The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20001174.tiff HEARING CERTIFICATION DOCKET NO. 2000-19 RE: SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT#1257 (AMENDING SPECIAL USE PERMIT #438) FOR AN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT FOR A LIVESTOCK CONFINEMENT OPERATION (DAIRY) IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT -JIM DOCHEFF, DOCHEFF DAIRY A public hearing was conducted on May 15, 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, Trevor Jiricek Public Works representative, Don Carroll The following business was transacted: I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated April 10, 2000, a public hearing was conducted on April 26, 2000, to consider the request of Jim Docheff, Docheff Dairy, for a Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit #1257 for an Agricultural Service Establishment for a Livestock Confinement Operation (dairy) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. However, the legal notice was not published on April 13, 2000, in the South Weld Sun, therefore, the Board deemed it advisable to continue said matter to Monday, May 15, 2000, at 10:00 a.m. At said hearing on May 15, 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. Ms. Lockman gave a brief description of the location of the site which is approximately 28 acres. She stated eight entities responded favorably to referrals with proposed conditions and two did not respond. Ms. Lockman stated various letters of support have been submitted, and as a Condition of this permit, Special Use Permit#438 will be vacated. In response to Commissioner Baxter, Ms. Lockman explained the original use was allowed under a Special Use Permit, which cannot be amended;therefore it will be vacated and replaced with a Use by Special Review Permit. Jim Docheff, applicant, stated he has been in operation for 20 years, and he now operates the dairy with his three sons. Mr. Docheff explained he has applied for this permit to expand his current operation. Thomas Haren, AgPro Environmental Services, Inc., represented the applicant and stated this application is for the expansion of an existing operation. He explained currently there are approximately 480 milking cows, which the applicant would like to increase to 800 for a total of 1,800 animal units which includes dry cows, heifers/steers, calves and horses. 2000-1174 T�: P , P 4' r PL1404 4n HEARING CERTIFICATION - (USR #1257) PAGE 2 No public testimony was offered concerning this matter. In response to Chair Kirkmeyer, Mr. Docheff stated he has reviewed and agrees with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. Mr. Haren requested the second sentence of Development Standard #12 be amended to state, "Odors, or the facility, shall comply with Regulation 2 of the Colorado Air Pollution Control Regulations." Trevor Jiricek, Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment, stated this change will result in the facility being exempt from Regulation 2 as long as it is operating under Best Management Practices. In response to Chair Kirkmeyer regarding Development Standard #23, Ms. Lockman stated the applicant has proposed construction of buildings, and the Building Inspection Department has requested the local Fire Protection District review and approve the project drawings. Responding to Chair Kirkrneyer, Mr. Morrison explained Weld County has consented to the Fire Code adopted by the Mountain View Fire Protection District, and the local fire district will provide enforcement. He stated the Mountain View Fire Protection District will still have the opportunity to review the project plans regardless of whether its approval is included as a Development Standard because it must enforce the code. Chair Kirkmeyer expressed concern that the Board may not have any authority over the District's timing or decision. Mr. Morrison stated if the District denies the plans, the applicant will have the ability of coming to the Board for a minor change to the permit, and suggested deleting the words"and review." Commissioner Baxter suggested adding the language that indicates the applicant shall attempt to comply with the requirements of the Mountain View Fire Protection District. Chair Kirkmeyer stated there are other Development Standards proposed by the Fire District, and she reiterated that the problem of the County being caught in the middle would be resolved by deleting the words "and approval" from Development Standard #23. Mr. Haren stated it would be easier for the applicant to work with the Fire District independent from the County. Commissioner Hall commented this type of requirement is typically a Condition of Approval rather than a Development Standard. Mr. Haren stated if it becomes a Condition of Approval, it may prevent the applicant from adding animals if he is not yet ready to change his building. In response to Mr. Docheff, Chair Kirkmeyer clarified that they are debating whether Development Standards #23 and #24 should be deleted and a new Condition of Approval #2 be added that states prior to construction, the project plans shall be reviewed by the Mountain View Fire Protection District. Mr. Morrison stated he would still be able to add more animals regardless of whether he remodels the dairy parlor. Mr. Jiricek stated if the Board accepts the applicant's proposed change to Development Standard#12, the third sentence needs to be amended as well because it also refers to the fifteen-to-one dilution threshold. Mr. Haren requested all language following his proposed change to Development Standard #12 be deleted. He explained that there is a measure of subjectivity in the odor level and if the operator is doing all of the necessary management measures,they are in compliance. Mr. Morrison stated there is currently a two-tiered approach to addressing a complaint. Mr. Jiricek stated the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment has not yet reviewed the Odor Abatement Plan. In response to Chair Kirkmeyer, Mr. Morrison clarified that the current language triggers additional odor control measures in the event of a complaint; however, if the fifteen-to-one measure is deleted, the applicant's proposed changes may not work. Responding to Commissioner Geile, Mr. Morrison explained Regulation 2 requires a facility to comply with Best Management Practices. In response to Chair Kirkrneyer and Commissioner Baxter, Mr. Jiricek stated most Odor Abatement Plans allow for additional measures to be taken by the Health Department if necessary, and removing the reference of the fifteen-to-one standard will make the plan more objective. Mr. Jiricek further stated agricultural odors are exempt from standards if the facility is using Best Management 2000-1174 PL1404 HEARING CERTIFICATION - (USR#1257) PAGE 3 Practices and the facility is regulated only if it is negligent. Mr. Morrison stated if the site implements the Odor Plan or is using Best Management Practices, the permit is not revokable, even if the odor exceeds the fifteen-to-one standard. Chair Kirkmeyer commented that the fifteen- to-one threshold is hard to determine and it is likely that Best Management Practices will control excessive odors. Mr. Morrison stated the fifteen-to-one standard gives Health Department staff a starting place for dealing with odor complaints. Mr. Haren stated Regulation 2 allows for stronger odors in rural areas, and the applicant has agreed to the proposed Odor Abatement Plan. He stated if there are complaints,the Health Department has the ability to enforce the Odor Abatement Plan, and allows for changes enforced by the State in the future. Commissioner Geile stated as the Standard is currently written, a complaint causes the Health Department to go and measure the odor. In response to Commissioner Geile, Mr. Jiricek stated odor complaints are referred to the Colorado State University Extension agent for measurement and to determine if Best Management Practices are being implemented. In response to Chair Kirkmeyer, Mr. Jiricek stated the fifteen-to-one standard is also a standard measurement used in Regulation 2. It became a basic standard for Weld County permits based on complaints for a previous case. In response to Chair Kirkmeyer, Mr. Jiricek reiterated that there is no odor standard for agricultural uses if the facility is using Best Management Practices. Commissioner Vaad stated he is concerned with eliminating the language because it appears that there are no controls or measurements. He stated the applicant is a good dairy operator, but he would still prefer to leave the Standard as it is written. Chair Kirkmeyer commented she would prefer to delete the second sentence because it is more stringent than Regulation 2. She stated dairies are already highly regulated and reiterated she would prefer to delete the second sentence and amend the third sentence to add "as measured pursuant to Regulation 2 of the Colorado Air Pollution Control Regulations"after the word "threshold." Commissioner Baxter agreed. Commissioner Hall moved to approve the request of Jim Docheff, Docheff Dairy,fora Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit #1257 for an Agricultural Service Establishment for a Livestock Confinement Operation (dairy) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District, based on the recommendations of the Planning staff and the Planning Commission, w th the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards as entered into the record, and amend Development.Standard#12 to delete the second sentence and amend the third sentence by adding "as measured pursuant to Regulation 2 of the Colorado Air Pollution Control Regulations,"following the word "threshold," delete Development Standards #23 and #24, renumber the following Development. Standards, and add a new Condition of Approval #2 to state, "Prior to new construction, project drawing shall be submitted to the Mountain View Fire Protection District for review. Additional requirements or change may be required when building applications or plans are reviewed by the Weld County Building Inspection Department or the Mountain View Fire Protection District," and renumber the following Conditions. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Geile. In response to Commissioner Vaad, Commissioner Hall stated his concerns are still going to be addressed through the proposed changes because the fifteen-to-one standard will still be addressed. Commissioner Vaad commented the second sentence will allow the County a means of addressing odor complaints submitted by surrounding property owners. The motion carried unanimously. 2000-1174 PL1404 HEARING CERTIFICATION - (USR #1257) PAGE 4 This Certification was approved on the 17th day of May 2000. APPROVED: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS avtin W D COUNTY, COLOR DO '• ' "' Barbara J. rkmeyer, hair � w I rk to the Board J. ile, Pro-Tern uty Clerk to the Board - /r org . Baxter TAPE #2000-15 Dale K. Hall DOCKET #2000-19 ��'41, d I. jr' d4 Glenn Vaad — 2000-1174 2000-1174 PL1404 EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET Case USR#1257 - JIM DOCHEFF, DOCHEFF DAIRY 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 03/21/2000) D. Clerk to the Board Notice of Hearing E. Clerk to the Board Memorandum re: Continuance (04/20,2000) F. Clerk to the Board Corrected Notice of Hearing (Filed under Legals) G. City of Longmont Letter expressing no concerns (04/13/2000) H. Planning Staff Photos of signs posted on site (05/11/2000) J. - K. _ --- L. M. - N. - O. _ --- P. - Q. - R. - s. _ T. _ U. - V. - ATTENDANCE RECORD HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS ON THIS 15TH DAY OF MAY, 2000: DOCKET#2000-19 - JIM DOCHEFF / DOCHEFF DAIRY 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 andZip Code)DOCKET#OF HEARING ATTENDING P<'C.ilr E ORIit 5-= Y J_ 1,1 = f`;111' Hello