The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20003004.tiff 'WELD COUNTY November 29, 2000 COMMISSIONERS To: Dale K. Hall itrn c -t 1 9: 04 From: Kirk Kimberling RECEIVED 6621 Weld County Rd. 84 (970)482-5164 Reference: Docket# 2000-72 Case No. USR-1289 The purpose of this letter is to inform you of my strong opposition to Mr. Terry Dye's proposed 4000 cow dairy. This dairy's impact on our community will greatly affect the quality of life that we presently enjoy. My wife and I have lived on this property all seventeen years of our married life. We also have a ten year old daughter who appreciates being able to live in the country. As a family, we enjoy being out of the confines of a city and have no plans to move from our present location. I have attended several of our community meetings regarding this proposed dairy and I have learned about several valid concerns regarding the engineering of things such as, containment of run off water in the case of a flood. Another concern which had been brought up is the potential of contaminating the ground water with phosphorus. However, I believe that the biggest problem with this dairy is the tremendous size proposed; and its proximity to established' residences. I have no problem with Mr. Dye building a dairy the size allowed in his use by right, which would be approximately 1000 cows. His proposal, however, is almost three times this size. I also attended the Planning & Zoning meeting concerning this Special Review Permit on Oct. 17, 2000. At this meeting, the members of the board who voted in favor of the proposed dairy did not, to my satstaction, resolve how the size of such an operation would be compatible with the existing surrounding land uses. In conclusion, I would ask you, as a commissioner, to carefully consider all of the factors involved in operating a dairy of this size, and it's long term impact on the existing residents who live in this agricultural community. Thank you for your time and consideration regarding this matter. Sincerely, Kirk Kimberling 2000-3004 -_— - NOv-27-00 17:45 FROM: STANDARD PRINT & DESIGN ID: 17122621613 PAGE 1/2 WELD COMM COMMISSIONERS Carolyn Clary ZnB (EC —I Mi 9= O 1 6776 Weld County Road 86 Ft. Collins, Cob. 80524 RECEIVED,. 970-493-2500 November 27,2000 To: Weld County Commissioners Greeley, Cob. Re: Dyeland Dairy Proposal Dear Commissioner, -- I desire to convey to you my opposition to the Dyeland Dairy that is proposed to be built near our homy. I attended the planning and zoning hearing and was given a short time to express my concerns in an environment that was very pro this proposition. I continue to have many concerns about an in iustry dads size going into our neighborhood that has become very as well as many small scale farming operations. Within one mile of the curent proposal is another 2000 head dairy owned and operated by Terry Dye. One half mile away and across the road from Dyeland properties is land owned by Anheuser Busch used for the pumprng..7ofaffiieentfrom the Brewery. This is a very heavy impact on the area for odors,traffic"', water usage, and nitrate saturation of the subsoil and potential public waters. Th a proposed dairy would completely sandwich our home with environmental issues. Having lived in our home for almost 23 years and fanning the land adjacent to the north end of the proposed Dairy and to the west I have major concerns about the proposed use of the land. We have observed the movement of soils every year due to the steep grade of the land and the manner in which it has to be irrigated to raise row crops such as corn. On a given irrigation cycle there is consid`erablertm off of tail water and silt that is drained through the middle of our Eel&currently producing Alfalfa this drainage ditch has to be reopened every few years at out expense in order to keep our fields from becoming saturated with water and alkali There is also moisture that seeps in the subsoil creating an area that sub irrigates on the east end of our field. We have very big concerns about the containment of the nitrates on the land that is proposed for the distribution of liquid waste from the dairy. Retention ponds f©r tail water and rain runoff should be in the plan and are not. How will the subsoil movement of the nitrates be controlled on this cigfit as well? Another major concern we have is the proposal of housing for laborers that is proposed to be built next to our property on the north end of Dyeland project. We have an irrigation pipeline that is buried in the borrow',Pit over which they propose to have the driveways to the housing area. What plans are therein-place to insure the continued delivery of water to our farm? We are also opposed to the `type of housing in i 1 NOV-27-00 17 :45 FROM: STANDARD PRINT & DESIGN ID: 17122621613 PAGE 2/2 r. the neighborhood which is not compatible with the type of homes being built in the area, as well as the density required by the project. We have seen a major change in the use of the surrounding areas in the 22 years that we have lived in our home. The current price of latbd has clearly stated that it is no longer economically possible to use for a farming income and has changed to an area of v farm and country estates. The surrounding areas of the Dyeland Dairy proposal is a typical example of what has occurred and has now become an area of multiple homes and developments constructed and proposed for development with current approval by the county planning and zoning. There are also I,. 0 current small farms that currently have deeded parcels for future homes We have always intended to build a home on the forty acres that we have directly adjoining the proposed dairy sight. This is where we have lived for the past 23 years and intend to continue living. It is where our children and Grandchildren love to come and visit and have plans to inherit some day. They already have concerns about the odors that they smell when playing outdoors. (laving lived on a farm almost my entire life I am not opposed to the right by use !lavws in the country and am not opposed to livestock operations within those bounds,but to have to coexist with a combined commercial operation of 6000 head of dairy oil both sides of us is not a fair and compatible Use of the land. This is how we help support our livelihood and is our future for our retirement. This is land that is very pristine and beautiful We are depending on you as our county commissioners to please consider us in this neighborhood who are here and have helped establish the neighborhood that we enjoy. We are not against development and change. We are not against agriculture. We ea.\ are 'I oar with the practices and current operation of Terry Dye and do not oppose him as a neighbor. We are opposed to an industry of this type in our backyards where we live, work and enjoy a quality of life that is proposed to be raped from us. Thank you for your consideration to our opposition to the Dyeland Dairy proposaL Sincerely, Carolyn F. Clary LFS GELVIN 40719 Remington Road C4� crC'Collins.,Colorado 80524 or\ COME ISSION RS 970.484-9898 November 29, 2000 2M1 DEC -j An g: Go WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RECEIVED .ED P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 RE: Dye Dairy -Docket# 2000-72, Case No. USR-1289 Ladies and Gentlemen: Let me begin by saying that I am very pro Ag,very pro fanner, and even consider myself to be very pro dairy. I have many friends in the dairy business and am currently helping one voluntarily relocate out of an area very similar to the one where this dairy is wanting to build. [am also a very strong advocate of private property rights. I and I believe you would not even consider building a project like this in this location. I am writing to ask you not to approve this project. I have three major points I want you to consider in your thoughts about the Dye Dairy Use by Special Review. First and foremost, Compatibility, second,traffic, and third, the accuracy of the application iniorniation'and the credibility ofthe sources for this information. I will comment on these points in reverse for reasons that will become obvious as we continue. The information in the application is quite skewed and inaccurate all in favor of the applicant. • In the applicants response to question 2 on the application, he states that there has been a feedlot on the site since 1973. Although not false this statement is misleading in the application analysis. The feedlot in reference had a capacity of about 800 head that were seldom in the feedlot more than 4 or 5 months of the year, much, much different than a 4000 cow dairy with activity 24 hours a day, day in and day out year around. • How does the applicant justify the statement that covering prime agricultural land with concrete, corrals, buildings, and lagoons is an"effort to preserve productive agriculture land". The response to question 4 is equally deceptive in stating that neighboring properties are parcels of approximately 25 to 100 acres when in fact they range from less than 3 acres to about 100 acres with the majority of them being smaller than 25 acres. They are primarily agriculturally oriented rural residential properties with small scale livestock and crop production. This is consistent with recent decisions by the county planners and your board on approval of Minor Subdivisions in this area. There are more than 50 homes within a mile of the proposed project, more than 20 within 1/2 mile, and three new ones currently under construction. There is no way this project can be considered compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. • The estimate of 15 employees is probably about half right. My friends in the dairy business tell me most dairies figure one employee for each 75 to 125 cows. Therefore for fees' 4000 cows you need at the very least 30 and probably closer to 40 employees. This will have a major effect on the traffic in the area. LES GELVIN 40719 Remington Road Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 970-4849898 • The estimates of the number of truck trips appears to be as inaccurate as the other data I have pointed out. Any dairyman will confirm that a cow will eat 70 to 80 pounds of feed per day. 70 pounds of feed X 4000 cows=280,000 total pounds per day. Most semis haul about 60,000 pounds of feed which equates to 4.6 semis per day. The dairy currently has a few hundred head of cattle in the little old feedlot currently on the site. Some days they make 5 feed truck trips from their other dairy to feed these,this would very likely increase, since, according to the applicant, one reason for putting the dairy in this location is to better utilize his equipment and labor. There would probably be about 4 to 4'/: semi loads of milk per day if the cows in this dairy produce like the ones that they are currently milking at their other location. According to the report filed by the applicant there would be between 1 and 2 semi loads of compost per day. Now if we add 30 to 50 car trips per day for labor, suppliers, management and others we start to get a pretty glum traffic picture. This adds up to about 16 truck trips per day not to mention the 40 or so can. • The applicant and his agents will tell you that they have no intention of putting 4000 cows on this location. If they don't,my numbers are wrong. Never the less if they are granted this permit there is nothing to prevent them from putting 4000 cows there or selling it to someone who does put 4000 cows there. Therefore we must look at the numbers that I have calculated. • I haven't even mentioned the light pollution, noise pollution, and odor that is caused by a project like this. I believe the applicant and his agent have put forth a very strong effort to down play the magnitude of this project. I believe they understand the incompatibility and traffic problems and simply hoped no one would notice their misstatements. There is no way this project can be considered compatible with the community where they are trying to place it. I am well aware of the right to farm covenant and I agree and accept it. This is asking the neighbors to go way beyond acceptance of conditions that existed when they came into the area. I hope and believe that you will see through the applicants.smokescreen and see what is really happening. Why should one mans greed and ego be allowed to threaten and endanger so many others? How is this good for Weld County? As previously stated I hope you will not approve this Use by Special Review. This simply is not the right place to build a project like this. Thank you for listening, the people of Weld County are counting on you to make the right decision. Please do not approve this project. Sincerely, /, jg /'"� Les G ' I WELD COUNTY November 27, 2000 Weld County Commissioners COMMISSIONERS 915 10'h Street 20 DEC -1 AN a 59 P.. O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 RECEV'ED. ATTENTION: George Baxter, District 1 Dale Hall, At-Large Glenn Vaad, District 2 Mike Geile, At-Large Barbara Kirkmeyer, District 3 Reference Docket Number 2000-72 - Terry Dye, Dyelands Dairy LLC Commissioners: I live on a one hundred acre alfalfa farm - downwind, directly across the gravel road, and parallel to the above referenced dairy proposal. As a highly affected property owner, taxpayer, and concerned citizen of Weld County I have many concerns regarding the proposed dairy. It's beyond belief that anyone would even consider dropping this bomb right in the �►� middle of our populated community. Weld County has sent out letters to property owners near this proposed site stating that 10 acres or less will be zoned residential; Weld County has also approved three subdivisions each within a mile of the proposed site. What in the world is the thinking behind this proposal by Mr. Dye and by the county? Why in the world would a "dairyman" and the county even consider destroying prime farmland - SOIL, GROUND WATER, AIR - our environment, by putting a 4000 cow dairy right smack dab in the middle of such a breath taking gorgeous area with full views of the country side and the spectacular Rocky Mountains? The SMELL, NOISE, LIGHTS, INSECTS, DUST, and TRAFFIC will be unbearable and open to constant complaint by all. Weld County has miles and miles of unpopulated areas ideal for factories of this magnitude. Bottom line and my final tug. Please do not destroy the environment and the quality of life for our community and for our future generations by letting this monstrosity happen. DYELAND DAIRY DOES NOT FIT, DOES NOT BELONG, AND IS NOT WELCOME IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. Again, thank you for your time, your attention and your consideration to this matter. ICAaddall- rs Jeanette Sewald 7496 Weld County Road 84 November 27, 2000 WELD COUNTA f Weld County Commissioners COMMISSIONERS 915 10th Street MI DEC - i AN 8: 59 P. O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 RECEIVED ATTENTION: George Baxter, District 1 Dale Hall, At-Large Glenh -Valad District 2 Mike Geile, At-Large Barbara Kirkmeyer, District 3 Reference Docket #2000-72 - Terry Dye, Dyelands Dairy LLC Commissioners: Let it be known that I am not against agriculture or a right by use dairy. I am totally against a 4000 cow dairy. A dairy of this size is not compatible to the surrounding area. I have spent my life savings to buy a bare piece of ground and build all new facilities with intentions of keeping this ground in a small agricultural setting. I planned on having my children and grandchildren keep this small farm as I built it, in it's entirety. Now all will be lost if a 4000 cow dairy is built 500 feet from my house and property. 7: have a very close knit family. We get together often and enjoy being out here in our quiet neighborhood. If this dairy is allowed how can my family and grandkilds enjoy nothing but noise, dust, smell, insects, lights and, a huge increase in traffic? Please consider the compatibility and the impact on the environment. BIG is not better. Only one family will gain. The rest of us will lose. Mr. Dye will line his pockets while the neighborhood suffers. The neighbors, as a group, offered Mr. Dye $1,300,000.00 which included $100,000 profit, to purchase the land and keep it in crops. You, as an elected official, now have my life and my future in your hands. Sewald (4 496 Weld County Road 84 WELD COUNTY' I^' November 28, 2000 COMM(SS(ONERS Tf (>1 C - 1 fl 57 RECEIVED Weld County Board of Commissioners P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Re: Dyelands Dairy LLC Case Number: USR-1289 Docket#: 2000-72 Attention: Glenn Vaad We have enclosed a copy of the letter that we sent prior to the Planning Commission meeting in the event that it might not have been included in your file. There are several other issues, which we feel are very important and must be considered before a decision is reached on this application. Mr. Dye testified to the Planning Commission that he had been "blind-sided"' by the opposition to his new dairy and just couldn't understand it. The truth of the matter is the neighborhood presented Mr. Dye a petition, in mid July asking him to reconsider building his dairy there and that we would oppose any special use permit application. After he decided to proceed, the neighborhood made an offer to buy the property with a substantial profit over the purchase price he paid in December of 1999. He declined the offer and when asked how much it would take to buy the property there was no response. Mr. Dye also testified that all the neighbors had been contacted and offered a tour of his present dairy. He didn't contact us nor anyone we know in the neighborhood, which is most everyone. The application and testimony contains statements as to the traffic impact of this new site and Mr. Dye said 4 — 5 trucks per day in and out of the facility. According to Bill Wailes from Mor-Wai dairy this is about a third of what will be needed for a dairy of this size. Two thousand cows producing 80 pounds of milk each per day is 160,000 pounds or slightly more than 3 truck loads per day just for milk not to mention feed, supplies, and hauling away the manure. We feel Mr. Dye deliberately understated the traffic and employment numbers to minimize the impact. The manure generated by 4000 cows is approximately (according to Mr. Dye's (ce` nutrient management plan) 30 tons per day, and is to be composted and used by local farmers, gardeners, and landscapers. Most farmers have stopped usin•, f - w r� manure from sites other than their own because the cost for application is too high. That leaves gardeners and landscapers in the Fort Collins area, whose needs would be very seasonal, to absorb this 30 tons per day. There is no data to indicate that a market exists for this much manure, and if it doesn't there is no place for it to go. When you look around at the dairies and feedlots in this area, the manure piles just keep growing, which indicates it is not as easy to dispose of as is indicated in the application. A good portion of the Planning Commission's justification for approval, according to their comments, was based on the fact that Mr. Dye says he is going to start small and not be at the capacity of his permit for several years, and that he is a good dairy operator and neighbor. Obviously if the permit is granted he is free to use the permit to capacity immediately and/or to sell the dairy to someone else with the permit intact. This was not a valid justification for approval, since they had no idea what might actually occur. Our home is located just % mile from the proposed sewage lagoons and the odor and flies from 4000 cows are definitely going to be a problem. We don't think anyone in our position would be in favor of such a condition. Please keep in mind that Mr. Dye is not intending to live at this new facility. There are a great many more issues including high water tables and Cactus Hill seepage and periodic overflow that will carry contaminants onto adjoining properties. Because our letter is rather lengthy, we hope you will feel free to ask us any questions you might have, at the upcoming meeting on December 6, 2000. In closing we would like to state that this neighborhood has become a residential community and as such a 4000 cow dairy is just not compatible. We understand property owner rights but we also have rights. We have lived at this location for 30 years so this is not a situation of someone moving to the country and then complaining about agriculture. What we are opposing is an industrial operation disguised as agriculture, even though it may fit the broad definition. We urge you to deny the special use permit application by Mr. Dye and allow only a use by right size dairy to operate in this location. Si cerely, Keith &Wendy Mullins 41545 Weld County Road 15 Fort Collins, CO 80524 rte' r^. 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 concem 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 r LFS GELVIN WE i n GOUN 40719 Remington Road TY COMMISSIONERSFort Collins, Colorado 80524 970.484-9818 November 30, 2000 2013 MC -5 Al 9: 13 WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONEFr`IVED P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 RE: Dye Dairy-Docket# 2000-72, Case No. USR-1289 Ladies and Gentlemen: If for some reason you should decide to approve the Use by Special Review to the Dye Dairy project there are a number of mitigation points that should be addressed and enforced: • 1) The Cactus Hill Ditch that runs across the entire upper side of the site of this facility must be lined with concrete to control the seep from the ditch that has plagued this site for years. Continued seep would only speed the movement of excessive nitrate in the soil from this facility to the shallow water table. At the planning commission hearing in October,the applicants agent stated that lining the ditch should not be a problem, since the lining of the ditch would only add a small percentage to the total cost of the project. • 2) It is imperative that the farm own enough irrigation water to properly irrigate the farm to grow enough of a crop to utilize all of the excess nitrates that will be placed on the soil. The farm currently has very little irrigation water. Stormwater/wastewater and rented irrigation water are not reliable enough water sources to insure the kind of crop needed to utilize the added nutrients. • 3) WCR 84 along the south side of the facility should be paved from WCR 15 to WCR 19 and WCR 19 paved from WCR 84 to Highway 14 to help keep the roads safe and dust free from the added traffic caused by the facility. • 4) The hill to the east on WCR 84 has been the site of numerous accidents because of the blind intersections near the top,therefore this hill should be cut, or at the very least the entrance to the facility should be carefully located so not to make this road more dangerous by the tremendous increase in traffic created by this facility. • 5) Very large berms must be built on the west side not just the south side as stated in the proposal. The trees on these berms need to be large trees (10 or 12 feet tall), lots of trees very close together, so they actually create a buffer not just show a minimal effort to create a buffer. These points must be made conditions to be met before the facility can be occupied. The applicant or his agents word that they will voluntarily perform these points is not enough. As previously stated I hope you will not approve this Use by Special Review but, at the very least, if you must approve it, make sure the aforementioned mitigation points are attached as conditions of the approval to lessen the burden of this facility on the rest of the citizens in the area as much as possible. Thank you for listening, the people of Weld County are counting on you to make the right decision. Please consider very carefully the disapproval of this project. Sincerely, L s Gelvin 11/30/2000 WELD COUNTY P'^ COMA ,It SK !NERS Dear Ms. Barbara J. Kirkmeyer, 2D DEC -14 AM 8 58 I am writing this letter to urge the disapproval of a 4000 heapipThcciVElaration proposed by Mr. Terry Dye at the junction of WCR 15 and Road 4. I am a resident living about 1/4 mile NW of the proposed site. I believe the establishment of such an operation will impact the quality of life to current residents as a result of environmental impact and changes in character and flavor of the neighborhood. It will also lower our property values. Currently Mr. Dye is operating a dairy farm about 1/8 mile west of my residence. Although it was stated in his application for the new dairy farm that activities will occur primarily during daylight hours, there had been many times I was awaken by backup alarms of front-loaders from his current operation. If this proposal was approved, the environmental impact pertaining to noise level will be increased. That is one change in my quality of life I do not welcome. My neighborhood is mainly made up of small family farms and ranches. The introduction of a 4000 head dairy farm will ultimately alter the character and flavor of the neighborhood. Together with the proposed mobile homes for accessory employees at the NW corner of the proposed dairy, it will impact the quality of life and lower the property values in the neighborhood. Since I am not an expert in retention ponds and such, I'll leave that discussion to others. I just want to emphasize the quality of life issue and urge the rejection of this proposal for the preservation of the neighborhood. Thanks for your time. Sincerely, Jly 4-A—A"—K Bill Cheng 6514 WCR 86, Fort Collins, CO 80524 Re: Docket Number 2000-72 Case Number USR-1289 Terry Dye, Dyelands Dairy LLC Parts of the W2 of Section 5 T7N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado rte` Dec. 3,2000 USR- 1289 To the Honorable commissioners of Weld County, After reading the information and listening to the testimony,two of the Planning and Zoning commissioners,voted"NO"when polled. These 2 men stated exactly the major problems with this application. (Quoting from the transcript of the Planning and Zoning meeting) Michael Miller: "No,with comment. I think a number as allowed by right are appropriate,but I think that this density is too high. I have to try to balance the rights of the property owner here with the rights of the neighbors and I just think that 4000 cattle will adversely affect the neighbors beyond an acceptable level and cause damages to their property value and quality of life." Jack Epple: 'Well I am going to vote no too,with comment. I think the, uh,application is fine. I think the manure plan is fine. I think anybody can blow holes in this thing... and have different reasons for it,but uh,I think we have the compatibility issue here,uh, kind of like we had a couple of sessions ago where we turned down a estate zoning /r`' that was wanting to build across from a feedlot and the more we push into these types of things the more problems we are going to have in Weld County." Please read the letter of concern we sent to the Planning and Zoning commission. We have nothing new to add nor anything we wish to retract. Please be sure to look at the pictures we attached,especially the photos of Hay grinding at Mr.Dyes'current dairy and how the dust drifts for miles.We are a neighborhood of mostly retired people and should not be forced to live with all the problems that this monster will bring. Please let the following words echo in your mind as you hear our neighborhood plead for your protection from industry wrapped in a thin cloak of agriculture: and I just think that 4000 cattle will adversely affect the neighbors beyond an acceptable level and cause damages to their property value and quality of life." ....I think we have the compatibility issue here the more we push into these types of things the more problems we are going to have in Weld County." Respectfully, Tracy A. and Jean V.Eichheim 41285 Weld County Rd. 15 Ft. Collins, CO 80524 -4-11 Jam,, ,/- _ . WELD COUNTY (N COMMISS ONERS 1401 Lindenwood Dr. f Ft Collins, CO 80524 21P1 DEC//-4 PM 3:: 31 December 1, 2000 Barbara J. Kirkmeyer, ChaiPEC=t V-D Weld County Board of Commissioners P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 RE: DOCKET # 2000-72 Case NO. USR-1289 Dear Weld County Board of Commissioner Member: First I will explain my interest in the Dye Dairy case. I am Evelyn Clarke and am 78 years old. I come from a farm background as I was raised on a farm in Iowa in the 1920 and 1930s. My husband and I were married in 1943 and he was a career Army Officer for 29 years. He had many overseas assignments involving WWII, Korea and Vietnam. After receiving orders to go to Vietnam (when he was stationed in Colorado Springs) he decided he needed to have a piece of this United States, that he had been defending to come back to. So in 1965 we purchased our farm in section 8 Weld County. He was fortunate to return from Vietnam and continued his army career until he retired in 1971. We enjoyed living on the farm, the stability of living in one place, our neighbors. and raising Arabian horses. Our two younger sons enjoyed the Windsor School System and having their father at home. Upon graduating from Windsor in 1981, Timothy was accepted into the Army Military Academy at West Point. He became an Army Pilot and is still serving as the CO of a Reserve Airborne unit in Fort Knox, KY. His first overseas assignment in 1987 was to patrol the DMZ between North and South Korea in a helicopter. It was dangerous (there were no peace talks at that time) . Later he served as a Helicopter pilot in Desert Storm and then was assigned overseas flying C12s in Bosnia. mention all of this because during those times there was a reoccurring theme in his letters. "Someday I'm coming home to live on the farm". With the changes that have been made in the surrounding area with more emphasis on homes we were certain that he would be able to come home, build a house on the farm and relax after serving his country. I don't know how desirable it will be with a 4000 cow dairy just north of the farm. Since we purchased the farm the following changes have taken place in the neighborhood, creating a more populated, residential area. There have been 18 recorded exemptions: One in section 5, five in section 6, four in section 7 and eight in section 8. In December 1999 there was a four lot minor subdivision (Remington Place) proposed and approved in section 7. i May 2000 there was a requested zone change for a five lot minor subdivision (Skylark Ranch) in section 8. Presently there is a Sketch plan for a 153 unit development in Section 7. Ft. Collins, Loveland, Windsor and surrounding areas are growing. It seems that the west side of Weld County is destined to change to accommodate some of that growth and become more residential. With these facts in mind I do not see how a 4000 cow dairy operation would fit into the neighborhood. As I understand the procedure an applicant for a Use by Special Review must demonstrate compliance with certain design standards such as the following: 24.4.2.3 That the USES that would be permitted will be compatible with the existing surrounding land USES. 24.4.2.4 That the USES that would be permitted will be compatible with the future DEVELOPMENT of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zone and with future DEVELOPMENT, etc 24.4.2.7 That there is adequate provision for the protection of the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the NEIGHBORHOOD and the COUNTY. Please DO NOT approve the 4000 head dairy requested by Terry Dye. It would NOT be compatible with the inhabitants of the neighborhood. Sincerely, �erC� CQ � ,lAith Evelyn Clarke DEC-05-2000 TUE 03: 12 PM FAX NO. P. 02 WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Sue Avrc 2EQ DEC -5 pm 3: 33 961 Wagonwhcel Pt Collins,CO 80526 970-282-1053 RECEIVED Case number:USR- 1289 Applicant's name: Terry Dye,Dyelands Dairy LLC To whom it may concern, It has come to my attention that Terry Dye has submitted a proposal for a 4000 head dairy farm near the intersections of Weld Co Rd 15 and M. .1 currently own the property at 40520 Weld Co Rd 17,which is approximately'/2 Mile from the proposed dairy. I purchased this property with intent to make it my homeafter my children have grown and left. T have been looking forwath to the country life and,al!l ofttlie benefits it has to offer, hut this proposed dairy will interfere with all of the benefits. Let me explain: 1. Pollution —When I drive my children to school in the morning,'I look to the foothills • and see a haze over Ft Collins. Out on Weld Co Rd 17, it is far enough east that it is out of the main pollution flow,but if the dairy is allowed,the air quality will be reduced to the stench of cow manure. 4000 cows on about 80 acres will create mountains of manure. Would you like this next door to where you live? Me neither! 2. Noise—My idea of moving to the country is for the peace and quiet. A dairy runs 7.4/7 and that means there will be trucks running the sane; in and out,day after day, hauling out the milk and the manure, and workers comingiand going,the tractors and other farm machinery working and making noise. Currently, it is a very peaceful and quiet area. 3. Dust—along with the noise of the trucks,there will be lots of dust from the traffic and also from the cows waddling around in their little pens. From previous experience of working at a stables,that kind and quantity of dust can cause me allergies and sinus problems. 4. Pests—4000 cows will attract a lot of flies,I should say"a whole lot of flies". Cows and flies just go together. The house at Weld Co Rd 17 is a solar home. There are lots of windows and vents to allow airflow during the hot summer months. How am I suppose to open up the windows and vents to cool the house without a million flies coming in?(and as stated in number 1 above,how do I keep all of the stink out too?) I guess what I don't understand is how a big dairy business can just move into an area that is all small hobby farms. None of the neighbors want this. There arc thousands of acres farther out Gist and north where a dairy could go in without crowding the neighbors. It's my understanding Terry Dye chose this parcel of land because it was convenient for him,but it is not convenient for our neighborhood. ,r^^. DEC-05-2000 TUE 03:12 PM FAX NO. P. 03 Which brings me to the last point. We were here first! I find it rude and arrogant of 'ferry Dye to "butt"into our neighborhood and put up a 4000 cow dairy without any regard,to or for,the neighbors and the neighborhood. Unlike Terry Dye,I hope you will listen and respect us I me, and deny Terry Dye and Dyclands Dairy LLC their proposed 4000 head cow dairy. Like I asked earlier, "How would you like a 4000 cow dairy in your neighborhood?" Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Sue Awe r CAROL Harding- Docket#2000-72 #1 sage j From: <SATEMPLES@aol.com> To: <bkirkmeyer@co.weld.co.us>, <mgeile@co.weld.co.us>, <gbaxter@co.weld.co.us>, <dhall@co.weld.co.us>, <gvaad@co.weld.co.us>, <charding@co.weld.co.us>, <vsprague@co.weld.co.us> Date: 12/5/00 2:41 PM Subject: Docket#2000-72 #1 Howard Ramsdell, Ph.D. 40301 Weld County Road 17 ""'' � December 4, 2000 rn ice_. n c7 � n Board of Commissioners - Weld County :t PO Box 758 ( 1 i n Greeley, CO 80632 w W co RE: Docket#2000-72, USR#1289 Public Health Implications I wish to address the potential adverse health effects of the proposal to locate a 4,000 cow dairy in an area with dozens of existing residences that will be impacted by this change in existing land use. By way of introduction, I am currently an Associate Professor of Environmental Health at Colorado State University and have been a member of the Environmental Toxicology faculty in that department for ten years. Please note that this {^ letter should not be considered to represent the views of the University or the Department. I am writing as a concerned citizen who lives in the impact zone of the proposed dairy who has relevant professional expertise. During the Planning Commission hearing regarding this matter, the applicant*s consultant stated that animal waste produced by a facility of the type proposed would generate either dust or odor. If the manure is allowed to dry, its handling will result in the release of noxious dust to the atmosphere. On the other hand, if it is kept moist enough to avoid dust generation, noxious odors will be produced. The consultant indicated that the latter situation would apply, required in order to achieve the desired composting activity. The noxious odors of livestock manure are due to dozens of different chemical compounds (Mackie et al., J. Anim. Sci. 76:1331, 1998), many of which are known to be toxic. Prominent among these are ammonia,which causes irritation of the eyes and upper airways and may produce fatal pulmonary edema, hydrogen sulfide, another irritant and caustic agent, and methyl sulfide. While it is true that the amounts of these chemicals necessary to be perceived as foul odor are well below those that cause acute lethal toxicity, much lower levels can produce respiratory irritation and acute respiratory symptoms in exposed people (Schiffman, J. Anim. Sci. 76: 1343, 1998). Approximately 75% of the nitrogen in feces and urine excreted by cattle is lost to the atmosphere by ammonia volatilization; for dairy cows this amounts to 19.4 lbs per animal per year(Mackie et al, 1998). Thus, over 19 tons of ammonia would be released each year from the wastes produced by the 2,000 lactating cows proposed for the facility. Even more emissions of this toxic compound would result from the wastes produced by the additional 2,000 cattle that could occupy the facility. . CAROL Harding - Docket#2000-72 #1 Page 21 A major environmental health concern associated with large-scale dairy processes in a confined animal feeding operation is the generation of toxic organic dusts. These dusts are generated by activities such as feeding (especially feed grinding), barn cleaning and manure handling. Organic dusts generated by dairy operations contain high levels of bacteria and molds (Kullman et al., Am. Indust. Hygiene Assoc. J. 59: 403, 1998). Exposure to such dusts may be important causes of respiratory diseases common among dairy workers. Dairy workers are at risk for asthma, rhinitis, bronchitis and hypersensitivity pneumonitis (Kullman et al, 1998). In one study, over a third of the dairy farmers tested showed abnormal respiratory function (Choudat et al. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 20:48, 1994). Although dairy workers are clearly exposed to higher levels of such agents than are residents that live downwind of a dairy, a basic principle of environmental health protection holds that if a population of healthy workers suffers from an environmental disease, one must be concerned that more sensitive individuals in a general population (such as children, the elderly or people with respiratory diseases, in this case)may also be at increased risk of disease at much lower levels of exposure. The neighborhood residents of the proposed dairy include both children and older people. The hazards of emissions of toxic dusts by the proposed dairy should not be ignored in the decision of whether this location adjacent to existing residences is appropriate for such a facility. Exposure to infectious diseases may also be a risk of living too close to a large dairy operation. In a study of an outbreak in an urban area of Q fever, a symptomless infection of livestock that results in flu-like symptoms fi in people,few of the cases could be attributed to direct contact with manure or contaminated straw. The rest of the affected people simply lived in an area with farms nearby or along roads used by farm vehicles (Salmon et al. Lancet 1:1002, 1982). Exposure to Mycobacterium paratuberculosis, which causes Johne*s disease in cattle, may be associated with the potentially fatal intestinal enteritis known as Crohn*s disease in humans (Chiodini, Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2:90, 1989). M. paratuberculosis is resistant to drying and may persist in manure, providing a source of human exposure (Pell, J. Dairy Sci. 80:2673 (1997). Taken together, these public health concerns raise serious questions as to the wisdom of siting a large dairy operation in such close proximity to the existing residential uses of surrounding property. A location further away from people*s homes would clearly be preferable. Can I be certain that the proposed operation will cause health problems in nearby residents? Obviously not, but is it reasonable to subject the people who already live in the affected area to these risks? Sincerely, Howard Ramsdell, Ph.D. r. CAROL Harding - Docket#2000-72, #2 Page 1, rTh From: <SATEMPLES@aol.com> To: <bkirkmeyer@co.weld.co.us>, <mgeile@co.weld.co.us>, <gbaxter@co.weld.co.us>, <dhall@co.weld.co.us>, <gvaad@co.weld.co.us> Date: 12/5/00 2:41 PM Subject: Docket#2000-72,#2 Stacy Temples and Howard Ramsdell 40301 Weld County Road 17 JD co December 4, 2000 0 : a Fri < 1,0 O Weld County Board of Commissioners En 1 PO Box 758 U w :z' Greeley, Colorado 80632 ^' ` b Re: Docket#2000-72, USR-1289- Statement in opposition to approval Members of the Board: We are opposed to the approval of this proposed 4,000 cow dairy in our neighborhood. It is incompatible with existing land uses in the surrounding area and inconsistent with other recent land use decisions of the County. Siting this confined animal feeding operation adjacent to existing residences would be inappropriate, unwise and unfairly deprive surrounding property owners of their property rights. The residential use of nearby property already exists. In addition, previous changes in zoning approved by the County that affect the surrounding properties have been for increasing the number of residences in the area. Approval of the current proposal will send a signal that Weld County is an unreliable partner in the land use and development process. We urge you to reject this proposal. It is unfair to those who are already residing in the surrounding area. Sincerely, Howard Ramsdell Stacy Temples CC: <charding@co.weld.co.us>, <vsprague@co.weld.co.us> FROM Eric Dunker FAX NO. : 72O3449629 Dec. 04 2080 12: 14PM P2 12/04/00 10:45 FAX 9704839254 ➢IECREST DAIRY 1yJ1- STATE OF COLOR.ADO Bill Owen*,Governor ----J _...-' ---' _'.' - =h lent E.Norton,Exacutivc Director 4,14.7.:16:. � � Dedcatea era protcctinp,and improvingthe health and environment of the people of Colanrdo ,�2' 4300 Cherry Creek Dr.5. L'bargain and Radladon Services 00.641 n t 4- Denver,Co orado 80246-1530 8100 Lowry Blvd, Phone 1303l 692.2000 Denver CO 80230.6928 TDD the(3031691-7700 (3031 692-3090 Colorado tent Located in Glendale,Colorado of P-bliC mhh and Frrvuopetelrt hapwwww,cdphe.star..ca c November 29,2000 Terrance Dye Dye Crest Dairy 1137 North County Line Road Fort Collins,CO 80524 RE: FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO ON-SITE VISIT ON OCTOBER 30,2000 Dear Mr. Dye: This is a follow-up letter to the on-site visit that I made to your dairy on October 30, 2000. Tom Karen and Erie Dunker with AgPro Environmental also were present. The on-site visit was required as a result of the Water Quality Control Division("the Division')receiving complaints from local residents about the dairy_ Youindicated that the dairy was permitted in 1984 or 1985 for 2000 animals and that it has not expanded since that time. In addition,the dairy currently milks about 870 cows. Taking the 870 cows and factoring in dry cows,replacements, and calves,the dairy is clearly elassifted as a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation(CAFO)• Regulation No. 81 of the Water Quality Control Commission requires certain design criteria, operation and maintenance requirements, ground water protection requirements.and requirements for beneficial use and disposal of manure and process wastewater- Tt was apparent during our visit that AgPro Enviromnental is serving you in these matters. The complainants about the dairy expressed concern that their was too much wastewater in the dairy's impoundments. We observed on October 30,however, that the three impoundments had at least two feet of freeboard, as required under subsection 81,3(C)(1). The complainants expressed concern that water that was being released from a point near the southwestern boundary of the dairy, may be contaminated by wastewater from the dairy's impoundments- In contrast,you indicated that the irrigated pasture field located EXHIBIT ILIT use -*lag FROM _ Eric Dunker FRX NO. : 7203449629 Dec. 04 2000 12: 14PM P3 12,'05'00 10:45 FAX 0704840231 DYECREST DA TRY at the southeastern pan of the dairy was drained of excess subsurface water via e ti le drain system. In addition,no evidence existed of seepage at the bottom of the toe slopes of the impoundments. Finally,the water was clear and showed no indication of wastewater contamination. Therefore, evidence did not exist during our visit that the water being released to the southwest of the dairy either originated from or was contaminated by wastewater from the dairy's impoundments. The complainants expressed concern that the composting site and some pens do not drain into an impoundment. We observed,however,that stormwater from the composting site and calf hutches located at the north end of the diary pens and milking barn is contained by a long berm. The bent and catchment area have been in place since before 1992, thereby exempting this impoundment area from being lined in accordance with subsection 81.4(A)(per subsection 81,4(C)). In addition.AgPro Environmental indicated that the berm height was raised recently so that it will contain a 25-year.24-hour storm. in accordance with subsection 81.3(B)_ The complainants expressed concern about wastewater being applied to pasture land. We observed the location of the pastureland and were informed that wastewater has been applied at times to this site. We also were informed that the dairy uses the Tier II level of calculating agronomic rate of application(subsection 81.5(A)(5)((b)). Tier II requires that the "operator shall maintain copies of the agmnomio analyses which are being relied upon for the purpose of limiting land application rates of manure end process wastewater. Copies of such analyses shall be available for inspection at the facility and records shall be maintained for a minimum of three years." During our visit,the dairy did not have records of agronomic analyses that were being relied upon for the purpose of limiting land application rates of manure and process wastewater_ The dairy was,however, in the process of having AgPro take fall soil samples of the pasture area and develop records of agronomic analyses for any future wastewater applications. Results of analysis of the soils was provided to the Division on November 27,2000. The amount of nitrate-nitrogen residual was 51 pounds per acre (lbs/a)in the top soil foot; 20 lbs/a in the second foot; and 21 lbs/ac in the third foot. These are not excessive nitrogen amounts for the top three feet of soil. In summary,the Dye Crest dairy was in compliance with Regulation No. 81 on October 30,2000,except for having agronomic analysis records for wastewater applications to pasture land. Therefore,please submit to the Division an indication of how the dairy will comply with subsection 81.5(AX5)(b)in the future. The Division may have occasion in the future to inspect your dairy. We encourage you to continue to be aware of CAPO regulations that apply to yam dairy. For your information,the U.S.EPA will open up its CAFO regulations for review by December 15,2000. Any changes in the EPA regulations,which probably won't be finalized until about 2002,will likely result in changes to Colorado's Regulation No. 81. FROM Eric Dunker FAX NO. : 7203449629 Dec. 04 2000 12: 15PM P4 42/04,00 10:43 FAR 9704849254 DYECRE.ST DAIRY 40U4 Thank you for your time and cooperation during our visit. Contact me at '303.692-3520 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Ron Jepson Water Quality Control Division xc: Dave Akers,WQCD Susan Nachirieb, WQCD Tam Heron,AgPro•Environmental Jean Eichheim Dave McCloskey,Larimer Co.Health Frank Scwald Keith Mifflin. FROM : Eric Dunker FRX NO. : 7283449629 Dec. 84 2888 12: 16PM P6 4311 Highway 66,Suite 4 Longmont, CO 80504 Office (970) 535-9318 Fax (970) 535-9854 December 3, 2000 Ron Jepson Water Quality Control Division WQCD-PE-B2 4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S. Denver, CO 80222-1530 Subject: Dyecrest Dairy Dear Ron Jepson: This letter is in response to your Dyeerest Dairy inspection on October 30, 2000 and subsequent questions regarding record keeping and sample analysis at the dairy. AgPro Environmental Services, LLC has been contracted to monitor the environmental compliance at Dyecrest Dairy and to respond to any requirements or regulatory actions regarding the dairy. We maintain the environmental compliance record keeping system for the dairy in accordance with the Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulations. Enclosed is a copy of the soils analysis for the land application area you requested during your site visit. Soil samples were collected from the land application areas consisting of approximately 120 acres predominantly located on the south side of the dairy. Approximately 15 cores were collected at 12-inch intervals to a total depth of 36 inches.Nitrate—Nitrogen results are 51 pounds of residual nitrate in the top 12 inches. Twenty-one pounds of residual nitrate is in the 12 to 24-inch and 24 to 36- inch horizons respectively. Your "Pro Ag" Environmental Professionals FROM : Eric Dunker FRX N0. : 7203449629 Dec. 04 2000 12: 16PM PT December 3, 2000 Page 2 Since your site visit, the grass pasture mix crop in the land application area has been plowed under in preparation for alfalfa in crop year 2001. Our calculations indicate an additional application of nitrogen will be necessary for the new alfalfa crop in May of 2001. However, we plan to re-sample this field in the spring prior to our expected lagoon dewatering after this winter's storage of runoff. Expected harvest yields and final crop nutrient requirements will be calculated at that time. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call me at (970) 535-9318. Sincerely, ` e o omas Haren Environmental Consultant Your "Pro Ag"Environmental Professionals x SOIL FERTILITY REPORT2i AGPRO ENVIRONMENTAL o SUBMITTED BY: SERVICES, LLC OLSEN'S 6508 WELD CO RD 5 m AGRICULTURAL ERIE CO 80516 n LABORATORY, INC. MI DYECREST 5 P.O.BO%370 AIcCOOK.NE 6EOI (3C6 3453574—OFFICE N (305 345 7e80-FAX 1REPORTED: 11/21/2000 1 DATE RECEIVED: 1 / 1 7/2000 DATE SOIL TEST RESULTS 1 , PK SOLUBLE ORGANIC NITRATE-N(FIA) PHOSPHORUS POTASSIUM SULFUR L LAB SAMPLE EXCESS SALTS MATTER ' ISO4b1 1:1 0-121N- IN. IN. TOTAL BRAY AI.4R3CILAfEP P2 pK7NH4OAc 'TP4 JUTABER 'DENRPICATIIXJ - - LIME mat SP and.N'8 Ca-I3 SOIL BUFFER mrnlloshm - % ppm lbs.% ppm IbsIA ppm Ibs/A Ibs'A ppm ppm ppm PP) opm . pan- • 1428 SOUTH FIELD 0 12 7.5 H 1 .62 2. 2 14 51 51 76 407 7 2 .4 1429 SOUTH FIELD 12 24 8.0 H 2.34 1 .25.9 21 21 50 352 62 I 1 . 3 1430 SOUTH FIELD 24 36 8. 1: H 1 .82 1 .75.7 21 21 65 300 34! 1 .8 I '1 D I _ I , x LAB _ NH40Ac{Exchangeable) DTPA BOR' I cec %SATURATION So:1Ukl uu E_. PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS __ o CALCIUM MAGNESIUM. SODIUM IRON I MANGANESE COPPER Wetar1613 - APJR'MN SAND SILT CLAY SOIL NUMBER ppm ppm ppm Pam Tpm Pp.s ppm ms 11009 BASE H Ca AI K Na- 1Fa— % ,� y, TEXT-„IRE . 9 RAFt),SAci 11428 2550 1030 153 16.4 4.5 1 .6 1 . 2* 23.0 100 0 55 37 5 3 -I N 11429 2350 1255 180 14.6 3.4 1 .0 0.7E 23.9 100 0 49 44 4 3 m • 11430 2260 1115, 1481 14.4 3.7 1 .0- 1 .2* 22.0 100 O 52 42 3 3. NJ V) SUGGESTED FERTILIZER RECOMMENDATIONS 4.••:4-14H• LAB . SAMPLE - CROP TO BE - -YIELD - N P205 K20 S Zn Mg Fe Ihn Ca B CI L"JE S%FSL\l NUMBER IDENRFICATFON GROWN - GOAL - INA bs'A bs'A bsA Ibs'A bs'A WA IcsWA Ih'A TWA Ih;:4 -.A TA - _ 0 31428, SOUTH FIELD 0 12 ro o 31429 SOUTH FIELD 12 24 31430 SOUTH FIELD 24 36 a NJ m 1 m 1 l__. 1- _.. ti. !H=VERY MOH,H=HIGH,M=MEDIUM,L=LOW.VL=VERY LOW,N=NONE PLEASE READ SPECIAL COMMENTS ON BACK NJ x GEC CALCULATED BY CATION SUMMATION METHOD. JOMMENT5: 3 D Hello