HomeMy WebLinkAbout871722.tiff_ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
SECTION I
Transcript and estimated costs
and actual costs
871722
BEFORE THE BOARD CF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
DOCKET NO. 87-19
IN RE: APPLICATION OF GARY BRAGDON FOR A USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
FOR A LIVESTOCK CONFINEMENT OPERATION
MAY 27 , 1987
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
GORDON E . LACY, CHAIRMAN
C.W. KIRBY, PRO-TEM
GENE R. BRANTNER
JACQUELINE JOHNSON
FRANK YAMAGUCHI
ALSO PRESENT:
APPLICANT, GARY BRAGDON
ROBERT RAY, ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT
THOMAS O. DAVID, -WELD COUNTY ATTORNEY
BRUCE T. BARKER, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
LEE D. MORRISON, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
MARY REIFF, ACTING CLERK TO THE BOARD
LANELL SWANSON, CURRENT PLANNER, REPRESENTING THE WELD
COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
WES POTTER, REPRESENTING THE WELD COUNTY HEALTH
DEPARTMENT
870421
CHAIRMAN LACY: At this time , Mr. David, I would have you do
Docket No. 87-19 , please . Read it into the record.
MR. DAVID: This is Docket No. 87-19 . The applicant is Gary
Bragdon, 4106 22nd Street, Greeley, Colorado 80634 . The request
is for a Use by Special Review for a livestock confinement
operation for 20 ,000 head of sheep. The legal description is the
Southeast Quarter of Section 8 , Township 5 North, Range 67 West of
the 6th P.M. , in Weld County, Colorado. The location is
approximately two miles west of the Greeley city limits, north of
Weld County Road 58 , and west of Weld County Road 17 . The notice
of this hearing was dated May 4 , 1987 . It was published in the
Johnstown Breeze on May 14 , 1987 . The date today is May 27 , 1987 ,
the time is 2 : 43 P .M. , and the file appears to be complete in all
respects.
MS . SWANSON: This Resolution was adopted by the Weld County
Planning Commission on May 19 , 1987 . Moved by Lydia Dunbar that
the following Resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld
County Planning Commission: Be it resolved by the Weld County
Planning Commission that the application for Gary Bragdon for a
Use by Special Review permit for a livestock confinement operation
of 20 , 000 head lamb feeding be recommended favorably to the Board
of County Commissioners for the following reasons : 1) The
submitted materials are in compliance with the application
requirements of Section 24 . 7 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance;
2) It is the opinion of the Weld County Planning Commission that
the applicant has shown compliance with Section 24 .3 of the Weld
870421
1
County Zoning Ordinance as follows : The proposed Use by Special
Review area is located within the urban growth boundary areas of
the City of Greeley and the Town of Windsor. The location of the
Use by Special Review area and the attached Conditions and
Development Standards make the proposed use consistent with Urban
Growth Boundary Goals 1 , 2 and 3 of the Weld County Comprehensive
Plan. Urban Growth Boundary Goal 1 explains that urban
development should be concentrated in or adjacent to existing
municipalities. The proposed use is located approximately two
miles west of the City of Greeley' s long-range expected growth
area. The long-range expected growth area includes those lands
anticipated to accommodate urban development over the next twenty
to thirty years. In addition, the City of Greeley' s Capital
Improvements Program currently includes completion of services in
the long-range expected growth area in approximately the year
2005 . The City' s five-year Capital Improvements Plan also
projects no new utility services to the long-range expected growth
area. The location of the proposed use and the timing of the
proposed plans for public infrastructure in the long-range
expected growth area should not interfere with urban development
plans projected by the City of Greeley' s Comprehensive Plan.
Representatives of the Town of Windsor have indicated that the
proposed use would not interfere with its urban development plans.
Urban Growth Boundary Goal 2 explains that land-use regulations in
urban growth boundary areas should be maintained to allow the
County and municipalities to coordinate plans, policies and
2 870421
standards relating to land-use zoning regulations . Street and
highway construction, public infrastructure systems, and other
closely related matters affecting the orderly development within
an urban growth boundary. Representatives of the Town of Windsor
indicated no objection to the proposed use occurring within its
urban growth boundary area in a phone conversation on May 8 , 1987 .
On April 28 , 1987 , the Greeley Planning Commission recommended
objections to granting the Use by Special Review permit because
the proposal could not conform to the City' s Comprehensive Plan
policies which discourage the location of high impact agricultural
uses , with the possibility of causing significant negative
external impacts . The Planning Commission' s concerns were based
on the intensity of the proposed use creating off-site impacts ,
such as odor and dust, at a location close enough to impact future
development in the long-range expected growth area. The location
of the operation, as proposed, with attached Development
Standards , should address the concerns of the Greeley Planning
Commission. The City of Greeley does not have a specific standard
for fugitive dust and odor and relies upon the Weld County Health
Department for monitoring and regulating in accordance with State
law. Representatives of the Weld County Health Department
reviewed this proposal and recommended approval with conditions in
a letter dated April 23 , 1987 . The conditions proposed by the
Weld County Health Department regulate odor and dust. The Greeley
Planning Commission also expressed concerns about the effect the
feedlot pens would have on the City' s image if viewed by the
3 870421
traveling public from U.S . Highway 34 . The Planning Commission
recommended a screening standard in the event the application was
approved. The screening standard is included in the attached
Development Standards . In addition to a screening standard, the
feedlot pens are proposed to be set back approximately 1200 feet
from Highway 34 . The screening plus the special setback will
reduce the view of the feedlot pens from Highway 34 . Urban Growth
Boundary Goal 3 explains that urban growth boundary areas should
be maintained to provide an official definition between future
urban and agricultural land uses. The subject site is located two
miles west of the City of Greeley, and within the City ' s urban
growth boundary as a result of the 1600-acre, plus or minus ,
Golden Triangle Number 2 annexation, which occured in January of
1985 . Because of the extended annexation and the fact that City
services are not proposed to be completed within two miles of the
Use by Special Use Review area until 2005 , the long-range expected
growth area should be considered the official definition between
future urban and agricultural uses. The proposed use is
consistent with the intent of the Agricultural Zone District in
which the use would be located . The proposed use is a livestock
confinement operation and is provided for as a Use by Special
Review in the Agricultural Zone District. The uses which would be
permitted would be compatible with the existing surrounding land
uses. North of the subject site the principal use is
agricultural , including a dairy operation and crop production.
East of the subject site the principal use is agricultural, crop
4 870421
production. West of the subject site the use is agricultural,
including two cattle feedlots and crop production. South of the
subject site is U.S . Highway 34 and the principal use is
agricultural , crop production. The use which would be permitted
will be compatible with the future development of the surrounding
area as permitted by the existing zone, and with future
development as projected by the Comprehensive Plan of the County
and the adopted Master Plan of the City of Greeley and the Town of
Windsor. The future development of the surrounding area is
intended to remain agricultural in nature. The City of Greeley
projects that services for urban development will be available two
miles east of this site by the year 2005 . The Town of Windsor has
no plans to provide services within two miles of the subject site.
No overlay districts affect the site. In locating the feedlot
pens , the lagoon system, and the residence , the applicant has
demonstrated a diligent effort to conserve productive agricultural
land. The Use by Special Review Development Standards will
provide adequate protection of the health, safety and welfare of
the neighborhood and County. This recommendation is based in part
upon a review of the application submitted by the applicant, other
relevant information regarding the request and the responses of
the referral entities who have reviewed this request.
The Planning Commission' s recommendation for approval is
conditional upon the following: 1) The Use by Special Review
activities shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical
permits be issued on the property until the Use by Special Review
5 870421
plat has been delivered tc the Department of Planning Services
Office and the plat is ready to be recorded in the office of the
Weld County Clerk and Recorder; 2) Prior to recording the Use by
Special Review plat , the Development Standards for the Use by
Special Review permit shall be adopted and placed on the Use by
Special Review plat. The plat shall be amended to show: a)
Relocation of the access from Weld County Road 17 at least 1 ,000
feet to the south of the proposed access on the plat. Such access
shall be adequate to serve commercial truck traffic as determined
by the Weld County Engineering Department; b) Landscape screening
of the pens on the south and west sides consisting of evergreens
staggered at 20 to 25 foot intervals; 3) Prior to construction of
the livestock confinement operation , evidence shall be submitted
to the Department of Planning Services that the Colorado
Department of Health , Water Quality Control Division, has approved
a report prepared by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer
demonstrating compliance with its Guidelines for Design of Feedlot
Runoff Containment Facilities .
The motion was seconded by Louis Rademacher. Voting for passage
were : LeeAnn Reid, Lydia Dunbar, Louis Rademacher and Jack
Holman. Against passage were : Lynn Brown and Paulette Weaver.
There are nineteen Development Standards attached.
CHAIRMAN LACY: Are there questions from the Board to staff
at this time? At this time , then, I would ask that the applicant
or representative come forward please.
6 870421
MR. RAY: I 'm Bob Ray, attorney for the applicant. Mr.
Bragdon ' s here also. I guess we would like to stress a couple of
things . One is the City of Greeley' s concerns, I think, are
adequately answered by the staff. They voice some concerns, but
they have no standards for dust and odor, and it certainly has
been addressed by the Planning Department and the Weld County
Department of Health, and I believe the standards required in this
case will adequately protect the City of Greeley, which is
presently about nine miles, in actual development, from this site,
and its long-range growth will be two miles from this site. There
are, I believe , four feedlots already in the area within two miles
of this proposed site. There are two dairies within two miles of
the site and the City of Greeley has a sludge dump within a mile
of the site. So, it certainly appears that this activity would be
consistent with the other activities in the area. That' s all I
have. If you've got some questions of Mr. Bragdon, he' s here to
answer them.
CHAIRMAN LACY: Well, I will ask if he cares to make any
statements . Does the Board have any questions for Mr. Ray at this
time?
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Do you know the size of those other
feed operations?
MR. RAY: I do not. Do you, Mr. Bragdon?
CHAIRMAN LACY : He would have to come forward to answer
those. He can answer those if he would like . Would you state
your name , sir.
7
870421
MR. BRAGDON: My rame is Gary Bragdon. I ] ive at 4106 22nd
Street in Greeley.
CHAIRMAN LACY: The question was , the size of the other
feedlots and dairies .
MR. BRAGDON: Right. I don' t know exactly the size of those
feedlots. I 'd guess in capacity, I believe Harry Franks is
upwards of or in the neighborhood of 1 ,000 head. There ' s a
feedlot to the north of that and I don' t even know who owns that
feedlot, but it' s approximately half the size of Harry Franks ' .
Croissants , to the south, a few miles south, and the Ray Amen
estate, that' s two feedlots down on the Johnstown road, and I 'm
gonna guess they' re approximately about 1 , 000 head each.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: How close is Franks ' ?
MR. BRAGDON: Half a mile to the west. And there ' s a smaller
feedlot just maybe a quarter of a mile north of that feedlot,
which would also be approximately half a mile west.
CHAIRMAN LACY: Do you have any further statements that you
would care to make at this time , Mr. Bragdon?
MR. BRAGDON: If I could, please. I appreciate the
opportunity. The question, obviously, I guess , is , why the
location. And I ' ll give you a little brief background. Since I
graduated from C.S.U. in 1964 , I 've been a resident of northern
Colorado, and the last 19 years of that ' s been in Weld County.
I 've been in the feed and livestock business for that time . I
have owned and operated the feedlot three miles north of Severance
which was very similar in size to this one we ' re applying for
8 670421
special review on. Also, I was a feed division manager at Agland
for 12 years . I 'm going back into the lamb feeding business , and
I believe it' s a viable, economic factor for Weld County. The
lamb business is rather historic in Weld County. Some things
recently have changed, I think, that have induced me to go back
into the lamb feeding business, not only the crops available in
the western part of the County, but also, now recently has become
available pulp from Western Sugar Company here at Greeley, which
wasn' t a factor here a couple of years ago. The Johnstown started
up their fructose plant at Johnstown. Coors has started up their
fructose plant which produces in the neighborhood of, let' s see, I
can' t recall, some couple of hundred tons of gluten feed
bi-product. Plus the flour milling in Denver, ConAgra, which is
also an ingredient we plan to use, and a year from this time would
be 120 thousand tons of brewers ' grains from Anheuser-Busch up at
Fort Collins . Consequently, this location is in the center of the
supplies that we plan to use in the feed rations for these lambs .
I looked in a lot of other locations through, not only Pat McMear,
but four or five other realtors , bankers and other lenders, and
this is not just a happenstance that we picked this property. We
seriously looked at other locations . This piece of property has
an ideal suitability at least for such an application, mainly, the
first thing you look for is the water, and the water is available,
as I first thought from Little Thompson Water District. Wrong,
they were not able to supply that, but the City of Greeley has an
easement through that property, which is denoted on that map, and
9 870421
they will provide the water for this operation. The other is the
road accesses , which I think are really important as far as winter
time is concerned and providing a supply of the feedstuff to that
location. Obviously, if any roads are going to be opened up in a
blizzard, it' d hopefully he Highway 34 , and that' s important. As
Bob mentioned, we ' re in the area of other feedlots; a couple of
other dairies , the junkyard is there , and I think that this
operation would be very compatible with the existing livestock
operations that are within a near proximity of this site . The
other reason is , too, that prevailing winds basically are from
northwest to southeast. We considered that and, if you look from
the southeast of this site, it' s toward open farm land and Monfort
of Gilcrest, so the consideration. . . The lay of the land is ideal
as far as the design of the property. It' s got an ideal lay with
a south and west slope, the soil conditions were looked at by the
Soil Conservation Service; we saw no limitations there. The
inspection, the review and approval by Weld County Public Health,
again, revealed no limitations there, as far as developing a
catchment basin for containment of the wastewater runoff. The
Weld County Planning staff, your staff here, I think, did an
admirable job in reviewing the whole scheme of this development,
and looking at the possible limitations there on-site, and of
course , as far as reviewing the materials . Alpha Engineering, I
employed them to review the operation too, to make whatever
recommendations were necessary in collaboration with Weld County
Public Health. We drilled test holes to make sure that we did not
10
870421
have water in the areas of where we would develop the retention
ponds which is shown on the map. The other ideal suitability of
this property is that with this catchment basin, or the retention
ponds , we ' ll be able to separate the irrigation tail water and
rain water from the farm from the waste water runoff of the pens.
And, the farm itself, the 150 acres will be converted from row
crop to a pasture operation so that we ' ll he able to drain the
retention ponds in the required time that is necessary. As I
understand, stagnant water, once it' s allowed to sit for a period
of over six days, why it becomes odiferous at times , and so the
State requires removal of these retention ponds or the emptying of
these retention ponds within fifteen days . I 've agreed to a
six-day removal. There ' s been some concern about the odor out
there . I 'm gonna be living on the property and I 'm gonna be just
as concerned about the odors as anyone else , so that behooves me ,
I think, to manage the waste water in a favorable manner, not only
to myself, but my neighbors as well. I 'm going on too long here,
I hope not. On the property is an adjudicated lake. The water
originates on that property and we hope to utilize this lake
water, instead of irrigation water, for dust control. Some
concern, I guess from the City of Greeley, regarding dust: we
plan to manage that very well. Dust pneumonia is a factor in the
health of lambs in the feedlot, primary, and above all is to
hopefully prevent health problems from dusty situations , and with
that lake there we hope to manage that. This design of this
feedlot allows 50 square feet per animal . Normally, I think most
11 870421
lots, as far a lamb feedlots , allow 30 square feet. We have
increased that area per animal to maximize the drying potential,
so that' ll minimize odor problems, as far as the manure is
concerned. Manure removal will be year round perhaps , and exactly
where it' ll go, outside of neighboring farms , would be a
possibility of composting operations at Eaton, Wiggins or
Littleton. Six hundred fifty acres provides an adequate buffer,
as far as neighboring farms is concerned, with these pens . In my
application I tried to speak to or address every section of the
Weld County Ordinance, and tried to infer to you that there could
be a compatibility and a compliance with all the Ordinances that
are spelled out in the Use by Special Review section of that
Ordinance. I think I 've properly addressed the Weld Comprehensive
Plan. I believe I understand it to be, in Weld County, the
promotion of agricultural industries and, specifically, in the
Weld County Comprehensive Plan goals states the promotion of
agri-businesses and feedlots . I think that' s pretty clearly
spelled out. I 'm here with some endorsements, and I guess I 'm
here with some negatives . I believe that, like I mentioned
earlier, that Weld County Public Health staff has reviewed and
approved this site , the City of Windsor, the mayor, the city
administrator, and the Windsor Planning Commission, is unanimously
approved this site as far as the development is concerned. Again,
the Weld Planning Services staff has given their recommendation,
they've offered their criticisms in how to mitigate any problems
that there might possibly be and they' re easily provided for. I
12 870421
mentioned the Soil Conservation Service. The Weld County Planning
Commission voted 4-2 in cur favor. The nearest neighbor is Ed.
Skaggs and he has no problem with the feedlot. He says if you
live on the property, he says , I would assume that you'd probably
take care of the property just as well for yourself as you would
for me . As I mentioned, in the 70 's I had the feedlot up in
Severance, and it was 16 years ago that I was before the County
Commissioners, as I am right here today, and there were a lot of
complaints. It was approved. In that period, in the 1970 ' s, when
I owned and operated that feedlot I did not have a complaint as
far as any runoff or any odor problems was concerned, nor do I
know of any complaints that were registered formally with the Weld
County government here. So, I think that I can say that I can do
a lot of things , but I think in the past I have proven that I can
do a lot of things . Hertzke ' s Dairy, for example, it's
approximately a 400-cow dairy, and it' s right out in "the Long
Range Urban Growth Plans of Greeley" . It sits immediately to the
north. I 've never heard anybody complain about the Hertzke Dairy,
as far its operation or its odor or its dust. And it' s simple ,
it' s a well-managed operation , and I plan to have something very
similar to that. I think that the safeguards and the precautions
as far as the community and the County is concerned, is well put
in the recommendations from the Planning Services and from the
Planning Commission. True, maybe some day urban growth will
happen there , but I can' t predict it. I 'd like to say that the
value of the property that we ' re going to put this project on does
13
870421
not reflect an immediate urban growth plan. Times change, and
perhaps that growth may happen at a time. When the economies and
the land values dictate that this operation is not feasible in
this area, obviously that' s what, I think, could perhaps relocate
this thing. But the other consideration, again, is, I think, the
feedstuffs that have become available. You say, well it' s
bi-products from big manufacturers . But it also has a market
value effect on the farm production of Weld County because this is
a lot of new material that' s just recently become available. And
I mean thousands of tons . It' s not easily transported from
Colorado to another state . It' s a bulky type commodity that, I
think, is in such a volume that we ' re going to have to figure out
how to utilize these feedstuffs and, in my opinion, lambs are one
of the better animals to utilize these feedstuffs that' ll be
available from Coors, Busch, Western Sugar and so on.
CHAIRMAN LACY: Is that all you have at this time?
MR. BRAGDON: Is that enough?
CHAIRMAN LACY: Just a moment. I will see if the Board has
any questions at this time for Mr. Bragdon.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: I guess I just want to, Wes , maybe
more for you, Development Standard Number 8 requires a residential
odor standard to be met. Is that correct?
MR. POTTER: The residential odor standard is seven dilutions
of clear, unpolluted air with one dilution of polluted air. It is
possible to meet that standard. It' s a really restrictive
standard, but it is possible to meet that with a well-managed
14 870421
facility. The applicant was informed of that level and he agreed
to that level . I think it is possible . It' s not an unreasonable
one .
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: For comparison purposes , what would
ordinarily be the air standard?
MR. POTTER: One to thirty-one .
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: And this is one to . . .
MR. POTTER: One to seven. The industrial standard as
adjacent to a residential area would be one to fifteen. And the
standard that would be applied in an agricultural area would be
one to thirty-one . This is a much more restrictive standard.
This would be measured by the standard procedures , twenty-five
feet off of the edge of the property line.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: For how, the length of time. Is
that, you detect an odor in excess of seven to one after a
rainstorm, or he couldn 't clean the corrals , or adverse weather
conditions or something where they couldn't be , is that a
violation where there ' s acts of God?
MR. POTTER: Well, an act of God is not covered in the
regulation for odor, and so, yes , it would be a violation and he
would be issued a Notice of Violation and be given a period of
time to come into compliance. In most cases where you're in a
feedlot situation where you sustain a wet period you will see odor
changes obviously, and in some cases you will find violations off
of it. You don ' t find as frequent a violations off of lamb
feeding operations as you do off of cattle because it ' s a
15 870421
different type of manure . It ' s not as wet and, therefore , it ' s
not as easily soaked up during a rain. But yet the potential does
exist in most cases , if it was just a shower it would not be a
violation, but if, these long term rains , a day or two or like we
have sustained within the last few days , it would be a potential
for a violation in that case.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNEP: Then, most of these violations are
detected by complaints from surrounding neighbors?
MR. POTTER: Yes , we do not actively surveil , get into active
surveillance on anything, unless we have an on-going problem or we
have indication of previous complaints or previous violations .
But we would respond to complaints , course. We respond to every
complaint that comes to the office.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: In a situation like the recent spell
of weather, what would be the remedy for the operator at that
point? Just wait until it dries out?
MR. POTTER: Yeah. It'd probably be the most appropriate
thing to do. In most cases it would be , yes. Where you get into
problems, is if you' re in an area that is poorly drained and there
are wet, soggy holes that fill with water and then stay there and
turn anaerobic, and then they would continue to emit the
sulfide-based materials which are the very high stench. In
occasions , in a site like this , which is placed on a hill, on a
well drained hill, which is the desirable aspect for a feedlot, to
keep the animals dry in the first place, it would more easily
16 870421
drain off during a rain shower and would not be as predicated
toward the odor problems.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: How temperamental are the settling
ponds as far as odor? Are they pretty easy to keep in compliance
with seven to one?
MR. POTTER: Any pond can be temperamental if it' s not
properly maintained and is not properly evacuated. Right after a
thunder storm or right after a twenty-five year twenty-four hour
event, the water that runs into the pond is then churning and
running across the ground. It' s very high in oxygen and so there ' s
a high dissolved oxygen level in the water and there is very
little odor for the first few days during the time when that
oxygen is being burned up by the biological process . At the time
when the oxygen is depleted to where there is zero oxygen
available in the water, and then the biota turns to an anaerobic
biota, then at that point the sulfide based materials are produced
and the odor does become very prevalent. That has been shown to
be in a six-day period, six to ten days after the event, if the
water is not removed. So it was our suggestion that, to maintain
the odor standard of one to seven, that it be evacuated within six
days of the time of the event.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Now, let' s assume that there has been
a complaint and you go out and find that there has been a
violation over the seven to one , what is your procedure then for
them? Could you explain to us what the. . .
17 870421
MR. POTTER: He would be issued a Notice of violation and
would be given a time period to respond to the violation. The
normal procedure is , that is ten days. And then, if he responded
at that time, he would be requested to submit a plan to abate the
odor and come into compliance with the regulation. Ongoing
monitoring would go on at that time until he was back into
compliance. He would be given a time period and/or a hearing. If
he demonstrated an unwillingness to comply voluntarily, then a
hearing would be set up and there would be another formal
notification period that would have to go through , and in this
case it would depend upon the time period that we issued the date
for the hearing and the notification of the hearing, which would
be at the minimum, another ten days. At that time , then, at the
hearing he would be issued a Cease and Desist Order if he was
found to be out of compliance and unwilling to comply with the
regulations and there would be a time frame then set for him to
come into compliance. At the end of that time period that he was
given for compliance , if he did not come into compliance , then
fines could be imposed up to $10 ,000 a day.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: After what period of time?
MR. POTTER: After the time period that he had been given at
the hearing. At the hearing he would be given a time frame to
come into compliance . At the end of that time period, if he was
not in compliance or not demonstrating a willingness or attempt to
come into compliance, then he would be susceptible to the fines
under the regulations .
18 870421
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: But there are no fines prior to a
hearing, then?
MR. POTTER: No.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: If he is in violation, you give him a
time period to come back into compliance, so there could be a
potential period of odor out there then, five, ten, fifteen days,
giving him a reasonable chance to come back into compliance?
MR. POTTER: That' s true.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: flow really reasonable is the seven to
one, with our weather?
FIR . POTTER: It' s very restrictive for a feedlot, but. . .
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: I know it' s very restrictive , but,
really is it reasonable that he could do that without being. . .
MR. POTTER: Yeah, I really honestly think that he could,
because of the fact that it' s on the top of a hill and it' s well
drained and he ' s feeding lambs . There are three things that are
important to consider in this situation; if he was down in a low
area where the water would accumulate, where he would have trouble
moving his manure because he couldn' t get in and out of the pens
with heavy equipment, they' d get bogged down, or if there was a
situation where the water wouldn ' t drain off, co that there would
be stagnant water accumulating, then the potential would be more.
Or if he had high concentrations of cattle, because cattle do have
a much more of a negative impact on the pens because of the
differential weight and the fact that they can really sink in and
cause some real problems in the pens .
19 870421
MR. BRANTNER: And your opinion would be the same , then, for
the settling ponds? It' s realistic to achieve the seven to one?
MR. POTTER: Yes. It is realistic to do that, first of all
because of the geologic site. The cursory evaluation that was
done by the engineer and the proposal that he has outlined would
have the ponds perched in a situation where they could be pumped
and there is adequate area to pump the ponds , or the lagoons, back
over onto the other farm ground that he would use, even in the
winter tine. Yes.
CHAIRMAN LACY: Okay, I 'd ask the applicant, at this time, if
they have anyone else that they have for a representative to speak
to this. We will give you a chance after discussion from the
audience to bring forward any further evidence or answer any
questions for rebuttal.
MR.. RAY: No.
CHAIRMAN LACY: You have no one at this time? Okay. I would
like , before we start, to have a show of hands of those in the
audience who are going to want to speak either for or against this
in some respect. I would like to see a show of hands . Okay. I
would ask then, that we limit those comments to your specific area
and that we not be repetitious . If we get repetitious , we ' ll be
at it until midnight. I would ask that if you agree with the
person who spoke before you or someone who was up there before
you, that you come up and say that you agree with that person and
that you would like to just hack what they had to say. And I
would appreciate it if we would follow that fairly closely. If we
20 870421
become repetitious we ' ll be here all night, and I don' t think many
of us want to stay here that long. So , at this time I would ask
that, if someone wants to speak for this , they come up, and we 're
not going to limit you, I 'm not going to, but if someone becomes
very long-winded, I will probably ask you to cut it off in another
minute or something like this . But we will allow you to speak, we
will give you time, and after you are finished, then the applicant
can make note of the problems that people have brought up or
things that have come up and, if he has any further information in
regards to those questions or comments , they can answer them at
that time. I would now ask that, let' s start over in this area,
unless there ' s a specific , let' s start here . State your name and
address very clearly and your reasons that you are here.
MR. BILLINGS : Mr. Chairman, I 'm Glenn Billings , Weld County
Road 66 , 14749 , Greeley, Colorado , and I 'm here representing the
developers and the owners of the Golden Triangle , an area that
we 've been working on for three years , five months , and I think
that maybe we need to bring you up to date on where we 're at. I
have prepared documents for you. Mr. Vern Nelson will be here.
He ' s the engineer on the project. I will try to walk through the
documents that I have presented to you, to bring you up to date
about the Golden Triangle development, and I will read it as
printed.
I am here representing the owners and the developer of the
property from Cleveland, Ohio , known as the Golden Triangle , a
multi-use development of 1 , 806 .5 acres which is just two miles
21 870421
directly east of the proposed feedlot. I did drive this
yesterday, and it is exactly two miles. The detrimental impact of
a feedlot in such a location upwind would be an immeasurable in
the development. You have to realize that over the next few years
there' s going to be major things happening there , and we ' ll go on
to explain that later. We've been three years, five months in
getting where we are. We've taken the land through annexation,
zoning, and planning, have prepared a feasibility study of some 86
pages which shows the tremendous favorable impact of tax dollars
to governmental entities , and you will find attached some of the
documents that show the growth factors over the next ten to
fifteen, twenty years. The City Council has designated the area
for the next city municipal golf course, which will be designed by
the top golf course designer and one rated the very top in the
nation, and will be considered a world-class golf course. This
means that major professional tournaments could even be held on
this golf course , would also be adequate for young, new students
just learning to play golf because of the design and construction
of the golf course . To give you a little background, this
developer did design Castle Pines which now holds the
international golf tournament down in the south Denver area. The
developer' s now in final negotiations with the city on the golf
course construction and the outlook is very favorable . We must
not forget the former locations of Triple A Feedlot, which was
located in the Farmers Spur area , and since that happened I have
worked with the owners of the Farmers Spur area. We have
22 870421
dismantled the feedlot, moved it out, and we 've brought a new
industry into Greeley known, as Loveland Industries, a subsidiary
of ConAgra. We all can remember the comments of tourists and
people coming through Greeley. They didn' t call it Greeley, they
called it Smell City. With the ingenuity of Mr. Monfort and his
people, and knowing the impact of the smell from the Monfort
feedlot, which was not directly in front of the City' s growth,
they did move their feedlot out in the Kersey area, downwind. To
fully understand the impact on 666 acres between U.S . 34 and U.S .
34 Bypass , which is zoned Industrial , we have had major companies
look at the land and have had very favorable interest, mainly
because of the environment of the area. The State Economic
Development Department , a year or so , was here and some of their
members looked at the location for industry out there and
indicated it was one of the finest facilities in northern
Colorado. There' s already been spent in excess of one million
dollars on trunk line utilities to serve the area . We are now in
a position to move very soon on development, with the land under
contract to Cleveland developers . We realize the need for
agriculture feedlots , but we must look at the past trend for new
locations and relocation of feedlots . It has been not upwind but
downwind of City' s growth. And there is land equally suitable for
feedlots downwind, and I think it' s very understandable in
realizing that Farr Farms Company moved their feedlots on out
further east of Greeley because of potential smell. It is very
definite that the Monfort Feedlot in being moved out into the
23 870421
Kersey area eliminated a major smell in Greeley and improved the
downtown area. I have submitted to you there, the next page , the
proposed layout of what we call Golden Triangle North. This is
just the north side of this development of 1 ,140 acres . See this
parcel right in here is already preliminary platted , the golf
course is designed in there, it does not show on this and I will
let Mr. Nelson talk to you about that a little bit more later, but
I can point out some things as we go along. This is a preliminary
development. The golf course developer will design the entire
layout, both residential and golf course, and a major part of the
industrial land which you see down in the left hand corner of that
page will be removed and will become residential. Your next page
shows the exact location and the section and half section lines of
the Golden Triangle development, and the red "X" will show you the
location of the proposed feedlot. I 've supplied you with other
draft and charts showing you the impact of the development in that
area, which have been compiled by Nelson Engineers and have been
adequately reviewed by the City of Greeley. And we' re looking at,
in round figures , of more than 2 ,000 homes in that area, in all
ranges , not just single family but multi-family and condominiums,
a major recreational area along with the golf course design and
development. You will note some engineering figures as to cost
factors and a summary as to the generated tax dollars by the
development, just of the north side , $69 ,203 , 090 . We've also
attached, which I know you're familiar with, the Greeley
Comprehensive Plan, which gets into this area, it does not narrow
24 870421
down but broadens out. We've also included a map which we did as
an impact area that we looked at, that the people within those
areas would very definitely have a desire to possibly live in this
developed area or at least use the recreational facilities. I
have talked, not recently, but with the mayor of Windsor, and they
are very excited about the recreation facilities, the golf course
that might be built there, and these are public golf courses, it' s
not private, it' s for the general public, for everyone from the
young beginner to the top professional. Mr. Nelson has been in
contact with Great Western Railway, which you' re all familiar
with, and we do have documents from Great Western Railway that
this property can be served if we get an industry in there, in the
industry land that needs rail. We were working with an industry
that didn' t need rail, but you have a hard time competing with
Pueblo when they give them 8 , 000 , 000 in free dollars, and this
industry was interested enough in locating on this property that
we went to the point of doing color concept designs for them on 80
acres. There ' s also of interest that, as far back as 1982 , that
the State Highway Department felt that this area was so highly
developable, and because of Kodak locating in the area just below
this property that they did design a complete interchange at 257
and II.S. 34 and U. S . 34 Bypass. They have acquired between 60 and
80 acres out there for future growth in the area. Some of the
other items which I would like to bring up which are just notes
that I compiled from studies that have gone on and things we have
done in the last 3 years , that with just one percent of the
25 870421
growth in Weld County, this entire development will develop out in
ten to fifteen years . That means , if you' re looking at three
people per family, and you multiply that by 2 ,000 homes , you know
the type of population will be there . With industry coming in on
that property, and we do have an industry that' s looking at it
right now, whether a feedlot and a feedlot smell and looking down
on a feedlot would change their mind I cannot answer that because
they're not aware of this hearing or the possibility of a feedlot.
The golf course construction will start as soon as we complete our
negotiations with the City , and I note that some of the City
people are here today and they may be able to comment better than
myself as to where we are in negotiations , but I feel that we ' re
very close to completing agreement with the City for the
construction and the gift of the land and the gift to the City of
the future golf course after it' s developed and the bond issue is
paid off for the development of the golf course. There was a
question brought up about the Hertzke Dairy. This is something
else that is added into the total development. The Hertzke Dairy
will be phased out. It will become an equestrian, I always have a
time pronouncing that word, but it would become an equestrian
facility for people living in the area who have horses, who would
like to maintain horses. There will also be about 200 acres of
this area that will be retained in its natural environment, and
there will be horse paths , bike paths , jogging paths designed
throughout this area for future use . If we compare the industrial
value of land, 666 acres , to the value of the Kodak land who has
26
870421
buildings now on 360 acres , and determine the tax base to Weld
County and the City of Greeley, and the school districts in the
area, it is my fairly accurate understanding at this point that
Kodak has, in round figures , $500 ,000 ,000 of construction
completed at their area on 360 acres. We ' re talking about 666 , so
if we could multiply that by two, you would see the major impact
that this industrial property will have. I have already spoken to
the State Highway acquisition of land for a major interchange.
One of the interesting things , in studying the new Front Range
Urban Corridor map which has been published in just the last year
or two by the USGS people, it shows that the elevation at
approximately the feedlot is 5 , 000 feet, and that the location of
the Poudre River is 4 , 900 , and that the drainage basin directly
from this property is directly to the Poudre River and right into
Kodak. This is the drainage basin. My big question is , what
happens when you have a storm like Greeley had here just two or
three days ago and the water couldn' t get anywhere and cars were
bumper deep, or the storm that happened up in Lucerne last Friday
evening? If it were to happen in that area, a holding pond would
have to be built that would have to be approved by the State as
far as the size because it would have to exceed a nine foot dam to
hold that water to keep from breaking and going right directly
into the Poudre River which flows right through Greeley and right
into the Kodak area. I have spoken to the service that we can get
from Great Western Railway, and the other interesting thing about
Great Western Railway which is a real key and a selling point to
27 870421
industry is the fact that Great Western Railway is served by both
Union Pacific and Burlington Northern, one of the few connector
railways that can give an industry guaranteed service to either
railroad. We had worked very closely with a former partner in the
ownership of the Denver Tech Center, who had looked very seriously
at buying this property, and we were not at that time far enough
along to meet his requirements . And if a man who was a partner in
the development construction of the Denver Tech Center says this
is one of the finest locations for industry in Colorado , then I
think our prognosis of this location is the same. I 've completed
my comments. At this point I do have other maps and documents I
could show to give you an idea of the job it takes to put a
project like this together. I did bring down all the title
policies that we went through and spent almost six months in
clearing the land, as far as easements and rights-of-way, that the
land now is probably the cleanest piece of property in the
developed area in northern Colorado and ready to go . That
document back here is about that thick. I couldn ' t tell you the
cost of that document at finalization, but it will be substantial.
I know that Mr. Nelson in his engineering on this project is also
substantial. The location of a feedlot directly in front of a
development of this magnitude almost totally destroys the
development that we 've worked on for three and a half years which
will be the largest development in northern Colorado. Thank you.
I ' ll be glad to answer any questions if you have them.
28 870421
CHAIRMAN LACY: Are there any questions for Mr. Billings from
the Board? Thank you.
MR. NELSON: Mr. Chairman, I 'm Vern Nelson, with Nelson
Engineers, 822 7th Street here in Greeley, Colorado. I , too,
represent the same owners that Glenn Billings spoke about, and I 'm
not going to repeat a lot of things that he has said. I have
prepared a letter in behalf of those owners; I 've also prepared
this map and I want to point out a couple of very specific things .
I 'm going to highlight a couple of things from my letter, leave a
copy with you, and then let others talk. I want to mention the
fact that the proposed feedlot is on Highway 34 . The water mains
that bring treated water into the City of Greeley run right
through the property, drainage from the property goes directly
north into a natural drainage into the Poudre River within the
Kodak property, as you can see on the map, and into the Poudre
River as it flows through Greeley. I think those are pertinent
items, plus the fact that the predominant wind conditions are from
the north and the west and will carry odors and dust onto Highway
34 and into the proposed development to the east of this site.
There is no question that such a location would have a negative
visual impact. I noted in reading the Planning Commission
comments that they requested screening. Really, screening would
reduce the view from Highway 34 , but screening can't stop the odor
and the dust emitting from the site, and they definitely will have
a negative impact on those people entering Greeley and the
development of the area here . Now I want to mention that, as I
29 870421
said, I am representing certain owners there , as Glenn Billings
is; those in the crosshatched area that are black are the
ownerships that we are specifically representing. That represents
some 2 ,000 acres, and it' s represented by Rick and Lawrence
Hertzke , Harry, Elmer, and Emanuel Rothe, the Boreson Estate and
family, Alex and Tom Coolidge, and the Monroe Corporation. Those
are fairly important names to this community. We've talked about
the substantial investment of the City of Greeley. I want to
mention the fact that the City does have water rights agreements
with owners of the Greeley and Loveland Irrigation Company, which
encourages development west from the City because water is
available from the transfer of that irrigation company to the City
of Greeley. The drainage from the facility will probably cause a
substantial decrease in property values for some distance below
the feedlot. It' s also going to have a tendency to reduce the
quality of water in the Poudre River. We realize that there are
holding ponds, but we also understand that those ponds are to be
evacuated under certain circumstances and, apparently, when that
happens that will be untreated water draining off directly into
the drainage basin and into the Cache la Poudre River across Kodak
and into the City of Greeley. I mention the one other item, and
that is the fact that feedlots are not necessarily compatible with
growth patterns. Some cf you might remember, many, many years
ago, when the Rothes had a substantial feedlot along Highway 34
west of Greeley at Sheep Draw, and that was a few miles from the
City of Greeley at that time. But stop and think what has
30 87®421
occurred at that location now. Rothes were under pressure because
of odors and other nuisances to move that feedlot. They did that,
and today we have a beautiful Hewlett-Packard Manufacturing plant
on that site, along with a lot of other development along Highway
34 , and I think that' s , the tendency is we just keep moving west
and this is not a good site for a feedlot. We believe , the
landowners believe that to approve this request is wrong and,
frankly, that it would be a disservice to the citizens of Greeley
and Weld County. And I 'd like to leave a letter with you, Mr.
Chairman, if I may. . .
CHAIRMAN LACY: Give it to Tom. It has to go as an exhibit.
MR. NELSON: If you would like, I would leave this drawing
that we have made as an exhibit, if you wish to have it.
CHAIRMAN LACY: I 'd like to have it, sir. Is there any
questions from the Board to Mr. Nelson? Okay. At this time I 'd
ask the next person that wants to speak to come forward, please.
Go ahead.
MR. LONG: My name is James Long. I 'm the president of the
Indianhead Homeowners Association. I live at 6914 Algonquin. We
don' t seem to have been mentioned today, but if I could borrow
your maps for a moment, we 're situated approximately a mile from
where the proposed feedlot is.
CHAIRMAN LACY : What direction, sir?
MR. LONG: Southwest.
CHAIRMAN LACY: Thank you.
31 870421
MR. LONG: We ' re not proposed--we live there . We have
approximately fifty homes at this time, one acre lots . Custom
built homes, and our life style is, we like the view, we like the
clean air, and I listened to the rules and the regulations about
the odor and the violations , but five or ten days , and this is
less than a mile from us, so we 've got to put up with it. I spoke
to an appraiser yesterday that told me that this would definitely
devalue our property. I suppose most of you just got your
statements yesterday. They just reassessed us , and raised the
evaluation of our property. We kick in about $70 ,000 a year in
taxes and we feel that this will hurt our value of our property.
All the above reasons: the dust, the pollution, the noise, it' s
gonna create more congestion. All the water doesn' t run down hill
from my front yard. When I look at the site it' s uphill from me,
so what impacts are going to have in the environment of my
property and my neighbors, and I speak as a member of the board,
we are an incorporated homeowners association, we're not
commercial, we are residential, and we feel that to pass us this
particular location is a real disservice to us. And we would
appreciate if you turn this down. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LACY: Is there any questions for Mr. Long from the
Board? Thank you. Next, please.
MR. HAMMOND: My name is Lynn Hammond. I 'm an attorney
residing in Loveland, Colorado, Room 418 , First National Bank
Building. I represent Mr. Donald Leonard and the Leonard family
interests , who border the proposed feedlot on two sides. They
32 870421
have a half section of ground here, a section of ground here, and
a half section here and some additional land to the south, so I
would imagine they're somewhat in excess of 1200 acres. They're
immediately adjacent on two sides to this proposed use. I would
like to have Mr. Dave Shupe come up and I would like to ask him a
few questions so that I can pinpoint some concerns that the
Leonard family has , and Mr. Shupe has written a letter. I would
leave it with . . .
CHAIRMAN LACY: Would you wait until you get back to the mike
before you speak?
MR. HAMMOND: I ' ll leave these copies. Mr. Shupe, would you
state who you are and who do you work for?
MR. SHUPE: My name is David Shupe. I 'm an engineer with
Landmark Engineering of Loveland, Colorado.
MR. HAMMOND: And what' s your background, Mr. Shupe? When
you say an engineer, what kind of work have you done and how long
have you been in the area?
MR. SHUPE: I 'm a consulting civil engineer. I 've been in
active practice for about twenty-five years in the Boulder,
Greeley, Loveland area, Larimer County, Weld County, and so on.
I 've lived and worked in Loveland for the past seventeen years.
We've done extensive work with both the City of Greeley and Weld
County, as well as Larimer County and other cities within it.
MR. HAMMOND: And your work, would you say that you' re
familiar with the development policies and the development of the
area in Weld County and Larimer County?
33 870421
MR. SHUPE: Yes .
MR. HAMMOND: When, you've been here and heard the testimony
of the applicant in this matter, haven' t you?
MR. SHUPE: Yes I have .
MR. HAMMOND: A number of statements have been made with
regard to controlling and containing some of the odors that might
come from this undertaking. Have you ever worked in sewage
control?
MR. SHUPE: Yes. A good deal of my work is in that area.
MR. HAMMOND: Have you worked specifically with feedlots?
MR. SHUPE: Yes , sir, I have .
MR. HAMMOND : And when you say you've worked specifically
with feedlots, what kind of work have you done?
MR. SHUPE : In the area of containment and treatment of
wastes, specifically.
MR. HAMMOND: And does that also necessarily involve a
4
concern of odor?
MR. SHUPE : That' s one of the waste products, yes.
MR. HAMMOND : Now, what is the last project you worked on in
this regard?
MR. SHUPE: Oh, my goodness.
MR. HAMMOND: Was there a pig operation?
MR. SHUPE: Oh. We worked with pig feedlots , yes, breeding
farms , that sort of thing, dairy farms within recent years .
MR. HAMMOND: And have you specific. . .
870421
34
CHAIRMAN LACY : Just a moment, sir . I 'd like to ask a
question of Mr. Shupe, right at this moment, please . Mr. Shupe,
do you consider there to be considerable amount of difference
between a dairy operation and a dry feedlot?
MR. SHUPE : I think what has been said by the Health
Department is generally true, that there is a difference, yes .
CHAIRMAN LACY: Okay, and between a pig operation and a dry
feedlot?
MR. SHUPE: In the sense that the animals themselves are
different, there is some difference , yes.
CHAIRMAN LACY: No, I 'm talking about odor problems .
MR. SHUPE: In terms of odor problems, the treatment of
effluent, or waste products, from feedlots are not markedly
different in philosophy. They differ somewhat in degree, but not
in philosophy.
CHAIRMAN LACY : Okay, thank you.
MR. HAMMOND: Pursuing that line of questioning, I think Mr.
Lacy was getting to the point a little quicker than I was. I
think this is a problem lawyers suffer. With regard to the
problems as you see it, that might be incident to this proposal,
can you identify those .
MR. SHUPE: I think one of the basic problems is odor
control. As a matter of fact. . .
MR. HAMMOND: What about the other ones?
MR. SHUPE: I am concerned particularly, as Mr. Nelson voiced
a moment ago, about drainage and how it is contained and handled
35 870421
with respect to the natural drainage that goes through this
property and to the Poudre River.
MR. HAMMOND: Do you agree with what ' s been said with regard
to the course and direction of the drainage?
MR. SHUPE: Yes, I do.
MR. HAMMOND: Now, when the statement was made that the way
you control this odor is to contain it for about six or seven
days, and at that magic stage when it begins to smell you dump it,
where do you dump it?
MR. SHUPE: That' s a good question, and I don' t think I have
heard the answer here.
CHAIRMAN LACY: Just a minute. Can we have it quiet in the
audience, please . We 're trying to tape this. Would you please be
quiet in the audience, please . Thank you.
MR. HAMMOND: Go ahead, Mr. Shupe.
MR. SHUPE: I have not heard an answer given to that, but. . .
MR. HAMMOND: Well, from your understanding of what' s been
said, what would happen? Would it dump to the north onto the
adjoining property?
MR. SHUPE: It certainly could. I . . .
MR. HAMMOND: Well, where else would it go?
MR. SHUPE: Well, the intention, I think, would be to haul it
off somewhere else, rather than to dump it into the drainage . I
don' t know that for sure because I 've heard no testimony.
36 870421
MR. HAMMOND: Then let' s deal with those two possibilities.
If it is dumped in the sense that it is discharged, it would ge on
adjoining property.
MR. SHUPE : It certainly would.
MR. HAMMOND: And at that stage , it would be at its odorous
best?
MR. SHUPE : I would think so, or close to it.
MR. HAMMOND: And then, it does get into the Poudre River?
MR. SHUPE : It could, certainly.
MR. HAMMOND: Well, that' s where it ends up eventually,
doesn ' t it?
MR. SHUPE: If it is allowed to drain off naturally from this
property, that' s where it would go. Yes .
MR. HAMMOND: Okay, and then, what is the effect upon the
discharge into the Poudre River? Does it contaminate the river?
MR. SHUPE : It certainly does .
MR. HAMMOND: Alright, let' s suppose it' s hauled off. Is
there any rough way to calculate how many loads are required to
haul off the effluent, or the discharge , or the results of 20 , 000
head of sheep feeding?
MR. SHUPE: I 'm sure that there is a way to calculate it,
yes.
MR. HAMMOND: Would you say this would take a lot of trucks?
MR. SHUPE: A lot, yes .
37
870421
MR. I'_PNNOND: Okay, now, with regard to the containment. We
say that it is a flooding operation . What factors affect smell
and odor?
MR. SHUPE: Well , I think you 've heard a lot of them
mentioned; temperature , humidity, the amount of rainfall , wind
velocities , wind directions , all of these things would have
significant effects .
MR. HAMMOND: And is it a fair statement for just us laymen
to understand that if it ' s a nice , good, warm, dry day and it
hasn ' t rained for twenty days and the wind' s blowing the right
direction, you won't smell anything from this operation?
MR. SHUPE: I wouldn' t say you wouldn' t smell anything. The
odor would be less under those conditions , certainly.
MR. HAMMOND: Okay, and let' s say that you have the very
worst of conditions--perhaps like we 've had the last week, where
you've got a week of high humidity and you have a lot of rain, and
then let' s say that ' s followed with some good warm weather.
What' s gonna happen?
MR. SHUPE: You ' re gonna generate some pretty good odors.
MR. HAMMOND : And how far would that odor be expected to be
noticable?
MR. SHUPE: From my own personal experience , I would see no
way that it could be contained in less than four to five miles,
probably.
MR. HAMMOND: Now, when we say that somebody is going to
catch the rainfall, the twenty-five year storm or the one that we
38 870421
experience every year, although it' s not suppose to happen, or we
experience throughout the summer, and we ' re going to catch this in
a retention pond, is it possible to drain that so that it' s
odor-free as soon as it' s drained or hauled off? What happens to
the residue?
MR. SHUPE: Well, I 'm not sure I understand totally your
question.
MR. HAMMOND: Well , let' s suppose that you've got a retention
pond and you open the gates and run it down to the Poudre River,
and then you close the gates . What happens to the pond?
MR. SHUPE: Well, it smells for a while , until it starts to
build up. . .
MR. HAMMOND: Okay, and if you give somebody a citation and
that you give them a period of time within which to correct the
condition, then does that mean that whether or not there is gonna
be a problem is how frequently it rains?
MR. SHUPE: Well certainly the rainfall frequency is a factor
involved in this. It is a repetitive cycle, and I think that' s
perhaps what you're getting at.
MR. HAMMOND: Okay. Then, if you have a situation like this ,
Mr. Shupe , and your experience and what you're stating here to the
Commission, is it going to he possible, in all times of the year,
to contain the odor within this property?
MR. SHUPE: I don' t believe that' s possible, no.
MR. HAMMOND: Would you say it' s going to be possible to
contain it within two or three miles?
39 870421
MR. SHUPE: I ' d say that there is a strong likelihood that it
is not possible.
MR. HAMMOND: And you have heard a gentleman from Indianhead
Subdivision, how far is Indianhead from this location?
MR. SHUPE: Based on my map, it appears to be about half a
mile .
MR. HAMMOND: Would it be affected by this operation?
MR. SHUPE : If the wind direction were appropriate , it
probably would be, yes .
MR. HAMMOND: Well now, don' t give conditions here. We ' re
living in an age when things happen, and it does storm, and the
winds do blow, and, in a given period of a year, is Indianhead
gonna be affected.
MR. SHUPE: Certainly, because we do get winds from east to
west.
MR. HAMMOND: Okay. Now, you've heard Mr. Billings testify
here and make statements that there ' s been planned developments
within two miles of this area, or two miles away from it. It that
gonna be affected?
MR. SHUPE: I would see no way in which it would not be
affected, at least part of the time .
MR. HAMMOND: How would you define neighborhood, if I were to
ask you, "Mr. Shupe , tell me what the neighborhood of this
particular proposal that we have to consider. "
MR. SHUPE: I think neighborhood is a relative term based on
sphere of influence .
40
870421
MR. HAMMOND : Well , if I was gonna go out there, and I was an
energetic youngster that was gonna put up a Koolaid stand and I
needed to have a permit for it, what would you say the
neighborhood for that would be?
MR. SHUPE : Well, walk-in trade, predominately, or drive-by
trade, and in this neighborhood would be very small.
MR. HAMMOND: When you're talking about a feedlot for 20 , 000
head of sheep, how would you define the neighborhood that might be
affected by that?
MR. SHUPE : I think its neighborhood is significantly larger,
probably at least two miles in every direction.
MR. HAMMOND: Well , now, you've indicated previously that
this might be as much as four or five miles .
MR. SHUPE: It could be, yes.
MR. HAMMOND : Alright. If you are trying to discharge
planning responsibilities adequately, are you going to plan for
what likely is to happen?
MR. SHUPE: I think you have to at least look at the
possibilities of what can happen , yes.
MR. HAMMOND: So it is possible, then, that this could affect
a neighborhood up to four or five miles away.
MR. SHUPE : I would think so, Yes.
MR. HAMMOND: And there has been evidence here, statements
today of people , two significant ones that are planned or proposed
within two miles .
41 870421
MR. SHUPE : That' s right.
MR. HAMMOND: Mr. Shupe, you have been asked to represent Mr.
Leonard, specifically.
MR. SHUPE: That ' s correct.
MR. HAMMOND: And you know where his land is .
MR. SHUPE: That ' s right.
MR. HAMMOND: If this proposal is approved, what is his land
good for?
MR. SHUPE: About the same thing that it' s being used for
today.
MR. HAMMOND: Dry land farming?
MR. SHUPE: Yes.
MR. HAMMOND: Okay. Does any of the Commission have
questions of Mr. Shupe?
CHAIRMAN LACY: Does anybody have any questions at this time?
Okay. Thank you.
MR. HAMMOND: I have just a brief summarizing comment, Mr.
Chairman. When I came to Greeley and I represented
Hewlett-Packard in their acquisition of land west of town, they
surveyed the entire community, and the land that they picked was
west of town, and they did this because they felt that it was the
most attractive entrance to the community. They felt that it had
a superb view of the mountains . They also knew that it was in the
opposite direction of some feedyards that you all have over here.
They selected that area because they believe that the future of
Greeley was going to go in that direction. When they came to
42
870421
Greeley, their proposed location when they talked to the Rothe
brothers was at least as far from the City at that time as this
feedyard is being proposed today. The point I 'm trying to make is
that the applicant has a responsibility to show this Commission
that the proposed uses which they intend to make of the property
will promote the health, safety, convenience, and general welfare
of the present and the future residents of Weld County. Now there
have been two gentlemen who preceeded me; one where there is an
existing subdivision, another where substantial sums have
apparently been expended on planned, future uses. It is our
contention that this proposed use not only affect the people that
are out there, it affects the planned future uses of the area and
that the area includes the neighborhood which is going to be
affected by this proposal. This is not something that is going to
be able to be confined and contained on these premises. Now there
were a few comments made by the applicant. He said they had the
support of Windsor. I don' t know how far Windsor is away, I
imagine it' s about six miles. If I had my choice of having it
within two miles of Windsor or up here on the hill, I think if I
were in Windsor, I 'd give it my support, too.
CHAIRMAN LACY: For your information, Mr. Hammond, it is
within two miles of the city limits of Windsor.
MR. HAMMOND: Of Windsor?
CHAIRMAN LACY: That is correct. They annexed the property.
MR. HAMMOND: Okay. I can' t be persuaded that when land
values change significantly, that the applicant will relocate. I
43
870421
can' t be pursuaded that issuing citations for violations are going
to curb the problem, because I think that when that happens it
just means that there' s a period of time in which somebody comes
in compliance , and what does coming in compliance mean? Does it
mean dumping or making a discharge? I 've not heard whether or not
the proposed effluent is going to be hauled away, or is the gate
in the dam going to be pulled and it' s discharged down the
drainage. I was also kind of taken back when the justification
for putting it in this location is the fact that, the statement,
"there ' s a junk yard there already" . I think you people have a
beautiful entrance to your city. I think you have people already
planning to enhance that and enlarge upon it. I certainly am not
against people making use of their property, and enhancing the
value and making their own personal use. I just think that the
obligations that fall upon the applicant to convince this
Commission that they have satisfied the concerns about present and
future uses has not been met, and I believe that there are better
places in Weld County to establish this. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LACY : Any questions for Mr. Hammond?
COMMISSIONER KIRBY : Yes, I do have a question. How much
adverse impact did the Hertzke Dairy have in Hewlett-Packard' s
find to the, chose the particular site? It would be very similar
in relationship.
MR. HAMMOND: We ' re engaging in some hearsay here . I can
tell you what I know, and that is that the investigation that was
done , it was realized that that was phasing out, that the land
44 870421
uses were of such value in the area and were attaining such value
that those uses would be phased out. And I think that the company
in that situation didn ' t pay much attention to it because they
didn ' t feel it was gonna be there very long.
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Isn' t it true that a dairy of that
magnitude would have a much greater capital investment than a
sheep operation to throw away and phase out?
MR. HAMMOND: I don' t know that we ' re talking about the
capital investment so much as , in the dairy business , at that
time, having represented a couple of dairy farmers at that time,
they were trying to find ways to get out of the business. I think
the concern that we have is more with the odor that' s being
resulted, and I think that the company' s feeling at that time was
simply that that wasn' t gonna be a problem very long. In our
communications with the City and the planning department of this
city, it was fairly obvious to us that the lands being bought and
who was buying them and the prices that were being paid for them
were such that it was only going to be a period of time until
there was going to be a significant change in the character of the
use of the area. And I think that' s, for our concern here is that
we ' re trying to say, look forward.
CHAIRMAN LACY: Are there any further questions from the
Board to Mr. Hammond? Okay. Next person up to speak, please.
Come on up, don' t just, need to come up right away.
MR. LIND: I 'm Ted Lind and I live just three-quarters of a
mile downwind from this thing. But that ' s not my only reasoning
45
870421
for coming. We are involved in annexation on the hill, annexed to
Windsor, and that' s two miles from the proposed lot. And all of
'ou know agricultural hasn' t been too great the last few years and
I don' t want to see our investment go down the tube, and I think
that' s what would happen with a feedlot. I was concerned about
drainage, but that' s been brought up so I won' t go into that.
But, the prevailing winds, I ' ll agree with you, they are from the
northwest, but, in the evening, in the summer we always get
breezes out of the southeast and that puts us in direct line to
the odor. And there ' s another thing, I 've lived there all my
life, I 've even farmed that piece of ground. A half inch of rain
makes it impossible to move a truck. It' s a clay soil. An inch
of rain and you don' t move for a week. Now he' s talking about
moving this manure out, but you can' t when it rains. It' s just a
fact that that soil gets saturated in the winter, and in spring
you cannot move heavy equipment, and so I don' t think there' s been
any planning done on that end of it. And my main concern is, that
area is in a path of growth , and I don' t want to see it ruined
with a feedlot. And that' s a fact.
CHAIRMAN LACY: Are there any questions for Mr. Lind from the
Board? Thank you. Next.
MS . SAFARIK: My name is Rebecca Safarik. I 'm with the
Greeley City Planning Department. Earlier this morning you
received a letter from the Greeley City Council which indicated
that, while the Council felt like an operation as is being
proposed by Mr. Bragdon is an asset to the community, that the
46 870421
location is inappropriate , given the community ' s growth and
development patterns . You' re also in receipt, or I believe, have
among your files , the recommendations by the Greeley Planning
Commission which also recommended objection to this use and , not
to belabor any of the points that you 've already had with regard
to this , but a couple of items I 'd like to accentuate that had a
great deal to do with the Planning Commission' s evaluation of this
concern. One is that by our calculations this proposed use is
approximately 3 .3 times as intense as the animal unit intensity
for the by-right agricultural sheep feedlot uses . Obviously,
environmental impacts are paramount to the City' s interest in
this . While it was felt that some screening of the area would
help mitigate the visual impact, it was never resolved in the
City' s mind that the odor and dust could be effectively mitigated.
With regard to environmental concerns, I think the important thing
to realize is that, again, as has been represented before, that by
the time the odor is detected, the impression has already been
made on the passing motorist or the individual visiting the
community, and certainly the residents in the area . We have a
severe concern that this will exacerbate the concerns that will be
experienced by interest for development in this area. Another
concern relates to the water transmission line. The City does
have an easement that runs through that area. It' s been
represented to us that , through our water department, that the
only taps that are available to Mr. Bragdon are domestic taps for
an office and house . We are not aware of any interest that he
47 870421
has, and I do not knew how he would receive water for his feedlot
operation. Any permit to tap off that transmission line would
have to be reviewed by the City Council and that has not been
made . I think that the final statement that we 'd like to make is
that we have reviewed development that ' s within two miles of our
urbanized area. While we expect our long-range expected growth
area anticipates urbanization, actual build out of this area
within the next fifteen to twenty years, we have a great concern
with the kind of entry ways that we have in our community. And
our Comprehensive Plan specifically calls out activities and
recommendations which would make sure that those important
corridors that provide access to our community are protected and
enhanced as much as possible . And the other Planning Commission
recommendations that have been made with other similar uses
accentuate and repeat and have been consistent with the
environmental concerns that we expressed with regard to this use
as well. If you have any questions I 'd be glad to try to address
those.
CHAIRMAN LACY: Are there any questions for Ms . Safarik from
the Board? Okay. Next. Let' s come up. Just come on, please.
MS. McKEE: My name is Alma Zeiler McKee, and I 'm here to
represent Zeiler Farms, Incorporated, which is within 500 feet of
the proposed feedlot. And I just want to say that we are against
it.
CHAIRMAN LACY: Are there any questions? I 'm sorry. Next.
Come on up, if someone wants to speak, just right as soon as one
48 870421
speaker gets through, the other one please come up if someone
needs to speak.
MR. PLATT: I 'm Frank Platt, and we own Elder Dairy, which is
just north of the proposed site . We are against it. Our
reasonings are a little different than others. In some aspects we
are concerned with the possibility of disease passing from the
sheep to our registered dairy herd. I do have a letter from our
veterinarian stating some of the problems and I would like to pass
them out to you. (Whereupon Mr. Platt distributed copies of a
letter to the Board. ) We do export cattle and our main concern is
Blue Tongue. This was brought up at the other hearing and it got
mixed up. Cattle do not die from Blue Tongue, but they become
carriers, and if they are a carrier of Blue Tongue, then foreign
countries will not accept them. We have exported cattle to
France, Korea, the Philippines and Mexico and we feel that a sheep
operation of this size , with sheep coming in from all parts of the
country would make our chances of our cattle getting Blue Tongue a
lot greater than what they are today. We also are concerned with
dust pneumonia, dust coming from the feedlot and settling on our
calves , and we just feel that a feedlot of this size is too big
for this area and we are definitely against it.
CHAIRMAN LACY : Do you have any questions for Mr. Platt, does
the Board have any questions? Thank you. Next.
MR. AAS : My name is Eric Aas and I am a resident in the
northeast quarter of section eight, and I am only a resident
there. I own 26 acres there , and it' s a nice place to live . The
49
870421
drainage , or where this water will eventually drain from the sheep
operation, goes through the corner of my property. And I 'm
concerned about the pollution aspects of that water going through
there. And I am definitely concerned about the odor that we will
experience there , so. That' s all I have to say. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LACY: What was your last name?
MR. AAS : Aas .
CHAIRMAN LACY: Haas?
MR. AAS : It ' s spelled A-A-S .
CHAIRMAN LACY: Oh. Okay. I didn ' t know whether it was Haas
or Aas . Okay, are there any questions from the Board? Thank you.
Next.
MR. WEINMEISTER: My name is Garry Weinmeister. I live at
28649 Weld County Road 17 , just to the north of the proposed
feedlot, and I would like to say that we are opposed to the
feedlot for all of the reasons stated before, but I 'd like to
address a couple of other reasons. And I think that the main
reason is the human factor involved and the population density of
that area and the fact that nearly all of the residents in that
area are against this feedlot. Section eight alone has 15 houses
on it. The Indianhead Estates Subdivision, which was mentioned
earlier, begins one-half mile from this land , and I guess the
thing that I 'd like to do right now is to present a petition that
we circulated in the area . The petition says , "We , the
undersigned, do oppose the proposed livestock confinement
operation for 20 ,000 head of sheep to located at the southeast
50
870421
quarter of Section 8 , Township 5 North, Range 67 West of the 6th
P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. " We have 62 signatures on this
petition and we were not able to contact everybody within this
area. But I 'd like to say that this petition represents
signatures from the Indianhead Estates and it represents
signatures from virtually all of the farmland to the west and to
the north of that proposed area, from Highway 34 to the present
Windsor city limits .
CHAIRMAN LACY: You may present those to Mr. Barker, please .
(Whereupon a petition was presented to Mr. Barker. )
MR. BARKER: Need to note it Exhibit P .
MR. WEINMEISTER: And I would like to say I 'm not sure if
those petitions are technically correct, but I think that the
message is there . The people in that area do not want this
feedlot located there.
CHAIRMAN LACY: Are there any questions for Mr. Weinmeister
from the Board? Thank you. Next.
MR. KONKEL: My name is Mike Konkel. I 'm an independent
business person in this town of Greeley. I 'm also in the
agri-business deal. Been in this area for over ten years. I ' d
like to take this time . I 've heard a lot of hype and rhetoric of
what I think is , we ' re talking about speculation and what is going
to happen out west in the Golden Triangle . As far as Mr. Bragdon
is concerned, I think we ' re looking at a factual thing that' s
gonna take place right now. And I 've worked with the
agri-business very closely in this area, and I think, you know, if
51
870421
we go to look at our seal right up there, of Weld County, what
we ' re talking about here in Weld County, we' re talking about
agriculture. This is the agricultural base and economy in this
County. I realize that as well as anybody. I think when I seen
these charts and stuff up here , I wish they would have left them
up here, but you got Winn' s feedlot, you've got Croissants down to
the south, which Mr. Bragdon brought up. These aren' t 1 ,000 head
feedlots, these are 2 ,000 plus head feedlots. They' re year
around. I think if you was going to see an environmental impact,
you would have already seen it from these feedlots . Also, you've
got the Hertzke Dairy. And I 've heard some comments about health
problems . I think that that' s all been stated here by the Health
Department. That' s the reason we hire these people , is to do
these surveys. And the Planning Commission has already approved
this. So I guess , you know, I really can ' t, I can understand the
concern and wanting growth in Greeley, but I think that Mr.
Bragdon here, I 've known him personally for years , well-run and
good operation. And I think that he needs , you really need to go
along with the Planning Commission on what they've suggested.
CHAIRMAN LACY : Are there any questions of the gentleman at
this time from the Board? Thank you. I thought the map was
supposed to be left here . I thought that was part of the exhibit.
It is marked as an exhibit.
MR. NELSON: It is, Mr. Chairman. And I was just taking it
down, folding it up and getting it into reasonable . . .
52 870421
CHAIRMAN LACY: Well , let' s leave it up. Let' s leave it up,
so we can look at it.
MR. NELSON: Oh, you want to leave it up?
CHAIRMAN LACY: Yes , if you would please . I would like to
leave it up, if you would please . Yes maam, go ahead.
MS . HARTSHORN: I 'm Judy Hartshorn. We live at 28653 Weld
County Rcad 17 . We 're just north of the proposed site. Mr.
Bragdon, we 're your neighbors. But I talked to Ed Skaggs last
night and he said he didn ' t care one way or the other. His house
is where your house , it ' s right by your house . We 're going to be
right next to the sheep. The only thing between us and the
proposed sheep is a ditch. We had about 1 , 000 head of sheep come
on that land to graze, about eight or nine years ago. My oldest
son has asthma and allergies and we had him on medication the
whole time they were there. They got out, they ate our trees, the
sheep herder poisoned the dogs because they chased the sheep off
our land to keep them out of the trees . So, I don ' t have good
feelings toward sheep. That was only a thousand head. I can 't
imagine 20 times that. Also, everybody' s reasoning I agree with.
I 'm against it for those reasons. The ponds that we have right
below, well it was Jeffers pond, it drains right into it, it has
flooded two times in the past three years , so bad that we 've had
to rebuild. Jeffers used to irrigate from that land, so water
would go into the pond, he 'd pump the water up to the top where he
proposes the sheep to be, and it would naturally drain right back
down into the ponds , so I don ' t think that there is any way we can
53
870421
keep the sheep remains from going back into that pond. Have any
questions?
CHAIRMAN LACY: Are there any questions for Ms . Hartshorn?
Thank you. Next. Gonna let you make it this time .
MR. WEILER: Hello, my name ' s Brad Weiler, and I live at
28641 Weld County Road 17 . I live with my parents , it' s their
property, and Mr. Bragdon' s feedlot will be directly adjoining our
property. We don ' t even have a ditch in between us , so. . . I
agree with what most people have said here cpposing it. I have a
couple of letters here, one from my parents , one from the former
farmer, Mary Mellon. He would like to explain a few things, so he
wrote a letter. And, I do believe the reasoning that Mr. Bragdon
wanted to use the east side of the said farm for the feedlot
corrals was because it was basically unirrigatible because of lack
of water and it would basically be dry-land and, in speaking with
Mr. Mellon, he said there is a pump on the west side of the farm
that has enough of a head behind it, you can run a ditch to the
east side and irrigate the whole east side. The reason there is a
pump in the bottom where the pond is is because Jeffers decided
that was better to use that as a recycling pond, it was centrally
located, you could re-use your water and get twice as much
coverage out of the same amount. And, as far as the 25 to 50 year
flood, well , it happens basically about every other year, which,
let' s see here, I have it written down. We've lived out there , I
should say, that we've lived out there for about 16 years , and we
bought it in ' 71 . In ' 72 , ' 73 , ' 76 , ' 80 , ' 83 , ' 86 and ' 84 . It' s
54 870421
got where the top of the upper pond, there are two ponds, if I can
find it, well, there ' s a pond here and a lower pond (indicating on
map) . Mr. Bragdon has the upper pond and Mrs . Hartshorn and her
husband and my parents share the other pond, and you can see, I 've
got some pictures here if anybody wants to look at them, who do
I . . .
CHAIRMAN LACY: If you want to make those part of the
exhibits , you may.
MR. WEILER: Oh that' s fine. That' s what I got them for.
(Whereupon Mr. Weiler submitted pictures. ) But, I believe it was
the ' 84 flood, it actually washed a Volkswagen off of 34 into the
median, upside down. That' s what kind of rains we get out there,
and they' re almost every year. So , that' s my comment.
CHAIRMAN LACY: Okay. Does the Board have any questions for
Mr. Weiler? Thank you. Next.
M.R. SCHMERGE : My name is Tom Schmerge. I own property just
north of where they're talking about putting the sheep. It' s
approximately three quarters of a mile north. Most of the ponds
the people are talking about draining off of are ponds that are on
a little stream that runs through there. There are also a couple
other ponds in that area which are not running water ponds that do
drain from this sane area. There are two or three ponds on the 47
acres right next to them that are basically standing water all
year round. Those ponds feed a pond that is directly on my
property, which is basically standing water all year round. Since
we had the rain last week, it is running water through my pond
55
870421
right now, but most of the time it is standing water, and I am
opposed to having any sheep up there that is going to drain water,
ruin my pond. We currently use the pond for swimming. If you put
sheep there , I don' t think it' ll be used for swimming at all. As
far as the area not being developed, there are at least two houses
that have gone in that area in just the last year, so I think it
is a developed area.
CHAIRMAN LACY: Is that all you have? Is there any questions
for Mr. Schmerge? Thank you. Next.
N.R. STROH: I 'm Dan Stroh. I reside at 0255 Weld County Road
46 , which is west of Berthcud, and I represent a whole different
party in this particular matter, who happens to be the seller of
this particular farm by way of his attorney and legal counsel in
Loveland, Robert Ausenhus . And we have Stroh and Company Realty
and Auctions in Loveland. Just very briefly, I 've sat and
listened to this . We happened to be involved as an expert witness
when Indianhills made a significant impact on an agricultural
area, which happens to be zoned farming and agriculture, and the
Amen Feedlot and the Frank Feedlots and the Croissant Feedlots and
all of them were all there when the developers did choose to put
that in. We also happen to be developers and have developed in
and around Loveland and I have been involved in development in
Weld County, and of course , as you heard, we reside in Weld County
and have farms west of Berthoud. I was also interested to hear,
and I have followed by way of the Loveland Chamber of Commerce, et
cetera, the Golden Triangle development, and I find it a little
56
870421
bit interesting, just from the standpoint of a developer,
irregardless of a agricultural concern, that I had this farm on
the market for in excess of a year, for $1500 an acre to $1200 an
acre, and had one offer on the farm, and that was from Mr.
Bragdon. I am really overwhelmed of how desireable this property
is and how big of an impact it does have economically to this
area. And again, we were able to work with Weld County and
Indianhills when they made such a negative impact on the
agricultural community between Greeley and Loveland. I find
another thing that ' s very interesting to me is why Mr. Bragdon , at
all, would build a multi, hundreds of thousands of dollars ,
property investment in this property and buy 150 acres where he
could have built a smaller acreage and then reside on the property
himself and move his family on the property if he wasn' t going to
take care of it. I also find it very hard to believe why he would
build these hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of property and
comply with the 19 requirements of the County, which are very very
restrictive and very, very expensive. And I understand why the
County would ask him to do that and I think that' s rightfully so.
Where he has committed to comply with those stringent of
development rules and then live on the property himself and spend
extra thousands and thousands of dollars, as I 've seen his
project, as I 'm sure all of the neighbors have very diligently
studied his project, too, as to what the runoff rights and that
type of thing would be. We 've got the Weld County Planning
Commission, of which I happen to come over and sit through again
57 870421
on the behalf of the seller of the property. I might add, this
farm happens to be in foreclosure and will go through foreclosure
and the previous tenant that farmed this farm also went through a
foreclosure auction. So, it maybe hasn' t been awfully economic
for the whole area and for the County. I 've sat and we 've done a
number of developments in and around and I 've listened to the
County Health Department standards and we've, Mr. Bragdon has said
that he would comply with that, he' s got a past history of
compliance and of doing well with his neighboring areas and of
raising the sheep. It is a lot of sheep, there ' s no question
about it. It' s also a lot of revenue. It ' s also a lot of tax
base. I just got my tax notice, too, and I know what Weld County
is doing with the taxes . We 're looking for economic development.
Economic development doesn ' t just mean a bedroom community. It
doesn ' t just mean golf courses, it doesn' t just mean residences.
It means revenues of all types. You happen to have an 80 acre
minimum building lot requirement in Weld County, and I also found
it interesting at the Planning Commission that a lot of the folks
that got up and spoke , they had three acres , they had five acres.
They went through the Special Review process on a consistent
basis , as did Indianhills . Which is, of course , the same project
that they ' re doing here . I also find that, with the Special
Review process , with your 80 acre minimum building lot size is
somewhat inconsistent with what all of the development and growth
potential that Weld County all of a sudden is so concerned with,
with the exclusion of agriculture . So , from that standpoint,
58 870421
those are just some of the comments that I wanted to make. Thank
you very much.
CHAIRMAN LACY: Are there any questions for Mr. Stroh from
the Board? Thank you.
MR. STROH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LACY: Does anyone else care to speak at this time?
Okay. Once again, I would ask if there was anyone else that would
care to speak? Mr. Bragdon. and Mr. Ray, are you prepared for your
comments and rebuttal to the comments made by the . . .
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, in case they' re not, I
might suggest we take about a ten minute recess . Would that be
alright?
CHAIRMAN LACY: Okay.
(Let the record reflect that a short recess was held at this
time. )
CHAIRMAN LACY: Okay, we will reconvene, and at this time Mr.
Billings has two exhibits that he would like to . . .
MR. BILLINGS : Mr. Chairman, these are two legal-size
documents as far as your requirements , which I failed to give to
you, even though I reduced these documents in the cover letter and
material I gave you. One has to do with the Golden Triangle
North, which is the residential and golf course area. The other
is the legal survey of the entire property. (Whereupon Mr.
Billings submitted the documents to the Board. )
CHAIRMAN LACY: Okay. Thank you. Okay, at this time we
would then have the representative or his . . . Mr. Bragdon.
59 870421
MR. RAY : Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. Too much time is
gone now. The people that took the longest in this hearing, I
find it somewhat unique, for the Golden Triangle and for the
Leonard family, did not bother, if you ' ll look at your records, to
appear at the Planning Commission hearing. Now, there ' s a purpose
for that hearing, so that they can voice objections , so the
Planning Commission can take those into consideration in
formulating their requirements . They didn ' t even bother to
appear, so if their concerns are really so great and if they
really think it' s such a problem, you would think that they would
bother to appear at that. Obviously, we' re talking money at the
Golden Triangle , and we 're talking about people who have vested
interest. But the thing you've got to keep in mind is that, if it
comes to fruition, and you don' t know if it' s going to, if it does
it ' s two miles away. It' s two miles from this proposed site. We
hear all this talk like it ' s really going to be an impact, like
it' s right next door. But it isn' t, it' s two miles away. I would
ask you to remember that. The homeowners in the area have
complained, have objected, I should say. You would expect the
homeowners to object. Everyone wants a park next door to them.
But a lot of people want to live in the country, too. But they
want to live in the country and have a park next to them. Well
that isn't what they signed up for when they got their permit to
build in the country, when they build in an agricultural zone.
They have to take not only the good parts of that but the bad
parts of that. The bad parts of living in an agricultural zone
60 870421
is, you're gonna have some agriculture business in the zone ,
hopefully. And these people that have complained, I want you to
remember, not one of them has voiced any complaint about the
dairies, the Hertzke Dairies or the other dairy or the feedlots .
But they have all said, "We think this is what' s going to happen. "
Those aren' t facts. Those are assumptions and forecasts , but
they' re not facts. If you follow the complaints of the people
here, and I submit they are nothing but conclusions and opinions,
what they're asking to do is to throw out your own Planning staff,
throw out your own Planning Commission and throw out your Health
Department. Throw out all these agencies that have employed and
you have working for you and take the complaints and the
conclusions of these people that testified today. I would submit
that' s not what your own ordinances call for. I -would also say
that all we have from all these people is hearsay. You've got
letters that we haven' t even seen, you've got all -kinds of
documents that we haven' t seen, that somebody says something. We
don' t even know what they say. But that' s not what you' re charged
with. You're charged with accumulating facts and making your
decision based on facts. The facts are that you have a man before
you who has applied for a use that is permitted in this zone. You
have a man who has experience in this kind of activity. You have
a man who ' s gonna live on the property in question. You have a
man that, during his experience never had a complaint filed
against him. You have a man who is trying to put something viable
into distressed agriculture economy, that is allowed for by your
61 870421
own Comprehensive Plan. And all the people in opposition to that
are people who either chose to live in the country and now don't
want to take the bad with the good or people who have a vested
interest in saying this might impact what we ' re trying to do two
miles away. But you don' t have any facts . And I submit to you
that you are charged, that you must prove this unless you find
that Mr. Bragdon has failed to comply with Section 24 .4 . 2 , 24 .5 ,
or 24 . 6 , because that is found in your own ordinance. 24 .4 .2 says
you must allow the use unless you find that he is not in
compliance . I will submit there is not one fact before this Board
to show that he is not in compliance with all three of those
regulations. We would ask you to direct approval. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LACY: Are there any questions for Mr. Pay from the
Board at this time? Thank you. I do have a specific question of
the applicant if he would come forward, please . And I , there was
some concern expressed, Mr. Bragdon, that, to get rid of the
drainage , the water , it was lust going to be dumped out into the
river, or into that drainage area. Could you explain, and I 'm not
sure that you didn' t before , but would you explain that in a short
few simple sentences what you' re planning to do.
MR. BRAGDON: Right . I did speak to that, but I didn' t
detail it at all. There ' s 150 acres on the whole Lot B and the
row crop farming that is now, well it' s in row crop farming at
present, will be converted to pasture . The reason it' s being
converted to pasture is so we can evacuate the retention ponds for
whatever waste water, effluent, would accumulate in the retention
62 870421
ponds back to the pasture. Where there' s a row crop farm, fair
chances are that in certain periods of the year, for whatever the
crop season progress might be, you could not evacuate the pond.
If it' s a pasture, you could do that any time of the year. You
could say, well you're not gonna get any soil absorption
throughout the winter months when the soil is frozen, but chances
are, when soil is frozen we ' re not going to get that kind of
moisture accumulations that we' re talking about, in the 25-year,
24-hour storm. Those periods come in spring, summer and fall.
That obviously provides for the percolation of the irrigation back
of the effluent, which is just like reapplying farmyard manure
back to the farm for fertilizer. It' s just in a liquid state , so,
it would all be converted to pasture operations so it will enable
that, Gordon.
CHAIRMAN LACY: Is there any more questions, or any further
questions for Mr. Bragdon?
COMMISSIONER BPANTNER: Mr. Bragdon, is it possible to over
fertilize? Could you reach a saturation point where you would
actually burn your crops with that type of effluent?
MR. BRAGDON : Not as far as the nitrogens in the waste water.
I think a problem with applying fertilizer or manures to farm
ground is the salt content of the manure and we feed minimal
amounts of salts to sheep. Sheep do not require the salt that
cattle do, so consequently the salt water in the waste -water
runoff would be minimal. Nitrogens, no. If we were to try to
irrigate a 40-acre parcel, perhaps, with the , you might see some
63 870421
possible burning from nitrogen content. But we ' re going to spread
it out as much as we can so we ' re not getting any crop or pasture
burning from nitrogen.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: I ' ll direct my next question to Wes
Potter. Is there an odor involved when they 're pumping this
effluent back onto the pasture? I 'm assuming they ' re going to use
sprinklers , now this water ' s out here going to settle. Is there
an odor problem there?
MR. POTTER: The potential does exist in any time. If the
ponds are anaerobic at the time that they are pumping them, then
there is a potential for odor. If they are aerobic at the time
they are pumping them, the potential is dramatically reduced as to
the amount of odor. The potential does exist for the water to
have an odor problem if it is anaerobic at the time it is being
pumped.
CHAIRMAN LACY: Are there further questions from the Board to
the applicant or to staff? I guess one question that I don' t know
that the applicant was asked, I believe that it was, yes, but you
do agree to the 19 Development Standards that are set up by the
Planning staff and by the Health Department, you do agree to
those?
MR. BRAGDON: Correct.
CHAIPMAN LACY: Okay. Thank you. I would entertain a motion
at this time.
64 870421
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: I will put a motion on the table so
that we can get the discussion going and my motion will be to deny
the application.
COMMISSIONER YAMAGUCHI : I second that.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: I have , it seems like some of these
are just so terribly difficult even to verbalize the thinking. I
think we 've got a couple of issues here. In my mind at least.
One is an issue of current compatibility with the operation, of
this operation with the existing neighborhood. And the other is
probably the more difficult issue, and that is the issue of
planning and how far ahead we can look and how much we think will
happen. And I guess I, in my own mind, liken that problem to the
problem I 'm facing right now with the raising of two teenagers . I
think in both cases you have to look a long ways ahead as you look
to an end product. I think it' s easy to get discouraged. In the
case of teenagers, for reasons that are obvious. In the case of
planning, for reasons of bad economic times or lack of activity or
whatever. So I think what you have to do in both cases is to look
for certain indicators on which to base your judgments and your
outlook for the future. In the case of kids , I guess you look at
the family environment, you look at the influence of their peers,
you look at their own history of behavior. In the case of
planning I think the indicators include things like the long-range
plans of surrounding municipalities. Not only those long-range
plans , but how willing have the municipalities been to back those
plans up with some actual activity. I think you look at
65 870421
historical growth patterns . What' s happened over a period of ten
or twenty years, where has development occurred, what has happened
historically. And I guess , based on those things, it seems to me
we find ourselves here, kind of, and what often happens is you
look at economic development in an area, you have some real
conflict. On the one hand the development of agricultural
activity and agri-business such as this one is, is highly
desirable for many of the reasons that the applicant outlined.
But if that activity is located in such a spot that it, in your
view, in the future will limit other kinds of economic
development, then I think you have the responsibility as a
planning agency to prevent that conflict in the future, based on
what you believe is going to happen. Therefore, I guess I , this
is kind of a long way of getting around saying that, in the
standards to which we apply for our findings I think it' s fair to
say that I do not find, based on my view of what' s going to happen
in the future, based upon the indicators that the testimony has
been presented to us, the development of the Golden Triangle, the
potential there, the existence of Kodak, the existence of some
other industry, the general trend towards westward development in
this area, I would say that the uses will not be compatible with
the future development of the surrounding area as permitted by the
existing zone and the future development projected by the
Comprehensive Plan of the County and the adopted Master Plans of
the affected municipalities . I would additionally say that there
are still doubts in my mind, despite the testimony, and because of
66
870421
the testimony, both, that the Development Standards do provide for
adequate protection of the safety, health and welfare of the
inhabitants , and we do have substantial number of people present
who live in the area who have raised, I think, valid concerns
about the ability of the applicant to not affect the health,
safety and welfare of their lives . So, for those two reasons, I
move for the denial of this application.
CHAIRMAN LACY: Motion to deny the application by Jackie and
seconded by Frank. Further discussion by the Board?
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: I ' ll make a short comment. I 'm going
to vote for the motion. I would agree with everything that Jackie
has said. My philosophy has been when I came onto the Board, and
I think it still is the same, that a person should have the right
to do with his property as he sees fit. If he wants to turn it on
end, or if he wants to do nothing with it, or if he wants to let
weeds grow, he should be able to do that. That' s our freedoms.
However, I don' t think that he should have an impact upon his
neighbor. And I think that' s what' s happening here. It is a
difficult decision. We need markets for farm products. This is
an agricultural county. But I think this is the wrong place for
this. It is not compatible with the intent that it is headed, and
so, therefore, I ' ll vote for the motion.
CHAIRMAN LACY: Further discussion?
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: I don' t really have discussion. I will
state the reasons down the list for my vote when the time comes.
67
870421
CHAIRMAN LACY: Okay. All right. I will do the same. I
will , and I believe I would state at this time, I will vote
against the motion. I believe that the proposal is definitely
consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan and I 'm going
to go ahead with these and then I will vote at that time. It is
consistent with the intent of the district in which the use is
located and it is compatible with the existing surrounding land
uses at the present time. I will agree that it is not compatible
with future development of the surrounding area, but we' re looking
20 years from now. We' re looking over a long time down the road,
and at that time I would have to state in respect that many years
ago I was before this Board and other boards , and at that time I
agreed, as has been done today, to move my operation if the area
ever grew into that area. That was some 20 years ago and I was
only half a mile away and the area hasn' t grown yet. And so I
think the man has , Mr. Bragdon has , said that he would move and I
think that would be one stipulation that I would make him required
if this were to be voted through. If it is located in an A
District, he is using a diligent effort as he stated to conserve
the productive agricultural land in the location for the proposed
use. And I do believe that our Health Department and that the
Development Standards that are here are as tight, tighter, than
most standards in most areas. There ' ll be more odor in a cracking
plant in Denver than there will be off of this feedlot. I feel
that you can drive down I-76 and you get the odor from the
disposal plant from Northglenn or whatever it is right along 1-76
68
870421
and I feel that we' re talking about much tighter regulations in
this deal. So my vote will be against the denial. Do you care
not to say anything at the present time , Bill?
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: I ' ll go ahead and make my statements .
This is as near a 50-50 decision as anything I 've ever seen, and
as we go down the USR standards I ' ll address each one of them. I
think it ' s obvious you do have three votes for denial , for the
motion which would be denial. And I guess I will go along with
that. And this is the most difficult decision I have had in six
or so years, I 've ever had to go through some of these hearings.
I 'm going to say first that the proposal is , and I ' ll underline
is, consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. Very
definitely. No question about it in my opinion. But this is
another example of something that I have talked about somewhat
when we were reviewing our Comprehensive Plan. It indicates that
revisions, even though we just re-did it, are in order again if
this is the decision of the Board today, and I think it is . We, I
think, probably have evidence of some faulty zoning out there.
Although it might not have been originally. The question that the
proposal is consistent with the intent of the district in which
the use is located. You know it' s almost a yes and no. It would
be except for the Greeley' s newer annexation and the plans that
are involved which is a valid consideration. It is within two
miles of some dreamed-of and hoped-for growth at least, I would
say. So that is a big question mark. That the uses which would
be permitted will be compatible with the existing surrounding land
69
870421
uses . That' s also yes and no. It ' s compatible with part of the
uses that are simply dry-land wheat farming, it' s not compatible
with the hoped-for uses of many people that do have visions of
development in their eyes, and there are some attractive acreages
as well as a very attractive subdivision in the area, although I
don' t think it would necessarily be that adversely affected if the
lot is run as well as I think it would be by Mr. Bragdon. The
question that the uses which would be permitted will be compatible
with the future development of the surrounding area as permitted
by the existing zone and with future development as projected by
the Comprehensive Plan of the County, or the adopted Master Plans
of the affected municipalities. Well, you have a yes on the
beginnings of that and no in regard to the Master Plan of the
municipality. So another conflict in our own set of USR
standards. That if the use is proposed to be located in the A
district, that the applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort
has been made to conserve productive agricultural land in the
locational decision for the proposed use. I think that' s a very
definite yes. I think it goes beyond that, even. I think he' s
making a use that will he much better than has been used in the
past with that property, since it was a property that did tend to
erode, was not, because of being cut up a bit and a little bit
rough, was not even prime ag land probably, in some respects as a
whole, for the farm, a very desireable plan for a mixed use of the
feedlot and ag for production, and certainly a good economic
support to the ag economy of the area by using bi-products and
70
870421
that sort of thing and providing much needed fertilizer for much
of that area within a five or six mile area. The last item, that
there is adequate provision for the protection of the health,
safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and the
County. I think this is one of the best presented plans for a
feedlot of that size which, though the numbers sound big, is not
an extremely large feedlot since lambs are, by our definition,
roughly ten lambs to one animal unit. The setbacks, I thought,
and the screening were addressed extremely well and the method of
disposal of waste was addressed, I think, quite professionally and
well and, with a man that' s a real professional in his business .
So , as I say, we have probably the most difficult problem that I
have seen, but it is the gateway to a growing area . We had
overwhelming opposition from the residents in the area and I guess
that does indicate roncompatibility with the area. So I ' ll vote
with the motion.
CHAIRMAN LACY: Further discussion by the Board? The motion
by Jackie, seconded by Frank, is to deny. At this time we ' ll have
roll call.
(Let the record reflect that a roll call vote was taken and
the motion passed 4-1 , with Chairman Lacy voting nay and all other
Commissioners voting aye . )
CHAIRMAN LACY: The USE is denied.
+ 71
870421
t4D141 mEmoRAnDun
WILD€ To County Attorney' s Office 00 July 10, 1987
COLORADO From Clerk to Board ' s Office
submit Costs - Gary Bragdon USR
Lee:
We estimate the costs to the Clerk to the Board' s Office,
concerning the Gary Bragdon matter, to be as follows:
Copies - 3 files of 135 pages @ 106 per pg. = $ 40 .50
Clerk's time @ $16 . 00 per hour:
Transcription - 12 hours
Organization of files - 5 hours = 272 .00
Base fee for transcription = 45 . 00
TOTAL = $357 .50
Tommie Antuna
Deputy County Clerk
DISTRICT COURT, WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Case No. 87-CV-631 , Division I
GARY BRAGDON,
Plaintiff,
vs .
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF WELD,
STATE OF COLORADO, whose members are:
GORDON E. LACY, C. W. KIRBY, GENE R. BRANTNER, JACQUELINE JOHNSON,
and FRANK YAMAGUCHI ,
Defendants .
NOTICE
TO: WELD COUNTY ATTORNEY
TO: ROBERT RAY, ATTORNEY REPRESENTING GARY BRAGDON
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the complete record of the
proceedings before the Board of Weld County Commissioners
concerning the application of Gary Bragdon for a Use by Special
Review for a livestock confinement operation, was filed with the
Weld District Court on the 22nd day of September, 1987 .
Mary Ann Feuerstein
Weld County Clerk & Recorder
and Clerk to the Board
E `L'` (..-13Y: a —,0 t 42
De rnuty County Cle k
870412
DISTRICT COURT, WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Case No. 87-CV-631 , Division I
GARY BRAGDON,
Plaintiff,
vs .
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF WELD,
STATE OF COLORADO, whose members are:
GORDON E. LACY, C.W. KIRBY, GENE R. BRANTNER, JACQUELINE JOHNSON,
and FRANK YAMAGUCHI ,
Defendants.
CERTIFICATE OF HAND DELIVERY
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Record
of Proceedings was hand delivered, on the 22nd day of September,
1987 , to the offices of the Weld County Attorney, and Robert Ray,
Attorney for Gary Bragdon, at the addresses below listed:
Weld County Attorney Robert Ray, Attorney
ATTN: Lee D. Morrison 1122 9th Street, #103
915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631
Greeley, CO 80631
Mary Ann Feuerstein
Weld County Clerk & Recorder
and Clerk to the Board
EL
f p', B4ttyCle
�-rr-yr-«J
I
�. _ /
l II ' \: of
nrry:C
870412
r
DISTRICT COURT, WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Case No. 87-CV-631 , Division I
ORDER FOR PREPARATION OF TRANSCRIPT AND CERTIFICATI 1 �2RD
irm z, vi`
GARY BRAGDON, 0, , '
Y UTA SEW,
Plaintiff,
vs. GREW-Y. COLO.
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF
COLORADO, whose members are:
GORDON E. LACY, C. W. KIRBY, GENE R. BRANTNER, JACQUELINE JOHNSON,
and FRANK YAMAGUCHI,
Defendants.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon the request of the
Plaintiff for certification of the record and preparation of a
full transcript of the hearing held before the Defendants on
May 27 , 1987 , concerning Plaintiff ' s "Application for Use by
Special Review" . As provided by law, and good cause appearing,
IT IS ORDERED:
1 . That Defendants cause to be prepared a transcript of the
hearing held before the Board of Weld County Commissioners on
May 27 , 1987 , concerning Plaintiff ' s "Application for Use by
Special Review" .
2 . That Defendants certify the record herein, which shall
include the original or certified copies of the aforementioned
transcript, together with all pleadings, applications, evidence,
exhibits , and other papers presented to or considered by said
Defendants; rulings upon exceptions; and the decisions, findings,
and the actions of the Board.
3. That the preparation of said transcript and the cer-
tification of said record shall be completed by the Defendants
and filed with this Court, with a copy thereof to be provided to
the Plaintiff, on or before October 8, 1987
4 . That upon receipt of a copy of the record herein, the
Plaintiff shall notice this matter in for trial setting .
Done in Chambers this 10th day of July , 1987 .
BY THE COURT:
DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 870412
DISTRICT COURT, WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Case No. 87-CV-631 , Division I
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING (ORDER FOR PREPARATION OF TRANSCRIPT AND
CERTIFICATION OF RECORD )
GARY BRAGDON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF WELD,
STATE OF COLORADO, whose members are:
GORDON E. LACY, C. W. KIRBY, GENE R. BRANTNER, JACQUELINE JOHNSON,
and FRANK YAMAGUCHI,
Defendants .
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING/I hereby certify that I have this 5 day of July, 1987 ,
deposited in the U. S. Mails, postage prepaid, a true and correct
copy of the "Order for Preparation of Transcript and Certification
of Record" entered in this case on July 10 , 1987 , addressed to:
County Attorney' s Office Clerk to the Board of
ATTENTION LEE D. MORRISON County Commissioners
P. O. Box 1948 Centennial Building
Greeley, CO 80632 Greeley, CO 80631
870412
y y&per
&/3o/g7 cLec�
DISTRICT COURT, WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Case No. 8 7 C L1 / , Division
YdEt9 CIVITY CBte!s IMINS
uj�s ;771n
SUMMONS SUMMONS l J �'
\' a7 JUN 0i U
GARY BRADGON, LC
GREELEY+ <'0'
Plaintiff ,
vs.
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF
COLORADO;--whose members are:
-GORDON E. LACY,; C. W. KIRBY, GENE R. BRANTNER, JACQUELINE JOHNSON,
and FRANK YAMAGUCHI,
Defendants .
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,
TO THE DEFENDANT ABOVE NAMED , GREETING :
You are hereby summoned and required to file with the Clerk
an Answer to the Complaint within twenty (20 ) days after service
of this Summons upon you . If you fail so to do, Judgment by
default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the
Complaint .
If service upon you is made outside the State of Colorado , or
by publication, or if a copy of the Complaint be not served upon
you with this Summons, you are required to file your Answer to
the Complaint within thirty (30 ) days after service of this
Summons upon you.
This is an action as is more fully described in the Complaint
filed herein, a copy of which is attached hereto.
h
Dated this ( INC..
day of June, 1987 .
ROBERT E. RAY, #6197
Attorney for Plaintiff
1122-9th Street, #103
P. 0. Box 1501
Greeley, Colorado 80632
Telephone: 351-6083
NOTE: THIS SUMMONS IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO RULE 4 OF THE COLORADO
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AS AMENDED
& c.I : 'A $d "'r9
7-t'87
DISTRICT COURT, WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
•
Case No. , Division
COMPLAINT UNDER RULE 106 , COLORADO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
GARY BRAGDON,
Plaintiff,
vs .
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF
COLORADO, whose members are:
GORDON E. LACY, C. W. KIRBY, GENE R. BRANTNER, JACQUELINE JOHNSON,
and FRANK YAMAGUCHI,
Defendants.
Plaintiff, by and through his attorney, Robert E. Ray, and
for good cause of action against the Defendants, states and alle-
ges as follows :
1. Plaintiff is now, and was at all times relative to these
proceedings , a resident of Weld County, Colorado.
2 . Defendants are the Weld County Board of Commissioners and
its duly elected members.
3 . On May 27 , 1987 , Plaintiff appeared before Defendants for
a hearing in connection with his "Application for Use by Special
Review" for a livestock confinement operation for 20 ,000 head of
sheep.
4 . At the conclusion of said hearing, Defendants denied
Plaintiff ' s application . A copy of the Resolution setting forth
said denial is attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part
hereof by reference.
5 . It is Plaintiff ' s position that the Defendants exceeded
their jurisdiction and abused their discretion in denying his
application, for the following reasons:
a. One basis for denial of the application was that the
use applied for would not be compatible with the existing
surrounding land uses. In fact, the proposed livestock con-
finement operation would be located in an area zoned
"agriculture" , and within two miles of the proposed site
there are four feedlot operations and two dairy operations.
BRAGDON VS. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, Case No.
COMPLAINT UNDER RULE 106
PAGE TWO
b. Another basis for denial of the application was that
it would not be compatible with the future development of the
surrounding area as permitted by the existing zone and with
future development as projected by the Comprehensive Plan of
the County and the plan of the City of Greeley. The evidence
presented by Plaintiff showed that the proposed livestock
confinement operation would be located in an area two miles
from the projected growth of the City of Greeley, and two
miles from the projected growth of the Town of Windsor. The
Town of Windsor approved the proposed site; and the City of
Greeley objected to the proposed site, stating that it would
be in conflict with its proposed development. Plaintiff
believes that it is an abuse of discretion for the Defendants
to find that an area which is located two miles away from any
proposed development could possibly be incompatible with such
development. Furthermore, Plaintiff agreed that if , in fact,
the site became incompatible in the future with actual growth
of the City of Greeley, the site would be vacated .
c. The final basis for denial of the application was
that it was doubtful that there was adequate provision for
the protection of the health , safety , and welfare of the
inhabitants of the neighborhood and County. The Weld County
Planning Department set forth nineteen "Development
Standards" which were required to be complied with by the
Plaintiff in order to provide for the adequate protection of
the health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the
neighborhood and County. Furthermore, the Weld County Health
Department approved the proposed site.
6 . The denial of Plaintiff ' s application by Defendants has
left Plaintiff with no plain, speedy , and adequate remedy other-
wise provided by law, and Plaintiff is therefore entitled to
review by this Court.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as follows:
A. An Order that the Defendants certify the record and a
full transcript of the subject hearing, on or before a date set
by the Court.
B. A finding that the Defendants have abused their discre-
tion and acted outside of their jurisdiction in denying
Plaintiff ' s application, and that Plaintiff has no other plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy otherwise provided by law.
BRAGDON VS. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, Case No.
COMPLAINT UNDER RULE 106 .
PAGE THREE -
C. An Order that the Defendants grant Plaintiff ' s
"Application for Use by Special Review" for a livestock con-
finement operation for 20 ,000 head of sheep on the proposed site.
Dated this p` G day of June, 1987 .
Respectfully submitted,
Address of Plaintiff:
P. O. Box 608 rgt
LaSalle, CO 80645 ROBERT E. RAY, #6197
Attorney for Plaintiff
1122-9th Street, #103
P.O. Box 1501
Greeley , Colorado 80632
Telephone: 351-6083
w
(., OFFICE OF WELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER
,••
• 11.1 DEPARTMENT OF CLERK TO BOARD
MARY ANN FEUERSTEIN
4225
C. PHONE 13031 3564000 EXY:459
P.O. BOX 459
GREELEY, COLORADO 80631
COLORADO
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss
COUNTY OF WELD
RE: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS - APPLICATION OF GARY BRAGDON FOR A USE
BY SPECIAl. REVIEW FOR A LIVESTOCK CONFINEMENT OPERATION
I , Mary Ann Feuerstein, County Clerk and Ex-Officio Clerk of
the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Weld,
State of Colorado, do hereby certify that the following is a true
and correct Record of Proceedings concerning the application of
Gary Bragdon for a Use by Special Review for a livestock
confinement operation, said proceedings being before the Board of
Weld County Commissioners on the 27th day of May, 1987 .
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed
the seal of said County, at Greeley, Colorado, this 22nd day of
September, A.D. , 1987 . \719COUNT CLERK
a
O77,—nu o / 1,
D putt' County Cle
SEAL 1 I!'(`A'
fill
870412
mE� 1 IORAf DU 1
wineToCounty Attorney' s Office oa„ September 17 , 1987
COLORADO From Clerk to Board' s Office
subject: Actual Costs - Gary Bragdon USE.
Lee:
Upon completion of preparing the record concerning the application
of Gary Bragdon for a Use by Special Review, we find our actual
costs to be as follows :
Copies - 3 files of 135 pages @ 10 per page = $ 40 .50
Clerk 's time @ $15. 00 per hour
Transcription and proofing - 23 hours
Organization of files - 8} hours = 471 .50
TOTAL = $512 .00
O
TClTho ie Antuna.
D puty County Clerk
�304
/� C
,SU
198 NO.
$ s/✓ D DOLL,
RECEIVED OF �' �, „e� Lr"
>
/.2
FOR
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOAR WE COUNTY COLORADO
MARY NN RSTElN,CLERK OF THE BOARD
DEPUTY
EORAflDUffl
To County Attorney' s Office Date July 10 , 1987
COLORADO From Clerk to Board' s Office
Subject: Costs - Gary Bragdon USR
Lee:
We estimate the costs to the Clerk to the Board' s Office,
concerning the Gary Bragdon matter, to be as follows:
Copies - 3 files of 135 pages @ 10 per pg. = $ 40 .50
Clerk' s time @ $16 . 00 per hour:
Transcription - 12 hours
Organization of files - 5 hours = 272 . 00
Base fee for transcription = 45 .00
TOTAL = $357 . 50
(c ! O
To ie Antuna
De uty County Clerk
C/ C /2",&l ,-rte(
870421
ROBERT E. RAY 7-83 14 5 0
ATTORNEY AT LAW - TRUST ACCOUNT P. 0. BOX 1501 351-6083
GREELEY, CO 80632 82-138/1070 ¢�
/ 2.4S—V 19 79 c e
Pordet ofe �U/L�� i �/ $
2nP. 4 //�ia<A .0/44 /OO Dollars
The
Bank t
of Greeley �� +.!n s,,..,,P Boa X
352.7030
G,wbv.Colorado 09W!
Fot3O, ,,on t/h ( do tr /!0.,-1
W _
000 L45011' t: L0700 L384t: 060740
. 11'
ROBERT E. RAY
Attorney at Law
Gary Bragdon vs . 351-6083
Weld County Commxssi-oners 7-25-89
Case No. 87-CV-631 Dated:
A. For your information.
'V 670
ED OF 198_ No. 4142
AOR - , .40206
/OD
DOLLARS
LetTi -
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
M WELD COUNTY COLORADO
ARYA N F RSTEIN,CLERK OF THE BOARD
p es
UF.PI!Pl
Hello