HomeMy WebLinkAbout20000803.tiff HEARING CERTIFICATION
DOCKET NO. 99-69
RE: CHANGE OF ZONE #530 FROM A(AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT TO E (ESTATE)
ZONE DISTRICT FOR A FIVE-LOT MINOR SUBDIVISION - DANIEL OCHSNER
A public hearing was conducted on April 5, 2000, at 10:00 a.m., with the following present:
Commissioner Barbara J. Kirkmeyer, Chair
Commissioner M. J. Geile, Pro-Tem
Commissioner George E. Baxter
Commissioner Dale K. Hall
Commissioner Glenn Vaad
Also present:
Acting Clerk to the Board, Esther Gesick
Assistant County Attorney, Lee Morrison
Planning Department representative, Sheri Lockman
Health Department representative, Sheble McConnellogue
Public Works representative, Don Carroll
The following business was transacted:
I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated February 14,2000, and duly published February 17,
2000, in the South Weld Sun, a public hearing was conducted on March 1, 2000, to consider the
request of Daniel Ochsner for Change of Zone#530 from the A (Agricultural) Zone District to the
E (Estate) Zone District for a five-lot (5) Minor Subdivision. At said hearing on March 1, 2000, the
Board deemed it advisable to continue this matter, at the request of the applicant, to April 5, 2000,
at 10:00 a.m. At said hearing on April 5, 2000, Lee Morrison,Assistant County Attorney, made this
a matter of record. Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services, presented a brief summary
of the proposal and entered the favorable recommendation of the Planning Commission into the
record as written. She gave a brief description of the location of the site, which is approximately
14.9 acres. Ms. Lockman stated seven referral agencies responded favorably with recommended
conditions, and three did not respond. Ms. Lockman stated the Town of Platteville expressed
concerns, nine letters of opposition and three in favor of the proposal have been received. She
stated the Planning Commission recommends denial because the proposal does not preserve
agricultural land, it is not compatible with the surrounding agricultural uses,and the ditch on the site
will be a safety hazard. Ms. Lockman stated the Department of Planning Services has adopted a
new policy requiring applicants to provide evidence of water service. She explained this application
was received prior to enforcement of this policy; therefore, staff is requesting a new Condition of
Approval #3.D be added, as indicated in Exhibit FF. Ms. Lockman further requested Condition of
Approval#3.E.6 be deleted and replaced with the wording as indicated in Exhibit FF. In response
to Commissioner Baxter, Ms. Lockman stated the surrounding uses consist primarily of agricultural
activities. She stated the applicant owns the land west of the proposed site, which is Lot A of
Recorded Exemption #2152. Responding to Commissioners Vaad and Geile, Ms. Lockman
indicated the location of Weld County Road 28, and clarified the proposed changes to the
Conditions of Approval. In response to Commissioner Hall, Ms. Lockman indicated the location of
the Urban Growth Boundary for the Town of Platteville.
OC PL / ?C`.) / Ep 2000-0803
PL1356
HEARING CERTIFICATION - DANIEL OCHSNER (COZ#530)
PAGE 2
Chris Pickett represented the applicant and stated staff initially recommended approval of this
request; however, the Planning Commission denied the application for reasons already explained
by Ms. Lockman. He stated the applicant agrees with the Conditions of Approval and has met the
necessary requirements, therefore the request should be approved. Mr. Pickett stated a majority
of the opposition stems from the belief that this will be an urban-type development; however, five
lots, as proposed, are classified as non-urban by the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. Mr.
Picket reviewed the location of the site in relation to the surrounding uses and residences on an
aerial photograph and stated the closest lot will exceed the 200-foot setback requirement as
proposed by staff in amended Condition of Approval #3.E.6. He stated the proposed use will not
prohibit the surrounding property owners from applying for a similar development on their own land.
He further stated the site is irrigated land; however, it is not prime farm ground; the ditch currently
provides conveyance of irrigation water and return irrigation water; and although the placement of
the ditch has been a matter of concern to surrounding property owners, there is the possibility of
relocating it. Mr. Pickett stated there are minerals on the subject property; however, it has been
determined that they are not economically viable for mining. He indicated that because there are
already residences in the area, five additional homes will not have a significant impact to services,
and the proposal is in compliance with the requirements of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan.
In response to Commissioner Baxter, Mr. Pickett stated the access road is considered part of the
outlot, the site is irrigated non-prime farm land, and the surrounding field is currently planted with
corn. Responding to Commissioner Geile, Mr. Pickett stated the site was previously part of a
feedlot. He further stated the applicant initially designed a plan for a major subdivision; however,
it was rejected by the Town of Platteville and the surrounding property owner, He explained if this
application is approved, the applicant will not be able to propose another miror subdivision within
one-quarter mile on the same property. In response to Commissioner Geile, Ms. Lockman stated
Special Use Permit #338 was issued on the site for gravel mining; however, it is no longer in
operation, and she clarified the site is located on Lot A of Recorded Exemption #2152. Mr. Picket
stated the applicant does not intend to develop more than this site. Responding to Chair
Kirkrneyer, Mr. Pickett stated the applicant has owned the property since 1996.
Daniel Ochsner, applicant, stated the site has remained in agricultural use since he purchased it,
and he feels the proposed site is ideal for this type of development because the soil is poor. Mr.
Ochsner stated the remainder of the property will remain in agricultural production. In response to
Chair Kirkmeyer, Mr. Ochsner stated he purchased 200 acres in 1996. The southern portion is
owned by his company called Denver Canadian,and he owns the northern portion. Both properties
were granted Recorded Exemptions in 1998. Mr. Ochsner further stated he did not formally submit
plans for a major subdivision to the Town of Platteville. Responding to Commissioner Baxter, Mr.
Ochsner stated there are irrigation wells on the site and the Last Chance Ditch runs through the
property; however, he has not obtained formal assurance of water because up until this point he
was not required to. In response to Chair Kirkmeyer, Mr. Ochsner stated he purchased the
property as one lot; however, following approval of the Recorded Exemptions, there are now four
buildable lots. He further stated he has requested water service from Central Weld County Water
District, which is currently conducting a study on the site, and he estimates the taps will cost
approximately $17,000 each. In response to Commissioner Geile's previous question regarding
Special Use Permit#338, Mr. Morrison stated the gravel operation was approved in 1977, however,
the record does not reflect when it ceased operation.
2000-0803
PL1356
HEARING CERTIFICATION - DANIEL OCHSNER (COZ #530)
PAGE 3
Bruce Nickerson, Town of Firestone Planning Director, stated the Town is not opposed to this
particular development; however, he wanted to inform the Board of Commissioners of the actions
the Town has been taking to promote urban development within the area labels Tier 1 on the
Firestone Comprehensive Plan Map and to promote agricultural uses in Tier 2. (Switched to Tape
#2000-09.) Mr. Nickerson reviewed the Town's plan to preserve a community separator area to
be used primarily as agricultural. He read a letter to Cynthia Parker,from Mayer Paterson, into the
record. Commissioner Baxter commented the Weld County Comprehensive Plan indicates Minor
Subdivisions are allowed as a non-urban use in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. Mr. Nickerson
reiterated the Town is not opposing this proposal; however, they would encourage development
within an urban area. Commissioner Hall commented many of the meetings regarding the
Intergovernmental Agreement between Weld County and the Town of Firestone indicated that a
development with five or fewer lots, 2.5 acres or more in size,was not urban scale. Mr. Nickerson
stated the Tier 2 area is not part of the Intergovernmental. In response to Commissioner Geile,
Mr. Nickerson stated the Town does not have the funds to purchase land to accomplish
conservation easements; it is simply trying to preserve an area for urban scale development.
Commissioner Hall reiterated he does not feel this proposal classifies as an urban scale
development and if the Town is suggesting the area outside of the Intergovernmental Agreement
area restrict this type of development, there needs to be a mechanism for reimbursing property
owners. Chair Kirkmeyer commented the Weld County Comprehensive Plan promotes clustering
to preserve more agricultural land.
Gary Harkless, Weld County resident, stated he recently purchased a lot similar to what is being
proposed. He stated this type of development is in high demand and difficult to find. He stated this
development will be low density,the ditch will not be a safety hazard, and the site is not prime farm
ground.
Mark Harkless, Weld County resident, stated this development is similar to what is allowed on
corners of center-pivot irrigated fields. Mr. Harkless stated everyone will benefit from this type of
development in the area and requested approval.
Bruce Wilson, surrounding property owner, stated he feels this is the wrong time for this type of
development. He stated he lives in a cluster of five homes located south of this site; however,
there were not developed as a subdivision. He stated they are all existing residences that house
those involved in agricultural activities. Mr.Wilson stated this development will not house residents
that are involved in agricultural activities,and it is the only Minor Subdivision it the area. He stated
the site was previously used to raise cattle, which is characterized as an agricultural use. In
response to Commissioner Baxter, Mr. Wilson stated he is aware of the Right To Farm Covenant;
however, he is also aware of the fact that spraying liability will increase with the presence of five
new families.
Kenneth Mayer, surrounding property owner, stated this is prime agricultural land, and it was
planted with irrigated alfalfa five years ago. Mr. Mayer indicated the location of his home and
business in relation to the proposed site. He stated his business ships approximately 60 truck
loads of potatoes and 30 loads of onions annually. Mr. Mayer displayed photos, marked
Exhibits LL and MM, showing his operation, views of the proposed site from his property, and
surrounding uses. He stated five new estates will create a conflict with the existing agricultural
uses. Mr. Mayer stated to achieve the 2.5-acre minimum lot size,the lots will encroach on a portion
of the existing corn field. He expressed concern that the crop-dusting company may be hesitant
2000-0803
PL1356
HEARING CERTIFICATION - DANIEL OCHSNER (COZ #530)
PAGE 4
to continue spraying his fields with five new houses in the immediate area. Mr. Mayer referred to
a letter from his accountant, marked Exhibit W, indicating the potential adverse effect on his
property value. He expressed concern that the Weld County Right To Farm Covenant is not legally
binding and does not necessarily protect him from complaints from new residents in the area. Mr.
Mayer requested the Board deny this request because it will adversely affect the planned
expansion of his business and livelihood.
Bill Miller, realtor, reviewed recent legislation regarding growth in Colorado. He stated if a
proposed development has assurance of adequate water, then it is impertant to protect and
promote the property rights of individuals. Mr. Miller stated the Board needs to consider that
covenants on a development can also deter certain purchasers, and those that purchase these
homes will likely desire to live among the surrounding agricultural activities arid be very accepting.
He stated this Change of Zone for a minor subdivision is appropriate for the area.
Bill Perry,Weld County resident,expressed concern with urban uses moving into agricultural areas.
He stated the necessity for more services will end up costing the existing residents more money.
Mr. Perry stated many new residents do not utilize the businesses and services of Weld County
because they commute outside of the County for work and shopping,and he a dded the agricultural
community often loses its fight against incoming development.
Frank Stewart, Weld County resident, stated this site is not prime farmed ground, it is horticultural
land, which requires vast experience in order to raise a crop. Mr. Stewart stated growth has an
overall impact on the local schools and services such as police and fire protection, He further
stated much of the development is promoted by new residents, not existing farmers. Mr. Stewart
stated farmers in this area will have a difficult time making a living because with more residents in
the area, the crop-dusting companies will be less likely to agree to spraying fields.
Cynthia Parker,surrounding property owner,stated she owns 160 acres located approximately one
and one-half mile from the proposed site. Ms. Parker stated this is a desirable area, and although
the growth can't be stopped, it can be managed wisely. Ms. Parker further stated smart growth
involves promoting growth in or around towns, providing buffer areas, and balancing private
property rights with what is good for the community as a whole. She stated the applicant
purchased this land knowing it was located in an agricultural area, and added the surrounding
community and the Board of Commissioners should not be required to help him fulfill his
development plans.
Henrietta Shelwitz, Weld County resident, stated this is an issue of realty versus agriculture and
she feels farmers should be allowed to farm without the pressure of development.
Lila Mayer, surrounding property owner, stated the case file has powerful letters of opposition and
she is requesting this application be denied. Ms. Mayer stated Exhibit J is a petition signed by
many area residents who are opposed to the development but were unable 1O attend today. She
stated the Town of Platteville is opposed to this development because it is not consistent with the
Town's Comprehensive Plan, and the Weld County Planning Commission voted eight to one
against the proposal, because it is not compatible with the surrounding uses. Ms. Mayer stated the
accumulation of Minor Subdivisions cause a burden on urban services and pose a cost burden to
existing taxpayers in the area. She added the existing roads are not sufficient, and the intersection
of Weld County Road 19 and Highway 66 is already a bad intersection without adding more traffic.
2000-0803
PL1356
HEARING CERTIFICATION - DANIEL OCHSNER (COZ#530)
PAGE 5
Ms. Mayer expressed concern with children being required to cross Weld County Road 19 to board
the school bus, and stated the development is anticipated to average 1.7 children per household
which will impact the local school district. Ms. Mayer stated the applicant had originally proposed
a Major Subdivision with approximately 250 houses, a nursing home, and a restaurant. This
proposal was considered by the Town of Platteville and rejected. She stated the overall property
already allows for four residences, and the surrounding agricultural businesses will be threatened
with five additional estate lots. Ms. Mayer reiterated the proposed residential development will not
be compatible with the existing agricultural uses, and the local farmers should not have to defend
their way of living.
Roberta Wilson,surrounding property owner,stated she farms approximately 60 acres. She stated
she is opposed to this development for reasons previously stated by other local residents, and
added it is right in the middle of a farming community making it difficult to farm around.
Larry Hatcher, surrounding property owner, stated he operates the turkey farm to the north, and
indicated more dwellings will make it difficult to operate, with increased traffic:. Mr. Hatcher cited
a survey indicating many Americans are naive of agricultural activities and products,and stated the
increased growth needs to be addressed. In response to Chair Kirkmeyer, Mr. Hatcher indicated
the haul route for his operation.
Louise LaFaver, surrounding property owner, stated she supports the previous statements in
opposition to this proposal. Ms. LaFaver stated she and her business partner recently purchased
2.5 acres south of the proposed site and indicated approval of this developme it may prevent them
from increasing their business.
(Clerk's Note: The hearing was recessed until 1:30.)
Upon reconvening, Mr. Morrison stated the Right To Farm Covenant provides protection of general
agricultural activities and some protection for expansion of existing agricultural uses. In response
to Commissioner Baxter, Mr. Morrison stated if the farmer is using normal agricultural practices,
it is up to the accusing party to prove the farmer is acting improperly. Ms. Lockman stated Use by
Special Review Permit #94 was approved for the Mayer's property and they do have vested
property rights.
Rosalie Rusch, surrounding property owner, stated she is the financial secretary for the Beeman
Ditch Company. She stated this is a large ditch that carries 40 shares of water. Ms. Rusch
indicated it will be a hazard for kids,and she expressed concern with new residents tampering with
well motors and playing along ditch rights-of-way. Ms. Rusch stated the proposed use will not be
compatible with the activities in the area.
Jane Ann Johnson-Smith,surrounding property owner,stated this development will make it difficult
for spraying regardless of what legislation is proposed at this time. She stated this is not a
geographically responsible placement for a Minor Subdivision, and expressed concern that there
is a potential for more Minor Subdivisions in the future.
Linda Pyeatt, surrounding property owner, stated she is opposed to this proposal. She stated the
applicant is only proposing five lots; however, growth is cumulative, and Mr. Ochsner is a
developer, not a farmer trying to make a living. Ms. Pyeatt stated the ditch which runs through the
2000-0803
PL1356
HEARING CERTIFICATION - DANIEL OCHSNER (COZ #530)
PAGE 6
property drains approximately 20 acres of her property, and indicated how the ditch will bisect the
proposed lots to meet the minimum 2.5-acre requirement. She stated the Icts will remove some
of the existing corn field from production, and the farmer who is currently farming the area will have
to cross five separate properties to access the ditch. Ms. Pyeatt stated the Weld County Planning
Commission recommended denial because the proposal is not compatible wi?:h surrounding uses.
Luke Little,applicant advisor,stated he currently lives in Iowa where he farms approximately 2,000
acres. Mr. Little explained the details which must be taken into account prior to crop-dusting and
stated the applicant intends to continue farming the remaining land, therefore, he has taken the
crop-dusting factor into account. Mr. Little stated the applicant grew up on a farm, he understands
agriculture,and he is not a major developer. He indicated Mr. Ochsner has attempted to work with
the neighbors and has been rejected. Mr. Little stated the homes will be an asset to the
community.
There being no further testimony, Chair Kirkmeyer closed public testimony.
Mr. Picket stated the proposal will not take away the rights of surrounding property owners. He
stated they have the same right to develop their own land, and there should be minimal conflicts
because the potential residents will be desiring this type of atmosphere. Mr. Pickett stated the
proposal meets the criteria of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. In response to Chair
Kirkmeyer, Mr. Pickett stated the five proposed homes are non-urban, there are other clusters of
homes in the area whether developed as a Minor Subdivision or not, and the Comprehensive Plan
allows this type of development in rural areas. He further stated there was a letter, dated August
14, 1997,from the Central Weld County Water District stating water is available if all requirements
are met; however, there is not an agreement at this time. Responding to Commissioner Baxter,
Mr. Pickett indicated the water line is located under the County Road. Ir response to Chair
Kirkmeyer, Mr. Pickett stated the ditch is located higher than the field so water can be conveyed
to the crops, and the details of how the portion of the lots located west of the ditch will be utilized
will be addressed at Final Plan. In response to Commissioners Hall and Elaxter, Mr. Ochsner
stated he owns the ditch, water will continue to be used for irrigation, and he indicated where the
water flows. In response to Commissioner Vaad, Ms. Lockman stated the applicant needs to obtain
the water commitment as indicated in proposed Condition of Approval #3.D, and the form of
assurance will be reviewed by the County Attorney prior to approval.
Commissioner Vaad stated the testimony presented by Mr. Nickerson expressed a lack of regard
for private property rights. He stated this decision will set a precedent as to what is or isn't allowed
on other properties. Commissioner Vaad stated this application is in compliance with the goals and
plans of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan, the proposal clusters the five residences
to preserve the remaining farm land, there are rules to prevent further subdivision of the property,
and the applicant will be required to provide evidence of water prior to final approval; therefore,
he moved to approve the request of Daniel Ochsner for Change of Zone #530 from
the A (Agricultural)Zone District to the E (Estate)Zone District for a five (5) lot Minor Subdivision,
based on the recommendations of the Planning staff, with the Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards as entered into the record with the proposed changes
as presented by staff. Commissioner Hall seconded the motion. Commissioner Geile
stated he supports the motion because although the Weld County Comprehensive Plan
discourages urban-scale development outside of urban boundaries, this proposal is not urban-
scale, the houses will have engineered foundations, the site is not conducive to farming, and the
2000-0803
PL1356
HEARING CERTIFICATION - DANIEL OCHSNER (COZ #530)
PAGE 7
Right To Farm Covenant will assist in mitigating any differences. Commissioner Geile stated it is
very important the applicant make purchasers aware of the Covenants to prevent future conflicts.
Commissioner Baxter commented he is concerned with the potential impact to surrounding farming
activities; however, the new Right To Farm Act provides more protection to farmers, this is not an
urban-type development, and it complies with the rules and regulations of the Weld County
Comprehensive Plan. Chair Kirkmeyer stated she lives on a farm adjacent to a municipal boundary
and acknowledged that there are impacts; however, this plan has clustered the homes together,
promoting use of the remaining agricultural land, and it does meet the burden of proof and criteria,
therefore, she is in favor of the motion. There being no further discussion, the motion carried
unanimously.
This Certification was approved on the 10th day of April 2000.
APPROVED:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLOADO ATTEST: � ���"t<, j��c� ,.t.....1 1i4 ,��� t_
�'•.:rbara J. Kirkmeyer, Chair
Weld County Clerk to the Bo- '. +was \
1861 (�f V �r USED DATE OF APPROVAL —
Ce Ir '��� MT J. eile,- Pro-Tem
BY: %ii� % � ✓��., ,�..� �7
Deputy Clerk to the Boar. ® '- .frrit. 't —
&N ,Geor.e E. Baxter
TAPE #2000-08 and #2000-09
c a igi
DOCKET#99-69.A 4,Yetio,�/?dA —
Glenn Vaad
2000-0803
PL1356
EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET
Case COZ#530 - DANIEL OCHSNER
Exhibit Submitted By Exhibit Description
A. Planning Staff Inventory of Item Submitted
B. Planning Commission Resolution of Recommendation
C. Planning Commission Summary of Hearing (Minutes)
D. Clerk to the Board Notice of Hearing
E. Easton Aviation Letter of Concern (09/02/99)
F. Agland, Inc. Letter of Concern (09/07/99)
G. Applicant Letter requesting to propeed with this matter
H. Ritchie and Linda Pyeatt Letter of Concern (11/1:5/99)
Wilson Farms Letter of Concern (11/11/99)
J. Surrounding Property Owners Petition of Opposition ( 11/10/99)
K. Mayer Family Testamentary Trust Letter of Concern (11/22/99)
L. Lila Mayer Letter (E-mail) of Concern (11/23/99)
M. Planning Staff Request for Continuance
N. Applicant Request for Continuance
O. Planning Staff Sign Posting Certificate
P. Applicant Letter (11/24/99)
Q. Applicant Land Use Map
R. Applicant Letter (12/13/99) _
S. Clerk to the Board Letter re: Referral to Planning Commission
(12/27/99) (Under"Legals") _
T. Planning Staff - Letters dated 01/27/00, 01/21/00, 01/03/00
- Memorandum re: Amendment to original
Application (12/29/99)
- Minor Subdivision Sketch Plan and Vicinity
Map
U. Clerk to the Board Notice of Hearing (03/0'1/00) - Filed under
"Legals"
V. Lila Mayer Letter from Kevin Mayer (03/01/2000)
W. Lila Mayer Letter from Siebert and Associates, P.C.
(03/22/2000)
X. Billy Miller Letter of Support (03/30/2000) _
Y. Gary and Judy Harkless Letter of Support (04/01/2000) _
Z. Applicant Letter of support from David and Karen
Sabo (04/01/2000)
AA. Applicant Letter of support from James and Missy
Libengood (03/05/2000) _
BB. Applicant Letter of support from Robert and
Bernadette Nielsen (04/D3/2000)
CC. Larue Hauf Typed Phone statement of support
(04/05/2000) _
DD. Applicant Letter of support from Ralph Nix
EE. Applicant Letter of support from W.R. Hurt
FF. Planning Staff Recommended changes to the proposed
Conditions of Approval
GG. Planning Staff Letter of Concerns (02/29/2000) _
HH. Planning Staff Photo of sign posted on the site _
II. Applicant Seven photos of site and surrounding area
JJ. Town of Firestone, Bruce Nickerson Firestone Comprehensive Plan Map
KK. Town of Firestone, Bruce Nickerson Letter of Response to Cynthia Parker
LL. Kenneth Mayer Five photos of Mayer property
MM. Kenneth Mayer Four photos of Ochsner property from
Mayer property _
ATTENDANCE RECORD
HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS ON THIS 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2000:
DOCKET#99-69 - DANIEL OCHSNER
PLEASE legibly write or print your name and complete address and the DOCKET#
(as listed above) or the name of the applicant of the hearing you are attending.
NAME AND,ADDRESS(Please include City and Zip Code)DOCKET#OF HEARING ATTENDING
t / 1
� �C �Z' tlA a () t'(" " /e-) gO -?`' 9`' (, ri
77,,,,t,(//,,,,_ (Th X i i fk Lt (C 2'6)6, '3 q 9 - C, 9'
Zit) e
,)C( }lug Pr- ;L1cu$ $FuvV `,f, ( 0 6se,<2,\ 1`__(_ _—
',4-6-77 .( p 'l/'L z ,-(7(. iC / Z�-tl-c�C-G�i �� ��D'4-J I i' `�- l,?,—
1 � /�
j;',/..,7. , i' I. 41444,-4, �e y�'e s,' ?f.. i/
— (1.°/1iJ )--7 (i(j_o- G;-
/�i / c„.°144127,2- �( �—y�_
/yam Imo(,R- /Zl'<4 6/�1IYL�i.'LC L -St C. c_2 ( O V !/ (l�-� / - �_
(� 1', ' l- d( ', ',-' r. �1/ b^r ( ('. C {/ /
r ci � .� i l _
x'11 III :.� (.vVL ,-u rat (('fG `i_
c /�
> /(X 1% /1/' ' �7,/,�,. ,le.`,c '� () U✓ / t'
n
i�� 7 1a
�r. ntlt. ‘-‘7--,/v,',.‘-‘7--,/v,',.._-/__- - / .5 oc_.(�V- F', (' y' 4 ice, - -t-, : 1 /y` '
r--
,_/, LC;.__,(,(C__2( ,,-'f'K % -}/306:"' .P9 C1S7 ID/;Yz r:at t -1'E-'V `Y% d'' _
63 '. I ( e.t, ,(� 31 'J'L 5d lei ,4;:-_ Cf Gip-fin , Xc4, .4 '7 - VI
r_,='i1 tr. --TL Jr'# j r 2a•In c:;,,f'� !v: ( LE '26'7i e�;,</- e
N L y
�h' I'// ii "(-QL'(i k) hc / p / 7 2
-�il iJ;J�j � r
/� { _ ' ]_ .s '
J A/L N/c(t_ne/' [1€ 'Li c" /`/L//i7Z7<C G.G O`' c F-- (ivy_ ul''_
ATTENDANCE RECORD
HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS ON THIS 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2000:
DOCKET#99-69 - DANIEL OCHSNER
PLEASE legibly write or print your name and complete address and the DOCKET#
(as listed above) or the name of the applicant of the hearing you are attending.
NAME AND ADDRESS(Please include City and Zip Code)DOCKET#OF HEARING ATTENDING
1CjGw t23J %�
��c ( ,
Art a').���� ,� ;� ,� -e.i), � �c'g.�r 1 {J i�c 1,-.ti / y z/4{7,/,‘,),,,,;lei ft-1,42f eZ Lf `�? i,, F->,/wzzr y 9 -G ' _
?l!'>P7 GSnm 1 3O11-e 8b1""15
L7 y f, 1$ c)li 7 . _ _- i l c > >
! _ •
l
�� " � �
- � ; �w, < , 46' 9/ 11O, 4 (Pc-/
` '{,,L, ( - i:Gf mac!-' 6,�sO 4 7/ ;;. /' -. /•,;/ , ii[.o : J CI. ^. -/ J}< !!'- —
Hello