October 17,
2000. Specifically I would like to mention the attitude of the zoning board toward the public. I found the
spokeswomen for the zoning board to be extremely rude and on several occasions raised her voice and
showed no respect for people in the room. I realize that it's the job of the planning board to keep an
objective view,but feel there should be a certain level of respect for people they are listening to. A simple
"please", "excuse me",or"thank you" could have made a big difference. The members of the public took
time out of their busy schedules to come down and be heard in an environment that was supposed to be for
hearing both sides of an issue and were treated very unfairly. I hope this was just a one-time occurrence
and not the standard planning and zoning meeting agenda.
Sincerely,
L'
Lance Martin
PO Box 271512
Fort Collins, CO, 80527
Oct. 26, 2000
Weld County Commissioners
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80631
Comments regarding the Planning and Zoning meeting (held Oct. 17, 2000) concerning USR
1289:
My wife and I are one of the neighboring land owners directly to the west of the proposed dairy
site and we have lived here for 12 years, having retired here from a lifetime of farming.
I must say I am stunned by the way the Planning and Zoning commission treated us and the
other neighbors. The chairperson's cold, hard, curt comments to the neighborhood coupled with
the seeming friendliness to the applicant and his engineer made me think the outcome to be
inevitable.
Having the chairperson clip my speaking time to less than IA, after other neighbors had deferred
there time to me,was beyond belief. We, the neighborhood, believe there are significant and
serious problems with this proposed dairy site and the plan as presented, and we were not heard.
It is most disheartening to hear the commission approve the application, even after they heard the
engineer state that they were in the process of revising the plans, moving the lagoons and
resizing the pens. The commission seems to have given them carte blanche.
I am very concerned that the committee did not even ask the applicant or his engineer about
several of the issues raised by the referrals. No question was asked about the need expressed
by the Weld County Health and Environment as to if, or how,the applicant will protect the ground
waters from the storage of manure. No question was asked about the need to address the
problems pointed out by the Poudre Valley Fire department, namely fire hydrants and a second
fire access road. While the issue of drinking water availability did come up,the question of a
guaranteed supply was not asked.
I do not feel this commission acted appropriately.
Thank you for reading my comments.
Sincerely,
CJ /,
Tracy A. Eichheim
41285 Weld County Rd.15
Ft. Collins, CO 80524
For the County Commissioners,
This letter references USR 1289.
I am one of the adjacent property owners(immediately to the west pf the proposed dairy site)who
oppose this permit.
I was, naturally, upset by the Planning Board's approval of USR 1289, but was MORE upset with
how rudely we opponents were treated by the Planning Board.
I believe it was great that almost the entire neighborhood took the time to attend the Planning
Board meeting. If only a few had taken the time to attend, the board would have taken our
opposition lightly. It seemed that because so many people wanted to express their concerns and
opinions,the Planning Board wasn't ready for our numbers. Our time was limited to 3 minutes
each. I am afraid that if our neighborhood were larger each speaker would have been granted
less time. If our neighborhood had only a few people, perhaps they would have had the
seemingly unlimited time the applicant did. The applicant only had a few people who spoke in
support of his proposed dairy.
The Board's curt, rude comments before we opponents were allowed to speak surely put a chill in
the air. It was almost like intimidation; you can only be concerned about things we (the Planning
Board) approve of and not the things we (the Planning Board) don't approve of. Sounds pretty
undemocratic to me. For a very brief moment I wondered why I bothered to come.
Our neighborhood took the time and effort on our own to review the application thoroughly as we
have done several other times when we (the neighborhood)were faced with problems that would
affect our quality of life and the character of the neighborhood. We are a very intelligent and
informed group of citizens.
We, the opponents, were granted 3 minutes each to express our feeling and concerns. Each
person who signed up to speak had valid issues to discuss. How can one, so well informed,
express so many concems in that time period? Because the application has so many
inconstancies, omissions and false information we needed to make the Planning Board aware of
them so they could make a fair decision.
In order to maximize information presented in the time allowed and abide by constraints placed
upon us by the Board some of the neighbors deferred their speaking time to Mr. Eichheim, who
felt confident that he could accomplish this and not get flustered because of time limit pressure.
NINE very generous people who had points to present to the Board gave up their time to him.
When our neighborhood lawyer explained this to the Board and asked for this permission the
Chairman of the Boards response was an immediate NO! Weld County's lawyer present at the
meeting, advised the Chairman to let Mr. Eichheim do this. She granted him 30 minutes. After
15 minutes Mr. Eichheim was told by the Chairman to STOP and was not allowed to continue for
the remaining 15 minutes. He was passionate (after all the lives of the neighbors and the
character of the neighborhood will be changed forever if this application passes), but not at all out
of order or rude, didn't even mention the forbidden subjects and was continuously bringing up
new and very valid issues. The remaining 15 minutes should have been given back to 5 of the
people that gave up their time to Mr. Eichheim. They should have been given their right to speak,
as this is why they chose to attend the meeting. Many of us gave up work time to make sure our
voices were heard. Talk about being treated unfairly. I personally was shocked at this disregard
for our feelings.
Weld Counties lead planner, Julie Chester told our lawyer she reserved the meeting room until
10:30 PM because this was such a controversial issue. We were terminated at approx. 6:15 PM.
Perhaps the board members were not prepared for us and couldn't make comments or ask
questions of Mr. Eichheim Oust a lifetime farmer born and raised in the nearby area), who took
the time to become comfortable and familiar with the applicant's proposal. One would think the
Planning Board would have lots of questions for him. THERE WERE NONE! Perhaps no
questions were asked of him because he had answers or the Board just wanted to go home.
I feel I deserve an explanation. It is exceedingly discouraging to have public officials treat us in a
seemingly biased and prejudicial manner. Even though we had valid reasons and concerns, as
the meeting progressed I began to feel our voices were not being heard. My lasting impression of
this hearing was that we just don't count and were considered less than people. Luckily their
rude treatment won't keep me from opposing this USR in front of the County Commissioners.
Thank you for reading my letter. I am not trying to be rude or confrontational. You must realize
WE (the neighborhood) are not opposed to a dairy, Use by Right, but are adamantly opposed to a
dairy factory of 4000 cows.
Sincerely,
Jean V. Eichheim (Mrs. Tracy Eichheim)
41285 Weld County Road 15
Fort Collins, CO. 80524
Please note we are actually located in Weld County
October 23, 2000
To: The Board of Weld County Commissioners
From: Kirk Kimberling
6621 Weld County Rd. 84
(970) 482-5164
The purpose of this letter is to inform you of concerns I have about how the
Planning and Zoning meeting on Oct. 17, 2000,was conducted. This meeting was
in regards to Mr. Dye's proposed 4000 cow dairy, located in the community
where my family and I live.
One of my complaints is that Mr. Dye, his engineer, banker, and business
associates were able to present their ideas first, and without any time
constraints. However,when individuals who were in opposition to this massive
dairy had their turn to speak, specific time limits were unfairly imposed.
Our group was denied a request to allow Mr. Eichheim, our main spokesperson,
to speak first on our behalf. Initially, there was an agreement to allow Mr.
Eichheim to talk for 30 minutes, but that time allotment was not honored. The
chairperson conducting the meeting interrupted him and told him to wrap up his
comments. After some deliberation, Mr. Eichheim was able to talk a few more
minutes, but still short of the agreed upon time of 30 minutes. He has done a lot
of research regarding the impact this size of dairy will have on the community. In
addition, by the time Mr. Eichheim was given the opportunity to speak, the
meeting was into the third hour, which put his presentation at a severe
disadvantage.
In conclusion, I feel the meeting could have been handled in a more equitable
manner. However, I was encouraged that two of the board members decided to
vote in opposition to the proposed 4000 cow dairy permit. I think this shows, as a
community, that we have many valid concerns regarding the impact this massive
dairy operation will have on our neighborhood.
Thank you for your time and consideration regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
October 26, 2000
Weld County Board of Commissioners
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Case # USR — 1289
Dear Board of County Commissioners
This letter is in reference to a hearing on the above application with the Planning and
Zoning board.
Our family has operated a productive crop and livestock operation on a property adjacent
to the proposed 4,000-cow dairy operation since 1968. During our 32 years in the
community we have watched the demographics of the area shift, over time, to small
acreage producers. There are 20 families on adjacent properties that oppose the permit.
There are many more on properties V2 mile from the site that are also opposed to a 4.000-
cow dairy. There are some serious concerns about the environmental impact this size of
an operation will have on the habitat and lives of members of the community.
It was apparent at the opening of the hearing that we, the community in opposition to a
4,000-cow confinement operation. were in hostile territory. The chairperson from
Planning and Zoning did not conduct the meeting in a professional manner. Her
dominant intimidating manner certainly had an impact and influence on other members of
the board. Many from the community were not given an opportunity to represent
themselves. The chair often interrupted those who were given the opportunity to speak
I feel that this issue, which will affect the lives of so many in the community and future
generations, was not dealt with professionally.
Sincerreelly�, e
Betty J. Kimberling
1401 Lindenwood Dr .
Ft Collins , CO 80524
Nov . 4 , 2000
Weld County Commissioners
915 10th Street
Greeley , CO 80632
Weld County Board of Commissioners :
On October 17 I attended a meeting of the Weld County Planning Board
concerning the application of the Dye Crest Dairy to install a 4000
cow unit dairy in Weld County .
The location of this proposed diary is one half mile north of the
location of our farm which we purchased in 1965 .
At the meeting there were approximately 40 neighbors attending to protst
the establishment of this new Dye Crest Dairy . Dye Crest presently
has a smaller dairy in Larimer County only one mile to the west cf
the proposed one .
At the beginning of the meeting it was requested that we sign an
attendance sheet that was passed around . At that time it was stated
by the chirperson of the Planning Board that we could assign
the three minutes each that was going to be allowed for each person
to express their views to another person. Later she stated that Mr .
Eichheim had been assigned 30 minutes .
After Mr . Eichheim had spoken about 15 minutes she said that he shouicc
bring his presentation to a close . That was UNFAIR ! ! ! .
We had listened to almost two hours to the Dye Crest presentation which
included Mr . Dye , his planner , his banker , his veternarian , his waste
management person , a former employee , etc . But we were told than:
even our lawyer could have only three minutes - just like the rest of us .
The reason for this letter is to protest the way the meeting, was
conducted . I feel we did not receive the same treatment as the Dye
Crest Co , who wants to change the zoning of the land to accommodate
his 4000 cow dairy herd .
That proposed dairy would have a disasterous effect on the close
knit community that has evolved in that area.
I feel we did not have equal opportunity to express ourselves .
Thank you for your attention to this matter .
Sincerely ,
Evelyn Clarke
Hello