HomeMy WebLinkAbout20003002.tiff WELD ,L T,`
November 13,2000 CC"!'
713 N0V 21 An 8: 56
Weld County Board of Commissioners
P.O. Box 758 REC!� r =-_
Greeley, CO 80632
RE: Dyecrest Dairy - USR-1289
Ladies and Gentlemen:
My name is Jeanne Gelvin and I live % mile South of Terry Dye's proposed dairy site. I am very
much against this dairy for several reasons.
While I support Mr.. Dye's right by use, I strongly oppose his request for a"special use"permit
to build a 4000 head dairy. With his present dairy approximately 1 mile from the proposed site,
this neighborhood would be sandwiched between a 6000 head dairy.
The neighboring homes and families are all involved in agriculture, albeit as small family farms.
What Mr.. Dye proposes is not"agriculture" but"big business" at its worst. I ask that you help
us keep our small family farms and not allow big money to run over us, by denying this special
use permit.
My family has, and is presently farming in Colorado for the past 110 years. For me, the term
"agriculture" has always been synonymous with a sense of community. Mr.. Dye seems to have
no regard for this community, with his only goal being a large mutli-million dollar dairy and
individual profit.
Al. the planning and zoning meeting he made comments about being surprised and "blind-sided"
by the neighborhoods opposition. I found this statement very surprising since the community had
presented a letter with many signatures in July of 2000, asking him to reconsider his plan. Some
neighbors offered to purchase Mr.. Dye's property at a considerable profit to Mr.. Dye in order to
preserve the neighborhood. All dealings with Mr.. Dye have been met with little regard to
community concerns and total self-interest. With the sense of community we have experienced
with Mr. Dye, I am very concerned about the quality of life our future holds if he is permitted l o
build a dairy of this magnitude on this site.
If this project is built, we would no longer be able to enjoy the simple pleasure of viewing the
stars at night because of the large number of lights that such an enormous dairy would use. It
would be like living at a shopping mall.
The truck traffic to import and export supplies and products for a 4000 head dairy would he hard
on our roads and bridges. On county road 15, between highway 14 and county road 84 there is a
limited use bridge. Would this bridge have to be replaced in order to accommodate the amourt
of truck traffic?
2000-3002 �yI
lfl s
Core samples on our property showed water as shallow as seven (7) feet. Surrounding property
owners have similar experiences. Four thousand (4000) animals in a confined unit have the
potential of doing irreversible damage to underground water.
This is a good community which we would like to preserve. At the planning and zoning hearing
we (the neighbors opposing this project) were accused of being city people moving to the coun
and then complaining about agricultural life. This is quite the contrary, my husband and mysel
have owned our property for 5 years, while some neighbors have been here 30 plus years. This is
a densely populated and long established neighborhood. A 4000 head dairy is NOT
COMPATIBLE for this area.
I ask that you hear the concerns of the people who actually live in the community and are
neighbors to the property under review. Mr. Dye's support comes from people who will benefit
monetarily or people who had "visited" his present dairy. These are people who do not live in
this area. It is our lives and properties which will be forever affected. Please do not allow the
monetary profit of one individual ruin the lives of a whole community. I ask for myself and my
community that you deny Mr. Dye's permit.
Sincerely,
, 2477nl _25474/1-.1
Jeanne Gelvin
40719 Remington Road
(Weld County)
Fort Collins, CO 80524
use, - �t�
SM
FORT COLLINS SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT 21
1415 N . COLLEGE AVENUE" SUITE #3
FORT COLLINS, CO 80.524
221--0611 MONDAY & THURSDAY ONLY
' 2•- '1O h - dk,0-4t e5
Weld County Planning Department:
1.555 N . 17th Ave.
Greeley . CO 80631
Yr
SUBJECT : TERRY DYE, DYELANDS DAIRY LLC
n .
NJ
m
To whom It. Ma" Concern., . .: ._
• 0 _
I'll ".
The following are comments and\or concerns on the proposed E;an'37 cs-�
submitted to the Ft. ,. Collins So ..l. Conservation District for rev4« .:%
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration in this matter .
Respectfully.
Supervisors.
Ft. Collins Soil Conservation District. Weld County Planning Dept.
co: Terry DyeNOV 2.00
RECEIVED •
MU.
Y/iELrl COL Pr'
TO: Weld County Planning, Julie Chester
':i1 NOV 21 PH
FROM: Fort Collins Soil Conservation District
RE: Dyelands Dairy LLC, USR-1289
We realize that this is submitted beyond the comment period but we received some
questions from people in the area regarding this proposal and would like to address those
concerns.
The questions and concerns that were voiced to us are:
1. From test hole info, the water table is supposedly at 5 - 8'.
2. Proposed sewage lagoons are 14' deep.
3. There will be problems with soil permeability and leaching.
4. There are shale outcroppings that underlie the area of manure storage which will
cause groundwater to surface at that point.
5. The Cactus Hill ditch above the dairy seeps and that water will surface in the dairy
and composting area below.
6. There is a concern for local well water quality for the neighbors.
We looked at these concerns but could only answer portions of them. Therefore, we want
to pass them along to the applicant for more complete answers.
1. If this is true, the lagoons will need to be lined so as not to intercept groundwater.
2. Proposed sewage lagoons are shown in the plan as being 16', 6' and 9' deep. The soil
survey indicates that the seasonal high water table is >60". Test holes will show
where the water table is.
3. The 3 main soils found in the area where the lagoons will be are;
Ascalon loam which presents severe limitations due to seepage when used as a
sewage lagoon area.
Kim Loam 3-5% slopes which poses moderate limitations due to seepage and slope.
And
Kim Loam 5-9% slopes which has severe limitations for sewage lagoon areas due to
slope.
4 & 5. Shale layers can only be found by drilling test holes on site. If they are present,
and allow water seeping from the Cactus Hill ditch to resurface at the dairy
site, perhaps a French drain system could be installed below the ditch on the
shale layer to intercept water and re-route it around the dairy.
6. Weld County well records would need to be examined to see at what level the water
is found on neighboring wells. Perhaps, a test hole could be made below the
lagoons and sleeved with gravel and perforated PVC pipe and capped so that
samples could be obtained that would show if a leak ever occurs in the lagoons.
Notes: Environmental concerns associated with this project e.g. Odors, noise, dust,
leaching and runoff should be addressed in response to the State CAFO regulations
and reexamined in the Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan (CNMP).
CNMP's include manure handling and storage, application of manure to the land,
record keeping, feed management, land management and other manure utilization
options.
We hope that these comments are helpful.
VV'1 LL[) COL'JT'r
CO
November 19, 2000
7TE :Nu 21 AM 9: 02
Glenn Vaad REC(=f i.-D
Weld County Commissioners
PO Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632
RE: Case Number USR-1289
Dear Mr. Vaad:
This letter is to express our opposition to the 4000-cow dairy proposed by Mr. Terry Dye, of
Dyelands Dairy LLC.
Our home is within a half mile of this dairy and our family has owned and lived on this property
for almost 20 years. Therefore, we are not "city dwellers" who have recently moved to the
country and now don't want any agricultural operations in the area as we were categorized by one
of Mr. Dye's colleagues in the hearing of October 17th.
Mr. Dye presently has a dairy located 'h mile directly west of our home, which we understand is
approximately 1000 head of livestock. While we are currently affected by odors from his dairy
when we have a west wind, and can certainly hear the front-end loaders and other vehicles many
times, we accept this because it is a dairy of reasonable size for this area. What we are adamantly
opposed to is the fact that Mr. Dye wishes to create a 4000 cow, industrial sized operation in what
is a relatively densely populated rural neighborhood. It will be a 24-hour a day operation, 365
days a year with the attendant odor. dust, flies, light and noise pollution, and traffic in a largely
residential neighborhood.
Apparently workers needed for a facility of this magnitude are to be housed in a mobile home
area. A mobile home park for labor housing at the corner of WCR 86 and 15 is not compatible
with the neighborhood and would have a detrimental effect on values of our property and others
in the neighborhood.
We do not have any level of comfort that Mr. Dye will properly control surface runoff and not
allow effluent to collect in a pond south of our home. This is based on his lack of lack of control
of his irrigation water this past season that repeatedly flooded WCR 15. If he can't control
irrigation water, then how can we be confident that he can control effluent from 4000 head of
cattle?
There is a great deal of land in Weld county that is not nearly as densely populated making it
much more suitable for a dairy of this size. We and many neighbors have lived in this area for
many years. Now one person is proposing to introduce an industrial operation into what has up to
this time been a rural neighborhood. We simply see that Mr. Dye's request is for the benefit of
one individual and to the detriment of our neighbors and ourselves with his request for a dairy
operation almost 4 times his "use by right".
i IXHIRIT
N
If this facility is constructed, our property will be located between Mr. Dye's two very large
dairies, and we will be negatively impacted by odors and noise from both. If there is a west wind
we will get odors from his existing dairy (which we already do). If there is an east wind, then we
will get odors from his new facility.
We believe that our concerns are valid that the dairy is not compatible with the neighborhood anc
that most people would have the same objections about such a facility being built next to their
home. Therefore, we would certainly appreciate your considering our objections as well as those
of our neighbors who will also experience the negative impacts of this operation.
While we strongly hope that this request is denied, if that is not the case then we believe that
strong nuisance mitigation should be included as part of the approval package together with
attendant enforcement provisions and penalties should the provisions be violated. Even in the
best run dairy, nuisances and subsequent complaints to the county regarding noise, odor, traffic,
etc. are inevitable for a dairy of this size_ especially in a densely populated area. We also strongh
believe that the neighbors affected by these nuisances should have input into these mitigation
measures.
Thank you for your consideration.
S' cerely, feifidAN
!vt;ra, lfle-t: ., a -(7-94-ex.-4---
David G. Haak
Christina A. Haak
6500 WCR 86
Fort Collins, CO 80524
970-484-5614
November 19, 2000
r,'3 NOV 22 A C: 56
Weld County Board of Commissioners
PO Box 758 j Et,,LI I L:J
Greeley, CO 80632
RE: Case Number CSR-1289
This letter is in regard to the hearing at the Planning and Zoning Board on October l'7,
2000 regarding Mr. Terry Dye's proposed 4000-cow dairy operation.
We feel that we were treated rudely and unfairly and that this hearing was biased towards
Mr. Dye from the beginning. We would like to express our concern so that future
hearings may be held in a fair and equitable manner.
Apparently we were very naive to have gone to this hearing thinking that it was an
opportunity for the board to hear both sides and fairly consider the arguments of those
who were for as well as against this facility. Speaking for ourselves only, we were
shocked and dismayed to find out that this was not the case. From the onset, Mr. Dye
and his representatives were treated with respect and courtesy while those opposing him
were treated extremely rudely. In addition, Terry Dye and his representatives were
allowed unlimited time to speak and offered rebuttal time while opposition to the dairy
was stringently limited in time and the comments they were allowed to make. It seems
that in a democratic society, both sides should be treated equally. We strongly believe
this was not the case in this hearing.
We believe that any objective observer of the meeting or one who read the minutes would
come to the same conclusion.
As longtime Weld County taxpayers and individuals who will be severely impacted by
this proposal, we do not feel that we were treated equitably in this hearing. We request
that whoever monitors the board take the time to review the minutes and draw their own
conclusions to see if changes need to be made for future hearings.
Simcerely,1
LW, old 1t (alg
€ '
David G. Haak
Christina A. Haak
6500 Weld County Road 86
Fort Collins, CO 80524
4 ailitin
WELD
y
Weld County Planning Dew.
The North Poudre Irrigation Company` ,r 3J AMNOV 28 2000 P. O. Box 100 Phone 568-3612 and 568-3966 �+ 5)
Wellington, Colorado 80549
-.
RECEIVED
November 21, 2000
Weld County Department of Planning
1555 North 17°i Ave.
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: Docket#2000-72 - Terry Dye Dairy, LLC
To Whom it May Concern:
This is to notify Weld County Planning that North Poudre Irrigation Company has
an easement for an 80 cfs irrigation lateral on the east of the Dye property and requires 20
ft from the top edge of the lateral on the right side and left side and around the headgate
to operate and maintain the use of the ditch bank. The easement is to be used only as it
has been historically used and there is to be no commercial traffic or any other use that
may create liability to the North Poudre Irrigation Company.
ff5e1y,
Duane Aranci
President
CAROL,larding -Weld County Dept doc 'age 1
NCV 23 AN 9: 51
Weld County Board of Commissioners AEC.. i -D 11/27/00
P.O. Box 758 DOCKET#: 2000-72
Greeley, CO 80632
To the Weld County Board of Commissioners:
We urge you as a member of the Weld County Commissioners to reject the
Special Review Application filed by Mr. Terry Dye with the Weld County Planning Dept
in late August,2000, requesting a permit for the construction of a dairy operation of 4000
dairy cattle on a piece of property at the intersection of Weld County Roads 15 and 84.
In this neighborhood, the area surrounding the proposed dairy, many parcels are
smaller than the county deems optimal to retain viable farming operations, i.e. 80 acres.
The parcel we are living on was divided with planning dept. permission about 5 years
ago. Most of the people in the neighborhood live on their property and engage in
different aspects of farming and livestock management. The smaller parcels result in the
fact that there are already many people that will be living close to the proposed dairy if it
is approved. Most of the surrounding properties as well as the Dye property are prime
irrigated farmland and to place a large industrial operation, which would make no use of
the property's agricultural benefits seems a waste. It seems much more reasonable to
place a huge dairy on non-prime land in a sparsely populated area. There are many such
locations in the Front Range area. The real situation seems to be that what Mr. Dye wants
is a 6000 cow dairy and to accomplish that has purchased property close enough to his
existing operation to be able to operate two dairies as one. A group of property owners in
the area made an offer to buy the property at what we believed to be approximately
$100,000 profit for Mr. Dye and we were turned down without a counter offer. Ou.r
property is adjacent to the proposed site and approximately 11/2 miles from the existing
dairy. The reality of this situation is that approval of this USA will place many people
living in the middle of a 6,000 cow dairy not just living next to an existing 2,000 cow
dairy or new 4,000 cow dairy.
We are concerned about several technical aspects of the plan presented at the
Planning and Zoning meeting. The application was incomplete and one of the items that
should have been submitted was a plot plan with topography lines on two-foot intervals.
Some of the presentation was inconsistent with the actual slope of the land however
without the required plan it is impossible to show the problems with the proposal.
I would hope that the Commissioners before making a decision would require all of the
requirements for submission of the IJSR. The ground water will be a constant problem
on this property with the high water table and seasonal leakage of the Cactus Hill lateral
ditch. Some statements made by the applicant regarding the acreage to be used for
various purposes seem to be inconsistent. The applicant claims that 200 acres will remain
for farming. However based on the statement that there will be 500 to 600 square feet per
cow of pen space and looking at the acreage that other functions will use as well as the
fact that the 278 acres includes significant road right of way there appears to be at most
CAROL Harding Weld County Dept.doe Page 2?
125 to 150 acres for crops. The acreage that is shown on the plot plan for composting of
manure appears to be less than will actually be required. The current Dyelands dairy
appears to use about twice the area for composting for half the number of cows. If the
new dairy increases the land used for this and other purposes such as ensilage storage pits
which are not shown on the plot plan there is serious question whether there is enough
land available to pump their stormwater ponds. The planning commission seemed to be
unconcerned about these problems and fully relied on the submitted package to have
correct information and answers. The possibilities for pollution of ground water are
significant and I would hope that these problems would be explained and verified before
any dairy is built on this property. The applicant when asked about traffic claimed that
five trucks a day should do it. The numbers given by Mr. Dye were based on the current
dairy operation and need to be doubled based simply on the fact that this proposal is for a
dairy that is twice the size. There was no mention about traffic from employees of the
dairy and employees traveling between the two dairies. The 5 trucks per day also seem
inconsistent when compared to a dairy featured in the Fence Post Magazine, which would
indicate a much greater traffic volume. Another small item in the comments made by the
applicant was that this is a perfect site because of the slope of the ground to the south.
Though it is really not significant topography lines would show that the predominant
slope is to the west and the holding ponds locations would verify that fact. This is a small
item however it makes me wonder how many other items might be presented in the sane
matter.
We are raising our family on a 44-acre farm diagonally across from the proposed
dairy site. When we bought the farmland 4'/2 years ago we planted it in grass and alfalfa
hay to minimize dust and weeds. We know that a dairy of this size in close proximity to
us regardless of how well managed will adversely affect our lives and the lives of our
neighbors.
The proposed dairy because of the large concentration of animals will plague us
with dust, noise (trucks in operation 24 hours/day), flies, constant nighttime lighting, and
smell. Strong winds are predominately from the northwest however we as well as many
of our neighbors will experience odors on most evenings during warm weather from
cooling breezes. These are gentle air movement caused by the cooling of surface air,
which then moves downhill. We actually placed our house in an area that would take
advantage of these breezes for summer cooling and if the dairy is built that placement will
actually be to our detriment due to the odors that the breezes will bring. I understand that
Mr. Dye intends to build a use by right dairy if the USR is denied and though that isn't a
thrilling prospect it will not have the impact that a dairy of four times that size would
have. We frankly don't want to live by a dairy of this size or any operation with 4000
animals.
•
• Mr. Dye has not to date impressed us with his care of this property. The lack of
control of Canadian thistle and other weeds on this property have increased under his
ownership. This concerns us because we have worked hard on weed control and have
been able to have our hay certified. The spread of noxious weeds in the area could
CAROL Harding_-Weld County Dept doe 'age 3
•
jeopardize our ability to have our hay certified. Careless driving of his feed trucks has
damaged the irrigation ditch lateral we share with three neighbors. Though an attempt to
correct this problem has been made we will know in the spring when irrigation season
begins whether a problem may have been created with the blocking of water flow from a
diversion structure bring water to our property and two others. Without consulting
anyone who would be affected Mr. Dye added a section of culvert very close to the
diversion in order to widen the access turning into his property. I hope that the correction
will not cause a problem however I feel that any changes to irrigation structures and
ditches should be approved before they are done. The people in this neighborhood work
very hard to maintain their farms in good condition, constantly working on weed control
among other projects.
We urge you to consider the comments of Michael Miller and Jack Epple who
•
voted no, in your consideration of this matter. Mr. Miller stated before voting"If I were a
property owner out there, I bought that property based on the belief that these people, or
my neighbors would have the right to run so many head of cattle per acre on that ground.
I can deal with that. If somebody comes in and says, "I want to run three or four times
that many cattle on that ground," I have a problem with that, and I find it hard to believe
that no matter how state of the art, or how fine an operation they build out there, I find it
very hard to believe that 4000 cattle in that confined space are not going to have a
detrimental effect on the health and welfare of the neighboring people." Voting no with
comment Mr. Miller further stated " I think a number as allowed by use by right is
appropriate, but I think that this density is too high. I have to try to balance the rights of
the property owner here with the rights of the neighbors and I think that 4000 cattle will
adversely affect the neighbors beyond an acceptable level and cause damages to their
property value and quality of life." Mr. Epple voting no with comment stated "I think we
have the compatibility issue here, kind of like we had a couple of sessions ago when we
turned down an estate zoning that was wanting to build across from a feedlot and the
more we push these types of things the more problems we are going to have in Weld
• County." We urge you to reject this application. Why put a 4000 cow dairy in an
•
established neighborhood? This is much in excess of the 4-cows/ acre, which is Mr.
Dye's right. A dairy of this proposed size is a large commercial operation among small
•
•
farms and is inconsistent and inappropriate for this neighborhood. We realize that Mr.
Dye may proceed with a use by right dairy of about 1100 cows and when we purchased
• our property knew that there were these restrictions in place. What he is asking to do
exceeds what is reasonable and we believe that he should look for an appropriate site that
will not affect so many people if he wants to build something larger. We thank you for
your consideration in this matter.
•
• Sincerely, •
CAROL Harding - Weld County Dept doc Page 4 I
Jim and Pam Erthal
Hello