The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20002771.tiff REALTEC COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. 255 E Monroe A., Ste 4 Fort Collins, CO 30525 (970) 229-9900 Tel 1970) 282-1080 Fax realtecenewame rica.com August 14, 1998 Mr. Terence Dye Dyecrest Dairy LLC 1137 North County Line Road Fort Collins , CO 80524 Dear Mr. Dye : Congratulations on being ranked in the "Top 75 Fastest-Growing Private Companies " in Northern Colorado and Wyoming in the May edition of the Northern Colorado Business Report. With rapid growth, companies often experience a need to expand their facilities. REALTEC has assisted many corporate clients in locating space to accommodate their expansion plans. If you would like information on available office or industrial space in Northern Colorado, please give us a call. Again, congratulations, and best wishes for continued success in 1998. Sincerely, Dan Eckles, CCIM, SIOR 2000-2771 EXHIBIT I 45 NCI New America International Dyecrest From: Linda J Britton, Asst Program Officer, Denver, CO <Ibritton©usgs.gov> To'. dye©frii.com Cc- Linda J Britton, Asst Program Officer, Denver, CO <Ibritton©usgs.gov>; Franceska Wilde, Hydrologist, Revon, VA <fwilde©usgs gov>; Dana W Kolpin. Research Hydrologist, Iowa City, IA <dwkolpin@usgs.gov>; tharen©envirostock.net Subject:Appreciation for tour Date: Tuesday, September 07, 1999 9:47 AM Dear Terry--On behalf of the USGS meeting organizers and attendees, I want to thank you and your family for the great tour of your dairy last Monday. Not only was the tour informative and educational, but you were an entertaining and cordial host. Your lively descriptions of dairy processes and operations provided for stimulating and lively discussions throughout the meeting and set the tone for the technical presentations at our conference.The feedback we received from many of the participants was that this field trip was the best one they had ever ever been on as part of a technical meeting. I believe the tour brought a new understanding to all of us about animal feeding operations, and your efforts at running and maintaining a first-class facility were clearly evident. Again, thank you so much for your hospitality, especially considering the short notice of filling in as a replacement for another dairy. We couldn't have come up with a better choice even if we'd originally planned it. Linda Button Page 1 `MENr 0rT QPN'i Mr- z� United States Department of the Interior i�C �'�' 9..s S ( a U S Gf:OLOGICAL SURVEY Office of the Director 1�� M,ACN 7 ‘a.. 4 Reston.Virginia 20192 u.s..:.."mo^�e�m•mro� , In Reply Refer To: Mail Stop 412 #11775 ,u;V (,41999 Mr. Terrance Dye Dyecrest Dairy, L.L.C. 1137 North County Line Road Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Dear Mr. Dye: Please accept appreciation from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for allowing participairs of the USGS hosted conference on Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs) to tour your facility on August 30, 1999. The informative and educational tour of dairy operations provided for stimulating and lively discussions and set the tone for the technical presentations at our subsequent meeting. The positive feedback received from many participants about the tour was in large part due to your knowledge about the livestock industry, cordiality, and entertainint style as tour host. Your perspective on the AFO industry brought a new awareness and understanding to many conference attendees about the challenges associated with maintaining such a high-end, animal-management operation, especially with respect to the economic and environmental responsibilities Again, thanks to you and your family for the western hospitality and for providing the impetus and foundation for an interactive forum of collaborative discussion concerning AFO-relates issues. In addition, the tour pros ided a long-lasting, hands-on experience for many of the scientists, managers, and livestock producers who attended the meeting. Sincerely, VW Charles G. Groat Director ( ullural, I ihrary and Recreational Services I( 'ncationl)i\ kion Fort Collins Senior Center MIMS City of Fort Collins Terry Dye 1137 N. County Line Road Fort Collins, Colo 80524 Dear Terry, You were a big hit Wednesday. The group thought this was a fascinating trip They really enjoyed you and your tour. I have enclosed copies of some of the evaluations. 1 thought you might enjoy seeing them 1 really appreciate you taking your time for this tour. Maybe we can do it again next year. See you at Rotary. Sincerely J Pfeiffenberger creation Coordinator Fort Collins Senior Center SI/ "Air_ hey ke. h>(-) J«A0 IIIC l b 4- C at), J —1-G.e Oh 5c.Au,L u" J,v I r^ be,'L 7/ . L. L I-) w he+ ```-r9 a (co (e__ fG�� L-OnSL , L.. k5/ CL.e2 ,), ✓h , 41',c) ✓h✓0,,.‘; t)tk5. nP55 ,S e - Colo a o University Cooperative Extension Colorado State University Weld County Extension Office 425 North 15th Avenue Exhibition Building.Island Grove Park Greeley.Colorado S0631 (970)356-4000 Ext.4465 September 22, 2000 FAX:(970)351.0415 TO: Dairy Herdsman FROM: Keith Maxey , , 1 Extension Agent (Dairy/Youth) RE: Herdsman Tour It's time for another Herdsman Tour! Our next tour will be at Dyecrest Dairy on Thursday October 19th. To get to Dyecrest Dairy, go west of Ault or east of Ft. Collins on State Highway 14 to Weld mer 2-1/2tmiles, dairy is o on lyeft (west)ine road sidesoflroad Weld Follow Ithe lane past s the office north the hamlate!y The tour will begin at 10:00 a.m. and should conclude no later than 12.00 noon. Dyecrest sports a 28,000+ rolling herd average on their 1000 head Registered Holstein dairy. This is a :;reat opportunity to sec one of Colorado's highest producing herds! Please contact me if you have any questions or if>ou need more detailed directions. I look forward to seeing you there! Note' The lien/ceifte Tour is ,rn ,trim(' IL'ctgned rn of ' Aunt,.' lr lrn Ohl' ,m integretl role n- 'he day-to-day operation of dairies an opportunity to increase intIn-otrss and knowledge of otter management practices. and to gain runt ideas through educational tours. !!'bile tiic tour is geared towards herdsmen, ou tiers and other dour employees arc welconic to participate. The tour is informal, and comments and suggestions on how this activity can he unproved to ni ' your needs are welcome! Colorado State t'niver.ily, I'.S. Ileparttnent of Agriculture and Weld Coon.cooneratfl . .............. I'a.n.iun orogrann arc o'ailahlc to all eithu ( di.crini.r„nom. fi0s.5, f v-.3n_ i. i Ser. ces 70 4 49,:'ti... F Mowers Financial Services,Inc. F s P.O.Box 272290 2745 Silver Fox ltd. phone(970)225-6534 Fort Collins,Colorado 80526 fax(970)225-6535 Clayton C.Mowers,Agent,S.D.Degree•Leslie S.Mowers,Iasnrsnee Broker•Jobe Paugk,Insurance Broker September 28, 2000 To Whom It May Concern: I personally support the newly proposed"Dyecrest Dairy"to be constructed on WCR, 84 East of Fort Collins, Co. I have personally toured the operations of the existing "Dyecrest Dairy" and am very impressed with it's cleanliness and professional operation. Mr. Terrence Dye is a quality business person who not only takes care of his employees but his land and animals as well. He is a guardian of the environment and a credit to the o5iomy of Fort Collins, Co. J C /110w ow s Financial Services, Inc. C'1a) on C. Mowers ganch-Way Feed Mills, 'net Ota"CH iv* Tailor-Made for Western Feeding FEEDS c2cx� October 2, 2000 Ranch-Way Feeds is enthusiastic and excited about the upcoming building of Dyelands Dairy on WCR 84. We feel that this is a wonderful advancement and opportunity for current agriculture. This will increase the agriculture business in the community as well as increase agricultural jobs within the area. We are in full support of this new dairy. Sincerely, Riefew,a, Bill Conrad Sales Manager P.O. Box 2026 • Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 • Phone (970) 482-1662 E-mail: ranchway@frii.com • Website: www.Ranch-Way.com AgLang Agland, Incorporated Corporate Office 260 Factory Road PO. Box 338 Eaton, Colorado 80615 (970)454-3391 CO/WY/NE -I-800-433-4688 Fax:(970)454-2144 Date: 10-3-2000 To Weld County, I am writing this letter to support the expansion of Dyecrest Dairy in Weld County. They have been a customer of Agland's Feed Division for many years and have been a reputable company to work with. It is my opinion that it is a professional, well- managed dairy. Weld county is a large producer of agricultural goods. Therefore agricultural operations are important to our overall economy. Agricultural operations must be able to compete efficiently which can require expansion so they can provide goods, services and employment. These factors benefit Weld County and will help keep our county economically diversified. Therefore I encourage you to support the expansion of the Dyecrest Dairy. Sincerely Mick Daniel f ) cfrkt:e./ Feed Division Director Agland Inc. Divisions- • Bean • Crop Production • Feed • Petroleum /Tire • Retail -r-iwt it 14 Kula Grain Co. Deal.„in rain & Pmducr P.O.Box 668 FT MORGAN. CO$6701 H us. (9701 867-8224[ Flame 1970) 867-6289 Rob!1c Shirley Kula October 03. 2000 Dear Weld County Planning Board: Kula Grain has been doing business with Dycrest Dairy for the past 5 years. We have found them an extremely honorable customer. They are a committed and rel.ible business, with a prompt payment record. We at Kula Grain support Dycrest Dairy in every aspect of business. Sincerely, Bob Kula President enr Ey: CLINICAL SCIENCES CSU; 0701911275; 0c'-5-00 15:08; F1 e 2 MEMORANDUM To: Weld County Planning and Zoning From: Frank Cr-any, DVM, MS Date: 10/4/00 I am a food animal veterinary specialist in the Department of Clinical Sciences at CSU, v1here I have been on faculty since 1987. It is important to note that the following thoughts represent my own personal observations and opinions and are not meant to represent the university. I have worked with Dyecrest Dairy on a broad range of animal health issues since, beginning work here in Fort Collins. These interactions have included treatment of individual sick animals, consultation regarding herd health and animal care,plus assessment of overall herd health status and management procedures. Through theae activities and over years of interaction with Dyecrest Dairy I believe 1 have a broad overview of the dairy operation, especially regarding its animal management. Based on these observations I consider Dyecrest to maintain extremely high standards of animal management, care, and welfare. This is reflected in exceptional overall animal health and ,( well-being. Furthermore, such high quality management standards extend to all levels of activity on the dairy Beyond this I believe Dyecrest Dairy is a good community member. Beyond the Chylous economic contributions that a good dairy business offers to the community, it is my strong impression that the Dye family runs a clean and well maintained `showplace' dairy that is welcoming to visitors and a tribute to the dairy industry. } I have every reason to believe that these positive impressions of Dyecrest Dairy v�ipl extend equally to the proposed new facility, and I strongly support the proposal far this new facility. Franklyn Garry, DVM,MS .- Fort Collins, Colorado r )70-4$2-1568 1-tt,i<-' m V. LEutLrrr-'L 31?34t<_3451 (970) 506-0937 Kathy Leonard Mastitis Testing 2387 42nd Avenue Ploce Greeley, Colorado 80634 October 5, 2000 I am writing to support the granting of a permit for Dyelands Dairy. For more than thirteen years I have worked with the owners and man- agers of Dyecrest Dairy, who propose the building of this new facility. In my work with Dyecrest Dairy, I have been able to evaluate the care and handling of their animals. It is outstanding. The Dye family has shown a strong desire to be good representatives of the dairy industry, by their participation in civic activities and their cooperation with educational activities. As a citizen of Weld County, I want to see agricultural initiatives given the consideration they deserve for the strong contribution they make to our economy. Thank you. Sincerely, Kathleen Leonard Oct-06-00 07 : 23A Farm Crest Milk Store 1 303 715 4840 P 02 •i MSTOCAATafMQ EST ]W RD DENVER,COLORADO $08011 •(L, 303 t9)ODRe the DAIRY October 6, 2000 Weld County Planning and Zoning To Whom it may concern: Royal Crest Dairy, Inc. is a Colorado family-owned operation that has been in business for 73 years. We contract with independently owned dairy farms to provide raw milk for our processing plant located in Longmont, Colorado. There the milk is bottled and distributed to many homes and stores along the front range of Colorado. Terence Dye(a.k.a. Dyecrest) is ene of the three dairy farmers that we currently contract with. For approximately 13 years now Dyecrest Dairy Farm has shipped the most consistently fresh and high quality milk to us on a daily basis. Terry and his family also have one of the finest registered Holstein dairy herds in the country (possibly in the world). They are the finest dairyman we at Royal Crest Dairy have ever done business with, I would be happy to attest to these matters personally if necessary. Kind regards, Lynn Miller General Manager Royal Crest Dairy LM/tt E0/09,00 11:47 FAX 9704849254 DYECREST DAIRY 3 I -7;PI 7w' �Yv�li N` support Dyecrest Dairy in building a new Dairy on Weld County Road 84. 2- io i./tom__ Signed Date --- I E /tTaq/c support Dyecrest Dairy in building a new Dairy on Weld County Road 84. Signed Late I 6 i1 (V/ c support Dyecrest Dairy in building a new Dairy on Weld County Road 84. 77 /, - 'Signed Dthe support Dyecrest Dairy in building a new Dairy on Weld County Road 84. Signed Date 1 <1 1 (_ r Sri. ic( t support Dyecrest Dairy in building a new Dairy on Weld County Road 84. ) Signed / Date i I -V_,w„<< ,z. ((,, ,:,a, ( '/,`„ , ,,,Cy) support Dyecrest Dairy in building a new Dairy on Weld County Road 84. Signed (I Date I i Yl fle-k\ 3c hne I 'd -e[ support Dyecrest Dairy in building a new Dairy on Weld County Road 84. yn -17h , citeltit (.16/\ M/S/ 6/) igned Date I -4ER lacy (1 6'/2 f i-/✓ support Dyecrest Dairy in building a new Dairy on Weld County Road 84. i 7'/ (- - ----) .1/2,<._ I y Sign Sign2eill Date (2kL [ /(,' t lr, ( support Dye rest Dair in building a new Dairy on Y Y Weld County Road 84. t l( )7 ) 11Ok j ,%)( '5, W i ned Date I gy\ce:3r1 4b n r L'sC support Dyecrest Dairy in building a new Dairy on Weld County Road 84. Signed Date I \ v C \vc'_Sa. �� _ � support Dyecrest Dairy in building a new Dairy on Weld County Road 84. Signed Date I S (� ,� "L \\ — support Dyecrest Dairy in building a new Dairy on Weld County Road 84. T ) (L N a Sri. A\\. . (` - v._C.ic to - 3 d t, c O Signed Date i , / , 1_ :2.1( ) - ,1 support Dyecrest Dairy in buildir' a new Dairy on Weld County Road 84. / /221/1) ( z(a L / 1J,/t. �ti�. it c/ l 7/ " T .. ;(+ Signe, ; Date I .-zt <' ( ;)-( /y/ cLicifii," support Dyecrest 6airy in building a new Dairy on Weld County Road 84. (-). ( j,1e. A_(7_ Le LE / 2 /�_ 0( Signed % 7 Cate I JLCNc h) . Jo /i N sue, Al support Dyecrest Dairy in building a new Dairy on Weld County Road 84. L ,z , l,��• !_ C - Mart 2/�1 JQ ' r•( s igied Date 1 / A///ic 71/ 1 ��'L� support � Dyecrest Dairy in building a new Dairy on Weld County Road 84. Signed Date ( uc I ,(\ r ft X support. Dyecrest Dairy in building a new Dairy on Weld County Road 84. / % / Signed Date ', k \,a 411CL support Dyecrest Dairy in building a new Dairy on Weld County Road 84. Signed Da e ;, i . h i ( < support Dyecrest Dairy in building new Dairy on Y Weld County Road 84. Signed � , Date-- ter- 71",� support Dyecrest Dairy in building a new Dairy on Weld County Road 84. Signed Date :— I A .1 ) A 'N L ill C . c support Dyecrest Dairy in building a new Dairy on Weld County Road 84. CAY r27 Signed ate support Dyecrest Dairy in building a new Dairy on Weld County Road 84. Sign - ,Dte I Fbuct4I) i nk support Dyecrest Dairy in building a new Dairy on Weld County Road 84. JG �� 7-0212- d Signed Date f support Dyecrest Dairy in building a new Dairy on Weld County Road 84. --7 i/ -Signed /D ate Nc.,k_coc L support Dyecrest Dairy in building a new Dairy on Weld County Road 84. fr _ C /tf' 4l ! V l � Signed �7Date hr support Dyecrest Dairy in building a new Dairy on Weld County Road 84. 2Z11-4-1---2(1 7/ 71 •°2 Signed Date support Dyecrest Dairy in building a new Dairy on Weld County Road 84. / - i 7):' *- Signed Date I \10 bA c K),, , „cy support Dyecrest Dairy in building a new Dairy on Weld County Road 84. 71 tA/ , , _ / ,e7 c;/- ( ? .- z� signed Date 4' (2 ci support Dyecrest Dairy in building a new Dairy on Weld County Road 84. Signed ' Date support Dyecrest Dairy in building a new Dairy on Weld County Road 84. Date iCa. 1,n Zen support Dyecrest Dairy in building a new Dairy on Weld County Road 84. 7'0 < °c) '; Z'VV✓�� Signed Date , I (f6-g lip1/ ) support Dyecrest Dairy in building a new Dairy on Weld County Road 84. S�gnedr-/ Date c1 ) C ./\ 1 _ . , i` support Dyecrest Dairy in building a new Dairy on Weld County Road 84. r � i /L0 /.7/ / i;7)(/ "gned � ate I Dr 1(I \ cite support Dyecrest Dairy in building a new Dairy on Weld County Road 84. Signed Date I `-)i Z 7-7 ( Ar A support Dyecrest Dairy in building a new Dairy on Weld County Road 84. 1/ Signed Date I rn,� r, support Dyecrest Dairy in building a new Dairy on Weld County Road 84. /J,,,/ / T Signer " L Date I ` A' l> /4_ P,; f f nq, support Dyecrest Dairy in building a new Dairy on Weld County Road 84. / A ;L - yy,/ Signed Date (ft t' ( ' AK"' support Dyecrest Dairy in building a new Dairy on. Weld County Road 84. (. !'/' Signed Date I '< <, 7'((i {y6_ support Dyecrest Dairy in building a new Dairy on Weld County Road 84. 73 7 Signed< Date I /2 ( / // 4 /7/ support Dyecrest Dairy in building a new Dairy on Weld County Road 84. �i y Signed Date , c _ A- , l , ' , 1 support Dyecrest Dairy in building a new Dairy on Weld County Road 84. Signed Date Wetd County Planning Dept. 0.SS 2000 September 29, 2000 f E C E f8 V € D Julie Chester Department of Weld County Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Dyecrest Dairy Application Dear Ms. Chester: I recently telephoned your office to see if we could meet at the Dyecrest Dairy property which is the subject of a use by special review application submitted by Mr. Terry Dye. The reason for my call was to offer to meet with you during your site visit in order to show you the neighborhood and how the neighborhood has developed over the last 30 years. It is important to the neighbors surrounding the Dye property that the Weld County Planning Staff be in full and complete understanding of the neighborhood surrounding the 'subject property. We believe it is necessary for you to visit the surrounding properties in a short tour in order to gain an appropriate feel for the types of property surrounding the applicant's property. To my disappointment, I have not received a call back from you and I again request that you contact me so that we can meet during your site visit to the subject property. Again, I believe you will find a unique community has devel around the applicant's property and it is important to these Weld County citizens that you gain a full an complete understanding of their properties and the entire neighborhood. It has now been about a month since I left a message for you on your voice mail and I have yet to receive a call back. Please contact me at your earliest convenience so that I can schedule a time to meet with you and show you the neighborhood. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Sincerely, T.rdcy Eichheim Weld County Planning Dept. In 03 2000 Weld County Dept. of Planning Servicpl E C E I V E D 9/29/00 1555 N. 17th Ave E� Case II: USR-I_8() Greeley, CO 8063 I To the Weld Cnty Planning Dept We urge the planning department to reject the Special Review Application filed by Mr. Terry Dye with the Weld County Planning Dept in late August, 2000, requestir.! 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 I5 and 84. In this neighborhood, the area surrounding the proposed dairy, many parcels arc smaller than the county deems optimal to retain viable farming operations, ie 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 animal raising and farming. 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 area. We are raising our family on a 44 acre farm diagonally across from the proposed dairy site. When we bought the farmland 4 V years ago we planted it in grass and a0f lfa 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 night time lighting and smell. 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 r4 control of Canadian thistle and other weeds on this property have increased under hip. ownership. This concerns us because we have worked hard on weed control and Mace been able to have our hay certified. The spread of noxious weeds in the the area conic jeopardize our ability to have our hay certified. The irrigation ditch lateral we share Nish three neighbors has been damaged by careless driving of his feed trucks The people this neighborhood work very hard to maintain their farms in g.)od condition, constantly, working on weed control among. other projects. We urge you to reject this application. Why put a 4001) 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. Sincerely /7 4r w. , Jim and Pam Erthal Weld County Planning Dept. 0.`, 2000 RECEIVED September 30, 2000 Weld County Department of PlanningServices 1555 North 17th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 Reference Case Number USR-1289 Terry Dye, Dyelands Dairy LLC WOULD YOU LIKE TO LIVE ACROSS THE STREET FROM A 4,000 COW DAIRY? I know you wouldn't and neither will live downwind right across the gravel road (odor, lights, traffic, dust, noise, flies) Let's be realistic - there are absolutely no advantages for people who live near or own land around this catastrophic proposal. Have you seen our little portion of the county, have you witnessed our way of life? If not, take a drive and see for yourselves. To all of us our quality of life is unsurpassed which is why we live in the country. Weld County must not approve this dairy - it will destroy families, neighborhoods, a community - lives, hopes and dreams. • Has anyone thought about what our community must be going through? The sleepless nights, the stomach wrenching, the never ending tears, the short tempers, and the emotions we didn't even know we had consuming us daily In general, our fives being shattered- all due to a proposed dairy. • Has anyone thought about the fact that homeowners may be forced to abandon their homes but still pay something in taxes? There will be no other choices - obviously unable to sell any property near the dairy and obviously unable to five near the dairy. Is Terry Dye prepared for the possible outcome? Is the county prepared for the possible outcome? • Has anyone realized that some homeowners will have to begin all over again start from scratch - that the residents of this community have worked their entire lives to get ahead and now we may be forced to start all over again? We have not worked our whole lives to five near a dairy and endure the constant endless frustration that's included in the whole devastating package. The proposed Dyeland Dairy is a MILK FACTORY- not a family type feedlot or dairy. This factory will run 24 hours per day with deliveries, services, traffic, lights, dust, and employees coming and going. Most factories require far'more extensive impact reviews and are located in industrial or similar areas. This milk factory, along with others that are similar, should be required to locate in less populated and more rural areas of Weld County. Landowners in eastern Weld County would probably welcome potential buyers for some of their land to build dairies. We have invested our life savings to develop our home, farmstead, irrigated farming operation - and all according to Weld County planning criteria. We now risk losing it all- our quality of fife, our home, major financial loss along with the rest of the community. We were aware that cattle had been fed on the property for years and a small dairy existed in the neighborhood, however the impacts of these operations were nothing on the development of the new homes and residences being built. No one thought a FACTORY would ever be allowed in such a top-quality rural neighbonccod Everything that has been done in this neighborhood over the years has been according to county approval and has created a wonderful area to reside and'carry on the various ag-related activities. Everyone has tried to work together and everyone has been sensitive to their neighbors and their concerns so that the area would continue to improve in value and quality of life until this Dyeland Dairy Yes this is Weld County but our impacts of growth are from the west - Larimer County and Fort Collins. The utility companies and water district see the growth coming and have planned accordingly for years. We the property owners could see benefits ahead, now to be severely diminished by the presence of a Milk Factory Dyeland Dairy. Terry Dye currently has one large dairy one mile west in Larimer County and now to build another - ENOUGH IS ENOUGH FOR ONE NEIGHBORHOOD. He could sell this land for far more than what he could buy out east and be Arlene), ahead and still be in Weld County, close to markets, feed, etc. In fact our community offered to buy this land from him in good faith and with a phenomena' profit. Waste Management is a serious concern and even with all the environmental engineering, designs and practices it is still manure and it still STINKS, produces FLIES, is UNSIGHTLY when stockpiled even as compost in a quick manner His current dairy and Cactus Hill Sheep Feedlot both have massive amounts of compost. This problem is impossible to avoid with large numbers of animals and the continual large amounts of manure to contend with. - Vicious Cycle. Finally there is no way one comprehensive plan can fit all of Weld County This county is so varied in topography, crops raised, types of residential areas, irrigation vs. dryland. It is one thing to try and protect agriculture, but at what expense to people and property can you justify. This is like legalized theft, Just to protect agriculture. We have agriculture in this neighborhood not FACTORIES for 4,000 head of cows. We all pay taxes and we were all here firs*. Let the "new kid on the block"find a different place for his milk factory. Weld County needs to wake up and see that their protection of agriculture at whatever expense is UNFAIR, COSTLY, LUDICROUS, AND TOTALLY INSANE! �� Again I ask: WO I ULD YOU LIKE TO LIVE ACROSS THE STREET FROM A 4,000 COW DAIRY? I know— you wouldn't and neither will I. In conclusion, Weld County, please say no to Mr. Dye's dairy proposal so families, neighborhoods, a community - lives, hopes and dreams are not destroyed. Please allow us to resume normalcy' it's been a very tough year in our little portion of northwestern Weld County and we need to look forward to a promising future. I appreciate your time, your attention and your consideration. Thank You/ Jeanette Sewald 7496 Weld County Road 84 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Phone: 970-493-9151 Weld County Planning Dept. OCT 03 2000 RECEIVED October 2, 2000 Weld County Dept. of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, Co 80631 Re: Dyelands Dairy LLC Case Number: USR-1289 We wish to voice our objection and concern to the application for a Special Use Permit for a 4000 cow dairy to be built at the NE corner of Weld County Roads 15 & 84. We have lived across the road (WCR 15) from the aforementioned property for the past 30 years. In that time we have had two major goals. Number one, to improve our property so that it is a nice place to live and number two, to increase the value with these improvements so when the time comes that age forces us to leave,the value will be such that we can use it for our retirement. In the process of improving our property,we have improved the values of all the properties around us. If now, this Special Use Permit is approved this may have all been for naught. Please understand that we are involved in agriculture and as such, we are not opposed to a dairy with Use by Right numbers of cows, it is the size and scope of this dairy that we object to. The Weld County Commissioners, for the past 30 years have allowed the farms in this area to be broken up into smaller parcels. As such, this neighborhood has become a residential community with many families, mostly retirees, who will be adversely affected by a dairy of this size. The noise. dust, smell, and traffic are going to have a major impact on our lives and properties. Agriculture by its very nature, is long days and hard work, but that is not the same as a 24 hour 7 day a week operation. The constant noise, the lights, etc. will make this an intolerable situation. A dairy of this magnitude is an industrial operation and should be treated as such, and not allowed to be placed in the middle of a residential area. The ground water table in this area is quite high, and we have a great concern for the contamination of the well which we use for our livestock. It seems highly unlikely that the nitrate and other waste products can be kept out of the underground water, especially for us, since we are located in the lowest elevation of the neighborhood. We would urge you to deny this application, on the basis of its incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. It does not seem appropriate to adversely affect the lives and properties of 20-30 families for the benefit of one. Sincerely, Keith &Wendy Mullins 41545 Weld County Rd. 15 Ft. Collins, Co 80524 Weld County Planning Dept. SEP 18 2000 Donald and Ruth Preist 7690 Weld County Road 84 RECEIVED Fort Collins, Colorado, 80524 970-498-9303 To the Commissioners, Planners, and Citizens of Weld County, Cothrasio The purpose of this letter is to urge rejection of the Special Review Application filed by Mr. Terry Dye with the Weld County Planning Department in late August, 20011, requesting a permit for the construction of a dairy operation of 4000 dairy cattle at .1 location near the intersection of Weld County Road 15 and 84, roughly five miles east of 1-25 and one mile north of Highway 14. Case No.USR 1289. By tradition, dairies have been considered to be part of farming and "agriculture", but dairies have changed since dairy cattle grazed on pastures, and were kept as part o: ,1 year-round occupation of farmers, who used their own land for the production of feed and returned the manure to the soil as fertilizer. In this kind of operation, the success of the dairy depended upon the quality of the land and avai lability of irrigation water There are of course farm dairies which continue to operate this way, but at a severe economic disadvantage for some of the following reasons. When dairies grow in size, and concentrate on the feeding, breeding, and milking operations, the large dairyman provides a market for other farmers' production; but the increased purchasing power provided by increasingly large operations actually wo.1: to the disadvantage other farmers (the hay and grain producers). There is actualh no increase in the size of the market for feed when dairies increase in size (there w ill ix fewer dairies)---only the price paid to other farmers for feed, is less. There may merely be a shift in the profit margin from the feed producers, to the factory-size dairy operators, with the elimination of smaller, less competitive farm size dairies in the process. The purchasing power of a four thousand cow dairy is impressive. A dairy of four thousand cows which occupies only a few hundred acres for corrals and barns will require the total plant production of roughly ten thousand acres or about sixteen sq Aare miles of irrigated land for feed production. While the distance traveled from the sources of feed to the dairy is of little importance to the dairy owner, so long as he gets the lowest price for the feed, it should be of importance to the public. When one considers that none of the trucking which is required for the operation of factory-size dairies is required when milk is produced in smaller dairies which are cf such size that the feed is produced in fields which surround the dairy, and at the sanne time the fertilizer is returned to the soil it came from; it would seem that Weld Cour t\- should possibly reconsider its unquestioning favoritism for large scale agriculture, at I least in respect to factory-size dairies. When dairies change from an integrated part of other farming operations to a specialized operation, decisions based on "right-to-farm" laws, for example, should be made less on traditional ideas and definitions and na)re on the details of the specific case and time, perhaps. It would seem, at least, to be the responsibility of the Planning Department to put a priority on locating dairy-sites and other large scale feeding operations as close as possible to the sources of feed. (An for every ton of feed hauled in, there will be another ton of manure or compost to be hauled away.) From the standpoint of the distance to the sources of feed alone, the location chose i by Mr. Dye for a factory-size dairy does not make sense. The area around WCR 13/84 has never been a large feed producing area. The present 1000 cow Dye dairy apparent . has never purchased feed from neighboring land owners. Because of the proximity to Fort Collins, and the inevitable urban growth, this area will have even lower produc tion of grain and hay crops in the future. The development of a large confinement feedu'g and milking operation at the WCR 15/84 location is not in any way comparable or compatible with past or existing agricultural use. It is in direct conflict with the kind of community development which is now in place. The real-life facts are that the area joining and surrounding the proposed 4000 cow dairy has already developed as a u ral residential area, with County approval, Somewhere between thirty and fifty homes, many of which are less than _years old. already exist in an area which would be directly and adversely affected by the construction of a dairy operation of the size proposed by Mr. Dye.. If these facts alone are not sufficient reason to deny the application from Mr,. Dye, the Comprehensive Plan lists some goals and considerations which we will try 4oiceepJn mind throughout the rest of this letter. Some of the important effects of the proposed Dye dairy which we would like to consider in this letter are: 1. Damages to the existing neighboring properties. 2. The effect on future development of a large surrounding area. 3. The effects of a large factory-size dairy on the costs to the county through possible reduced property values of the surrounding area or increased demands on roads and public services. 4. The possibility of planned damage to neighboring properties for personal gain. I will first attempt to discuss the question of whether the location chosen by Mr Dye is in keeping with the objectives as presented in the 1998 County Comprehensive Plan in respect to existing and future land use, and then to suggest some alternative or nein ways of viewing growth and agriculture in Weld County. In this letter, it is recognized that Weld County is known for its interest in "preserving agriculture", and that certain statements in the Plan make it clear that "agriculture" means large scale agriculture. will take the definition of the word agriculture as: "the use of land and irrigation w firer for the growth of plants for human consumption and the raising of livestock". Certain passages in the Comprehensive Plan seem particularly relevant here "The intent of efficient land use planning in Weld County is to, when possible. minimize the impact of development on agricultural lands". "A dispersed pattern of urban type land uses make large scale agriculture operations difficult" "Urban sprawl develops when an orderly pattern for growth and development cannot be achieved." From page 2-5: A.Goal 9: "The minimum lot size of parcels in the Agricultural zone should remain at 80 acres to encourage parcels large enough to retain viable farming operations or to accommodate modern agricultural equipment and irrigation practices. Lots of lesser size are not generally practical to farm due to large scale management practices existing today." On page 2-2 emphasis is placed upon water availability: "The availability of a consistent supply of clean water must exist in order to have prime farmland. Prime and prime if irri'ated lands fall unto upper capability classes...and should be protected equally if irrigation water is available and they are located within a reasonable distance of water delivery structures: On pages 2-3 to 2-5: Goal I: "Preserve prime farmland for agricultural purposes which foster the economic health and continuance of agriculture._ Goal II: "Allow commercial and industrial uses which are directly related to or dependent upon agriculture to locate within Agricultural zoning when the impact to surrounding properties is minimal, and where adequate services and infrastructure are available." Goal III: "Discourage urban-scale residential, commercial. and industrial development which i not located adjacent to existing incorporated municipalities." Goal IV: Provide a mechanism for the division of land which is agricultural y zoned. The intent of this goal should be to maintain and enhance the highest level of agricultural productivity in Weld County. From these statements and goals, it may seem to some that a dairy such as proposed by Mr. Dye would be in keeping with the County's Plan. The proposed Dye dairy would indeed act to "minimize the impact of development on agricultural lands" beca use few people would buy a home near a dairy which keeps thousands of cows in year-round confinement---merely because people are the way they are. No one who owns a home wants to apologize to guests for the odor of a feedlot: which may be even miles away. It took a wonderful uncle arriving on Sunday afternoon r' the winter during the depression to refer to the smell of Dad's barnyard as the "smell of prosperity". 3 The presence of the proposed dairy would certainly discourage the construction of new houses in an area of roughly five to nine square miles in northwest Weld County; that is, the square mile section containing the dairy and at least part of those eight square mile sections adjoining it on each side. The planned provisions for the isolation of sounds and odors from neighboring homes and lands are completely inadequate. ;t,st the possibility of the presence of a dairy of the size proposed has already had a profound effect upon the salability of neighboring properties, and until there is permanent denial of the application for a factory-size dairy at this location, there s ill be a certain futility in owners improving or even maintaining their properties. All of the area on either side of WCR 84 between Fort Collins and the proposed dairy site, and the surrounding area to the north and south has developed into what I will. describe later in this letter as an area of "retirement farming". It could be described i is a rural residential area with many new homes on acreages of only a few to 100 or more, many with large barns, irrigated pastures, and hay production. Animal breeding and training is often important to the individuals living in this area. The land proposed or use as a 4000 cow dairy is a sloping area near the top of a gentle ridge, giving parts of the property unobstructed views of the valley, foothills and high ranges, as well as of the lights of Fort Collins at night. In respect to Mr. Dye's application, without regard even to the loss in human terms of the value of the homes of many people: would the property tax proceeds from the proposed dairy operation make up for the loss of property values on all the farms z:nd homes already existing in an area of at least eight square miles surrounding the proposed dairy? It is true that the reduction in tax base will occur only slowly, only after the present owners have taken their losses. But what will be the total effect o. this one dairy on Windsor schools, for example, or all the other public services paid for with property taxes? What will be the costs to the public even for the enforcement of the Confined Animal Feeding Operations laws which will become increasingly contentious__whena feeding operation is built into what has become a rural-residential area? Paving over the 150-200 acres of eliga Class II soil with roads. barns., corrals.waste water. and manure storage is not agricultural, but commercial use of that land. The production of the dairy is in no way related to the quality of top soil. The available irrigation water will be of no use. All of the 100-200 acres of land proposed for use as corrals, barns and storage he directly under the Cactus Hill Lateral irrigation ditch. If this dairy is put into operation as proposed, not only will prime farmland be taken out of irrigation, but the viability of the Cactus Hill Lateral will be affected. Only through efficient use of the ditch for al; the land under the ditch can irrigation water be made available to all users. II more land now served by the ditch is taken out of production, it will be that much harder for the ditch operators to deliver water to the remaining users. Perhaps it can be said tnnt only 100-200 acres taken out of irrigation won't make that much difference to the -I operation of Cactus Hill Lateral, but if it becomes a policy to ignore the removal of land from irrigation, and it is applied in other cases, there will be inevitable disastrous eltt cts to many farmers in Weld County. In respect to road traffic, even though most of the increased traffic will be toward Fort Collins on WCR 15 and Hwy 14, there will be increased traffic on WCR 84 and NCR 19 by anyone going to the east or coming from Ault, Eaton or Greeley. These roads an' gravel roads, with at least three hazardous areas which have been the scenes of numerous accidents because of bad visibility over sharp humps and loose gravel. Some improvements of both WCR 84 and WCR 19 are needed, and increased use will increase that need. The statement made in the application that "a feedlot has existed on the site since l 67T" is completely misleading, in that all of the roughly 200 acres which will be used in the proposed future dairy were used for the production of agricultural crops such as n c n, beans, or beets. The feedlot referred to in the application by Terry Dye was small and located near the house on this site, and was used only for parts of the year when sil i e grown on the land of the former owner was fed to the cattle, and the fertilizer retur ied to the land. The nearest feedlot or confined animal operations are Cactus Hill feedlot located tw o miles south of the proposed dairy site, and the 1000 cow dairy presently operated by Terry Dye which is one mile west of the proposed 4000 cow dairy. A dairy of approximately 200 animals was operated for many years on some of the land purchased by Terry Dye, but with a ratio of 2 cows per acre, as compared with the 20 cows per acre in the proposed Dye dairy. The reasons Mr. Dye has in choosing the location he has for a new dairy must he questioned. There are certainly lands available at a fraction of the cost in better locations in respect to the factors discussed above. The land chosen for the 4000 cow dairy was purchased only in the last year, and offers have been made to buy this land from Mr. Dye for more than he paid. These offers have been turned down. The disregard of the obvious damages to many other families, which will he land. already are) inevitable, is a fair indication of how Mr. Dye will deal with the concerns of neighbori g properties in the future. Our own experiences with Mr. Dye in the past give credence to this idea. A few months after we bought the farm where we now live, we moved our 120 head of ewes from California, and we needed to put up new fences. We shared a quarter mile of fence with property formerly owned by the Dye family. I called to ask, on an answering machine, whether the Dyes would be willing to keep up some horses for about two days while we graded down and rebuilt a new fence on the common boundary I received no reply except a letter from the Dye's lawyer, threatening damages if anything happened to those very valuable horses. So the tangled barbed wire and broken posts remained and a devil's lane had to be built. A year or so later, upon 5 helping to remove a dog belonging to the Dye family which had gotten inside the new electric fence on our property, in a seemingly friendly conversation, I heard no apology or thanks (we never asked for a sharing of the expense) ---only about how big and important the Dye dairy was-- and how much money it was worth. So rich, but the. couldn't find a way to help a neighbor. The devil's lane is still in place. In respect to the Cactus Hill Feedlot, which is the only large feedlot north of Windsor on Hyw 257, it is of interest to note the absence of new homes, within a radius of several miles of the feedlot in all directions. If it were not for the feedlot, there undoubted) would be continuous clustered growth of new homes from Windsor to the intersection of state highways 257 and 14, where it would join a square mile containing 11 homes, and on to the north along WCR 15 where there are many homes on small acreages Fhis type of growth is uniform rural-agricultural in character, organized, with happy owners; and makes efficient use of the use of the roads and services which are already in place. The empty space around the Cactus Hill Feedlot would provide space for many homes. But this land is not even for sale. Cactus Hill is a good example of a large feedlot which has been in operation many years and has apparently been in compliance with existing state laws concerning Confined Animal Feeding Operations, the same regulations which will control the opera lions of the proposed 4000 cow dairy. But the possibility of noise, insects, odors, pesticides, and barnyard dust, whether controlled to meet certain theoretical standards or not is a real prohibition for future home construction near the feedlot as long as the feedln exists. The entire area is obviously in a holding pattern, until when, perhaps in ter or twenty years, the feedlot will be made into a golf course and Country Club, or such, and the empty surrounding lands will he sold for enormous profits--- a fine program h-r those interested in a wealthy legacy. In respect to the agricultural contribution of a feedlot or factory-size dairy which is located in areas of prime irrigated land, the Cactus Hill Feedlot offers another opportunity for learning. All of the surrounding land is owned by three or four large land owners and the City of Thornton; and for the most part operated now by tenant farmers. The former owners of the land surrounding the feedlot must have been grateful for the opportunity to sell their farms at any price--who else would ever buc their land or homes next to a feedlot? -- Is this--- ownership of whole square miles of land by a few absentee owners who have bought the land for other purposes than farming---even as in the case of the City of Thornton for the purpose of taking the water from the land, or merely holding the and for speculation---is this what is meant by efficient land use and encouraging to agriculture? What happened to the County regulations (A.Policy 8, p. 2-5) which discourage the out of basin transfer of water, and will those regulations be a tactor rn the decision concerning the Dve application? 6 There is too much similarity in the Cactus Hill Feedlot story and the planning for the Dye dairy to be ignored. If the Dye application for a 4000 cow dairy is approved, there will be a sell off of the neighboring homes and farms at disaster prices. Banks t ace been known to foreclose when the value of the equity falls below the unpaid balance. It seems inevitable that when the newly constructed dairy is ready for replacement in fifteen years (which is apparently the recognized replacement rate for dairies) the new owners of the dairy and the owners of the surrounding properties will do well by selling out to developers after the dairy is gone. . By controlling the timing of the purchase and sale of the dairy. Mr. Dye has control of the events that will happen as a result of the presence of the dairy, losses suffered by the present owners of thenn •ghl ring lands will inevitably become someone else's gain in the future What will be the contribution to Weld County agriculture by this more or less temporary arrangement? Will there be in this area, the orderly pattern of growth N hich is one of the goals discussed in the Comprehensive Plan? Does the Planning Commission have, in fact, a plan for the development of the area discussed in this letter? At this point we are compelled to ask: Where should large dairies and feedlots be located? ---There is, there must be, adequate space available in this county or the s-ate, for large, confined animal feeding operations, which will not have the disadvantages of the proposed dairy site. In choosing the best locations the first things to come to mind are reduced distances to feed sources, and to the market. Certainly large scale animal confinement feeding, breeding and milking needs to be located some distance from homes, and on main traffic channels, effectively separating the heavy truck traffic and increased employee traffic from rural roads and residential neighborhoods. It would seem to be a good idea to locate the various industries such as pig farms, feedlots, and dairies in the same general areas where the impact to unlike surrounding properties is minimal. This would suggest that the best areas for large-scale animal confinemert operations would be part of the areas chosen for large scale agriculture---that is, part of large feed producing areas where fields are indeed whole square miles in area, ant homes are widely separated. Weld County has a wealth of open country with good productivity which would scum ideal for this type of use, and the farmers there, as farmers anywhere, would welcome a market for their crops. The other factors of whether the soil and underground water strata are suitable, and whether soil more valuable for other purposes will be wasted should still be considered. People of Weld County are stewards of areas of high quality top soils under irrigation with mountain water, and in a climate ideal for many agricultural crops: a rare and precious combination. But this soil can be used agriculturally in only one wa_v--- and that is for the growth of plants, not for hundreds of acres of corrals and compost storage. 7 It makes sense, at least at first glance, that an area of the county should be zoned to) large scale and confined animal feeding operations, that the property values of thes_ areas should be maintained though careful planning which would actually give the;: areas advantages to the users. Even existing feedlots and dairies might be encourap d to relocate to these areas. Voters, County Planners and Commissioners could be instrumental in bringing such a plan into effect. But in any case, confined animal feeding operations should never be allowed to take prime irrigated agricultural land out of cultivation, or to destroy the value of neighboring properties. The neighbors---who are we? Earlier in this letter I mentioned the name of "Retirement Farmers". Even though the front range from Fort Collins to Colorado Springs contains thousands of examples of retirement farmers, it seems to have never been noticed or recognized as a distinctive way of life which has been chosen by many people. But these people have many things in common. Respect for animal and plant life, and for the soil, and the need to be near these things--- the willingness to pay a severe price, both in money and work, may he a good description of retirement farmers. Perhaps this life-style should be recognized for what it contributes to the community, and not automatically considered a danger to "agriculture". Retirement farming may be the only viable form of agriculture remaini g in a country of extreme property values and water costs. The idea that rural-residential or retirement-farming is highest and best use for much of western Weld County has been denied instinctively by all concerned, including the very people who live here. No one wants more houses. But we must accept the inevitable. There must be many people who don't want to be limited to the choice of golf courses, RV's or cruises as the only way of being in touch with the creation, the world of plants and animals. While Weld County has large areas suitable for large scale farming, the areas occupied by retirement farmers are often not suitable for large machinery and mass production. The fields are small and irregular because of the water and drainage requirements which cannot be changed. I believe that these ideas will be new cone tpts to many in the planning and governing positions of this county, but they will not go away easily. However, now, it is clear that the Planners and Commissioners must make a choice between the factory-dairy planned by Mr. Dye, or the many families who have made their retirement and rural homes in northwest Weld County. There is no way that the families now in homes near the planned dairy-site will be able to accept defeat by both Mr. Dye and the County Government. The costs of the present proposal are so high to so many people who have done nothing to deserve the punishment they will endure if this plan is approval,.ins hard to believe that it could bme eco a reality. Even the planners for the proposed Dye dairy have located the employee housing on the upwind side of the dairy and as far ,.as possible from the corrals, while homes such as ours will be within a few hundred fetei downwind of the traffic, air and noise pollution which will be inevitable and unpreventable. 8 My husband who is an invalid and 84, and I, do not want to endure the dust and nci,e of the estimated 10 semi-trailer trucks everyday day, with many more at harvest, and with even more other vehicular trips per day. (The application filed by Mr. Dye has not presented any definite number for total vehicles per day.) We do not want to endure the barnyard dust on windy days, the atmosphere of thousands of animals kept in confined conditions. We were here first. We have invested our life's earnings on what seemed to be beautiful. We came for the peace and quiet of the night. But now, what choices do we have? Who is going to pay even half of what we have invested in ou home on WCR 84 when it is known that it is located less than a quarter of a mile down wind from 4000 cows? Who is going to make up for our financial losses when the time comes that neither of us can care for ourselves, and need the money we have invested here for other living arrangements? In every respect, the site chosen by Mr. Dye is not even a reasonably good choice. There are certainly no advantages to the location in respect to the distance to feed supplies or the markets. Great distances will be traveled by hay, grain and compost trucks This is entirely unnecessary. The approval of the plans for a factory-dairy or feedlot III any area of Weld County which has good schools, is in view of the mountains, within a few miles of two University campuses--in short, an area most wonderfully suited for homes for generations to come---that approval would be a tragic misuse of the ounty's and the country's most valuable assets. And more, it would destroy our civilization as we know it, if citizens come to accept the idea that the ruination of many people for the profit-making purposes, or even the convenience of a few, can be explained or justified though some interpretation of tht law. No law could ever have been written and passed with those objectives. Respectfully, 7 Oce-h 9 9 ield County Planning Dcp, P 2 6 2:000 William E. & Jane A. Lentz 40361 WCR 17 Fort Collins, CO 80524 R. E E I V r: D September 23, 2000 Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Ave. Greeley, CO 80631 Attention: Julie Chester Re: Dyelands Dairy Proposal Case Number: USR-1289 To Whom It May Concern: This is to notify you that we are adamantly opposed to the USR proposal for a 4,000-cow dairy made by Dyelands Dairies. We have lived at this location for ten (10) years and were well aware of the existing dairy when we elected to move to this location. Expansion of the existing operation is totally inconsistent with the manner in which this region of the county has been increasingly occupied over the last decade. Because the proposal diverges so radically from pre-existing usage, we urge denial of the Dyelands Dairy request. Sincerely,'atiWilliam E. Le z ?mil-Jane A. Lentz Weld County Dept. of Planning Services September 28, 2000 1555 N 17th Ave. weld County Planning Dept. Greeley, CO 80631 F; ?9 2000 RE: Case# USR-1289 RECEIVED Terry Dye, Dyelands Dairy LTC To whom it may concern; I am writing this letter to voice my objection to Terry Dye building a 4,000 head dairy on WCR 1:5. Having purchased a property on WCR 15 five years ago we have looked forwarding to living ai this location and being part of the community. With the help and guidance of your committee my husband and myself developed a minor subdivision which we are now in the process of building our new residence on. Everything in developing this subdivision was directed toward; enhancing the property and the surrounding community, all by your approval. By permitting a dairy of 4,000 head to be developed in this community everything which has been so caretully planned is instantly negated. I am very concerned about the amount of truck traffic, noise, and lights a 4,000 head dairy would generate, which will have a definite negative effect on us and our property. Having been in agriculture all of my life I consider myself a strong supporter of agriculture However, a dairy of this size is on a large commercial level and will be more of a milk factory nature. The community surrounding this proposed dairy is now, and will most likely continue to be, mostly agriculture, albeit on a much smaller scale than Mr Dye it is no less important to our lives. If approved, this dairy will have a devastating effect on families whose homes arc it this community. Since the beginning of civilization the needs of one individual at the cost and/or harm of the community has never been tolerated. Does the profit of one individual out-weigh the lives and properties of many? I sincerely hope not! Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, • Jeanne Gelvin 40719 Remington Road Fort Collins, CO 80524 Joan S . Bowen, DVM ;. 5036 East County Road 60 Wellington, CO 80549 970-568-3613 22 September 2000 Jean and Tracy Eichheim 4"1285 Weld County Road 15 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Dear Jean and Tracy, In your telephone call the other day, you asked for information concerning any serious diseases that might be transmitted from cattle to sheep. In the United States, the tkc most serious disease threats would be Johnes disease and bovine virus diarrhea complex. Johnes disease or infection with the bacteria Mycobacterium avium paratuberculosis is an insidious disease that causes permanent changes in the digestive tract leading to chronic weight loss and poor production in spite of proper nutrition. Bovine virus diarrhea complex is a viral disease of cattle with many different symptoms . In sheep, B\'D\ causes Border Disease as expressed by the birth of weak, unthrifty lambs with abnormal haircoats that do not survive to maturity. While both diseases occur frequently in the US dairy population, we do not have accurate statistics on the incidence of either disease . Packing plant surveys reveal that at. least 22% of dairy cattle in this country have symptoms of Johnes disease or paratuberculosis at slaughter . The recent NAHMS dairy survey reported that 40% of dairy cattle in herds larger than 400 cows were ELISA test positive for Johnes disease. While the National Johnes Disease Working Group has proposed voluntary programs for producers to work toward Johnes negative herds , or ] y a few states have enacted control programs . The bacterial agent that causes Johnes disease is present in high numbers in the feces of infected cows . Stockpiling the manure from dairy cows would serve as a continuous source of the infective agent to be spread by the wind. Research trials are in progress to determine if composting will kill the bacteria, but early results indicate that this process does not kill Mycobacteria . You should also be aware that some researchers believe that Mycobacterium avium paratuberculosis is the causative agent for Crohn' s disease in man. Approximately 60 to 80% of cattle over one year of age in this country have serum neutralizing antibodies to bovine virus diarrhea virus (BVDV) . Cattle that are persistently infectei with BVDV serve as a major reservoir of infection, and this vi- us can be transmitted through biting flies and wind-blown feces and urine . Numerous incidences of Border Disease in sheep have oeen traced to exposure to cattle. Pregnant ewes infected with BVDV produce lambs with a hairy fleece, rhythmic tremors and poor growth rates . Clinically normal BVDV infected ewes can transm_+ the virus back to cattle . ,m e It should also be noted that sheep serve as a major reservoir for ovine herpesvirus-2, the causative agent for malignant catarrhal fever of cattle. This sporadic, highly fatal disease of cattle is associated with contact to sheep, particularly lambing ewes . The exact mechanism of transmission is unknown, but insect vectors, feces and feed contaminated wit.t placental discharge are suspected. No vaccine is available to protect cattle against this sheep virus, and the main mechanism for control is to avoid contact between sheep and cattle . In order to prevent transmission and to decrease the incidence of these three serious livestock diseases, most veterinarians recommend that sheep and cattle not be raised in close proximity. The establishment of a large commercial catt:-e dairy adjacent to your property could serve as a source of serious disease for both operations . Sincerely, Joan S . Bowen, DVM To: Planning and Zoning Members From: Debra Ray, Pauline Bussard and Family Members Re : Case "9o. : OSR-1289 Applicants Name: Terry Dye, Dyelands Dairy LLC Legal Description: Parts of the W2 of Section 5 T7N, R67W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado Our property directly adjoins the proposed dairy on the East . This land (360) acres has been in our family for four generations with my grown children being the fifth and my grandchildren the sixth generations. We all strongly oppose this planned 4,000 cow feedlot that just happens to produce milk. This 4,000 unit far exceeds the "use by right" of four (4) cows per acre and is not in keeping with the character and growth of our neighborhood as it has existed and how we hope it will continue to develop. What will this intrusive dairy positively bring to our neighborhood community? It certainly will bring land pollution, attract unwanted rats and flies, produce a wide ranging foul smell, bring excessive traffic and noise, have extensive use of lights at all hours of the night and operate year round under these conditions, all of which will most definitely have a negative impact on our neighborhood. This once productive farmland will suffer from overuse. Many questions remain. Will this dairy be required to meet only the minimum standards? What is the negative affect on our water? What is the negative cost to our environment? Is this dairy necessary and compatible to our neighborhood? More importantly, this very large dairy should be placed in a less established area that is NOT ALREADY ORIENTED TOWARDS SMALL Ag/family homes. Can you honestly say you would be willing to build your family dream home near this huge dairy? This dairy will have a negative impact on our clean air, environment and our property values. Our neighborhood feels so strongly about this that we offered to buy this property providing Mr. Dye with an immediate profit. He refused! When asked what it would take? He did not want to negotiate. Please deny this mega-dairy plan. We want our neighborhood to continue to develop as it has been. Vleld County Planning L; 'pi. Thank you for your consideration. j(r7 1 1 2000 RECEIVED /2/ ,) 40( 27:icREA geakoorilamprzoi aid County Plsrarung September 30, 2000 i ,t MOO Weld County Department of Planning Services I 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 8063 C E I V fE j Re IJSR-1289 4,000-cow dairy on W1/2 of Section 5,T7N, R67W Dear Board Members Background of the community on adjacent properties In the early 1970's the community surrounding the above mentioned property was single- family farms. These farms were comprised of a quarter section (160 acres) with a mixture of grain and livestock enterprises One of the two properties that comprise the above 278 acres operated a small (<:1,00t) head) backgrounding lot that was used primarily in the fall. The other property operated a small dairy (< 100 head) In recent years the demographics of the surrounding community has shifted to small acreage production with the division of these adjacent quarter sections as follows: Legal description Current single-familydwellings SW I/4, 32/8/67 2 Families SEI/4, 3I/8/67 2 Families NE1/4, 6/7/67 6 Families SFI/4, 6/7/67 4 Families NE1/4, 7/7/67 4 Families Currently 4 Building Sights Approved NW 1/4, 8/7/67 3 Families NE 1/4, 8/7/67 6 Families Arial photographs are enclosed Environmental impact A lactating cow weighing 1400 lbs excretes (on average) 112 lbs (1.8 cubic feet) manure and urine per day. For a dry cow it would be about 115 lbs/day (data from Colorado State University Soil Scientist). One hundred twelve pounds of urine and manure times 4,000 cows equals air pollution, water pollution and a settlement basin that will provide adequate offensive odor for the entire neighborhood. Operating a dairy of this magnitude will impact the quality of life of all adjoining families by • An increase in heavy truck traffic. • Air pollution - an increase in dust from WCR 84 and the dry lots. • Noise pollution from a 24-hour operation. • Surface and ground water contamination • Offensive odors (morn the settling basin. It is Mr. Dye's right to operate a dairy under the provisions of"use by right". We are opposed to a 4,000-cow special permit. The Weld County Planning Services has allowed the area to become a small acreage community. To approve a 4.000 cow dairy in the midst of this community would he completely inconsistent. Sincerely, 1,.../0/Ain P4- r t,-77-7.4A-6,:71,7_‘U Glenn & Betty Kimberling ! }. li i L Q } 0 } • 0 e 1/10,1 C Ta C >• t t N 01 ; lit 4) a $ a, u t t 1 .1 t ;ra>: . _ , p N co 4 L c u } I * .- N O c N ,. Fyn"'!? • r .� .w ;.. loillz 167 -•,• _ _ 7. a s p �. s ' ft Xawti SE 1/4 &/t/67 . k Illigek • � � . • • ti NW 1/4 8/7/67 • P ♦► d • NE 1/4 7/7/67 { 14 f � . . . 0 • ^ r ) IS 'ti circles indicate single family dwellings \\� w - o • . � +- , \ \ N. \ a. gxf _ 1 ea # \ • \ § `� j } \ ' 4 . \ . < } - • ; . . d < 2 , / \ \�\\ % \ \ ma / y d ; // . \ \ \ i . ��if \ : . 'i : /° \° ; y / 0. }y2 g\ <\ < 3 /\ ' \ 1 ' ' # \ 9{ \ inrr \ � � ,. ' ' , » q . :. 12« � f / } 2 » : \ k \ I " \ •} \{ : » ° < ° I ` 0, , ti C y w \ \ 4 : f \< / \/ N. ^ © : f \\ \ 03 \ / \\ \ / k \ . 2 . - ` � / ` : \ , ; . � / ' \ : : \ » . < a''ry eiLrnri,or, 11 i ", QUG l 4 rl.,in Nu) October 2. 2000 Department of Planning Services 1555 North 17th Avenue Greeley. CO 80631 RE: Case #USR-1289 Dear Sirs; This is a letter asking that you deny a specific development plan by Terry Dye of Dyelands Dain LLC for establishment of a 4.000 head dairy site east of and adjacent to Weld County Road i5, mirth of and adjacent to Weld County Road #84. My property is down stream or in the drainage of that piece of land and water from that area dumps into my irrigation/swimming pond. My concern is that with our occasional cloud bursts, which have occurred about 4 times in the last 15 years, resulting in flooding into our bottom land and pond. If that water had come off of large corrals nopu late'. by 4,000 head of cattle I would have a pond full of liquid manure which would of course make us quite unhappy. Our property lies about 1/2 mile as the crow flies to the north and west of the proposed dairy land so we would also be subject to odors and noise from the beeping trucks which we already hear from the dairy that is 1/2 mile as the crow flies to the west of us, also owned by Mr. Dye T( me it does not seem prudent to establish a dairy in an area that is 1 mile from another existing lam( dairy, nor does it seem reasonable to OK a dairy in an area where there are lots of acreages to the south and southwest of the proposed operation. Naturally with all the manure produced by that number of animals there is going to be a huge fly problem as well as odor problem in the general vicinity and because of that, with the health hazards inherent in such an operation, we feel that thii dairy development should be denied and urge that be accomplished. Sincerely. H.G. Carlson, M.D. 6510 Weld County Road #86 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Colorado Weld County Planning Dept. Dairy Herd OCT 12 2000 Improvement Association RECEIVFD 1223 28th Avenue, Suite 4 • Greeley, CO 80631.3414 • 970-353-9818 • FAX 970-353-0015*2 Weld County Planning and Zoning 1555 N. 17 Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 To Whom it May Concern- This letter is in support of the proposed Dyelands Dairy to be located on WCR 84. The Dye's current operation, Dyecrest Dairy has been a customer of ours for the past several years, and is an extremely well managed facility. We have always been impressed with the Dye's concern both for the welfare of their livestock, as well as the consideration given to being good neighbors in the community. The present dairy is clean, in excellent condition, and is a showplace for the dairy industry. It is for these reasons, as well as the economic benefit to the county,that we are in favor of their proposed growth in the addition of a second dairy. We would strongly recommend that the Weld County Planning Commission vote to allow them to obtain the proper permits to allow the building of the new facility. Sincerely, John Ke nedy General Manager Weld County Planning Dept. OC1 06 2000 October 5, 2000 RECEIVED Weld County Planning Services 1555 North 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Re: Case #USR1289 This letter is in regards to the proposed Dyeland cow milking facility. I am not a homeowner/landowner in the area but my parents reside directly across the street from the proposed facility. I wanted to share my thoughts as an outsider on this subject. It is heartbreaking to see such a wonderful community with so much to lose. My parents fulfilled a lifetime dream and obtained a beautiful piece of farmland in Weld County. A place to farm, a place to enjoy the peace and quiet of the country, a place with phenomenal views, a place to retire, a place to keep in the family for generations. They bought this land knowing that it and all surrounding land is zoned for farming, not for a factory of this size. This area would best be described as a retirement farming community, I marvel at the closeness of these people. It seems ludicrous to me to sacrifice the livelihood, quality of life, and investments of so many families fix the profit of one. This is not how prime farmland should be used it should not be destroyed. Think of the implications: the noise pollution, the groundwater contamination, the traffic, and not to forget the smell of manure 24 hours a day. IMAGINE this next to your home, I have, and it puts knots in my stomach and puts me in tears thinking what my parents and their community are, and have been, going through the past few months. As an outsider looking in I wonder why someone would want to put a facility like this here it is obvious the implications the surrounding residences would endure. There must be dozens of other parcels more suitable for this type of facility. I have heard talk of abandonment, renting apartments, bankruptcy, vacating the land and only paying the taxes, what else happens when you can't sell. Do you hope a facility of similarity might buy up surrounding land—I can't fathom any families wanting to live in this area. If this milking facility goes in you could not pay me to live out there. What does this do for the county? I certainly hope you do what's best for Weld County, these people, and this parcel of land, it is beautiful place and would be such a shame to see this community disintegrate. Thank you for your time and consideration on this issue. Sincerely, 661164 Mindy Boehler 2000 MacKenzie Court Fort Collins, CO 80528 Les Gelvin 40719 Remington Road Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Phone (970)484-9894 FAX (970)221 2077 17eld County Planning Dept. Weld County Dept. of Planning Services September 29, 2000 1555 N 17th Ave. Q�' (}3 L00� Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Case # USR-1289 RECEIVED Terry Dye, Dyelands Dairy LLC Planning Commission Members: Please be very careful in your consideration of the proposed dairy on WCR 84 just East of WCR 15. I am probably as strong a property rights advocate as anyone you know. I am also very pro agriculture and actively promote and support Colorado agriculture and rural community life. I have a thorough understanding of the RIGHT TO FARM COVENANT. I think allowing approval of this proposal is to spit in the face of the RIGHT TO FARM COVENANT. If this proposal is approved maybe we should change it to the RIGHT TO SCREW UI'THE WHOLE COMMUNITY BY BRINGING IN A FUGE COMMERCIAL NOISY POLUTING BUSINESS THAT WE CALI.A FARM COVENANT. When I bought in this area I was aware of the right to farm and accepted it and still accept it the way it is today, but to put something like this in that location is wrong. Most likely you would not even consider allowing an operation that will create this much traffic, noise, waste, light polution, and dust in this area if it were not disguised as a farm. I realize and accept the fact that the owner is allowed by right to put about 1100 or so cattle on this property. I believe for you to allow more livestock than this on this sight is a blatant violation of the property rights of all of the neighboring property owners. Please look at the whole real picture, I hope you can see through the "fluff' in the application that implies compatability and realize that such a huge dairy operation does not belong in this, location. Thank you for listening. I, as a citizen of Weld County appreciate the effort you all put forth to make this such an enjoyable place to live. Let's all work together to keep it that way. Sincerely, Les Gelvin 40719 Remington Road Fort Collins, CO 80524 Weld County Planning Dept- OCT Q3 2000 September 27, 2000 RECEIVED Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 North 17th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 Reference Case Number: USR-1289 - Terry Dye, Dyelands Dairy LLC I strongly oppose the special use permit applied for by Terry Dye for a 4000 cow dairy. I do not oppose his right of use with four cows per acre. I own the property directly south of the proposed site. I have invested my life savings to build up a small farm and retirement place to live and pass on to my children and grandchildren. If this special permit is allowed, all my dreams will be lost. The impact of such an operation will have a very negative effect on our quality of life. The 24-hour operation will bring many cons: • Heavy flow of traffic including hay trucks, milk tankers, feed trucks, and employees • Noise of feeding and moving cows 24 hours per day every day • Dust that will be created by the cows and vehicle traffic • Increase in flies and insects • Odor which will be terrific • Soil and water contamination • Lights at night To me an operation of this magnitude ceases to be agriculture; it is nothing but a commercial milk factory, which does not belong in a residential area. All the people surrounding this area are retired or semi-retired, with small acreages doing hobby farming. No one in this area makes a living from farming. There already have been three approved subdivisions within a mile of the proposed site. This area is a residential area! The people surrounding this site have offered to buy the property from Mr. bye for a sum of 1.3 million dollars. This shows how much against this dairy the neighbors and I are. You must come and inspect this neighborhood with your own eyes to understand the horrible impact it would have. I will be more than happy to give you a tour; I will even pick you up and return you to Greeley. Please consider carefully your decision on our quality of life and the future of such a beautiful neighborhood. Mr. Dye has a current dairy one mile west of this site. Another dairy of 4000 cows so close to the other is being very inconsiderate of what others have done with their little piece of land. Even a mile away we hear the trucks at night, smell the odor and even have the dust on windy days. Mr. Dye may think he is helping the local economy but he isn't; he does not buy feed locally and he does not hire local people. He also does not grow any crops. Let him do his right of use but please do not approve the special use permit. ,--712442(xl-d61) Frank Sewald 7496 Weld County Road 84 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Phone: 970-493-9151 Cell: 970-222-6049 September 29,2000 Weld County Planning De t, P Department of Planning Services a000 1555 N. 17`hAvenue OCT. 03 Greeley, CO 80631 RECEIVED RE: Case Number USR-1289 Attention: Julie Chester, Lead Planner We,David and Christina Haak, are writing this letter to express our opposition to the 4000-cow dairy proposed by Mr. Terry Dye, of Dyelands Dairy LLC. Our reasons for opposing this large dairy facility are as follows: 1) Mr. Dye currently has a dairy located 1/2 mile directly west of our home. It is our understanding that this is an approximately 1000-cow dairy. We certainly are affected by the odors of this dairy whenever we have a west wind. If he is allowed to build his proposed dairy, we will then be located between a 1000 and a 4000 cow dairy. We and everyone else between Weld. County Road 13 and 15 will get odors from his dairies with either an east or west wind. 2) Surface runoff from much of the land owned by Mr. Dye drains into a pond directly south of our home. 'This past summer, Mr.Dye's irrigation water caused flooding on WCR 15 several times, often blocking half of the road with deep water and mud causing a definitive road hazard. We are concerned that if he fails to control the run- off from his dairy, as he did his irrigation water, that effluent would flow directly into the pond south of our home. 3) Mr. Dye's request is for a facility almost four times in excess of his"use by right". (Our understanding is that Mr. Dye's use by right is four animal units per acre). This large a facility would generate a considerable amount of noise. Presently the equipment from his existing dairy creates noise that is clearly audible at our property at all hours of the day and night. Therefore, we assume his proposed request would magnify this nuisance by at least four-fold. 4) We understand the proposed waste management system would include manure lagoons adjacent or close to WCR 15. As we drive along this road four plus times per day, as do many others, this will create an eyesore, odor and fly problem for us and anyone else that drives along this road on a regular basis. 5) All the lighting necessary to maintain a 24-hour a day operation of this size will certainly create an unusually large amount of light in the area. Our understanding is that this site would encompass approximately 40+acres thereby creating the equivalent of a small city. The amount of light, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, is certainly out of character in this rural,residential neighborhood. Also since it will be emanating from a ridgeline location, it will be clearly visible to us,residents of Loveland, Ft. Collins, and Wellington and people between these cities and the proposed dairy location. This is the type of light pollution expected from an industrial or commercially zoned area, not a residential neighborhood. 6) Mr. Dye's present facility generates a large amount of traffic from trucks and employees. In fact, we avoid traveling on WCR 13 due to the road deterioration and washboard effect caused by the dairy traffic on this gravel road. We would assume that a facility almost four times as large will cause four times the amount of similar problems,not to mention generating continuous traffic. 24 hours a day which is incompatible with a rural,residential neighborhood. 7) This proposed dairy is not in character with this neighborhood. Previously the uses of the land where the facility is proposed were for a small dairy and small feedlot. This was consistent with the neighborhood. Mr. Dye's current dairy adversely affects us so we can only assume the negative impact of a dairy almost 4 times that size will be considerable for us and the other 34 homeowners located within 1/2 mile of his property. Most of these residences are smaller acreages. This is not compatible with a dairy of the size that Mr. Dye is proposing. 8) Interjecting this large dairy facility into an established neighborhood will have a severe,negative impact. Current landowners adjacent to the property as well as those within at least a ''/z mile radius will experience a reduction in quality of life as well as a significant drop in the value of their property. Additionally, this will reduce the corresponding tax base of those properties. In summary, while we still would not want to be located between two large dairy facilities, we would support Mr. Dye's use by right of 4 head per acre or approximately 1,100 head of cattle on his land. However, we are adamantly opposed to his request for special consideration to create a facility that will hold almost 4 times the amount of livestock allowed by right. We have already experienced the nuisances of noise, dust, traffic, and odors generated by Mr. Dye's 1000 cow dairy and have not complained as we acknowledge that we live in an agricultural neighborhood. However, we believe a dairy 4 times that: size will severely affect us and others and assume it would result in an almost constant stream of complaints to county officials regarding these problems, should Mr. Dye's special request be approved. Mr. Dye is requesting your permission to change the composition of our neighborhood. A dairy facility of this magnitude, as proposed,would become one of the ten largest dairies in the state. We strongly question how this can, in any fashion,be compatible with a neighborhood comprised of 30+rural homes and acreages all located within a /z mile of the proposed facility. Based on the above, we strongly urge that Mr. Dye's request for this special use be denied. Simply put--Mr.Dye is making a request that will benefit him(one individual),to the detriment of many others. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, lJ��✓/, ,�EQ./1w (l. 2 €c David G. Haak Christina A. Haak 6500 WCR 86 Fort Collins, CO 80524 970-484-5614 t*1 Weld County Road 17 Cleiber 1, 2000 Weld County Planning Commission 1555 N. 17th Avenue Weld County Plant' De t Greeley, CO 806314 P RE: Case Number USR-1289 0CT 1 1 2000 Dyelands Dairy, LLC R n G C �� E D Ladies and Gentlemen of the Commission: We strenuously oppose the approval of the • • >'. ' evelopment Plan and Use by Special Review Permit, Case Number USE, • approximately one half mile downwind of the proposed 4000 cow • 's proposal will cause irreparable damage to the health, well-being • • • of all of the,families that live in the area surrounding this site. Incompatible with Surrounding Land Uses The description of surrounding land uses in the application is deceptive. Dozens of families own and live in homes nearby the subject property. Approval of this proposal will represent a"taking"of the property rights all of the property owners in the surrounding area. Who among them would have chosen to live so close downwind of a 4000 cow milk and manure factory? How many of them will be able to tolerate the problems it will create? The site proposed for this dairy is neither isolated nor surrounded by major agribusiness operations of the sort proposed. The County has recently approved subdivision of land in the area for estate lot development. How many people are going to build "estate" homes within a half mile of a dairy waste lagoon? The County cannot have it both ways. Construction and operation of a dairy on this site will kill any future development in the surrounding area. Any additional tax revenues resulting from a new dairy will be more than offset by the loss of the tax revenue that would be generated by new residential construction in the area that would not occur as the result of the approval of this proposal. The dairy may represent an improvement worth a few million dollars,but how many "estate" homes (taxed at a higher rate) will it take to amount to the same dollar value of improvements? The county will be left with fewer tax dollars and a facility that will generate increased costs for the County's taxpayers. Destruction of Prime Farm Land It is ironic that the applicant claims that the proposed 4000 cow dairy will preserve agriculture. Much of this prime farm land will be covered over with concrete foundations and pads,roads,animal pens,waste piles and lagoons. This will, in fact, destroy the land, rendering it useless for any future crop production. Public Health Hazard The setback and berm proposed will be inadequate to reduce off-site impacts of the hazardous materials that will be present on the site if it is developed as a 4000 cow dairy. Hazardous dust The prevailing winds will mean that all of the homes in our section can expect to be blanketed with noxious dust from the dairy and its waste piles. Dust of this nature can potentially carry infectious agents. Exposure to the organic matter may be associated with serious health problems, including asthma and chronic respiratory disease. The magnitude of the proposed operation and its close proximity to neighboring properties where families and their children live, will pose an unreasonable risk to county residents. The proposed berm and its trees will be useless for limiting dust impacts on surrounding properties. Water contamination The amount of contaminated waste water generated by the proposed facility will be enormous. There is not enough land available on the subject property (once a dairy is constructed) for waste water to be contained safely. There is no way for the quantity of waste generated by the number of animals intended for this facility to be handled without fouling the air and ground water. Ground water contamination is all but certain to result from an operation of this magnitude and density. Hazardous Materials The statement in the application that "No hazardous material storage is proposed for this site." is probably untrue. Cleaning agents required for dairy operations contain hazardous chemicals that are regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act. The waste water in the lagoon of a dairy will contain high concentrations of chemicals (nitrates, ammonia, etc.) that would qualify as Characteristic Hazardous Waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The pesticides used for insect and weed control are regulated by the EPA under other Federal laws and are most certainly hazardous materials. A manufacturing facility that handled and produced such materials would be regulated under these Federal laws. Are the public health and environmental risks any different because of the source of the toxic chemicals? Summary This site is simply inappropriate for the type of development proposed. The surrounding area has previously developed with other uses, approved by the County, that are in conflict with the proposed dairy. This proposal appears to have been hastily prepared and submitted to the County without any consideration of the impacts of the proposed facility on neighboring properties. The application attempts to address too many critical issues with only vague assurances that the facility will comply with applicable laws, without consideration of this specific site and the impacts on the many nearby resident, property owners. We request that the Commission reject this proposal. Sincerely, Stacy Temples Howard Ram‘dell !old County Planning Dov OCT 1 0 2000 RECEIVED 10-7-00 Dear Weld County Department of Planning Services, Recently I received from your office, a letter concerning a Public Hearing,to be held on Oct. 17,2000 This case is number USR-1289, specifically regarding the Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for an Agricultural Service Establishment to be located near a property that I own at;6691 Weld County Road 86,Fort Collins,CO. 80524. My property is 105 acres, and has been in my family since 1917. Recently, I split the property into two parcels through Weld County by doing a recorded exemption on the existing home and five acres, located on the corner of Weld County Road 86, and County Road 15. The remaining 100 acres is currently under a sales contract. The prospective buyer who has a contract on my 100 acres is planning on putting in a very upscale, large lot, small development,with an emphasis on a quality country life. My buyer has expressed his grave concern over the possibility of a huge"factory" dairy being built so close to my property. This greatly affects whether my buyer will commit to close on ,ny property or not,as it will affect not only the value, but the desirability of my property. I personally am from a very strong dairy background. I grew up on a quality dairy farm in Fort Collins that was very functional,well planned, and an attribute to the community. My father was a professional dairyman, who was owner/operator of a very successful dairy. He was full time in the dairy business for-14 years. Over 20 of those years he served as President of Fort Collins Milk Producers. He was also on the board of directors of the Western Dairyman's Cooperative Incorporated in Denver for 15 years. It's my understanding that Mr. Dye has applied for a Special Permit for a 4,000 cow dairy on approximately 278 acres, located on County Road 15 between Weld County Roads 84, and 86. The more I learn of what Mr. Dye is asking for,the more troublesome this issue becomes. This is not a dairy farm but truly is a"dairy factory", as many are now calling Mr. Dye's Special Review Request. Any size dairy needs to be well thought out, and not simply"pushed"through the existing county regulations, as fast as this seems to be being pushed. The larger the facility, the more impact to the surrounding community. It is obvious that Mr. Dye will be unable to grow his feed on the property, since the property is quite simply not enough acres to accommodate his feeding needs,for this proposed factory. Therefore feed will have to be trucked in daily on large heavy farm trucks, and/or semi trucks. Dairy cattle consume thousands of pounds of feed,per cow, per year. When this amount is multiplied by 4,000 head of cattle,the number of trucks delivering feed is staggering. Dairy cattle require ensilage, and since the property currently has no ensilage pits,this is another serious concern. Dairy cattle consume large amounts of ground alfalfa. It is now common to associate health problems with the"green cloud" of ground alfalfa. You might recall a few years ago, a dairy north of Fort Collins, in Larimer county had made the newspapers many times for their "green cloud", and was blamed for many neighbors health problems. This resulted in a large legal battle where everyone on both sides lost. This is not an issue to quickly overlook, as it has serious long term health consequences for people living down wind. Odor and dust are other huge concerns for those living down wind. Semi trucks will be needed for at least daily pickup of the milk. Because milk does not rest evenly in a semi truck,(but sloshes and moves with the movement of the semi)it is necessary to keep driveways on dairy properties continually graded, and maintained with heavy equipment because of heavy rutting. Since dairy owners continually need to maintain their own properties from this damage,just imagine the damage that would be done to County Road 15. Since the time that County Road 15 was paved several years ago, (by the efforts of a few long term residents on County Road 15), each year on the Weld County Tax Notice, there is a category for"Special Assessment"for that paved road. I do not agree that the other property owners on County Road 15 should have to daily watch damages that will most certainly occur from the abuse of this paved road,by the extreme volume of heavy trucks, and large equipment needed for a"factory dairy", nut to mention employees coming and going to work for Mr. Dye Daily manure removal is another concern, and serious issue, even in good weather. Bad weather can delay manure removal without notice. Bedding for the cattle is another issue as well. I've not heard anything about Mr. Dye's proposal concerning the lighting of his operation, so that the lighting isn't a nuisance and negative impact to neighbors. How much noise do 4000 cattle make, as well as the noise of the equipment to feed them ? However what concerns me most is that as I understand it, Mr. Dye has applied for a permit for 3 block and tied mobile homes to be located on the S.E.corner of Co.Rd. 15, and Weld County Rd. 86. My property is located on the N.W. corner of that same intersection. It is also my understanding that the previous owners of Mr. Dye's property (the Schild farm,which sold to Jon Turner,then sold to Mr.Dye). had several prospective buyers wanting to purchase this same corner to put 2 homes on,but were denied. because it is in a building envelope for a single home only. If Mr. Dye's reauest for these 3 "temporary trailers" is granted, it will immediately devalue the surrounding pro erti s. It isn't believable that this would actually be"temporary labor housing",by looking at the full scope of Mr.Dye's request. How temporary is a 4,000 cow dairy factory? My property is very well maintained and kept. As 1 stated,my 100 acre parcel is currently under contract for upscale large lot acreages. The remaining 5 acres I plan on keeping, and have turned down very high dollar written offers in the past few months,without this property even being on the market,as it has never been offered for sale. If from my property, one is forced to look across the intersection at"temporary labor housing", it will only quickly devalue. 3 temporary labor houses are definitely inconsistent with the neighborhood. Currently Mr. Dye has only one home on his property,which is the house that came with the Aranzi farm. when Mr. Dye purchased it. It is an interesting coincidence that this past August,the occupants in his house had a party, and that the debris that was left in that property's front yard,was exactly the same as the beer cans,bottles, and wrappings dumped in my property's driveway following the same party. The character of this wonderful community is quickly changing since Mr. Dye has purchased this property Currently Mr. Dye appears to have a few hundred heifers at his property and they are in no way any problem,to anyone that I'm aware of But the character of the community is already starting to deteriorate with the ever increasing volume of traffic on Co. Rd. 15, and Co. Roads 84, and 86, already going to and from his property. Will Mr. Dye be required to furnish a large paved parking lot fin his needed employees? 1 know of a an established, 2,000 cow dairy in Larimer County that employees 50+people to operate. The 3 "temporary labor trailers"that Mr. Dye is asking for,obviously are not even close to what will be needed for his labor needs for this type of operation. As with any factory of this type, Mr. Dye will need around the clock employees to operate his proposal. Again,this only can mean a substantial increase and steady flow of traffic coming and going to that property. This is an agricultural, livestock, and large acreag residential community, not a factory or industrial area. It's my understanding that Mr. Dye will need a water tap inconsistent with what other farmers/dairymen/livestock based owners in the area use. Again this shows that Mr.Dye's proposal is more of an industrial/factory business than agriculturally based. In my personal dealing with Weld County regarding the recorded exemption that was completed for my property earlier this year, while I was dealing with the Weld County Planning Department, I as well as every one involved,was patient to do all the necessary steps in an orderly and thorough fashion. This Special Review Permit for the 4,000 cow"factory" dairy,with the 3 "temporary"labor housing applications,feels like it is really being pushed hard to have many devastating facts purposely overlooked Please do not misunderstand me. I am very pro agriculture,with a personal lifelong background in farming,dairying,beef cattle, sheep, and horses, as being my source of making a living, full time. Recently I was appointed by Larimer County, and served 14 months on The Larimer County Animal Task Force Committee as one of the Livestock Property Experts to look at,discuss,and advise the County Commissioners for the new Land Use Code. Many of the problems that we looked at were problems such as this. It is an interesting fact to note that Mr. Dye currently owns a dairy approximately I mile west of the property concerned. His dairy has been in operation several years. The difference is that the dairy that Mr. Dye currently has in operation is located in Larimer county, and is several times smaller than what he is asking for in Weld County under Special Review. It is my understanding that the purpose of Special Review is to make absolutely sure that the request does not devalue the Property of others, abuse the environment, causing unsafe or hazardous conditions of any kind,overuse or abuse the Counly_Roads from any direction,to and from the property,cause a nuisance,Asnipttla community or change the character of the community in which the property is located. Mr. Dye's proposal for a 4,000 cow dairy "factory"is of substantial negative impact to all the property owners in the area. The only person owning property to not be harmed dramatically by this proposal/application is Mr. Dye himself Sincerely, Id County Planning Dept %River Cloud�rsbinns Inge Dirmhirn NI "+ 2000 P O.BOX 2106 FORT COLLINS, CO 80522 Phone:(970)484-2285 i F _. E I V E D Fax:(970)484-2258 E-mall:ingeeafrii.com Internet:http://www.Ritnet/^-inge/sc-arabians October 5, 2000 Re: Proposed Dye Dairy To Department of Planning Services 1555 N 17th Ave. Greeley, CO 80631 Ladies, Gentlemen, My address is 40720 North WCR 15. I acquired the place one year ago to run my horse operation and rental, in my retirement years. This place has all the facilities to operate a supplemental retirement business. Recently I heard of the application of my second neighbor to the north, Mr. T. Dye, to install a dairy for 4000 cows. This proposed feedlot operation would be the end of my business, a business that has taken all my savings for installation and that is presently starting to take off. We are running 30 horses on my 75 acres, 16 of my own and 14 boarders. 1 am also renting buildings that were on the property when I bought the latter and that I installed since then. The operation requires safe access to and from WCR 15 and a clean rural environment for riding, riding lessons, and for training the animals. All of these requirements would he in jeopardy if this dairy and the necessary feedlot for that many cows would be approved. The heavy traffic necessary to operate the distribution of milk and refuse would make the access to the road more dangerous, particularly as the view entering the highway and turning into the property from WCR 15 is bad due to the contour of the track. And the unavoidable smell of the feedlot would make working outside, training and riding, so unpleasant that I would loose the boarders and the parties who take riding lessons. Hence, approval of the giant dairy would undoubtedly end my horse operation and rental that is now in progress and with it my necessary supplemental retirement income. Please consi tb4cp t before deciding on the proposed Dye dairy. Sincerely, , J Inge Dirmhirn Wold County Planning Crept September 27, 2000 Yj' 1 J 2000 Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue RECEIVED Greeley, Colorado 80631 RE: case number USR-1289 for Terry Dye, Dyelands Dairy LLC We are writing in regards to the proposed Dyelands Dairy. We were very surprised, (Inc disappointed, to learn that a dairy of this size was being planned for this .:urea since we, as property owners within 500 feet, never received any notice of such from the cot. 'Ht. Thirty years ago, when we were searching for a place to build our house and r.cisc our family, we felt we had found the perfect place on county road 15. Since we were :.,oth raised on farms, we wanted our children to have some of the same opportunitic,; we had growing up and to experience the bonds a person can have with animals and to .cppr ..ciat the bounty the land can produce. Over the years, we have had a number of horses, the usual dogs and cats, and several sheep and dairy cows as 4-H projects. Out hauga.. ore have many wonderful memories and have learned the responsibilities that came wit..' then We chose our property for a number of reasons, one of which was the protective crrena.r -s placed on this quarter section when it was divided thirty years ago. The covenan- s se itt that we could have animals for our own personal use but not in such a number that wool . make it a business. This area is all residential acreages and small, family tarn operations. While we thoroughly enjoy the agricultural nature of our neigi-bo-how : , we do not want to live next door to a milk factory. And that is what a 4,000 head dale' wo, ci be, as described by the people at the new dairy in Hudson when interviewed on telvvisr, -n. The covenants also required that there be no mobile homes or noisy operatics;- . elth these covenants in place, we felt that would be the way development would ccrn.ir the area. We also are somewhat concerned about how responsible a neighbor Dyelands Dairy w)n.ld . This summer, after the transfer of ownership of the land to Mr. Dye, we experione.a problems with the manner in which that land was irrigated. The water was not he ii in the field, but was allowed to run accross the pavement of county road 15 leaving :.evet ! I inches of water and mud. Due to a small hill, when you were northbound on count; roa.'. 1`r you could not see the water and mud until you were almost in it. The first time this happened to us was after sundown and we almost lost control of the car. The necord tier was more mud than water and we had to swerve into the southbound lane to get ;,.ro s.d it Luckily, there were no south bound vehicles. It was a very dangerous situat..eii clot those of us who live here learned to anticipate. But what abount those who ur.e .Iie road only occassionally, like my children and grandchildren? We never had this aobl.c in the prior thirty years. We also wonder about Mr. Dye's management plans given the downward condition that has occurred over the summer. Waist high weeds have been allowed to grow in the eit.:Les, fields, and all around the house and buildings site. This creates breeding .u'ea.s for pests, is extremely unsightly, and probably could even be a fire hazard. If lie 'tree ci, have time to maintain the property now, will he have more time when there arc a '..s.o 4,000 cows to take care of? We sincerely hope you realize this is not just a case of 'not in my backyard' . ;yen 1 we did not live here, we would not agree that this large of a dairy is suitable ar the area. As Fort Collins continues to expand, we get more and more houses being built cl. scr and closer to us. When the new dairy east of Platteville had their grand opening this summer, we attended. It seems much better situated. We hope you each personnaliy vis t. our neighborhood before making any of your decisions and see for yourself that ats ton. range planning should not include this size of business in this area. Thank-you for your best consideration of tnis matter. yncerelyh �J Lynn and Linda Russell 41695 Weld County Road 15 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 To the Weld County Department of Planning Services: We are opposed to the granting of USR— 1289 for the Special use permit as applied for by Terry Dye. Mr. Dye is applying for a 4000-cow permit on land directly east of our 70-acre farm. We signed a neighborhood petition asking Mr. Dye not to build a new dairy on that site, and with the other members of the neighborhood made a reasonable offer to purchase the land from him. That offer would have given him a$100,000 profit for owning the land for less than one year. The offer to purchase the land was rejected. By opposing this dairy we are not trying to deny Mr. Dye his livelihood, but truly feel this is the WRONG site for his dairy. Our neighborhood's offer to purchase the property was made in the hope that he would purchase a more appropriate site where his dairy would not grossly impact those families who surround it. While Terry Dye does have the"right by use"to have approximately 1100 cows on his 278 acre farm, and because a 4000 cow dairy will adversely alter the character of the neighborhood, we ask that our rights and concerns should be heavily weighted in your decisions. This is an established neighborhood and he is moving in as a newcomer asking for special privileges that will totally disrupt our lives and forever change the neighborhood. The impact on the neighborhood will be similar to allowing an industrial factory to be built in our midst. Our objections are as follows: We feel that he should not be granted the right to have more than 4 cows per acre, as large numbers of confined animals are not the norm for this area. There are no other large concentrations of confined animals in this area of Weld County, with no other concentration for many miles to the north, with no other concentration for many miles to the east, and Cactus Hill Sheep feedlot being the northern terminus of large confined animal feed lots to the south of us. Dye currently operates a dairy in Larimer County and that dairy is exactly one mile west of our house. The proposed dairy will sandwich our neighborhood between them in such a manner that no matter which way the wind blows, we will suffer from the pollution of one of his dairies. We try to be good neighbors in our area, farms are well maintained, weeds are controlled, and livestock is raised in a responsible manner. First impressions are extremely long lasting. Our first impression of the beginnings of Mr. Dye's new dairy is very discouraging and negative. I would think Mr. Dye would be doing his best to convince the neighborhood that his new dairy will be an asset and not a liability. Mr. Dye is an absentee landowner and since taking control of this property in Dec. of 1999 the appearance of the property has markedly deteriorated. There are 3 to 4 foot high weeds growing around the farmstead. For the first time in 12 years, I have seen many clumps of Canada thistle growing and blooming in the crop on this property. In a neighborhood where most of us control our noxious weeds by spraying them one by one, often walking with sprayer in hand, it is infuriating to have these seeds blown into our fields because of a lack of control on his part. In a neighborhood where some of us use lawn mowers to keep the borrow ditch clean and tidy his borrow ditches are now unattended and weedy. The previous owner maintained the property so it fit the character and standards of the entire neighborhood, and this property now is an eye sore. Dye is moving new and valuable livestock to the new site and placing them into cattle pens that have not been cleaned out since the former owner ceased raising cattle about 4 years ago. He did not even take the time to cut down the 3 to 4 ft. Kochia weeds in front of the cattle feed bunks. If this is an indication of the pride he has for his dairies, our neighborhood has good reason to be extremely concerned. We object to the size and scale of the proposed use of this land, as it is absolutely not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. This is industry wrapped in a thin cloak of agriculture. We are concerned about the dust that will come off of a dairy of this size, with such an open design, situated in such a wind prone, open area. We will be subjected to compost and manure dust when the winds are from the Northeast. We are highly concerned about the hay grinding dust that often drifts for miles from Dye's existing (much smaller)dairy, and how often we will be subjected to this thick green dust from the grinding of hay for this enormous dairy. We will object to the foul odor from the composting process of over 116,000,000 pounds of manure annually (158.9 tons per day)from this proposed dairy of 4000 cows. Ensilage storage in not mentioned anywhere in the application or site plan. We are very concerned about where the ensilage is stored, how many trucks will haul it in, and which road entrance they will use. We know from past experience that ensilage storage is accompanied by an increase in rats, mice, raccoons, and other vermin. The amount of ensilage required for 4000 cows will require a huge number of truck loads with the accompanying traffic, road damage and safety issues. We object to having our house and neighborhood illuminated all night by the enormous number of stock pen and yard lights that will be required for a 4000-cow dairy. While the applicant may point out that our house will be shielded from his many stock pen lights by several large trees on his property, it must be noted that these trees have passed maturity and are dying off. Several of the large trees in the yard of the main house have had to be removed in the past 2 to 3 years leaving only the stumps. Based on the 45+ yard lights at his current dairy, the estimated 100 to 120 lights required to illuminate the proposed dairy is absolutely NOT in keeping with a neighborhood where homes have at most 1 or 2 yard lights. We object to the sounds of the back-up alarms that will emit from the daily use of the industrial front loaders that will handle the silage and feed. From a mile away, we currently hear the irritating beep-beep-beep of the back-up alarms on his loaders, and this is several times a day, every day, all year around. The proposed dairy will center that sound (and the irritating whine of the milking machine pumps) in the midst of our quiet neighborhood. We will object to the dairy's operation on a 24 hour per day schedule, as it is not in keeping with the quiet, rural setting. Because all of the water drainage from the proposed site must exit across our land, we are concerned about the possibility that the dairy's storm water pond will overflow from a continued and lengthy rainy spell and may burst sending contaminated water across our land and then contaminate our neighbor's lake. We are highly concerned that the original primary residence(just across the road from our driveway)will degenerate, as it's use seems to now be"employee housing". We are one of 4 families that raise sheep on property that borders his proposed site. We are highly concerned that his dairy cows may spread disease to the Navajo-Churro sheep (having rare breed status)that we raise. We have had our large animal veterinarian, Dr. Joan Bowen, describe the most likely diseases that his cows can transmit to our sheep, and with all fairness, a devastating disease our neighborhood sheep can transmit to his dairy cows. Please read the attached letter. We are highly concerned that the leakage from the Cactus Hill Irrigation ditch (above the proposed site) coupled with the resulting high ground water levels, will lead to his proposed dairy contaminating the underground water. In point of fact, we feel that because of the Cactus Hill Irrigation ditch leakage, this SITE is not appropriate to a dairy if ANY size. Most of us within this neighborhood have lived here for many, many years and are adamantly opposed to this dairy. We believe this proposed dairy does not conform to the tenure and character of the neighborhood, presents significant dangers to the underground water, and definite risks to the established livestock of this area. Please deny this application. Signed: QUO. 2, 2_00o 0ac4 V tcicff/e4.4j7 2 OKY GbG PL1454 lJ SR 1289 FILE CONTAINS PHOTOS - SEE ORIGINAL FILE 2000-2771 Hello