The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About871718.tiff December 17, 1986 Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Dear Board members: I hereby affirm that I wish to have a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners concerning my request for a Use by Special Review, which was recommended unfavorably by the Planning Commission. I further agree to pay for the legal advertising expenses. -Anni/i Geor Smith for Aurora Capitol Corporation 871718 /;rHi8i7 ,4 INVENTORY OF ITEMS SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION Case Number USR-770:86:51 Prior to Hearing At Hearing 1. Application 33 pages X 2. 2 Application plat(s) 3 page(s) X 3. DPS Referral Summary Sheet X 4. DPS Recommendation X 5. DPS Surroounding Property Owner Mailing List X 6. DPS Mineral Owner's Mailing List X 7. 3 DPS Maps prepared by Planning Technician X 8. DPS Notice of Hearing X 9. DPS Case Summary Sheet X 10. DPS Field Check X 11 . Letter dated 11/26/86 from George A. Smith X 12. Field Check dated 12/1/86 by Louis Rademacher X 13. Referral response dated 12/16/86 from Gene Inloes X 14. Letter dated 12/3/86 from Lonnie Dunn X 15. Letter dated 12/3/86 from Glenn Spaur X 16. Letter dated 12/3/86 from Ann Brewbaker Sorensen X 17. Letter dated 12/5/86 from James T. Flynn X 18. Letter dated 12/3/86 from Orval Hedger X 19. Letter dated 12/5/86 from John R. Ewing, DVM X 20. Letter dated 12/2/86 from James H. Martin X 21. Letter dated 12/1/86 from Melvin and Barbara Leinweber X 22. Letter dated 11/2/86 from Jean Brewbaker, et al X 23. Letter dated 11/28/86 from Gary Hodgson and Willard Hartnagle X 24. Letter dated 11/26/86 from Melvin Rahm X 25. Letter dated 11/25/86 from Stephen P. Rivas X 26. 2 letters dated 11/22/86 from James and Lilia Brewbaker X 27. Letter dated 11/22/86 from Paul and Janice Hopp X 28. Referral response from Erkenbeck Lateral Ditch Co. X 29. Referral response dated 12/10/86 from Hal Simpson X 30. Referral response dated 12/5/86 from Wes Potter X 31. Referral response dated 12/4/86 from John Lebsack X 32. Letter dated 12/6/86 from Bruce Haflich X kXMiBiT Inventory of items submitted for consideration USR-770:86:51 Aurora Capital Page 2 Prior to Hearing At Hearing 33. Letter dated 12/6/86 from Joe Elms X 34. Letter dated 12/8/86 from John S. McCahan X 35. Letter dated 11/28/86 from Barbara Kowalik X 36. Telephone message dated 12/12/86 from Melvin Carlson X 37. Letter dated 12/10/86 from Vern H. Vinson X 38. Letter dated 12/12/86 from Robert M. Jehorek X 39. Letter dated 12/10/86 from Bennet and Marilyn Spaur X 40. Letter dated 12/10/86 from R. B. Willson X 41 . Letter dated 12/9/86 from D. I. Spaur, et al X 42. Letter dated 12/5/86 from Alvin Seele, et al X 43. Letter dated 12/9/86 from Roger B. Olsen X 44. Letter dated 12/9/86 from J. Harvey Yoakum X 45. Letter dated 12/9/86 from Byron Spaur X 46. Letter dated 12/9/86 from Gary and Nanette Adler X 47. Letter from Linda and Greg Smith X 48. Letter dated 12/9/86 from Duane Frye X 49. Letter dated 12/9/86 from Nyla Frye X 50. Letter dated 12/9/86 from Greg and Anna Spaur X 51. Letter dated 12/9/86 from Mr. and Mrs. Chuck Stieff X 52. Letter from Bill Claus X 53. Letter dated 12/11/86 from Faye Elms X 54. Letter dated 12/13/86 from Roy Rutt X 55. Letter dated 12/14/86 from Betty Hicks X 56. Exhibit A - Applicant's hearing presentation outline. X 57. Exhibit B - ASCS Commodity Fact Sheet with attachments. X 58. 19 page petition and attached map. X Inventory of items submitted for consideration USR-770:86:51 Aurora Capital Page 3 I hereby certify that the 58 items identified herein were submitted to the Department of Planning Services at or prior to the scheduled Planning Commission hearing. I further certify that these items were forwarded to the Clerk to the Board's office on December 19, 1986. C hit.. ' Chuc Cunliffe, Director Department of Planning Se x{+ ces STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF WELD SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS I ej DAY OF (t. ,-,5-)",-v.),,-, ,,_ 19' (c SEAL ck\c_ C rc,a NO�ARtY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Moved by Ann Garrison 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: CASE NUMBER: USR-770:86:51 c7\7--iJ NAME: Aurora Capital Corporation fFC 1 Q 196 ADDRESS: 2930 Center Green Court, Boulder, CO 80301 GPEELEY. COLO. REQUEST: A Use by Special Review permit for a livestock confinement operation (2,400 head dairy) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The SWi, Section 32, T4N, R67W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado LOCATION: Northeast corner of the intersection of Weld County Road 15 and Weld County Road 38 be recommended unfavorable to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons: This proposal is not consistent with the intent of the district for which the use is located. Although the district is zoned agricultural, the use of this land would be much more intense, and the more intense use of the land would create problems for the residents. While the Corporation intends to protect the welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and the County, correcting problems after they exist is not sufficient protection for its neighbors. Also, the uses of the land (as a dairy) would not be complimentary or compatible with surrounding land—uses as the surrounding land—uses are not used in such an intense manner. In the future, land will probably not be developed agriculturally in such an intense manner and, therefore, the property would be not compatible with future development of the area. Motion seconded by Paulette Weaver. VOTE: For Passage Abstain Against Passage Lydia Dunbar Jack Holman Ivan Gosnell Louis Rademacher Paulette Weaver Ann Garrison Exit/8J l% USR-770:86:51 Aurora Captial Corporation Page 2 The Chairman declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this case to the Board of County Commissioners for further proceedings. CERTIFICATION OF COPY I, Bobbie Good, Recording Secretary of the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution is a true copy of the Resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County, Colorado, adopted on December 16, 1986, and recorded in Book No. X of the proceedings of the said Planning Commission. Dated the 17th day of December, 1986. Bobbie Good Secretary AAELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. 24 South Main, P.O. Box 345 Longmont, Colorado 80501 , ' Telephone 776-6031 Y'f:3 C'::t, ;'f r,.. Metro 444-2989 ,.._, �' v A ctig,j J1, ` 7 : December 17, 1986 ', t� -11 =-_,1 ti� . I DEC 1 91986 `I To: Weld County Planning Commissioners �� .GRCELL Y. CC,O. RE: Colorado Dairy Farms Propsed Site: Rd. 38 & Rd. 15 Yesterday, December 16, 1986, I attended the hearing regarding special use permit for Aurora Capital Corporation, Colorado Dairy. I could not believe what I heard. I could see that it would be a waste of time to try and speck at that time, so I de- cided to put it on paper. What I witnessed yesterday was a form of freedom which I didn't believe existed. Taxes were a large issue. I pay taxes (State, Federal and others to numerous to men- tioned - yes, Weld County also) . At no time do I think I could tell my neighbor he or she could not live North of me, if his job is to the South due to traffic reasons. I did not know roads were maintained for joggers. I hope anyone having proper license plates on their trucks or any other vehicle may drive on any road which is not restric- ted in the U.S.A. The point is, there were some speakers that made sense, and some made no sense. When the criteria is met, zoning is appropriate and when the problems encountered are trying to be over come, no man or group of men have the right to control the destiny of others. That is the democracy, the freedom and the right to excel . There have been many men who died to secure this freedom of behalf of all . The cost of freedom is high. I per- sonally spent two years of my life for it as a Korean Vet. Yet I never heard one home owner concerned about democracy or freedom, only his vanity. There is no perfect place to live. If there was we would all be there. When you go to the country, there are problems you crust consider. When you move to the City, there are problems you must consider also. So, you weigh the negative and the positives and make you decision. Please don 't force your decision upon others. There is only one who can control your destiny, that is "The Almighty God" . If this zoning request is turned down, I would feel it would be a great injustice to democracy and freedom. It would be the decision of "The vanity of few, control the destiny of others". Sincerely, 2z- . A %/Gzt� Melvin H. Rahm, President AAA Electric Company, Inc. (2 (7 ,. £x,1i L3i7 D . Summary of the Weld County Planning Commission Meeting December 16, 1986 Page 9 Lee Morrison reported that since we are still under the old Comprehensive Plan this request must be evaluated by the Planning Commission under that plan. However, since were are between the old plan and adoption of the new plan, if this request is denied, the applicant may come back and ask that it be considered under the new Comprehensive Plan after its approval. Only requests made during this brief time between the two plans have this privilege. The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Lydia Dunbar — yes; Ivan Gosnell - yes; Louis Rademacher - yes; Paulette Weaver - No, based upon the intent of the existing Comprehensive Plan which states that urban-type uses should be located adjacent to existing municipalities and this is not an existing municipality. Also, by locating something with this type of traffic adjacent to an interstate highway will create problems with the traffic on the interstate highway. Ann Garrison - yes; Jack Holman - yes. Motion carried with five voting for the motion and one voting against the motion. The Chairman called a recess at 4:40 p.m. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 4:50 p.m. CASE NUMBER: USR-770:86:51 APPLICANT: Aurora Capital Corporation REQUEST: Use by Special Review permit for a livestock confinement operation (2,400 head dairy) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SWi of Section 32, T4N, R67W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado LOCATION: At the northeast corner of the intersection of Weld County Roads 15 and 38 APPEARANCE: Yen Dell, Planner, Rocky Mountain Consultants, represented the applicants. This will be a commercial dairy on 161 acres. Aurora Capital wants this dairy to exceed all standards and State and County guidelines. This property is the old Anderson Feedlot. The hcuse will remain on the property, but other structures and feedlot pens will be removed. The dairy is planned to be constructed in two phases. Each phase will have three mobile homes. Sanitation systems will be handled according to accepted design. Each phase of the dairy will have a cistern witch will be filled on off peak hours with water from the Little Thompson Water District. Each phase will have one thousand two hundred cows. He explained how the sedimentation and retention ponds will be constructed and operated. Water from the third or last pond will be used to irrigate the property. All ponds will have clay liners to prevent water from seeping into the underground water table. There are four residences close to the dairy operation, but none is closer than six hundred and fifty feet from the dairy operation or the ponds. Impacts of the dairy are designed to be confined to the property. k XHil3i T Summary of the Weld County Planning Commission Meeting December 16, 1986 Page 10 Tape 262 - Side 2 Robert James, Project Engineer, Rocky Mountain Consultants. The sanitation system was designed to take into consideration surface and subsurface conditions, prevailing winds, runoff, etc. Each retention pond has been designed to hold one hundred and thirty percent of the estimated twenty-five year flood plain run off. Steve Rivas, S. P. Rivas Company, stated he had been contracted to subdue the odor problem at both dairy sites. They use blue-green algae, two feet on the top of each pond, to eliminate the odors. Jerry Gray, Anchor Animal Health, reported his company handles insect control at Colorado Dairy and will also handle it at this site. Colorado Dairy does an excellent job of removing the debris, etc. , from the site to cutdown on the inspect population. Mark Pepperzack, President, Aurora Capital, stated they would not be doing this if they did not have a market for their product. He considered this dairy a family operation. They did want to acquire property across from the existing dairy, but this was not possible. This land is dryland and he feels they are creating a land-use product. Phase one will be completed in 1987 and phase two will be completed in 1988. Barney Little, General Manager, Colorado Diary Farms, stated they have fifty-three full time employees, fifty-one of which are local. The new dairy will employee thirty-five people. The bulk of their products are bought locally. They rent six houses close to the dairy for their employees. They have spent three and one-half million dollars locally so far this year. Approximately nine hundred replacement cows are purchased per year. He also reviewed the estimated truck traffic that would be needed to serve the dairy. Tape 263 - Side 1 The Chairman asked the applicant if they objected to having the opposition speak first and then those who are in favor of this request speaking last. The applicants did not object to this proposal. The Chairman asked that each speaker limit their time to three to five minutes and asked that those speaking try not to be repetitive and limit their testimony to new material. Lee Morrison reviewed the criteria that must be used in making a decision by the Planning Commission. He reviewed Section 24.3 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. This is a land-use decision and land-uses should be the bulk of the criteria taken into consideration on which a decision is based. Summary of the Weld County Planning Commission Meeting December 16, 1986 Page 11 Thomas Hellerich, Attorney, Dinner, Hellerich, and Lazar, represented a group of fifty to fifty-two individuals who are in opposition to this request. Use by Special Review standards require that the health, safety and well being of the residents in the area are protected from traffic, dust, odor, noise, water, etc. They do not feel these safeguards have been met. This is a business and not a farm and it does affect the economy adversely. He asked that he be able to introduce each of those he represents who wish to speak. Following all testimony he would like to be able to conduct a summation. Nanette Adler represented a concerned citizens group. She distributed a map showing residents in favor, no opinion, and for this proposal. A copy was retained by the staff for evidence. Faye Elms, property owner north of the proposed diary, was opposed to this request because of the increased traffic, dust, and odor. Ann Sorenson lives on land adjacent to the proposed dairy. She is against this proposal because of odors, traffic, and possible declining land values. Robert Willson lives 3.5 miles from the property. He is opposed to this request because of the increased traffic, dust, odors. He also doubted Little Thompson Water District could supply ample water for this operation, and he questioned the effectiveness of clay pond liners. Tape 263 - Side 1 Nila Fry, property owner within five hundred feet, is opposed to this request because of the increased traffic and odor. They bought this land for a building site and if the dairy goes in they will probably never build on it or be able to sell it. Mel Leinweber spoke against this request because of increased traffic and the danger this may impart to school children and the school busses. Greg Brown spoke against this request. He questioned the need for more milk and more local markets for feed. Jack McAnn area resident, stated this is a corporation. It is not a citizen. They are outside investors and not private citizens. It is private citizens who are against this proposal. Also, corporations don't vote. Summary of the Weld County Planning Commission Meeting December 16, 1986 Page 12 Ed Reichert, area resident, is opposed to this request because of the smell, shortage of water under the Little Thompson, and devaluating land prices. He also spoke as a realtor on the real estate aspect of the land surrounding the dairy. Joe Elms, area resident spoke against this proposal because of the odor and increased traffic. Judith Green, Northmoor Acres, stated there are eighty families living in Northmoor Acres and they are concerned about the odor. Charles Stieff is against this proposal for all the reasons previously given. Duane Fry, surrounding property owner, is opposed to this request for the many good reasons already given. This is a twenty—four hour a day operation and it disturbs a farming community. Bob Schellenberger, Northmoor Acres, stated eighty families live one and one—fourth miles north of the proposal. The waste from two thousand four hundred dairy cows is the equivalent to the waste of a town of thirty eight thousand people, therefore he does not see how the retention ponds can be odorless. Charles Gray is opposed to this request because of decreasing property values. He cannot sell his land until he sees if this dairy is going to go onto this site. The Chairman called a break at 6:15 p.m. The meeting was called to order at 6:20 p.m. Jerry Sidwell, Gill, does custom farm work. He is for the dairy. He buys hay from approximately twenty farmers in the area and sells it to the dairy. Justin Sidwell, Gill, does custom farm work with his brother. He is for the dairy. Whether or not a lot of feed is hauled in and stored on the property or whether it is brought in daily does not make a lot of difference in the average amount of truck traffic. Curtis Strong, area resident, is here is support of this request. The applicant's operation is exemplary. They employ people whom they pay good wages and provide good housing. It is a good outlet for farm products and we should welcome anything that utilizes farm products. The odor problem is being constantly addressed. People should expect farming odors in farming communities as the norm, and this is a farming community. Summary of the Weld County Planning Commission Meeting December 16, 1986 Page 13 Bill Claus, custom hay business, is for the dairy. Colorado Dairy buys a lot of hay from him. Shaun Martin, veterinary supply business, stated this is one of the top dairies he sees. It is clean, insect free, and the odor problem cannot be blamed entirely on the dairy. There is a twelve thousand head feedlot just around the corner. Charles Sorenson, livestock herder, spoke in support of this request. Dick Foulkman stated may farmers have incorporated and they are still good neighbors and good citizens. He does a lot of repairs on the dairy and is impressed with the clean, neat operation. John Ewing, Veterinarian, feels Colorado Dairy has done a good job of handling odors, wastes, and control of insects. Joseph Gabel, area farmer, stated farmers farm to make money and Aurora Capital has let him do this. Phil McCoy, area resident is for this proposal. Ken Dell reported they had received a letter from Little Thompson Water District stating they can supply ample water for this project. The Chairman asked Keith Schuett to read the recommendations, conditions, and development standards as outlined by the Department of Staff into the record. • Tape 264 — Side 2 MOTION: Ann Garrison moved Case Number USR-770:86:51 for Aurora Capital Corporation for a Use by Special Review permit for a livestock confinement operation, a 2,400 head dairy, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial. This proposal is not consistent with the intent of the district for which the use is located. Although the district is zoned agricultural, the use of this land would be much more intense, and the more intense use of the land would create problems for the residents. While the Corporation intends to protect the welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and the County, correcting problems after they exist is not sufficient protection for its neighbors. Also, the uses of the land (as a dairy) would not be complimentary or compatible with surrounding land-uses as the surrounding land-uses are not used in such an intense manner. In the future, land will probably not be developed agriculturally in such an intense manner and, therefore, the property would be not compatible with future development of the area. Motion seconded by Paulette Weaver. Summary of the Weld County Planning Commission Meeting December 16, 1986 Page 14 The Chairman called for discussion from the members of the Planning Commission. Discussion followed. The Chairman reminded the Planning Commission members that since the recommendation is for denial, and the staff's recommendation is for approval, reasons should be given for their decision. The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Lydia Dunbar - Yes, her reasons are very similar to the reasons outlined by Ann Garrison. Also, this type of an operation should be taken into an area where there is less population and it would blend in better with other agricultural uses. Ivan Gosnell - Yes, for the same reasons. He also feels there could be some potential traffic problems that have not been studied. Louis Rademacher - Yes. Because the landowners in the area are against having an operation such as this, and for the reasons outlined by Ann Garrison. Paulette Weaver - Yes. She agrees with the comments made by Ann Garrison. This may be a well designed facility, but well designed facilities must be located in appropriate locations because as Lydia Dunbar stated, there are probably many areas in the County that would welcome this type of development, but this area, southwest Weld County, whether we like it or not is growing residentially and this type of use is not compatible with this current and future growth. Ann Garrison - Yes. Jack Holman - Abstain because of a possible conflict of interest because he too is a dairyman. Motion for denial carried with five voting for the motion and one abstaining. The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, r O L _ a Bobbie Good Secretary • 1 DEC 2 41986 December 23, 19°6 Gentelmen; T am wr'.tin- this letter loncern?.n- to the Da4.ry that tre Colorado Dairy wants to build, ': fsrn r;.rht net to the North side of The Colorado Dairy, I f^r' ??.7 acres and all in corn. Ans - also want to say that all of this corn Prop the Dairy buys from me. I want to sa" t?:at as t''."n-s are now ;.n these times a farmer has a hard t ^,e selling his crop. the Dairy has been to fie a good business partner, with thi.s = mean in belly,. able to sell my orop. I feel that the 2.:°e=r,r should he granted the right to bu'.ld. We need to expand and to grow and not to let our agr'culture cease. Section 20 Very truly yours, CL C/ Range 67 k 4-.. ale Salazar Township 3 2 =x.1986 lx/i/8/7 WM Co. Marlon* t:na1Eutssoun DATE: December 29, 1986 TO: The Board of County Commissioners Weld County, Colorado FROM: Clerk to the Board Office Commissioners: If you have no objections, we have tentatively set the following hearing for the 14th day of January, 1987 , at 2: 00 P.M. Docket No. 86-82 - USR, Livestock confinement operation (2, 400 head dairy) - Aurora Capital Corporation OFFICE OF A THE CL K TO THE BOARD BY: 727e: � V Deputy The above mentioned hearing date and hearing time may be scheduled on the agenda as stated above. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO eele`Xc-Cri, zity ye, ifriirVii,/,C1 k rN/D/7 NOT I C E Pursuant to the zoning laws of the State of Colorado and the Weld County Zoning Ordinance, a public hearing will be held in the Chambers of the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, First Floor, Greeley, Colorado, at the time specified. All persons in any manner interested in the Use by Special Review are requested to attend and may be heard. Should the applicant or any interested party desire the presence of a court reporter to make a record of the proceedings, in addition to the taped record which will be kept during the hearing, the Clerk to the Board's Office can be contacted for a list of court reporters in the area. If a court reporter is obtained, the Clerk to the Board's Office shall be advised in writing of such action at least five days prior to the hearing. The cost of engaging a court reporter shall be borne by the requesting party. BE IT ALSO KNOWN that the text and maps so certified by the Weld County Planning Commission may be examined in the office of the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners, located in the Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Third Floor, Greeley, Colorado. APPLICANT DOCKET NO. 86-82 Aurora Capital Corporation 2930 Center Green Court Boulder, Colorado 80301 DATE: January 14, 1987 TIME: 2:00 P.M. REQUEST: Use by Special Review - Livestock confinement operation (2,400 head dairy) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The SW}, Section 32, Township 4 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado LOCATION: Northeast corner of the intersection of Weld County Road 15 and Weld County Road 38 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO BY: MARY ANN FEUERSTEIN COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER AND CLERK TO THE BOARD BY: Mary Reiff, Deputy DATED: December 29, 1986 PUBLISHED: January 1 , 1987, in the Johnstown Breeze AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION THE JOHNSTOWN BREEZE NOTICE STATE OF COLORADO 1 the Pursuant 8 tame equip laws ofpoef I SS eld County ' , rdinanae, COUNTY OF WELD ) apuaic hsannd' held m 1, Clyde Briggs, do solemnly swear that I the ty Comm afr :Board Weldof am publisher of The Johnstown Breeze; ' County ambers o County, Color a county that the same is a weekly newspaper Street t a .915 om printed, in whole or inpart, and published Street, Finit�r,. Greeley, Colorado, at the days a nn All persona in the County of Weld, State of Colorado, ` e manner interested in the Ube'° manner special and has a general circulation therein; that Revab bard retaliated o attend and muY4 said newspaper has been published Should ttfe app9aeet or any continuously and uninterruptedly in said interested .party Were the County of Weld for a period of more than presence of a.apuff eporter to fifty-two consecutive weeks prior to the make a reeved -At:,the pro- y- ceedl inaddnitalfti the taped first publication of the annexed legal notice record i� the�Cteerrk°ttq the or advertisement; that said newspaper has Boards Office can be contacted for a I been admitted to the United States mails as area It of court reporters In the If a court reporter is second-class matter under the provisions of obtained lf ehe�l be Eh iidp the Act of March 3, 1879, or any of such action at r days amendments thereof, and that said prior to the h t of engaging a court shall newspaper is a weekly newspaper duly be borne by the i p party. qualified for publishing legal notices and BE IT ALSO KNOWN that the text and maps so certified by the advertisements within the meaning of the. Weld County Pewee' Commie- laws of the State of Colorado. soffieewtheCl erktotheBoardo That the annexed legal notice or advertise- county Commisawa«s, located ment was published in the regular and In the Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th 3lreet, Third entire issue of every number of said weekly Floor, Greeley, Colorado. newspaper for the period of .1... consecu- DOCKET NO. 88-82 tive insertions; and that the first APPLICANT publication of said notice wa.' in the issue of Aurora Capital Corporation 2930 Center Green court said newspaper dated i? .3( A.D. 1'r4.., Boulder, Colorado 80301 and that the last publication of said notice DATE: January 14, 1987 was in the issue of said newspaper dated TIME: 2:00 P.M. . , A.D. 19 REQUEST: Use by Special In witness whereof I have het/"t-�lunto set Review - Livestock.confinement my hanththls ...3i day Uf gre C- operation (2,400 head dairy) A.D. 1961" LEGAL DESCRIPTION:The SW y., Section 32, Township 4 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M., Weld Count', Coloradody-ti /de LOCATION: Northeast corner of Publisher the intersection of Wed County Road 15 and Weld COdnty Road 38 BOARD OF COUNTY Subscribed and sworn to before me, a COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, Notary Public in and for the�C unty of COLORADO Weld State of Color,adp, this s. .... day of BY: MARY ANN -4hdaA.D. 1 FEUERSTEIN COUNTY CLERK AND r RECORDER AND CLERK J / / TO THE BOARD ;Y� «:?(..,,G(.:.f_�f=l - ' - BY: Mary Rena, Deputy Notary Public. DATED: December 29, 1986 PUBLISHED:January 1, 1987, in the Johnstown Breeze My comtgissien expires,,,,,y.,.r.,,, .,,A..tag••.. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICA LION • • e e�d State of Colorado County of Boulder 1, J. R. Hofmann ,do NOTICE solemnly swear that the LONGMONT DAILY TIMES CALL is a Pursuant to the zoning laws of the State of Coto- redo and the Weld County Zoning On:Matw, e daily newspaper printed, in whole or in part, and published in public hearing will be held intnechambeta of the the City of Longmont, County of Boulder, State of Colorado, and Board oloradoCWeld CountylsaCenttenninerS alyt ntterCr,,°913 10th Street,First Floor,Greeley,Colorado,at the which has general circulation therein and in parts of Boulder and time specified.All persons in any manner inter- ested in the Use by Special Review are requested Weld Counties; that said newspaper has been continuously and to attend and may be heard, de- uninterruptedly published for a Should the applicant or any interested party de- P y period of more than six months sire the presence of a court reporter to make a record of theproceedinps,In Wditlonlo the taped next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice of record which will be kept during the hearing.the Clerk to the Board's Office can be contacted for a advertisement, that said newspaper has been admitted to the list of court reportara M the area. If a court re- United States mails as second-class matter under the provisions re- porter is obtained,In the r writing to such Board's beast five aye adviser do the e hearing.ng ng such cost at bast of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that g a cours treporter shtbbrne byptthe equest- said newspaper is a daily newspaper E party. duly qualified for i BE IT ALSO KNOWN that the text and maps So certified by the Weld County Planning Commis- publishing legal notices and advertisements within the meaning lion may be examined In the office of the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners, located in of the laws of the State of Colorado; that a copy of each number of the Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street,Third Floor,Greeley,Colorado. said newspaper, in which said notice of advertisement was DOCKET'NO.Ba-82 APPLICANT published, was transmitted by mail or carrier to each of the Aurora Capital Corporation subscribers of said newspaper, according to the accustomed 4B30lder,Crolorado Green.Court °polder,Colorado 80301 DATE: January 14,1987 mode of business in this office. TIME:2:00 P.M. REQUEST: Use by Special Review—Livestock- confinement operation (4,408.head That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published dairy) LEGAL DESCRIPTION:The SWIM,Section 32,Township in the regular and entire edition of said daily newspaper once; 4 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,Colora- do and that one Northeast publication of said notice was in the issue of said LOCATION: No We C County the 15 and d of Road 15 and Weld County Road 38. newspaper dated January 6 19 8 7. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OLORAQO WELD C ANteF COLORA IN BY:MARY KNND RECORDER EIR COUNTY CLERK AND AND CLERK y THE BOARD BY: Mary Reiff,Deputy DATED: December 29,1986 Published in the Daily Times Call, Longmont 7/11Y- � 44104) Colo.Jan.6,1987 Gen1 B&$iManager Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of January/ ,19 87 - / otary Public °x ARl My Commission Expires October 6, 1989 717 - 4th Avenue FEE$ 27 . 00 7 '°&floc Longmont a a•.' Colorado 83501 January 6, 1997 • JAN 9198?, • Weld County Commissioners Gordon Lacy __ Cat+;:::: c; Lt. P. O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Dear Gordon; This letter is to protest the application of a dairy permit for 2 ,400 head that is being considered by the Aurora Capital Corporation Colorado Dairy Farm. We purchased a small acreage a year ago directly across from (within 500 feet) this proposed site. The acreage was intended for a building site. We are very discouraged that a commercial operation of this magnitude would locate directly across from a piece of land that we searched five years to find. In addition , we have been told by a real estate agent that our property could decrease in value by . one-half if the dairy builds and is permitted to operate. We have not built a home on the site because we have many , many questions and concerns. They are as follows: 1 . ODOR PROBLEMS This is a major concern in a day when cities are issuing fireplace burning restrictions , eliminating smoking in public places and the state is trying to reduce car pollution. The odor this operation emits is twice as had for one 's health than the others mentioned. 2. INSECT CONTROL Our personal health and well being would be in jeopardy when insect sprays are used to control the insect population that breed from waste products from a population of cows as described above. 3. MILK OVERSURF'LUS Why is a large investment corporation all owed to operate 2, 400 head when small local dairies are cutting herds -- choosing buy-out programs and decreasing overall production of milk in the United States? Are there State and Federal laws to enforce oversupplying' products that tend to lower the price and wipe out the average independent dairyman? . (1(2. 7 • 4. WATER AVAILABILITY Is there enough water now and in the future to supply a herd of 5,000 cows, especially when a cow requires at least 35 gallons of water a day? Will there be enough water to supply growing commercial and residential growth within the area without condemning farm irrigation water to supply the need. 5. WASTE WATER Will water in storage ponds seep into the ground or evaporate or be irrigated over farm crops--all to eventually run into our main rivers in the area? What are the Environmental Laws that regulate this type of problem. Wasn 't the other Aurora Capital Corporation Dairy on Highway #b6 fined several thousand dollars for not complying with health and environmental standards? O. CREATING ADVERSE CONDITIONS TO FAMILIES LIFESTYLE A dairy cow operation of this number would need to operate 24 hours daily with continual truck traffic on the roads hauling milk products, feed , manure, etc. Noise from the truck traffic , cows, machinery and human traffic would be constant day and night . Lighting would need to be on continually to provide lights for the workers to operate at night . 7. NO COMMUNITY OR COUNTY ADVANTAGE Do dairy cow operations such as this offer much revenues to state and county funds? Will the county be able to maintain the roads in the area, which will be continually traveled by large, heavy trucks? Will people in the area be hired as labor or do they bring in their own work force? Do area businesses within the area profit that much from this corporation or do they do their business ' outside the county'? We feel it is totally unfair for a dairy cow operation of this magnitude to move to such a prime agricultural spot in Weld County when we question the odor problems, insect problems, need of milk products, water availability, waste, control , no community or county advantage and the adverse conditions it would create for all . We also feel robbed of a chance to build a home and retain our investment in the land we purchased before the dairy purchased their property . Please vote no on this and not allow this large corporation to locate on the proposed site at SW 1/4 of Section 32, T4N, R67W of the 6th P. M. Weld County, Colorado. We have lived in the Johnstown area for 16 years and lived in Colorado all of our life. We have been active voters and are continually working to make our community a better place to live. We want to continue to make this our home. Please don 't force us to lose our investment and relocate outside of the area and state. Sincerely, 1..th J Nyl a Frye r 113 I::1 nq Avenue Johnstown , Colorado 80534 v A 4-- 1 �i lE'�,Gf_=`:• (.,/'4i..yLCJ f4C�_.LL r - i c2 a .n ll d AA- - './ y"1 L[ . .+� GO _emu :L. /�/1 70 Ly/ ` i LY /4-4, 4,// e I r -t. / • 1 w ¢ r _t c Vic. G .: I-<.- G 2,1.? <.c „G�= �l1fcToC �f' -� �� ..:y �� --9i c.� /_ ,.�._� �i2��vic s.,t... L_ .CORj7N/N< /C///4'S 7 h'• . G 5-G._? t//]c'TG-..s /ice- rT//.vsTom;.:! et. S/o...5- 41 r,. r/1/4 ..% January 8, 1987 Vii,.. T Gordon Lacy r- ter, Weld County Commissioners . 'i -7?ir ��`�.14 P.O . Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 ty JAN 11219871 1 Dear Commissioner Lacy: `GL "C ° This letter is concerning the Aurora Capital Corporations application for expanding their dairy production at the location of Weld County Roads 15 and 38 . As a resident who lives a little more than half a mile from this location I am asking you to turn down this application. There are many reasons for not wanting a dairy in this neighborhood and many reasons for not needing any more dairies at all . These as a public official I am certain you are already familiar and advised about . There are a number of other reasons besides the emotional ones which are a concern of us residents . (1 ) This proposed dairy is not in keeping with the county 's comprehensive land use . It will be taking prime production ground out of use and destroying it for good . Furthermore the dairy will not be prone to use what- ever land is left for adequate farming since their main business is milk and not grain. Their size will make it too inefficient for them to consider raising any of their own feed and thus the total land site will be removed from agriculture . (2) The proposal of this size of dairy is obviously not compatable with the other agricultural operations in the existing area . This district is and has been for many years small family farms and dairies . There are no other conglomerates of this proportion operating. So this application is unfounded based on the guide lines for our county and district . ( 3) There is no way this business can control the roads and the amount of traffic going to and from their operation. Many of us are concerned for the safety of our children who must venture onto these roads to attend school etc . The excessive speed of trucks and their inability to stop make this business a future hazard. Of equal concern is the health of all of us living within the vicinity. Human life needs adequate breatheable air and water. An operation of this size will greatly reduce our water supply as it is already difficult to keep up pressure in the summer months now. And along with the above mentioned arguments I don't think we want to lose sight of the real issue . The real issue is the fact that we live in a Democratic society. And you are an elected official of the Democratic system and process . If we are a true Democracy then the will •of the people determines the direction a particular situation should go . We , the residents of this area , are not saying that Aurora Capital Corporation has no right to enter into the dairy business . They have every right to engage in such an endeavor in a free enterprise E n,fliT /� page 2 system. What we are saying is that we don't want it located in this area . And our voice and vote is a resounding NO! Aurora Capital is not a citizen, nor are they made up of citizens or residents of this area or county. The Weld County Commissioners were elected to advance the Democratic process of Government and to protect it from any and all who would attempt to gain any per- sonal value at the expense of its citizens. No matter what Aurora Capital promises it can do or add to the area, no matter how much dollar value they claim to bring into the county, no matter how many people they may hire , no matter how "expert" they are in eliminating odor, no matter whatever claims they may make about being "potential good neighbors" , they are still by definition not a citizen. Even were we to bend the rules and change the definition of citizen they would only get one vote . And .that would not be sufficient to cause you to okay their request and turn against the process which is the foundation of this country. It is a sad day when we have to waste tax dollars and valuable time to listen to issues which have nothing to do with the problem at hand . Wisdom can cut right through all the human intellectual and emotional reasons and responses by sticking to the principles which were written and approved by all of us living in the Democracy. None of you Commissioners needs to take sides in this issue . All you need do is defend the process for which you were elected and cordially invite Aurora Capital to seek location for their dairy in another county where the citizens vote for them and the land use is in agreement with their application. Please don't cloud the issues of our day more than they need be . The process of Democracy is being challenged on all sides and its ability to work is being held in suspicion more and more . None of us is capable of separating the emotional feelings on either side and none is capable of knowing what the future will be or who will be proven right or wrong. But I suspect the Founding Fathers of this country knew all about human emotions and how they confuse and cloud issues . Maybe that is why they selected the Democratic process so the common man would have a say and not be manipulated by those in power. Your vote of NO to this application secures the Democratic process and frees you from having to take sides either for or against a business . Your vote is cast neither for the opposition nor the proponent. It is a vote for the Democratic System which states in writing and blood that the will of the majority is the course to be taken. Please accept my personal thanks for listening to all of us on both sides and for helping us (me) realize again what are the real issues at hand. i cerely,1_,J / John S . McCahan �� JSM/jm ganuanM 6, /987 Weld County Commtaatonean 0. Box "MT cneele;, C0880632 �f(' L' �a4\\L7J bean Commtaatonen JAN1'21987�, Lace, L_ 1 am wntttnn to oppoae the paopoaed datnc< /on The 4unvn'Ct e<:t-,�. Capctal ConponatLon, scheduled ron zontna, on aanuanu /1=, /987. We cenfatnlu do NOT need new daLncea to add to the nun Jua of mill, an LOU will nee Ln the Letten I am auotLna. (nom 4anLcu1tune Yecaetanq RLchand E. Luna, atven°at the Nattono_l ?noducena fedenatton convent Lon` laat Fail. Quote: "ALL datny (anmenn should be cautLoua about expanaton Ton whatevea neaaon. We ene oetttna oun au � l„-demand ptctuae Lnto betted balance, "Luna aatd. "If a lanaen imbalance occuna, auppont pntce level& wi.LL no down. ` "When data“men cne conacdentna expandtno theta pncductton, the“ ahourd. loo/ ahead and` nealLze that the pneaent Lew calla fon auppont pntce ceducftona L1 paoductton La move than {Lye Hilton pound& above demand, "he aatd. The decLnton should be to chance vend lLttle night now. 1 thin/ the daLnu tnduatnu would be vent' wLne to leave majors c'ctnec public polLcLe& en_ `theq ene, Li!an. acid Ln hLa addneaa. End or Quote: We do not only NOT NEED 17302E MILK, but I centatnln would not want a da rtr of that atze o,oLn�, tr_ necc2 m t home, would you? 2 ° you haven 't already done &o 1 nuaceat you tah_e a atriaout to /Rahway #66 and load #/7, South ol`vohnatown, dntve atnaLaht c/own` to the St. VnaLn 2tven and` aee how clone those holdt`aa panda (nom The Colonado DaLny arse to the ntven. I am onlu avnn“ that that delay wan_ atanted be.yone people nealtzed what meta to/Lnn place- I don 't think anyone would wan_₹ to have thin buaLn2aa neaa theta homed, eapectallu when Lt L& NO/ NEEDED! SLncenely, fr("it- l�ua tk C l AZ\-CY. a CL\ Marostiea Helste• Darcy 2O718 Weld Corti; _ z). 17 . ,• Johnstown. aL,;sao S :-..k i r Gam, AX/r tell L __ KU MITT rSiVel5 p _TKG 1 January 6, 1987 JAti 12'1987i Gam.CC3.O Weld County Commissioners Gordon Lacy P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Dear Gordon; This letter is to protest the application of a dairy permit for 2,400 head that is being considered by the Aurora Capital Corporation Colorado Dairy Farm. We purchased a small acreage a year ago directly across from (within 500 feet) this proposed site. The acreage was intended for a building site. We are very discouraged that a commercial operation of this magnitude would locate directly across from a piece of land that we searched five years to find. In addition , we have been told by a real estate agent that our property could decrease in value by one-half if the dairy builds and is permitted to operate. We have not built a home on the site because we have many, many questions and concerns. They are as follows; 1 . ODOR PROBLEMS This is a major concern in a day when cities are issuing fireplace burning restrictions, eliminating smoking in public places and the state is trying to reduce car pollution. The odor this operation emits is twice as bad for one 's health than the others mentioned. 2. INSECT CONTROL Our personal health and well being would be in jeopardy when insect sprays are used to control the insect population that breed from waste products from a population of cows as described above. T MILK OVERSURFLUS Why is a large investment corporation allowed to operate 2, 400 head when small local dairies are cutting herds - choosing buy-out programs and decreasing overall production of milk in the United States? Are there State and Federal laws to enforce oversupplying products that tend to lower the price and wipe out the average independent dairyman? ,[x i/8/7 Imo/ • 4. WATER AVAILABILITY Is there enough water now and in the future to supply a herd of 5,000 cows ' especi al l y when a cow requires at 1 east 35 gallons of water a day? Will there be enough water to supply growing commercial and residential growth within the area without condemning farm irrigation water to supply the need. 5. WASTE WATER Will water in storage ponds seep into the ground or evaporate or be irrigated over farm crops--all to eventually run into our main rivers in the area? What are the Environmental Laws that regulate this type of problem. Wasn 't the other Aurora Capital Corporation Dairy on Highway #66 fined several thousand dollars for not complying with health and environmental standards? 6. CREATING ADVERSE CONDITIONS TO FAMILIES LIFESTYLE A dairy cow operation of this number would need to operate 24 hours daily with continual truck traffic on the roads hauling milk products , feed , manure, etc . Noise from the truck traffic ., cows, machinery and human traffic would be constant day and night. Lighting would need to be on lycontinua l to provide lights for the workers to operate at night. 7. NO COMMUNITY OR COUNTY ADVANTAGE Do dairy cow operations such as this offer much ' revenues revenues to state and county funds? Will the county be able to maintain the roads in the area, which will be continually traveled by large, heavy trucks? Will people in the area be hired as labor or do they bring in their own work force? Do area businesses within the area profit that mc.ich from this corporation or do they do their business outside the county? We feel it is totally unfair for a dairy cow operation of this magnitude to move to such a prime agricultural spot in Weld County when we question the odor problems, insect problems, need of milk products , water availability, waste , control , no community or county advantage and the adverse conditions it would create for all . We also feel robbed of a chance to build a home and retain our investment in the land we purchased before the dairy purchased their property . { Please vote no on this and not allow this large corporation to locate on the proposed site at SW 1/4 of - Section 32, T4N, R67W of the 6th P. M. Weld County, Colorado. We have lived in the Johnstown area for 16 years and lived in Colorado all of our life. We have been active voters and are continually working to male our community a better place to live. We want to continue to make this our home. Please don 't force us to lose our investment and relocate outside of the area and state. Sincerely , Duane Frye 113 Fhi nci Avenue Johnstown , Colorado 80534 WEtI Ca ry Cue..I 11. jAN January 9, 1987 ERs D 1 21987 Dear Commissioner: 379 d/C__ GREELEY. COLO. I am writing to ask that you reject the request of the Aurora Capital Corporation for a permit to created a 2400 head dairy on Weld County roads 15 and 38. I believe that a dairy of this size and intensity will devalue property, and will lower the quality of life in our area. We live about two miles from the site; we are afraid that the smell and the flies from the dairy will make life outdoors unpleasant in spring and summer. My family lives outside in warm weather. Last summer we ate every meal on our patio. Many of the eighty families in Northmoor Acres do the same. This is one of the blessings of living in the country. A spokesman for the proposed dairy has assured us that odor and flies will be controlled by modern methods, meaning blue-green alge in the "lagoons" and insecticides. The amount of insecticides needed to control flies will be enormous. We are concerned about pollution of land and water in the area, from fecal matter, and from insecticides. Because ours is an agricultural area, we already have insecticide use on crops. We do not want another unnecessary source of pollution. • The dairymen say that they will be "good neighbors" and will handle any problems that arise, but this is easy to say before the problems arise. I am enclosing several letters to you from my neighbors. I appreciate your consideration of this matter. I hope that you will give the needs of the citizens in the area priority over the needs of a huge corporation from outside, a corporation that is not developing the land for agriculture, and has the potential of serious harm to the area. Sincerely, udith Or Northmoor Acres / X/tif317 /1` LONGMONT YAMAHA 638 Main Street Longmont, CO 805011 651-7000 To Weld County Commissioners: I am opposed to granting a special permit to Aurora Capital Corporation for a 2400 head dairy at the northeast corner of the intersection of Weld County roads 15 and 38. I believe that a dairy of this size and intensity will devalue land property and lower the quality of life in our area. We live only 1 1/2 miles from the proposed dairy site and the smell from the dairy will make life outdoors in the summer and spring unpleasant and will make it very difficult to sell our property when we might need to. Sincerely, Justin D �Johnson 5131 Yucca Ct., Johnstown, Co:' 80534 y,- LONGMONT r(AMAHA 638 Main Street F , Longmont, CO 805011 • 651-7000 To Weld County Commissioners: I am opposed to granting a special permit to Aurora Capital Corporation for a 2400 head dairy at the northeast corner of the intersection of Weld County roads 15 and 38. I believe that a dairy of this size and intensity will devalue land property and lower the quality of life in our area. We live only 1 1/2 miles from the proposed dairy site and the smell from the dairy will make life outdoors in the summer and spring unpleasant and will make it very difficult to sell our property when we might need to. Sinerely, % _L27177 Charles R Johnson f 5131 Yucca Ct. Johnstown, Co. 80534 LONGMONT YAMAHA 638 Main Street Longmont, CO 80501 • ) I 651-7000 . • To Weld County Commissioners: I am opposed to granting a special permit to Aurora Capital Corporation for a 2400 head dairy at the northeast corner of the intersection of Weld County roads 15 and 38. I believe that a dairy of this size and intensity will devalue land property and lower the quality of life in our area. We live only 1 1/2 miles from the proposed dairy site and the smell from the dairy will make life outdoors in the summer and spring unpleasant and will make it very difficult to sell our property when we might need to. Sincerely, 616 Colleen K Jo nson 5131 Yucca Ct. Johnstown, Co. 80534 • _e lam-,=fie =�-✓� ' i tlY�J r (-7 CJ. - 1 , • /Le Lc; `/' i 7)C / `j L / -i rc t 1-.. V , `�� L-A L. ./i.. t- • r r Dec. 31 , 198E 20404 Cactus Drive ( Northmoor Acres ) Johnstown, CO 80534 To Weld County_Conmissioners : Regarding the proposed Aurora Capital Corp. 's dairy farm at Weld Co. Roads 15 8 38, southeast of Northmoor Acres: We are definitely opposed to such an operation so near to our -residential neighborhood. We decided not to ' live in Ft . Collins - or in Greeley because of the infamous smells. We chose Northmoor Acres for its quietness and for its clean, fresh air. We vculd be very upset to have the reasons for chosing our home destroyed due to a large cattle operation nearby. We do not subscribe to the arguments that the operation will not emit an unplesant ordor - we are the ones to lose if and when the arguments prove false. The risk is just too high. As votors and residents of Weld county, we desire you, our representatives , to vote against the proposed Aurora Capital Corp. 's dairy farm at Weld Co. Roads 15 Ey 38 ( and request a no • vote at any other location where the ordor problem would also be a factor for Js. ; Thank you for your understanding in this matter. Regards, • ii.iam A. Senoras, Jr. Ronnie L. Eandras Registered votor Registered rotor PS: Because of out of town business, we will be unable to attend the special meeting to discuss this matter on Jan. 14th. However, this letter expresses our opinions. • T 4-ICLa LEz �Ty ..eniri !5 � / G.c'F 'S 7 A6f?/AL-Cr 7-77k-, 6f&4.2cJn Al G op- /9 1 R/h ' r r GE )g//e o( 7,7/9-77 o.c) 7n` t c - Fte or /&)F c D cr �',-o7?-D /.S j5 3 ?, ! ( ea /A-1 /h'h/ e579-x3 L ! 3 /?-' 5 t/ /Gt{T3 /c-J -^MT Ls/O-u/_I) ea sr7?.c,JC&y frrl=ecrE.b. FRESif /9-2a 4 5' car 4,ub /A)6 mss/4 /Piece CrlA-i -r ,ann.1 -crrj1 /vie ry au9/ "ba, it • 52 yvo r Y,41) i>fr-Ile y •1A-S 77#tS SLosa / (46LC L y2 rL & L I rn ? J/t 7t3 „Jere , tbfcear-7c/L) , /Jo fr /r 2 OPi-r !Alb o 1= Alt 4S r& ,& r-w f ec/r (7.o c u r s acEtreE Ai/3,-DE.. 777%-7-)K yav_ J / o CSS7 /dcL ,bit+ L,^f.4,tfl /UIoF rr o 4± 4epe N c, cr+v s 7-C3c4s tii (,p d"v S 3 y' A / 2 - "Ri, ._ : Y�� ,4:7_ I 142--y1L.21 � V L ' f�C > ' (1) c.- ' z7.. ./E-‘-it -e t-i-vrz...“--r. " - � ��d- it i 2 `/ no - l{{-c---,e IL d_.[. .- -zt -cam_ 7/J4'X,c to is i_C'_ '7 A`e 4. z `Z`'e -e-c- c c, / c: Ct—L-t'L j /� '4--e.C, i (1,-IC_1'ZLIALJr_ (1._,LAL / tfZti-- e /- -t-4- �-c� �c _ —tz4— 'z � r t � t[ c-/z i "- r -La/[:-x-C_' ,C� - , c_ r_ ;V' d c t — ._t��t h-t z.' (9/ li.cz -"-�'� /1-t—t-z-c'--' -7:. "re-r.-c-r1 _ -z44 _ 0 }_t_ic,_,„..4_, zDSS °7 fl ; (7�X` 71L27tiC2 , (-? • eo-5-1Sy v L. ieCd C'ocLn { Co Min i35reners I- m f t de--D7-1 bt u l ha 2eo�onA . ',go() co 1_06 Wilt - _ r • i m .0 a tre_q Cr . CD L diLaC o land Loy C.1(Lo CiAnco. , c()-it LtiLcd acei0tC ( C Vic._, '0 ;may honto Wi 11 Q'occAI. 6126 -i, 2 , D531 1! lC Ct/cia)A4 L Affi �z't r�dcv'1 , /O Oath/ e'a fi / (0 nni SSi al ; .JI aan d _ ULt9t) o pfd t Up &La., . cldd, Q /ham-, d th . o G.,_f2a and d d OLQ eixbroc (c_3 din L , • O2 '-/C L . /-C! , ceka d4 -A222 addpeD2 -ActALLA• (17a ill 1:0 3 9 E ff&Q� u atiBe CldU OW l ea-Cuiced° t'cS 3� .tu d (panty (onssfen iune c oinsf Lhe cry.. ` btu' « G72C (Ind 6 J114 Pt 1 I C° Cu , . . de c s2 , ,L>tUc.c "b rn_c./ Acl ,,„1 y. 6163, oi.Ariu. weld Ey hitA 6— c. locic h Len L I±(2 rcp Lko `P?cx.�{� ou±. he1L , .Q 1,22 E!Q *but. tiu �o --Y, tiLQ , dw y6.sokid bQ LL-n eedcd bk -n Ica evt_, • Ain 2pSa-7 4 ;ir Paec_ P . �n2 uj h Jj ea Z5 3 s . Walter F. Burhans 20406 Northmoor Drive Johnstown, Co 80534 1/5/87 To Weld County Commissioners: I am strongly opposed to granting a special permit to Aurora Capital Corporation for a 2400 head dairy at the northeast corner of the intersection of Weld County roads 15 and 38 . I believe that a dairy of this size .and. . intensity will devalue land property and lower the quality of life in our area. We live only 11/2 miles from the proposed dairy site and the smell from the dairy will make life outdoors unpleasant in addition to making it very difficult to sell our property. Sincerely , Walter F. Burhans Yvonne M. Burhans 20406 Northmoor Drive Johnstown, Co 80534 5 January 1987 Ms . Judy Green 20627 Catclaw Court Johnstown, Co 80534 To Weld County-Commissioners: I am opposed to granting a special permit to Aurora Capital Corporation for 2400 head dairy at the northeast corner of the intersection of Weld County roads 15 and 38 . I believe that a dairy of this size and intensity will devalue land property and lower the quality of life in our area. We live only 11 miles from the proposed dairy site and the smell _from the dairy will make .life outdoors unpleasant in addition to making it very difficult to sell our property. Sincerely, /I 7( , 'fJ .ULL au,cA-- .Yvonne M. Burhans • ,,J January 4. ,1987 To i L i d Count; CCf!1issic,ner• s : RE: Aurora Capital -Corporation, Proposed P,i r^y We are opposed to your granting a special permit to Aurora Capital Corporation for a 240G head dairy at the northeast corner of the intersection of Weld County roads 15 and 38. • We..agree .with others .o ' '• pposcd -to -tl;is dairy because of the negative impact it will have on the quality of our outdoor living environment . Due to the prevailing southerly winds during the scr'• ` rig c`•'r_1 5r'rilr'c►•• rior•thr. the insert and stench problems associated with a dairy will make this a very unpleasant area to reside. We would appreciate your thoughtful consideration in this matter. • Sincerely, Sanford L. Reutter. M. Marlene Reut et r•• Nor••t!. moor= Acres ►� 2C:64c Staghor•r Court Joh►'nstow•in , Co 80534 • •■ I. • n 1 ., „ ,V .n.,L., - r rI. • nl■ r ��` �� 1.1 1 A• ^• • L/)) ;* l • V. ❑n �..1+ �- .. or r I - I �I ■■J� , - - I-(�r 1 1,...._ dlf3.. : � • _ .. • •1• � / • Tr / i 1 t�■ • • c qtr •l . • ' • • t'r ■a■ I.T. .-\ r't nr`•'u. u• l, �i ■ . .f 1, ` n ,r : „ P O j. t •ii • • I' � .�,_,q ■ _ ■ r 1 •1 t I ■ • • 1( �' _..—.�... •1. n ■ nil t. +_ 1. ,n r • • 1Y • L • � • r �' r r 11 4.4 1 4 Ili 5 IN0 • 4/ L :L 1 M11�r� V" 1 • 1, n ■ sv 1 ': ■, w Kd,t3` • •din 13` 1 1� •l' ► :. V. = •1. ' ! 1 (•\ • _t,��r :t ll�r " �il•. ,i 1 (-IL jam•° . 3 C c.• 1 •1' '''4 MIS ifI f e1■ .^4:- ' /'al 1.‘/1.9 '� ' -r .� U�r -_U L L, •T ',4 !�,_� U £ _..-. :L,t.:. ,'1 i' l�n�n� '. _. � ... 1 I .ia ,.I �., IN '• -' •' ■rl1 .• -4 -- n • • ri • n ■.n • ..1 , u r .. a .. r�T,� • ■`t'� a n • • L a. , •-.•�n• I _• ■ • ' ., ` 3• I .^1� I './ I . •.$;•... :J �1fr .I .� L-•1 :I1..+1o...., ( �V 1., LJ :-! I() • -a .I - .i i� -A L la I. d • r .4,� • ^ , • ��y'' / u��ft I ��7• ��1��4.�� ■•a 1,.. - • •r�k, J ■n• n • " E '• - V r, • ,n ■ � '�. '� / �'�In •1'I •, • 1 m cn ■ • • • •n•u ii • n/ •`n4 ��I ❑ 1 1 ,a ■4� - 1 LL ' • .� i■- I • �. _�-■ 'ui •�.,.� a L"�.c.[_u_� .. u..u_u I r 1:u a u- :. .3— r, n •n 'l■� it ` n ■i ■ 1,, -• 1 • • 1214 • •t: M::• J •., a' ' • I. ( .t I I CL- •� -•1• '• u••• n Y r�■ri -` ■I'7■ J, �,r ir i, f' ■ • _rr i..-x' - M (2) 1 •. Z c u, z • N n• o oWI 7d ( c. 1.33HS ) H '' • 1. �I dl : ^\ `r 7V' O I M NI 1,1 N 12/9/86 yyl,2 "CY e" 'Is ' 7.1 sv ' 1'—Id 4I WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION F „r JAN 31987 1` AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOU 0 , L PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART GREELEY. COLO. OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD. COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 4`�eP,-,` 38) . NAME ADDRESS 1 . Pazefrtzei rye l l3 K;n i 4 tit.e. . O int r-w7-5 (. gar.? 'f 1�2 . .� ��yy r , .t om Q t_ ;7974 W-C. R. 151 :.1ok4 cf..,c ., et, g 3'/ 3. V n (1:,.., 1 GG n W.C.1e •xt'3 l,.icJtt& tQ.R.. W,et/ 4. ;1‘2.67.-1:1 -�r� / 9z1/ G6!e/ Ft /3 i o-wt..�-. zc &5. .)Lz d al b '3 a- tARR / 5' ToNk\r}ow 1, C o . 6. e�. , 8 3 i c.z/ c_ /S —F��f & -f A- 7. l -t u-1 / a s'r7 Ct.) t,Q /3 aiw , 8. tr 9. o��q (ac 'r 7 J�✓4A L(�i. �� Go 10 . Pdc,,,c,A /rte- l‘ J zl C)CL /3 I3'- v/7 Men- ', 1 1 . Oze [ 't zv o W c, % PP 3 It et. iv i„,,,& Go &> 6S 12. 9.0fieft_tsiaa.u.„..4.,....e- �G 60 w c� cFS 1L 13. y � '66a k(CJR. I 4 r ( l�614 . W AMAgri Yi7Tri-e/cm, . Si 70 0 w . C.. k .�lv% 0',.�e. 9, e 15. LUrr nv q Gv. e. G% -efc .444 16. e#41,-c-4 '"1-ettetet ci / 7666 /-l/e/c / 7/ f co 17. p 3 • � (e , �e.�r'a--�-�c.�✓�r^^l�,yC 6-co 3 �'C'. // E �.�L�n-- •_.��i'. 18. no--7177 4_41.4_7 73 7o , 7lG k / ems-�C<_L_ 2, 19. �� ci GLre-,/ 937o 47,(' er/G // -� . 2 � 0 20`. p,t C %fg�l GX',(r z . , Clek, ;I L -C %.h l ft') wc;,e ,3" ti /Z.-ki C-U ZX. j t;.c, 6 6 e/ i.Jt /4 7‘r c-4xz /7 .•.Li.�-�r -e. z ce - f E Nt ►3 > T C> 12/9/86 WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE 01 )3 LLD T') THji Ai CICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL C: •P'ORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW a OF SECTION 32 T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M: WELD COUNTY COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . .f-ii e..-- NAME ADDRESS - 1. /II rte. 4Cleel" i.„)isr 3 C > at) Y ,.JLIL / 3 " wi{a.frJ a Q/y Lf�c 9 is D U l 6. .b., . _ 7. 4-'1.,, � . i 9 -/y.� 21-L, e '-` /3 7 Jti.1�, cc, - ` c 8. 9e ja.2. G1r -,-i /$y6o we,Qi/3 /ter wti 9. 1,-eA" 'K) 1 /8 90 0 Luc k^_ i 3 j s-/vng -kA•,1 10. qc�.X.. oD. /chin- 16 2-11 wcr< /3 i...Eti ✓ile 11. ' sV 1 Q2101 C-c k 13 p 13. wr-7,6 X,r,o i571 7/AT/ .6 14 7/24 /".c 6, S i 7 co(2C3y. �o--e0,-2 te 14. �, )2ug/J- AJc.►2 it at-t - -, Cp ....-- 1- • Tli�2��y �p S i t i�,E rz /4 a- �Fo s,35` 17. u-�{. l�eC I/�/7 & 0Ok l— 6jPf/fAi ce -/y�98k18. art-e4- 1,031.- w.e. R_ l7 ?-419a-19.4,70-0, k° GS (471-7M, 2 9.0772-6°. 4'.eh. rsz PO 31? (A-)CC I-) �� fi� ��/ 20: 12/9/A( WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD ' COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . tb , NAME' / 4oi7C 0a. ADDRESS /IS7S,6 . 0/ u : 9VcY� � 29 1-3 - i31 2, / 51'7 -///6 /P44? /7 / c/ - -626 3. ?„O5-17-�7y/3 a42ogy IV( /s _Jol>r.,s e-0 4. ' '13/ 6 5` -n . ft ,. S�" - zt It t1 b W .Circa ►t t- &titn 4.1/26 6. clot. 9. JJ- . S$' -tr 7 g ctt34' Wc.2 P 13/ J o1.�..STo dw d/ 't.- V' 7. '/Lr. 45 — 3 5—cs ..y y et/ /3/ PC"' 1 C.C � Iy J B: z, 0. �� 3 � � oz — — v3 g 9. f i <<� � b ,� l4 3 � 3 7- ,� �/ - I d 10 . C'� C"iL L2ti�1-r. 4,( 13.P- G L. / <� -tf, c2c:.l J 11 -/5 5 (, 12.R,, \ ��./'. p" . � _: � f-o( `3 �' 01 _; : .. .,,., ,_ J ._ c ` t,12 7� c- ) J/ ' it l. \ 14./V �� 7 '7d�or, S e 1$ -7 g'--( .,t4 -71- S-3t7-3-/9k - -% 15. e `17,e) 4- y3s"r .wW 41 (p up 532 •2V-57 1 --/6-4(616 . �r t• �ir��w+-y 5`/r 7�v�/t� fit/ �X/ ?7 `�S � 17 . 18 . 19. 20 . 12/9/86 WE THE UNDERSSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO :WELD -COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS ,, _ , 4,, (9,1} )57v . , 1 . v - v//I.te U A X033 Wc_ie f7 2. QrG�J ij eJ�I O-ride., r - a:D 33 �i`e /7 Via.. o� 4 w e S `l �U ^—�„ 5. a / /a// F. /7fr" /4 e(/ I.Q C (fi ' ii 999O kd //3 .40)64/05-) . 7. IlCrc, t vt I Cli c3 t LC .c, 2 [C :-o - cion, s., 'P.rti 6u. 6-742 .D4--d b C':. 9. 10 N j piii. , I q`/CI 3 Did (.c. 614. ii JCS i'I rvi o 1t.1i 11 .')2(4r1/4-19-4-4-,--2 13 5 0 s-vz,4,L-Cba SC Cr\).-C-9,:; i-'s' , C_O . a GL`'r 12occacce..�/ 933 27lzn � .tcc-.6 �. GC/pcee a , (7-e) 13. c-k- oo1c._ •-tot co._..x--y ac-,-4.-O a, ,. .,�..�,-Ira i C G. -13-3(a 14 . J tit, KoNEZ 11V6 7/g tinn87- ' 7152.g -13-8'G 15' ,o AMY, ��r/: a 60.6'9 Mzentmeoo.A, Ric SI , -a/ MCI - r 3- g.4 (� of a a j7 17 tden-e m-_ .kat}1040--A-a-ttat...„;9J -,2j'1 16. 1a i3 �b 17. �kl�� 507( Yucc r� C F- �7c9bnL619 e7 - c-- 7j - 6 13 � /�t4-6,47L-/ 507/ vac,,, cc_ ✓ .,/loc '7`c 7 X87-:796 /38 z -/3-16719. '/air, - /)61,rv-k - S o 3 0 L ju e-co- I i vti� 2— _g-.4 20 . /may r's,-"y�^". j d :,;.at:.a..d....ai4t33:a...,y�"'^`:� ^�' 3 r.mNs'`1ltW°+SW 'MPa1.`itetr 1.1' yy��yn11O4c j Rfl'(W 12/9[16 WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS L / 1,/j1 / 1 /-14-416 2. dilue ' (�(��,(iie•, ,4 Po 24r0 t'VeA" 17,.T,/n.lfL %'^, Go Sep 42;, ( /A-N-11, 22.rd $ 7j, 4 ) oU weir/ 7 , 5o4instouda.C'° . s�1 -a1ary 4• 2 Gug�<7 wet4C.4tu i737s / �cw�c gd, ixi- aLDIS O -/led 5. V {A. et,, it✓v,u V/l/22is"liti AD/9 , � ',� -Pi-84:, 6 .✓Zu.".7.G> ��. 1.—"n..C� -60( Lucie i �r �/S cj:/�t �. ..�.`; �--,:ZJC� 7. 8. 9. 10 . 11 . 12. 13. 14 . 15. 16 . 17. 18 . 19 . 20 . 12/9/86 WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS 1 . �ja geS C ,5/it /967/ o2 Cie (5 `Jihnsicwh Co 2. �-- 3 6 7 / C[l C e /J hr7 764..n ra qx CO 4. C ✓ dlS dJ / Joff,)SPYd-),i, @ o . )hat e t � a O 7/ Si lve ,Q/'7fri ,,- lac . S� 6. . _ y a,/8- , 7' � o 7e o [-L 2 /2---(g. / 7 tJ�� z, r,</,(r. 8. Vi Ge 9. /�,�� 'J'79C' u/P.E: �J2 Sh Uh,5Ypwn‘ �-O 10 . Joh/uAcJA CL, a 1 1 . Lico.,i,Qy_ C1ANe."ir I--A. 4/o- - 12. A'¢�-nA kO O'4 a c3�o c�c �� ,e�.S87 'fly is 0,3CC tiC' 1, .� ..,,Tec_Cc - .�' J - %3',-1S r2-,v-rw 14. 41anl fih`z/�.. X5'1/ tJte ?F� 9112410 fc''Yn go 5e7-2-75-2- v Y'F c, 7 � 7/ LA/ c_/. MY: 4, 1 5.1�ta y C`"P't / - /Y-V6 16. lo �� — b'S o (- -.C ,/Z4 3d' d?-L ..- J a 1 6E %2 -/ - P6 17.. uY 2� (ee~ L ASI�CI 2,41C c 18. 19 . 20 . 12//86 WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS /?zo re e Daie . ritti(,mAH /YI3 6 w etA,unto (y /i oaf. 1 -5 pIdwwik 6. , //%. e,4 '/`,'-/dzf1-itY11e,, 'ef'G7e / 3' a /6)4 areAt cejee4--- eteo° c's.Th)3 4. �C`^--- � 8'D 5-3 `/ 5.!;„,its L/97 (0 i/.,y l- c _1 Dins-J�.� Co. b-„s.3y 6' ti .Y.4 r.,t4 �11G g /3 0 . N t $o,-0) 5'5": 7. k-4 �c -.` 54-ss C-E, .SEk II. Lo c4,ti�:LWt � G. Xe 3y - Sri - X1`7 S APidc-c-<-,e24-Y,"-.F 2 ZL// , /ca/3 `,e4),28C ✓,5? /, y 9. � c�.�=-1 , .;t 1 2( // Ce•/(TheC e>/S yS-b 7. /L lo . � ` : li . �j;�`�---27/2;21/ ; ` we i y if/ G 12. :�L�LfW L19. < 5fr- /�l y�.�� '14 e, I�l y Gvvw�%-w Cl� �, -,�-. 2 / 601 3. ¢ rg U�, P"e9 Oac e f 7 4 UC S-f ia- yc. G) 8Q`_ ;14i1 14 . 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20 . 17/9/ 6 WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS 1 ' id-hc- �� ISCy7ig2. �il4).d �-v� �/ �� C'_�i (�. oh �. 9 390 Pic 03 j7�ee - 6---Otr i 4 . .6a >Y.GZo we RC7 '-',777-14.- al. to.S".Y4 5. t 4 X 1-CN, 70 ' - /?SS 6 iii.; c.6'. ¢t 7 if ,u, ,c,_ -- 6. � '-L ) :tei-- L}T c'Yr Lo_I2 3 lio±_ , •t C`_Cti Ci. ��lp. C vy 7. 13-62/vvY1/4v tc� �a�vn�,�;�� y 700 - --�c ��-d 3 S f'��-�u^ HOC�> 8. ��t ti7©ozJ 1 Cc RA 3g - ex) c0&. 9° `- - ti ��fZ-i,-r.7A6-7LJ /97/_5- ' iCA__&L Lac; ikt /: "412-tt<_,,%.',-"3: 10 ' . � tj // 'tom �,�CL Lc ( .E� / <� a-c+n,.-S �'Y 5 � 1 1 . 4'a //J t?4; ce.C?i 2 f 714-et..-4?4 CA 12. 4,,da Liuk to 5.3b Li. c . AQ 3;l P. 1'i,,L4<•-CG- s>0 6,57e 57 I 13. E ��we> J /7� / to e /.3 get8o6S% 14 . '1r,. iatr" P 15. Q C8, /3,1/29,yoei ea: 16. CMG,7�,„-'L Yom',/{/c�v/ /477_7,2_ w c. 7: P3 ,,,,‘, 17. Pa.v -- kZW 'y7 a i h b iu i 3 c /S 3 i. A.�� II2 18 . 9:S( '3 kJ c- 3 .Cone, v,> 1 9. 6- 5 Z_ 20 . A / 11� c/r ,i?atS- : i„y,f% l/ilt. Et-4.3?, " 1r--1P, (r)1' 2/9/86, WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME �j� ADDRESS 1 . �7-t '7 /� 5 > •�� (fie-- �c 3 } �/�,/ i Ii /( i ' 2. Lt .1 ,&Jkt<,,Cy .2/7-4(. z_ .. , 1 L.-r/C.H c, ,./4 . / 5. --g 4 i-t-'O"L r Z) L c/ .'-c-,Cc. / a '� i4 y ,L.r v 7. '77:44-2e- stimry._ 8.-14.-M 71/O7'5° Qc,j 7er-L1 .1-/- .,712,471C-5--EX c<p. <,, vT-C.: M', 10 . ,+L CC ~� /.2, --7-. -14-...\ �c\ \S s- �n�'!° w t\ 11 ., e�.aLid 7 30 L 3 )C. !J' �J2a �(V� 12. (--',' 9 8 19 w t_ r kit h'� Ili Ater Cc, 13.(9 37 . ' �%_ �/) V 14 . � ohtit,.r.c,(-- / o fi SL: ,lh,_? /? G 1 5. C 1 a,eel c . J� 0-981 k [ ( '�. J-4L cri-cu soi y3 / 16 . te-Y--C Cci-C i- w7rte'wC/e .5-:,2- 1/IJ/e'ee +? C.2P4, 17. l%,.- :-� 1'"-- /71i Y 2/le"(?, ✓2,'I91 A7A -,,,, C 18. --1�ir),7 63-/..6 .J � /�h�' Forest Si "�,iil:kz-.` eo 19. .d/,?/;R 47i64- 9-5/ , /e`/ /��-? -\X�4r a ,,'ft- I ( 20 . E-ti.4 -„. jilt-A.4,1/4r_ X1410 g 4 V8i ,}Oil i iGciAi .1c, 12/9/A 6 WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME 1 . 02cija 4, ADDRESS iii7:/:,70. .9,0_,,ta„.,-,, ed2 . �j0? C e_. s1/49V I l+h AA-, .' Sot 3QgCcal 71• G� -9ios.��d CA n)t3c / 4 . L 0( rey,pp 0222 N. s el S �� Colin5, CO 57°S-792/5. �o- dam. Z)rk b 21.2 N. cc i J-rc Cettf.-:.. its S O5z I 6. `M D /37 w. 7 , . cc zoo,R3 7. CY n? . isoil/E 1l Oto S. ° .a.dt 't , _fl,�s{Soto.,, CO �'O53ef 8. !: _en..7tcCti oyez+ /g . adi i2rzys_ez t, D _ or_c-_?e/ 9. ;• GXc- .ge� a 7,23 3 W.C. /2c/ So ,gE i al dos z g 10 . 3. (2A-tik4.- Susan. T Parts 40s TeJ vvu,t, 3)r. FC Collins 11 . 4*,tJ „ P ti 8oszt 12 . -44 C`✓ 7-L_cm z7; 7r / ick`"_, co ra.5-4 3 13. '71OJ .tin kl_p,.i-33, 41g7 e. 4C' ,m{ , QerU , 0_a. 8OG 13 14etry) Ai*c"C /e454 ,Pd, Cep. 14)(1'31 15. Oriitu, ,., a a o l 5 W,C . P. 17, e ""`' ` ' 16. c l/ � _— r ra (a So - c I' 1-11;u, `ILO vle let ft d, C 3 �os3 l/ iX - _ I! -F;; 18. jL va� ✓ 1. E v 19. in eexcifi-t ( (/ scvZ/ /o 2 D C/ /� 12/9/PE WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS 1 . , "%L.....44,, Z& h87 /7,�o ris ,%de 7/c coe 2. 7 �,.c_- /Isa a Z-„2 s (.7 - (a 1A-11-W6 3. ,/&-,-c .0 E l4-2 .�-ef `)l-f 76 w ( P 3 6 p-P -i e> (-c, 1u. -/5' 'm /4. ` : ,7GL-'), C/1/W,V 5---; Leto /Na,/G3 4, , /lf / L�/, L " CJ - i 3 4 6. L e.C��?,i�.c,-P- �,. ? 7, '' ,c, e t/C.47 7,G ..A-26? - � 3 -a�� 1 _ c-K L. P Ic.c .:�QnI Cc) .-- /,� 7. U., S� 3; u /�- 1�3'-0�- $. ,. `1,-.""z ow,- U 6' C C..;:C. . red .��. _ Y� ?.GT'P-uc j,z, C d /Z,tie,-; e l r, --/ 10 . go.,HPda /tdv 11 . 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20 . 12/Q/E6 WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS C 1 . , \� r,,,N y5-L5 ‘,3c\* -sC -ck? LAqL''�C.' 5 , 3. t,,-.r,t7-t K /“;-) lc',,.Vic -- yl . 1 4. S ��_i „ -T- _,,,, I / <ter3q wtR p3�/ - rl ft I1L 5. £,2,,G/et., S,� � 5-6 60 .W c k lc 3 7 — P I ca/€.v, l /.� :n � � _ 6 . � —Y-- d CcJ C 4c 3`/ �`'.L ivk C - 7. 77 ^. i� 4 1/≥ !%!1__ u 56c 9 W ce k p 9. �-1----t, •- 1-t, ,- (1 r55o I Us Q . (� 34 E,.,s.U. G_ 1 0 .`JCim2 �Y 5sot w e Rd 3 / P-Latin I LP 1 1 .�i'�ivh�r��°�L/K SO 77 a/e /l�✓ `/A«ff-,° i' 12. � 17 leG / is-..z L; c /...3 irnoj�, ,co Cam: 1 3ci nrick,H , I h i5' w c 2. L3 k" c_,c 1 4 . -444/1- /() ( ) l- 7 We1G1 6q4 i3A i). M-iL'I! 15. ; 91y a k Z 16. /1-1- O,14 6°, -,.- 7/f / eke in! c . 2 &., I-- 17. /,/ %��L fLm� 4 / f 7 6-# 4-07, 32' :7 .%2.-_,- 19. • r -- ii'1-1< � `/; 20 . /VL�i ( CtLi_i 7 Lc - \ J �:I /�Y �( ; ir x' f" 9°" 12/9/86 WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS 1 . 1-11"(D1-1-4:--- �,C -6-La- 1 >v / ' `'7 2 _ cc'' 'T re{ /2il-c 7'17 "' -f�, 2' KY (D1-1 s�- /�J L(./llLµ ..i .St/5 (Ai,. (--. J< ,i(-1 hu,,, `-' la- 1a- )73,.. ,i avt/d a,/ (9-s" . /6 ,c�R� / ,� ' /-7---1 fif 5. � ' r- "-- — q/geiAt a X3-6 A_ .' /laaJl W ) , F'�Icdty 11 .,� 1a /� - 8N 6 /do ' 5 ( JcK ' F'«rrlva'c.c.c Q , c,otoCS ( 192-/-2 � -/z - gt 7. ��ppp o Lc/ 214 /3 P�s Q d �� 8'/r.7-/1467 in- 41 3 �( i�� ././�/ 6v 9. drft � -� •/ s/i S/te 10 . j�� o-cnrPtiv 9 2 0 la 3 � ��s�¢ 45(e6,5 / e c /9310 [y /3 n 11 -��jr) 11 au,,,,z tei I5"/Js-Z�.v1� 11t kC63- / 2- -) _ 1 13. Ste-c,-; a / 2282. W e /1 . l3; P4ile_j:/le/ 6/, ac GC 14. 41t&g Cd, z , / i'��2 (AFC,C, M /3, 2-V n J < �a6 � � 15. 476/4 yn- / 7 S/ 51 cv. Ca,-�rl -3, fig.,strn.—tit! C ��l r �OC�' ( 2 - /V- VG 16. 4o-,u4) ki a//' , /73 861 Gd• e, k'. /3 7�a z g eo d'a6I / ;A° eieo / 73l0 W.c- R1 /3 seLL OO , sb/os ° - )L1 - 5' 18. t:v - ��G�AL , �/ o 473/ °l"1 )1-- ( 19. .E-1 et-.✓ % 11" - . _ . c 3 - /76a� z Zs �Q _ S'L' 12/9/RF WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS n 1 . /yl�f cc /�/. G� ✓ '70 6, G�Jc (e, 29 LOs/G�io4T 2 . fkrk 3. a ✓ C aa99 L,cc� 3S 5. `2" aid fir- //2 2`1 bile/d Co, /ed SA. catnap... . Pv-6. 6. ortq�O � CAo0002 BOS LA-) ct Co, d a b 1_0#7ah,0ificc/o. UJ 7. / . ,/ ? ( � .7 8 . 9. 10 . 11 . 12. 13. 14 . 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20 . WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART - OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . 1�af� NAME ADDRESS Aohe- z� 31c,(4, 1 . G1� ,T* 83K1 wc�-#i ti ce7-2o`xI z� 31 2 .0_1;d41 " ' �d�rks�owr 17 ��rao) i • UCO \.ot S <63% k ice- A.144, ;l uT�� vu, 6.C/7 �Vavw �: zC i�a�cam. C t �z p� t«r G" �� 7. G' 8. 9 . 10 . 11 . 12. 13. 14 . 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20 . WE THE UNDE' !GNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE A LICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL COkrORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS , � �/31g� 1 . � �1 /42,41-9-AAA-4--- 380 to C, i2, 3� ��P�d$s.�r,(�e co. f306s/ 2. � o� dS geCkCt �JS� 4v(y''e 3. 4a may* .mac / /716 dC.c'c°m 6ed. IVH/8 4 tZ' G14,4„✓ /fib' ij ,24-(44,G , .s ao� 7 t Qj/5/Y 6. /L- 5Gt-o z-0&/63 6 26-4 fp.37 g6 7.W s. 9. 10 . 11 . 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20 . 12/9/86 WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS .5-(7_•a/i,s,/3'G 1 . moo. c.., Cl/e) G 5 7!/.�fwr cez el J �� i 73 ,Alp 3/er6 /7 5-0 3..1 S.4yLeAgo CT, liftis�iV,� 5,rc G��N�ti�G etc, 1973/8'6 ,-3. `//')� !/ .anvya�,_ S-OA0 % C"ate �.� 82> y %�6 6.4, gbg0r ca.-O.-‘4,0 n 7. // yo/yC *3 [1G 9. � Ay- C . QL4 S-LCJ acs 3 b iw ,3/e-, 10. 2 494-x- to I6 ,�Jei SS7 a7Z /�/�6 11 . 4CDc......--32... �I444744-- .203 703 e a� G � S'7 ao 2 L/� I'G 12. so Si 8„r,l{,4 0,6. 13. E• f^� So 29 AS - (� a-. otct. a s-s7-asy. Z/13�g� i +. �' ,,,• ve..4.e� ago 76 ��i C u.G� GI-a r e u4, cv 27° (� �uw�o 5'0 76 ege-.T LCcZ? :H Cr TewnJ'.4.x.o-Y7a7" ��VI /�� 1s. � 6\C �� sl 3 ) eriflle-�,� J- .�6�� hL 16. sl 3 ri 48.vitiz,60.424.11 O \igitivpdLarltCtrfo. 17'!2/J? �(e 18. taE,,b+te4 fa 7 ra>�PeIY}B6w p4. �ldfr r*)n, Y � / rid% 19. 6967 7 ,(�.�7,L 11)11Arl-0,� Ik d l j &to W(e :2C+, aOBS7 /�E�k7.s' etre- laiC,i /'i7; 12/9/86 WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS w c.Wt\&_ C1 Ra t5` JDLV\S\bw ,N 2. .714 - AM-MItia6 57Z7 '1L / 3ahv57au w' 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . 11 . 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20 . 12/9/e6 WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P. M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 318) . NM f`iAME?—1.3-Ve . , ' ,�/ wo e \�� d 3 (P 1.•'. l, ,l �—1 CUY�t �c_A `l- ff // S1-ash 4. 53' 7- </ 76 8. 9 10. 11 . 12. I. . 1.4. 1.5, 1 cis. 1:7. 1 {. 19. C). WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS/PHONE DATE 1 . E.-4,9-7 a If z,,,,,,q, ac, a 1 `1 t 2.. tat, ""` 7 - r , 2. o\, P. 3 _2_ a ? -) 77 A,� - 7 - 3. 6.2L � /it n-a-c2A4ci 2 o / L 7 ?,o-�-t �,c�,. / 7e7 p I 4 . I'}2 ,v D- p 1.O go ( v., 7i vrn ruG �Q 7_ 14 ' 7 5. 74 a� ae era cg 0 1 5-G M o'v�,P,.,r-ate L' ac, 14,0m... 19 Si l 6. 9 �? oz 0/L7 : - getati3 /9rp 0- f0 72-4/ 7°S-C7 �-i� �-� as 7, ( g S'7 7.�c 8. aa),i 2.0-1 -1-1 (1. 00n B\, W04,. -(1 148'1 • 9. )1V-L.)-s),_ a o S 7 b \,W.).A.sri a3;a‘-F�A• , rk , \ A 9,7 24 ao /0 G ,� l D �, 10 .. AL f�dl dYt�ra r/"�,1Ji'. 1 ii /81 11 /` i0. -4., ;040 It aatrr-w< 41 //G/c 1.>",.-- 3 YY/ �� L35 13. 71. z.44 S1-2 ( M 4:t t Cr 77/C 7 14 :----%�j✓ c--II?. e%PS z),74 ' < / 7 15 gel // 16. „,..-2_ `r7 / X52 f Crn/4CUi` /-7-07 17. lot ntlio, �-�'f� - �c ?�C, . c;i n c � 1r) '4 /- 7 8? 187, � ) 0.2o/F6 %c� .i- 4 4 - / - 7- 17 7 19 r_ e_ _ ' 1 1E- --52W/ ll.l� (2,4 7A /.(p'C_. . t- 7- ij'( ,5871I29 I 20 . 61:11b . , 6246-A- _4BeDtt[/ C 1oti,4 11) 1- 7— '7 z2/' hn-e-z.Pse%.7-171-4;r1_, 4-971/,r7 5' ^^��,00 vJo/a 2 7?o -fe-c /- 7- ,d2-7 9,cyL< `6e- Fs • go 1y �-�� WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS/PHONE DATE 3e 1 .\At,i,5-(10r 51411 S,A-Ci:: C.1 to r(-z u,S I -r1- 2 . 7n- P x 6y9/SJ LC • 58 ) -3)33. / -7 - 3. • ��zc.�.e �,c��- '� 3-87-01-Z53- hls7-01-Zss 7- 7-4 4. • _� u872a5S I - �. c� n� 5yjrl /-7-Y :IL1 -. y9/ 5.14 6e7 e 7- gV 3-y7 -273a ✓o 'j • 7v7az'� / -7-c'9 .c --+ Dab 7 �»LG�%Z b9,0_c_ 7. 6c.1d0"-1(4--f 8 vid. �sai .204-87 /Voe4nfoa2 DeZ Zs 1- 8 89. q. .., a.Dfl7 %r{l(i.aor 7)-. aP7. 2S/S / -�' 10 .� Z yt,� ao69? S-tid-k,-,, Cr- S87-z7.2fi /4A9 11 . Akuca-c-,--e-ewtc\ zcN/Fa Sk;ti'y, cf.- S87 Z7-2.'q i/q/S9/ 12. va.2 -eGre N 'q/ of fiVi iOrir2, v/ ;2_ ,e-d/�7. / `J-'�5 g 1 3. A�-1ck,._ 2_o6 Sf C i S '7 - Z z a S l- 9-�`� 14. ;li�l�,. = \ �`:'2,-_- a �t } k,� .:i S r g c a / y �3 15. `OecA6'44-ta%✓e✓/---: } o ) z o i Tn jAovi.,.) CT 5-8i) - 1105-1- ( - j -z7 v,'.:\4- „ c7 G 3I q 11,. „26.(V/ C' 7- u 677 .O17- ' /-i 17. .�c��r�'l ` �Cve a/ i 8 . .. C/ JJ ! c� 53- 7 C/.rf,..7-- 'r_ S`,7 �a ''G / - , J 2077-7 4i aEll/neoo/i !7Q SB* Z'Rt 1-01 - 20 . WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS/PHONE DATE 7,7 2. n� �r' ties 7 X1.6, 3� 3. -4Ta 'I, (oy0l 6,4,(o(� 1_ g _s� 4 . .Gol x et- b?', �Ko//ear /- 9-g"7 . 5. Q i� l&/ -o ° t / /y j ; i.j . �. 1EY/3 r-_`1 �7 6. %o) P�cCu /)-y e ±?- •� ,i<,�? { ._)v - S 7 7 . ,cc&� , n-sSki° / ,v K c) t 1-e' „u(wi,Go , /-/o - 2r 8. �� G� �a 9“( /c-0774 Go�Ky eour CD /- /o - �7 9. / /- � r Ged '` ,2 (/1- JciYLT /� -0, /_ /i -_ 10 . 11 . 12. 13. 14 . 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20 . WE, THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . )n,1y e_ NAME ADDRESS -Pk°n-,_ 5 DC W1 . 10.So5' W n7 777 j Logo �,o �L 11 s ii)1 du s-71f s8-7 -� a ,;(8S"2.7 4. / JrZ: '! b g g tRi WO ) 7 ( a 7. -Is t(/ ee 3-- E. -) oao �r "yj has 3 0-1 8. I s' W -C_ g l 3 - r _ isrFY(.cD��J 10 . 11 . 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20 . WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED THE I � CAPITAL CORPORATIIONCOLORADODAIIRYFARMSTHAT FROM AURORAWOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS/PHONE DATE 1 . C dr 90/ /4):414 / /P- 23 - 5)6 2. al{:01 oC. GC llirvn 9.0/ !d/ S /61s�drys� 7z 2.3 — 3. �ji'Ievio ��G4 /99`f3 Gd. C.2 . 15 ins mn /Z 17 -% 4 .Q 1hiikk or 42cc, C. 32 w o_. 1 — t2 -27 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . 11 . 12 . 13. 14 . 15. 16 . 17. 18. 19. 20 . WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION FROM AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION COLORADO DAIRY FARMS THAT WOULD PERMIT A 2,400 HEAD OF DAIRY COW OPERATION LOCATED AT PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (WELD COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 38) . NAME ADDRESS/PHONE DATE 1 . 2vJ - AN-Iva-PA scwok Nl. S32 fiRo f- lU - BJ 2. j& {thew a555k'clz- IZ S17- 39H ]- 1)-- 7 3. > P1/4,113..2)-# Ytev,c frJ I1 S esa4 4 . 5. 6. 7. 8 . 9 . 10 . 11 . 12. 13. 14 . 15. 16 . 17 . 18. 19. 20 . 1-10-87 To Weld County Commissioner Gordon Lacy: Please do net allow the large dairy to come into our community. \'3e live approximately 6 miles cross country from their other dairy. on Hwy. 66. We can get that smell all the way to our house on one of their many bad days. It is not our desire to have that smell and confusion just a 1/2 mile from our home. We went to the Board of Planning Commissioners meeting concerning the dairy. The dairy said several untruths about water, local employees, and such. It was also pointed out to us, from someone on. our side, -that should it go through, and they can' t control their smell and pest problems, we in the community are stuck with it. That is not fair to all of us who have worked very hard for what we own. Please do not run us out! Docket #86-82 Applicant: Aurora Capital Corp. 2930 Center Green Court Eoulder 80301 Livestock Confinement Oper. (2.400 Head) N.E. Corner of the intersection WCR 15 & WCR 38 wa COUNTY Ce'+'i'`s !MERS 'iC JAN 1 31987 a i I U GREELEY. COLO. • ee : P-Me- -xi-41 ,(3 / 7— P T,,�} L-_ �' / 8 /7 W ? r, ru v , yp lr�` �, pm r, GL e ct �e7r.te -•l7✓'-711///1,; t6'-C-:%��.` ll ` , �� .Si 'i�'1)�"e G- � - JAN 231 - ;,Zeel L -i�c4Z ci=«' P �acare c. �'ZZ 987 ,�>�Z> r 66./l ___V --. / -C �-�f . LAC ecii?C. e- ��-z' Coto j /'1 A e‘ ee.- 1- e, .,-/c''•CL/-ei r %ilc�C i Aet-C i 4 > C/z_e � j /eE• i- '.E:e2- 1 C>C•�2cu�/ 1. , 7`< ---(;e 71 --�.i��ces t. 44/ 2 ZZt «�f4� �..« ,t /5I,t,n<<k /Le:1;F (`,-/-re 'dk jcieel-e.r3.9: c %Zc c£/(-E (7r 1 %'l :—Z-ile --(91 -Ctc 6717L-, Gj/ ,r----✓c( .44;?'lCG<'t il7.G(``gy ! c Vi: Tt« t , -*-5/ /�Zc.e- f, .{6<i-G/(.iitc.h�-G J .ill`L�i 2:a()/C7, `<ite-/l .f Vic%` C��?! a% it -f�11 i 1 C%-e. fri d /i'i -ter .T%ilia%( Jr , al t ✓'�• ti— -� •it <L<i 'e--'6,e-ec C, 7a.-' /4-- cet itz/-62 1/1„ 4-I— k✓ 4 i •-f)i c<'AC c ' di' Cq ('G%.e'4 t �Z/- -e-c ./-cer d -e c.s (4' .6"-Y�L��. /-G_ ;1.?t;.E Y � ./4.4:_CC._ tA,ei! -rZGCv ,!/� -CE-c e // -61:XL,k:.i�lrcee--e/ ✓-�-11-1, /c.E? zfriE��'�t/ Cc , r-- -C%�-ef ft�/q'-e—) ,/ ,crr- -L<[t2'tt -C, L1 ) J4—ttL<iCe-di a -_ (/ ticCA!f / 7 • /A' uu�i4 (•/ L.u c'c6�-4,r/G<2E-eL r it -rte*). L (�,4.i - t ct i,;� et' .ice_ 7-e-E% `i -_� C!-01 /126 (r—e-- . l 1//EeX i I7 (SI..• •1/45 •. •4- t,'./•: 0 Rai ow! o:,�si IVOS I',, JAN 131987 TJ ganuang 6, 1987 Weld Coun₹u Commiaationena P. O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Dena Commtiaatonen Lacey, Z am wetting to oppoae the pnopoaed dating fon The 4unona Capttal Conponatton, scheduled fon zoning on aanuaay /4, /987. We centaLnly do NOT need new datntea to add to the aunplua of malk, an_ you wiLL aee Ln the .Letter Z am potting. from 4gnLcultune Jecnetanq 2Lchand E. Lyng, gEven at the National /-f](Ilk 2noducena edenatton conve_nti.on last Fall. Quote: "ALL dating fanmeaa should be caattoua about expatiation (on whatever neuron. We erne gettLna oun aupplg-demand p(Ictune into batten balance, "Lune aaLd. "If a Langan (Imbalance occuna, auppon₹ price leveler will co down. "When datnumen are conaidenLna expandLnc theta production, theu should look ahead and° aealLze ₹hat the pneaent law calls_ fon auppont price neduc₹Lona Lt pnoductton LA mane than (Eve billion pounder above demand, "he raid. • The decLaLon ahould be to chance venu little ntioht now. 1 th(Ink the daLnc% tnduatnu would be 'vend wire to leave -ma4oa dai.ny public poli.ciea ca they ere, "Lune raid tin pia addneaa. End of Quote: C'e do not only NOT NEED 1102E f1ZLN, but Z cen₹aLnlu would not want a dai.nu of that ai.e co/nc Ls nean mu home, would uou? 7/ you haven 't already done ao I aua.n.eat you take a nide out' to filial-coca #66 and Road #l7, South ofdohnatown, dative 4inaio.h₹ i(own' to the St. Vaatn Riven and ace how clone those holdLno, panda fnom The Colorado Dating ane to the iLven. 1 am on/a actinic( that that datinu war 'itan₹ed befone people neal/3ed whet war taping place. 7 don '₹ think anyone would want to have thEa buaineaa near. theta homes, eapecLally when Lt La NOT NEEDED! S/ncenelg, vn L"p 7J"SCI,. (-) ��c oLcc` > , 51981 An _ ----- 5076 Brittlebush Court ___- Johnstown, Colorado 80534 Janurary 8, 1987 Weld County Commissioners: As property owners in the Weld County area, my husband and I are opposed to having a 2400 head dairy, prosposed by Aurora Capital Corporation, which would be located only 1 1/2 miles from our home. We believe that a dairy of this size would cause enormous odor and with the way the wind blows in this area there is certainly no guarantee we would not have to contend with a foul odor. We feel that a dairy of this size would lower our property values in this area, also the truck traffic on the county roads would be increased which is dangerous and cause much wear and tear on the county roads, which Weld county now claims they only have enough money needed to repair only part of the roads and bridges in the county, so we are asking the commission not to grant a special permit to Aurora Capital Corporation. Sincerely, Adrian M. Ciancio ,i / Louis A. Ciancio 5076 Brittlebush Court Johnstown, Colorado 80534 (Norh oor Acros) �.kj _ I l....r)Lcr) E. -X. 1--1 ; 1..:_i 1 7—_ Erkenbeck Lateral Ditch Co. Albert Jeffers 2125 Glenfair Rd. Greeley, Co. 80631 Re: Aurora Capital Corporation Use by Special Review - Livestock Confinement Operation (2400 head dairy) Dear Commissioners: At the January 10, 1987 annual meeting of stockholders, the following resolution was passed: Due to possible liability and insurance difficulties the Erkenbeck Lateral Ditch Company would ask the Board of Weld County Commissioners, conditional upon approval of Use by Special Review Docket # 86-82, to require Aurora Capital Corporation to erect and maintain a chain-link compound type fence along all exposure to Erkenbeck Lateral, with gates and access as now provided. We would appreciate your consideration in this matter. Sinperely, 1 Ii ames Stroh President Erkenbeck Lateral Ditch Co. RED CHM CNIMIIIMERS ECEII�VE JAN 1 31987 fi • /O.,/0 -L GREELEY. CO 0. Cu ; P �_ L- 'cc ; ,'r / JAN 1 31987 (� 726.—$4.-4.... 4'P, / 1 . / 7', / Lt. " __ � � � ice' t .� -_ � _ __t __171 r _7 G .._� / ��: <,�., _ �_ __ _ i Y t.Cr /J l << , , r , ( exh:h;t w mEmoRAn®um jN13i987 � Keith Schuett To Planning Department rtmentDate J Hoar 12, 87 "y' Cc��. COLORADO From Drew L. Scheltinga, County Engineer \� } subject. Barry Little/Aurora Capital Corporation USR-770:86:51 The Engineering Department reviewed the referral material in December and indicated we found no conflicts. It is my understanding concerns were voiced at the Planning Commission hearing regarding traffic impacts on Weld County Road 15. I have met with Mr. Ray Volle of Aurora Capital Corporation regarding traffic. He indicated the dairy would generate approximately 3 truck trips per day. The latest traffic count in our records indicated 58 vehicles per day on Road 15 and 188 vehicles per day on Road 38. The additional truck traffic does not warrant the requirement for a maintenance or paving agreement. Although dust may be a concern, the amount of traffic after the dairy is constructed will still be below the 200 vehicle per day category discussed in the fugitive dust regulations. I am certain the dairy will be very concerned about dust because of the dust pneumonia problem that is common to livestock. Therefore, I think it would be reasonable to require the dairy to perform dust control, as it becomes necessary, between their entrance and Weld County Road 38. Also, a haul route designation between the dairy entrance and Weld County Road 38 could be considered. DLS/bf xc: Planning Referrals : Barry Little/Aurora Capital Corporation SAN 1 31987 • 00-0817" 0I Weld Co. Planing Cwaroissiar / 13683 Weld County Roau #15 Johnstown, Colorado 80534 4ta n.. January 12, 1987 N 13198T Weld iCbunty Commissioners o __ P 0 Box 753 max. e °. Greeley, Colorado 80632 f - Honorable Commissioners: This letter is to advise you that the Iroposed Special Use Permit concerning the Aurora Capital Corporation located at Weld County Road 38 and Weld County Road #15 just a few hundred feet south of our 2 acre estate is not in the best interest of the community and is not compatible with the surrounding neighbors. Many things bring me to write this letter as I 'm concerned about the value of our home, the added traffic, the smell, the danger of small children and the ponds and the chemicals. A dairy like this does not belong in an area where there is small residential acres as well as farms but out in an open area. In my opinion the present dairy that they have west of Plattvi:lle, Colorado is a terrible mess for that area. True democracy was seen on the day of the Weld County Planning Commissions voted unanimously against this special use permit, the people rule, it made me feel good. I ask you to please vote against this proposed special use permit. A Concerned citizen. Q C : f'- f iIp EXNI L' C,d, 13683 Weld County Road #15 Johnstown, Colorado 80534 ";;S January 12, 1987 C ' v(r JAN 1 31987 ti o WeldiCbunty Commissioners amine& P O Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Honorable Commissioners: This letter is to advise you that the Proposed Special Use Permit concerning the Aurora Capital Corporation located at Weld County Road 38 and Weld County Road #15 just a few hundred feet south of our 2 acre estate is not in the best interest of the community and is not compatible with the surrounding neighbors. Many things bring me to write this letter as I'm concerned about the value of our home, the added traffic, the smell, the danger of small children and the ponds and the chemicals. A dairy like this does not belong in an area where there is small residential acres as well as farms but out in an open area. In my opinion the present dairy that they have west of Plattvslle, Colorado is a terrible mess for that area. True democracy was seen on the day of the Weld County Planning Commissions voted unanimously against this special use permit, the people rule, it made me feel good. I ask you to please vote against this proposed special use permit. A Co erned citizen, Joseph Elms X 4200 Weld County Road 38 Platteville, Colorado 80651 January 10 , 1987 WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS P. 0. Box 758 Greeley , Colorado 80632 RE: Use by Special Review : Livestock Confinement - 2400 Cow Dairy Dear Commissioner : ATTN : Weld County Commissioners Attorney This letter is written as opposition to the Aurora Capital Corporation' s Request by Special Review, the Hearing for which you have scheduled on Wednesday , January 14, 1987 , at 2 :00 p.m. I am a full-time farmer in the immediate area of the proposed site and object to the proposal of this facility being located in this particular area. Friends and neighbors have requested , since I am also an accredited design and consulting engineer, that I perform an engineering analysis and review on the proposal to determine if all Weld County ordinances have been met. I look forward to the opportunity to address the Board and pro- vide each of you with detailed written analysis of eight (8) specific Zoning Ordinance Section violations as well as verbal review of each for the benefit of those attending the Hearing. My part of the Hearing will require at least 30 minutes. Enclosed are copies of the Summary of Section violations , the Engineering and Data Source List for the analysis and my credentials for this review. Request this letter and all enclosures become a part of the written case file of the Weld County Commissioners for this Request by Special Review. Very truly yours , 62Jaisek) ROBERT B. WILLSON , B. S.M. E. RBW :lhw Enclosures : Summary Ell C9WIT1 CIWk%MgERS Data List Resume D JAN 13 49 '' 0 GREEDY. COLO. ≥"'K6L qtr e�Ei I f'r �,, SUMMARY ENGINEERING ANALYSIS OF 2400-COW S.U. R. COMPLIANCE - AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION This analysis was made strictly ❑n the specific requirements ❑f the Weld County Colorado Zoning Ordinances (current edition ) , The Policies of the 1973 Weld County Colorado Comprehensive Use Plan, and the needs ❑f the "Use by Special Review" as required by the Weld County Planning Commission. Data for this analysis was derived from all sources listed on the enclosed Source Reference List. An engineering analysis of those specific sections ❑f the Zoning Ordinance Violations, with no adequate corrections shown by the applicant in his submitted proposal , has been prepared and will be submitted t❑ the Weld County Board ❑f Commissioners and discussed in detail during the Hearing to be held on January 14, 1987 , at 2 :00 p. m. Zoning ❑rdinance Violations Section 24. 4.2. 1 - Proposal is not consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Use Plan. Section 24. 4.2. 2 - Proposal is not consistent with the intent ❑f the "A" District. Section 24. 4. 2.3 - Uses proposed are not compatible with adjacent land uses. Section 24. 4. 2. 6 - Since Proposal is for location in the "A" District , no effort at all has been shown t❑ conserve productive agricultural land in the Applicant ' s Locational Decision. Section 24. 4. 2.7 - Adequate provision has not been made by Applicant to protect neighbor ' s health , safety , and welfare. Section 24. 5. 1 . 1 - Adequate water services are not available t❑ the proposed site. Section 24. 5. 1 . 5 - For some reason, Applicant ' s Consulting Firm designed storm-water retention facilities for a 25- year storm - NOT the specified 100-year storm required by this section ❑f the Weld County Zoning ❑rdinances. Section 24. 5. 1 .8 - NO solution t❑ the high-volume, heavy , large, or slow-moving traffic generated by this application is shown in the proposal - particularly Weld County Road #15 and Weld County Road #38. - 2 - The Applicant ' s proposal violates major elements of the above- listed Zoning Ordinance Sections. Detailed analysis will be provided at the Hearing. .0 [atm) PREPARED BY: R. B. WILLSON , Engineering Consultant January 10, 1987 ANALYSIS OF 2400-COW DAIRY PROPOSAL ENGINEERING DATA SOURCE LIST 1 . United States Department of Agriculture , Soil Conservation Services , Longmont , Colorado , District. Source Library ❑n Dairy Systems Design, Waste Management Design, and Water Body Evaporation Tables - all Design Specifications and Tecinical Guides : a. Animal Waste Management Field Guide - 1978 b. Waste Management Systems - Code 312 c. Waste Storage Pond - Code 425 d. Waste Treatment Lagoon - Code 359 e. Waste Utilization - Code 633 2. Colorado State University - Dairy Cattle Water Consumption Daily Requirements - Mr. Bill Wailes 3. Colorad❑ Division of Water Resources , Greeley , Colorad❑ office - Mr. Les Dolby 4. Weld County Comprehensive Use Plan - 1973 5. Weld County Zoning Ordinances - Current Edition 6. Informal Surveys of local dairys - water and feed consumption , milk production, waste-systems management , and bedding require- ments. 7. Little Thompson Water District Management - and letter 12-18-86 8. Central Weld County Water District - Applicant for Water Service Requirements 9. Colorad❑ Department ❑f Health - Water Quality Control Commission - Guidelines for Design of Feed Lot Runoff Containment Facilities. 10. Aurora Capital Corporation ' s Proposal for Special Use Review, prepared by Rocky Mountain Consultants. 11 . Weld County Planning Commissions Planning Services Case File - this Applicant. 12. Montana State University Co-op Extension Service Table - Water Consumption ❑f Dairy Cattle , Farm, and Home Per Day. 13. Soil Conservation Service Charts of Annual Lake or Pond Evaporation - inches ❑f depth per year for Rocky Mountain Region. - z 14. Colorado State University Dairy Waste Problems - at University ' s Dairy - Mr. Bill Wailes. 15. United States Geological Survey/SCS Weld County Colorado Topo- graphical Soil Classification Map - 1978 ISSUED BY : R. B. WILLSDN , B. S.M. E. Engineering Consultant DATE: January 10, 1987 - R E S U M E -- ROBERT 8. WILLSON 4200 Weld County Road 38 Platteville, Colorado 80651 Age - 52 years 9 months Birthdate - April 20, 1934 - Weld County Hospital , Greeley, Colorad❑ Education : 1 . Greeley High School - Graduate 2. Colorado State University - Graduate (Colorad❑ A 8 M) B. S. M. E. - Minor in Mathematics, Irrigation Engineering. 3. Post-Graduate Work (n❑ additional degrees ) a. University ❑f Washington - Nuclear Engineering_. b. University ❑f Florida - Fluid & Waste Controls Aeronautical Engineering Work Experience : 1 . 20 Years - Agriculture Rowcrop Production, Livestock Production, Current ❑peration - 300 Acres 2. 6 Years - Research & Design Engineer - General Electric Nuclear Facility, Hanford, Washington, specializing in Waste Treatment Facilities , Lagoons , Soil Contamination , and Nuclear Production Systems Maintenance , Design & Repair . 3. 9 Years - Missile Launch Systems Installation, Ground Support Equipment Design & Installation. Engineering Consultant t❑ U. S.A.F. for Martin Marietta Corporation, Denver, Colorado ; Mountain Home, Idaho ; Little Rock , Arkansas ; Moses Lake, Washington; and Tucson, Arizona. Engineering. Manager with own Engineering Staff ❑f up t❑ 45 personnel - Responsible for Design and Installa- tion of Saturn IV B - Appall❑ Launch , Tower Support Systems , Ground Support Equipment , Waste Retention Ponds , etc. , for Chrysler Corporation , Cape Kennedy, Florida . - 2 - 4. 9 Years - Construction Manager , Project Engineer , and Engineering Consultant - Hensel Phelps Construction Company of Greeley, Colorado. Principle projects assigned as total ❑r engineering responsibility include : Eastman Kodak ($50 M) , Windsor , Colorado . Stapleton International Airport ($20 M) , Denver, Colorado , Stapleton Plaza Hotel 8 Office Building ($12 M), Denver , V. A. Hospital ($6 M) , Boise , Idaho , J. C. Penney , Aurora Mall ($7 M) , Aurora , Colorado „ Greeley , Colorado ' s New Water Treatment Plant ($1 . 5 M) near Ft Collins , Colorado , 5. Present - Currently Full- Time Farmer, continuing to provide Engineering Consultant work for major Construc- tion and Fabrication Companies in the metro Denver Area upon request. WFt lfln'rr7 .. .,r. \gllre SAN 1 31987 Cary and Nanette Adler 17972 Weld Co. Rd. 15 artEELEY. COLO. Johnstown, Colorado 8O5?A 7Lcr-it,k, L"-�`�v�-,cx ' January 8, 1987 Dear C-0rClen ka.c�) This is an appeal to you, as cur elected official, to consider the disastrous effects that the proposed Aurora Capital Dairy expan- sion could have on the new site at Weld County Roads 15 and We live and are the operators of the farm directly south from this new proposed rite. We casn-t, sti ,-:o to you nsnu h , no n on essen- ces and damages this dairy would have on us personally as well as for the land and surrounding areas. The surrounding farms as well as the proposed dairy site are the highest productive agricultural land in Weld County. As you can see • on the SCS Soils Classification Mao, Analysis of 1978, we are totally PRIME, PRODUCTIVE, AGRICULTUPAI LAND! The President of Aurora Capital Corporation has stated, Quote, "This is the most i have ever spent for land." The reason for this high cost is the quality and production potential of this land, zoned PRIMP. AGRICULTURAL! With such a large commercial , high density dairy not only will this land be taken out of production, a commercial operation of this size develops rrcb1ems which are not compatible with the surrounding area. There will be underground water pollution, seepage, air pollu— tion, noise pollution, enormous amounts of heavy trucL traffic:, labor _.aff'c, service vehicles, disposal of by products, and this will he ?A WNJRS A DAY! Underground water is a problem in this area. The fact that a sum: pump is required in our basement and pumps water out almost year— round makes it very obvious. We do not want this polluted water in our home! We feel it will he a hazard to our health and to our ? sons, since the basement is .used solely for food storage. We urge you to protect and keep prime agricultural land in pro— duction as farm land and consider applications of this type be placed on non productive rural land, which would utilize both types of land to their highest potential. As a farmer located directly across the road froth this proposed site, our concerns for the remaining land not in the dairy operation are great. We do not believe that the care and maintenance of this land will be a major concern to the Corporation. The main usage in their design is to dispose of the dairy waste on this productive land. Mr. Peperzak's statement to us at our meeting with him on Dec. 3, 1986, stating that if the dairy is turned down, they can legally stockpile their manure on this PRIME ground makes clear their attitude toward the land and surrounding residents. We as 3rd generation family farmers in Weld County feel it is VITAL to preserve the small amount of PRIME land in Weld County. Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter. We STRONGLY urge you to VOTE NO on this proposed dairy! Sincerely, 2e2cr > 1' t ' Gary Adler Nanette Adler \ Z13 CflNT1 C hE!RG,W;cac 7 4I jn January 9 , 1987 ' ' �'''i JAN 1 31987 1=58 Pin.cw-� ij et"-cta Dear ._ ev �c =emu This letter is in regard to the Aurora Capital Corporation to obtain a special use permit for a livestock confinement operation for 2,400 head of dairy cow at the intersection of Weld County Road 15 and 38 . First, I would like to point out that we are located on the South-East corner where the dairy is proposed to be built on Weld County Road 38. The nearest lagoon or catch pond will be just 1 ,600 feet from our home . We are very concerned over this type of operation being situated in a place that - in the opinion of nearly all people in that area - would have a definite negative impact on this area. There are other factors which must be addressed with this size of operation are smell- The proof of this can be found on the large dairy operationof the same proprietors of this proposed dairy West of Platteville on Hwy 66. - Increased volume of heavy truck traffic to haul feed, milk and manure ; which would contribute to further deterioration to road conditions in the surrounding area. Also , drainage and seepage problems from the corrals and catch ponds. Which could pollute irrigation water and shallow wells , and the flys. What is going to happen to our neighborhood? We have two small children, a four year old- who takes medication for Asthma, and a one year old- who was born premature with a breathing problem; an immature larnyx. Their health is a very big concern to us. It is hard enough for them to breath at times and than have to breath that smell always accompany with a dairy, (and if it will be anything like their dairy already existing on Hwy 66 West of Platteville ) , I think that is very cruel and unfair: What about all the other children in the surrounding area (and thereare a lot of small chilren in that area)? I don' t care what the proposed dairy says , their safety will always be injepordy with all the heavy truck traffic hauling feed , milk and manure. In conclusion, the negative aspects (as mentioned above) could result from this type of operation. We are not opposed to a dairy operation in the ordinances of Weld County, but we don' t want an operation of this size to be built in the proposed area. I would also like to ask you to consider how you would feel if proposed dairy were built adjacent to your homes? Thank you for your judgement in this matter. Sincerely, Citizens Opposing Dairy /e Greg and Anna Spaur ExN C >T A i '" JAN 131987 Johnstown, Co . m d+e- Juanuary 9 493 GREELEY. COLO' Dear 4 -0-„„ ✓� As a landowner of the IQ.E.* of Sec . 5-3N-67 ,W. I feel that the special use permit should be denied for .Aurora Capital Corp. proposed dairy. Our farm borders the S.W. v of Sec. 32-R67 W. . Shale depths in this area ranges from 5 to 15 feet below the surface of the ground and is on a South Southeasterly slope , drainage or seep from the three proposed holding ponds will ruin two farms to the South and ours to the South East. It is also a fact that land is being devalued in the area pending the outcome of the special use request. I do not believe farmers should be expected to endure this , in view of the current economic crisis. It is my belief that this use by special review is not compatible with the existing surrounding land uses. Thanking you for your judgement in this matter. Sincerly, Bennett and Marilyn Spaur 18547 Weld County Road 13 Johnstown, Colo . 80534 117. E KNii3 ) 7- A; JAS! � 4j; .'` January 12, 1986 1987 j Weld County Commissioners; OR EL Y:0,..,. In regards to the Colorado Dairy Hearing for January 14. pie live 3/4 of a mile from the proposed site. I am concerned about the affects that something of this magnitude could have on this prime agricultural area. It just doesn't fit in this particular spot. There is one word in this whole thing that I think is going to affect a lot of existing residences. That is WATER. This operation needs about 130,000 gallons of water every 24 hours, for the dairy and their households. Ie use about 30,000 gallons of water a month for our household and lawn. The dairy would be using equivalent to what 130 residences would nee. Can you visualize 130 residences added to the water lines, and in the same small area of land that the dairy would be built on. This is a drastic change of water flow to the water lines. This will effect a lot of peoples water pressure, which is already a problem in the summer months. Don't forget the dairy would be using water 24 hours a day. Cows need water, so do HUMAN BEINGS. Please give this strong consideration before making a decision on this. Thank You A Concerned Citizen �1 _ 4,6_,...„.-ta_ 4 -_ 19279 4.C. Rd. 17 Johnstown, CO 80534 LA//t/8/1 66 C, ` ;aA�( � 41987 Je(/'n"? ..t4 { L-r i, 73�.i 1L_4C . G� < Gig ;SC ( Ai 2s , i 67 �- e c 4 i9 ., .-,,,),/_{---1,-"/.- . , = e C. ' � F7' (../._ � f_4F[ (1-; z. . i tie � c l�.—1 C c. « �, � �< ._:.../,,-/ , .., f_ i F 2? L/ t_t' ] -6.%-t.-;."...2_,� ,C-rE"'-� -i C .,o- ''-- e-t�.,t �Ge.<<- �( tI v C '((, G, . ',Lv n ! /J� , 6--i ? ?% e/t..e '- r .P/ice' ',_'.,- AZ c:"( GI"61411 {.tC /G.- Lf' €___,........., , t "----4 __-.(Y/"J'1q.i / ,.C (i't L d bet i�t L-FZ ace?-„ 6.1-d Aci .n�J i V-11, z ../2,-C--2 -�_a _,--t ff _ 4 // ' i' tig Cn-el-�e (?� :L � -[', < << ,, dine: lC� �, r 11..21/1/�' v. � � ' Q-.-Ci-s- < 1.L: 7/-GLE- ("- ei -ge--eft., a: et-c u ,,46. yick_ ( Jc._� ic'%-t!'z (� 1. t ck ..._a<_ r>_ ] � , G _?-4-7-Wet ��_ U,_� ,c E-, 6 Vie, c,-� t� // is l' ` %�� iL o¢''_?t�•"- -r emu.-'r's.e. e- .e '?. % rt.t)47., , �- ,fir �°'u G ,! e, /9?"Z .-1.l.. ,(� t1 -'O . (29-6<<. �[4-� c E . N.-i I> 4 ,�r�°/"?c ti`61 ef-irt ✓,Y'� ,I.L e 2e-- ti 5 t -e/.v F L -.-_, rt_.< --Tip -''-� �U�2- 4. ' c.f. CL-,_ `.t - v t/;..91..'2-4 1 It C`-; c la. [R. r=Lt.,��_' ,, Z.__ ,1../!.?G_C.f. ,,/t ,r i ------L7-41 A-' ,":</t: i o , L� C.tiL }.(c.--. Q'.� - e.,,, t;Lcc .4_,,,-/ l'' ,h' -/ li 2 _ t� . 7 y C Z �'�' -)-(.75-Le�t ,z�.� h 1-'�.La ,�{ ; � � (-2 � d'1Z Kl. 'e t'+7..t e �L /ti p '''''C'- (t1"-. �e- , -2- a'7 - /7'a� c . .-.-L ./it7 il-Clebe-L.6- t<te. -t4 Gl 2t. _P..�_A./ to e el-(/i -` Ez/1 AL, s,j e,,: <L-Gf /)_� C-!!Cts-L i. ✓:t_ , '/`?nt-i, "7 v_ / - /y c. (ems r.--- ,4- G{,'- .VII/ . e4-inth✓?cr. Lic y/ .?_,,i_-2 :Le /e,t LA_-__, ..,�I` IC(.2 C 4.t,Ja-C-G-CL 7.e{ _r,t-ed ete----G1< -/LC, L'L. i January 14 , 1987 10 : 55 A.M. To: Board From: Tommie Audrey Anderson of 17164 I-25 Access Road East, called to tell the Board that she is opposed to the request of Aurora Capital , Inc. She said her fence line is approximately 1/2 mile from the proposed facility. CTlN1u ty January 14, 1987 1: 15 P.M. To: Board From: Mary Susan Maass, whose residence is located at 17500 I-25 Access Road East, called to tell the Board that she and her husband will be unable to attend this afternoon's hearing concerning the request of Aurora Capital Corporation, but they oppose this request. She stated that their property abuts the property under consideration. Per 1 (1 &) Rill /yo oME ' 1 EXHIBIT i TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY, COLORADO We , the undersigned, support the Use by Special Review Application of Aurora Capital Corporation (Case No. 770:86:51 ) 1 and recommend your approval of said Application . l� C:9 NAME tae, � n 06,Am 7A SS ..z�/� ie ) J a // ` C YV, )c tgil C�11��)-- (cc4 (i Za.,3._ Ref"7 LI 1,1,OA L- 77±. c S L l $ J2 1 i-47 W%i 3 C ,C ..,,,z4(147,> (-,/// ; I� % .e" /fLi %7(2 /.n., - r47(.--'4, / ,, / 2 J ,/C (07 - c /jt j j5 & / -< ? /1?�',l n_A zti'/ •�S�-L, ! ✓ /2 ( ) L cr/(741r,.,r L r - - - ) GZ, :,n.z r%2 L(' &•7. 64. A -.T`c r- ) ?C I . /02 - e4cl e � 7.7 i .F;/��---- n cI.2 /VI-y Li., Z , W a l Po S' C cr(�� /sloe 44 cu //e. r;LF � Iol t1GU � <fr ri/ cu_1 /5(-f- .57 r-7 /Cr( /7c Lcuc4nci �� ' 13h9O l+/ C!R/7 •PG9 eu� '((Z r -zZ6c.; . fit ,/-1/4. ,,,9, /6 - Rt ?cAl ()it) /1/3 f_ C 1'y m Xer/X ud Cy& 5 2 '( & (/ ( )w , o-e,(ie . 'tia) ,a4-0-t-'- Z O 5'00 7ic/O/ ro 44,7 7(jr R /7 o [.• ,L? "// /,� Pore-4/� 1c iv:1:16.A,, i ,../-../---i-a,---/s- ' _r=o),-) Al,e- i 7, /l' , 7, 7 ./' � vYI`7j!i� (i ! lt�j(� 7i yL .�w� /, (� , r �7�.-rYu 6�_ :., u r 75-1).--7 v/ 6'74-4c--77 1-/x/4 .4:14 �,6 /ivnd h,rrl !a,". ‘4./ ,L�r�, l e a I o k.,a..1I -.',,. TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY, COLORADO We , the undersigned, support the Use by Special Review Application of Aurora Capital Corporation (Case No. 770:86:51 ) and recommend your approval of said Application. NAME ADDRESS Ca, ../Irratt gr. / &y gs ±' CAL /t. ittijili R+ 4 Dz., 97 ✓5er, .,, Co, ey--ot..?-'RAn -...?/24/V .- j6, $ ZIe a ., aitt> rJ 4,4 t:ntr2 519 E 2 - S< Q r•e e.icy C. 1,-. ,ifs -/ 7Y .. .7-12z -e:__- , K-,„4 .--1, •S-0 4 t.)1-1-1 /4-7, 4 ,La 4),-). /3/3 Led lei° Al HProm (-1 o n r�0o� aSo C----___ ),3699 Co,ez ? P1- mom.-„ 4it3 1'\n30Q., O _<JC [a co (*.7?)(1 cr ft ( u ; llc &-cad 9a. ..,-ks19. -z 5-611- LoCoZ ( 2 I/#a G s c< kJ (At ' 0 'Ad).4.21 H�w,,.,2. 7/ y4/ 5' n id' MI// 4'C Zo rcz .,-;%"/C 22:11-4, //5 ,- 3., ',,„ty Xi--2 /5(f/ke.,a frcer� gig-ticex- 7/ 9 ≤. 7 1e //w �,l a r- y y � w ' I i _, i .?-4-3J ' .1477?,i/ �� e4. / cpc___>/ 4., /-al---.1' - • A,A, _,,, s.,-- -,74:-- "G": /ox 27(7 is 11`ed 1 \ t - -QU 7&/ MyK6 /aytnon [1 C Y • TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY, COLORADO We, the undersigned, support the Use by Special Review Application of Aurora Capital Corporation (Case No. 770:86:51 ) f 'y and recommend your approval of said Application. NAME ADDRESS cAA 4 , 1g ; L 2 /6611430 J�/1rJ64. Ce e39072p.3 L%� �.� z:7/.57," C .D E _al/ V.�L . m .� l ,) O 6,'O l ///4in Z, rni90r e() f070/ Sot Sa FFO D ife.4,..:1--4, 3 8o7� • cirRz/ WJ CoPclZ. Co ?07 .\-70 ".77/7o0 .78783 en tll fe ('c�,,Pd72j o mu fG(�e r 3Q N.Z. I a /cc q 7/ /Ol raq / re. a070//72z7d rn� 02809 ' cp.1� . iQ 1A 'R07a3 ` rj76 T , /- .5.0�i'�r� a a'# &&'7, ,. . erfiche,fitithfri big ra±n .t-i- &?iiLY , C'r) c?-;p ,t e So 0 u()M4:-r-`ii A I'� .. -Q,-� q.,,a -- . � ,o, 4a ! 8 7? a1 a, ' /,//,-,-)24/341 RW a -ai.�.A 7'c) � 207Z .L�Cr-7 S ,•—ter0„—., ,C.k, C/ _ •/9 ,C RA.,, I /) Al;44 ./.5- _. J7 . .C.%2v743 - .` 3 / 736• /-7147 2/ L. C2 5?`o22Z3 ork a ,t+) /42D ----et-----clet-Licfrta& SAad L do Fb7z3 /a /ziyic_,721:1,/' 6 L. :--?/&, 5tzalutio-ii - 4ii, L./-, (4-c;,, (5-n7,,7,2 ;.e )7Se Ci-r �/l c,/J ,/ : � 2 41V ;'/ f_. L- -f- <_g 1 2irr2 h S / o --1-1-7-4-\ a 0 75' /CD l-yz. �/ (crap /sue, , ,,,-,-r o-2 go m led/r .r ,e-,_ ,,t, C-6-- 7 8 A9c)6,7-A-v,d-::_ec- \/69 Set_Ai 2,,LIP (5.....„ .,..4 i &lip, , L, 1 '-,,- e // , .� G` L., /. i z,./,/ CC �-G�a �x2 ate/ le 4 r u �-�a�2 Cam, r. ,,G/ d , 2 002 // 7/ / CO2.4, 2z� S.Z3 241 � � Goa go7-Z3 chkunA WDA0-€& 323 Clot culls /3 1 C? to/21,4,A 75,2,41,l' i. �'v'?13 .0 �'' l� 9 TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY, COLORADO We , the undersigned , sppport the Use by Special Review Application of Aurora Capital Corporation (Case No. 770:86:51 ) and recommend your approval of said Application. NAME ADDRESS ) 17 /V `_, ( / 7 '2):71/ ` " { .;/ _ / '7 <Pf1 /__n `zt / �i %i Ir;"c'7 /(:rie-- /7 _c Lcc/< < ) mob, SZeirtoLK; y3 y �� • • TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY, COLORADO 13) We, the undersigned, sppport the Use by Special Review Application of Aurora Capital Corporation (Case No. 770:86:51 ) and recommend your approval of said Application. NAME ADDRESS 1.10 t `J k AEA-- 73e:// , /q f 147—G G 2 o-„r1 c�rr/> L / r R ` 2Oc .v -6t j .. G, 2/ 'Wail �f tai. /?o P4;1/ w. r; /O 4 S s /lc( g %'77Gcrjo,,,l'c. ?oc ce "lietaka.,r^ 9 0 LAS 0 2 f q -7O Rd 3o a r:,,1 err r , )1(u—i /&TL , Pr go.v c] /anther Cn 4I6.p�� ..; s 7 7221/ Z' Cl'3- , '7c-1: tJcrca4 lit' / )1 5,11,u J Cc� x O44, ru . • 4 `•0. yz•U ;lv. is.•. TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY, COLORADO :CO We , the undersigned, support the Use by Special Review Application oT Aurora Capital Corporation (Case No. 770:86:51 ) and recommend your approval of said Application. ADDRESS NA /W1 : Abicu≥�� L nr u x tot- 3385 "3c/ )47",4v�h ThUrif /A ( 2 )7 %tfe.v,/k cc). A • • e N . TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. OF MELD COUNTY, COLORADO { (U.) We, the undersigned, support the Use by Special Review" ,:: ,',,:;1,'?. F.l;�,k Application of Aurora Capital Corporation (Case No. 770;86:51 ) and recommend your approval of said Application. r•k NAME ,,i i�� X11 , ,.ADDRESS „. y5+ 1 r-- uwf w /`y/ / /� � �{�M Y f 4$denzf if Iti-Ut z- //Mrs/Vi -2 G' 2-.774%` ' 72 o7/ie(ie 4 . 4,e,A �;" to '/), C 0 vi'ei �1�Z a �" 3 2 1 1)J/1/44 2 ('4 t �,�p L,j ' I;�G i it tz.I, �'ic p frpin v i/v /"_ Pal/6 �t 2k•<4�"{a. i i, L� ( Ci /i i k. J- p � n /� 1/ Q I?h/fr i L C K Ni(, x{+�rl�> ' p � jM l Q d 0 A � 6;y-tit on g,L77• ci 1/L-,-7-7y3, 7 r di-% PA, ,2.. ) 1 Z ex( / c j f c7 N l.r!.7• ,40. �uIvia, 9 (:.77(7( 3i� �> t aZ;tirri ,moo 1 4 c.?),400.«..049) x iR1 & : ryr f (0 :s ra CS.A .',2 4s\0 c ScRcL?i( ev'}`k: ,onsi 7 6 W o� �,A,L.L, .-'/Likit, C -CV-Ce C7 v-,,,,/,z1-i^eisilL) C / EP'7 -7,V *,'40,4 ��t � Sl .,�.r x06;1y ik �&tp0 0: 71 i ini s. 11t'• 4J A'Y .i-en;en?ai1 4- Cap `::::::4;*11*. t, . / / �/Q� ,r�v ) �tr� L!/C4.t1 STr1� (G SlattOWSV 1. 1 1:01t044,0 t c.,,- ..al a r�y. .t ` i�if c TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY, COLORADO We, the undersigned, support the Use by Special Review Application of Aurora Capital Corporation (Case No. 770:86:51 ) and recommend your approval of said Application. (7// - z /Jf t- I J gn ± r (;)(1-.).u✓ Se A s :3./a 9 AMeez 'A c (Zn// A; C /r/ rx 7z 7 s , C°y inN ,A-IeAii (0A, ✓ , U / TOG / / 1 p �/i y'00/ C C/4 Pr , A,f `�l (r)7 -,,.L' . "5 ,:.,!< /.� i7�J:�rv,.tGs4,a� v' /ir�:f247 CJD?% TO BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY, COLORADO We , the undersigned , support the Use by Special Review Application of Aurora Capital Corporation (Case No. 770:86:51 ) and recommend your approval of said Application . NAME___.; % ADDRESS / 7 e-- ,,// w E L e"( �/,�o -"4 .:'o" y/_ ',-54o,�d a- « "o. t-` \e r3 144 P-4 ( &x,:-)TP I\-)4‘)l (K ` ILAC w p1 C,.9-r-A=. e ,i7 .0,,..., (-0,0. , , , , r r Cc, , ( c----7--- , - .J , 7 7 / ) V+' 3%%ib� /L/-/4_ F„_ ,, �,y , ! rt-f\Lip i “- i C /trot kt, /LLB °'71(%2 ,(1 ,UTl2 / ii �° " s 2 , -C-2-3 4eA A&fc f'/f1TT r fri��FCO/ ( I 1.Lift , TLC l,'l'y) l3/ f /-/ y < / r, , ,,,// ( (^ -1:,O.," //>/2, H '7 tee /oc,ce7 !-C�rn m FRCL [(r y- a., / Iu / {�' a'Adrt 72 / � 1-7 r) j ( 6 4o-�r�.),-, ,rI�(6co ;ff)� <: / `C�G`'17 /mil,.r/gin i d'G l r._�-�� .n, , l-irc.a Cdc- rf��'v�/ ri.«"u //,,i////��,._ � aisle.; 7-<,�q9�� \ \ZS.).;i\Z� _?).')..cc., ��-,A<�„,. , /,/1 \mac V? ('- l.�s- \K,_ /6,2_Q/ ai 'an.; 2/5 7 ///.SLY!, %U oK ,.-rr�ax,e 14i 9 j : xw�(. //say uJ. (y, el, is- c/?'k-e-hi— q)r,)C2Lz2,z_ 7.1?v'ig Wt..tsg Coco, 1,on�rr/oo(4 Ys �Q�, " ( 7--- 0 . a ( , .4_' ,. / t- / �>�r'�/� p/ A)6/ htiAJG; 7.-26) 2 -, ,4v ,(, L�„y rn 4-- y ,E, r • TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY, COLORADO 13 We, the undersigned , support the Use by Special Review Application of Aurora Capital Corporation (Case No. 770:86:51 ) ' and recommend your approval of said Application. NAME ADDRESS - f ��Q?oyez ,L (Ae_AA A ,._Adosu-tk od • ...A.5,55--N. 4,14-$L. ' . . ....:;;I:.-..--41;6iirt,tey ..A_-±ic___ - -- 4;.* _ :-..- ,,-.4.„ . ::er-,.a:„..4,_ t\a_ 111 Y.kvtLin /9'O , ( 1, (. -"4.)O a • IV P'\\\YJ `a_..3 Cry* Wg = a ,Curt U -o _ a z z cri, - S? ia"q�d en IN l�dr fri v"1 ` CX 3 v +L,A� (moo r� ,,, ;• y f JSOUN TAIN eMPIRE (DAIRYMEN'S ISSN. r 1r a O 12450 N. Washington Thornton, Colorado 80241 Phone (303) 451-0422 January 13, 1987 Colorado Dairy Associates c/o Aurora Capital Corporation 2930 Center Green Court, Suite 201 Boulder, Colorado 80301 Dear Mr. M.B. Peperzak: In regard to your inquiry as to MEDA marketing the milk that you produce, please refer to the membership agreement that you have entered into with Mountain Empire Dairymen's Association. Article 2. During the life of this agreement, the Producer shall deliver all milk and dairy products produced by him for market to such person or persons and at such place or places as shall be designated by the Association. Article 3 The producer hereby constitutes the Association his sole and exclusive agent for the purpose of marketing such milk and dairy products delivered by other members signing similar agreements. Article 4 The Association accepts the appointment and hereby agrees to market the milk and dairy products of producer in such a way as it shall deem best for the advantage of producer and of other members collectively. It is my understanding from this agreement that Mountain Empire Dairymen Association will market your milk as long as you produce milk for this Association. Sincerely, L' ) .fie ; EXHIBIT Richard C. Bender Membership Relations Mgr. J J RCB:nh v E o. 8 r. N 0 CJ c -- 0 w a 0 z 0 m ,n w J m 1--- w I O ,Z d o -O i m w Fi I Q o 0 ' ¢ Z m a. aL.,� w LT I w I o Q O o Iv =I-• N LT',: CL U) 8 I co Z1 0 i 0 F J = I L'w w e = I z -+ I Y O CO w , z Z N 0 J8O r- v l -- J 2.., w _n n - wlL. U.- N F= CC CD d >8 . I K N I Q cr , N O I O U N ET- V i — I Z 0 Z O W Q / U g 25 N W It,' o a I V 0 O I Z o / .1 O r N / f J st _J Li 0 8 3NI1 0I.61 V1S 9 R I- t— J V 3NI1 SO.VI-V1S=00.0-GUS `' O I O O O O O O 0) V � 0) Kr r I,----\ a0 Z S x W \- 20 4 - I 6 8 - 10 12 - 14 F- C 16 - a ui a 18 20 22 - 24 26 28 _ 30 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 NITRATE -N IPPMI FIG. 5.2-C AVERAGE NITRATE -N DISTRIBUTION WITH SOIL PROFILE r t.,/ DEPTH UNDER IRRIGATED FIELDS ( a ] LARIMER & WELD COUNTIES 4j_� EXHIBIzusulmT lal based on Stewart et al., 1967 •52 Gordon D. Brown, DVM Fort Lupton (303) 857-6671 Robert O. Dull, DVM Greeley-Platteville Area (303) 785-2104 .—John R. Ewing, DVM — Glenn S. Cook, DVM ANIMAL CLINIC 232 First Street Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 January 11 , 1987 To whom it may concern : This letter addresses the daily water consumption of dairy cattle. As a general rule cattle consume 10% of their body weight in water daily. For example a 1200 lbs. cow would consume 120 lbs . or 15 gals . of water daily. There are many factors which can affect this intake including temperature , milk production and feed intake. In general daily water intake will run between 15 and 20 gallons . This is the total water intake ; in cattle fed silage , high moisture corn, green chop or haylage as much as 3 gallons of water may be in the feed. This would reduce the fluid water intakee to 12 to 17 gallons daily. Reference : Digestive Physiology and Nutrition of Ruminants , Vol. 2 . D.C . Church, 1974 John R. Ewing , DVM EXHIBIT C o ?quirements and Waste Volumes 105 1 ,600 1,400 al 1;200 90° day without . rain � . 1,000 a . T . . 0 • 8 800 . . a c - _ 0 0 600 01 CJ 400 CD o ' 200 912 4 8 12 4 pm. 8 12 a.m. . . Time of Day FIG. 4-5. Daily water-use patterns in R-6 area—max- imum day and minimum day. . (Courtesy of the Resi- dential Water-Use Research Project . of The Johns EXHIBIT Hopkins University and the Office of Technical Studies of the Architectural Standards Division of the Federal 2a02 Housing Administration.) LITTLE THOMPSON WATER DISTRICT January 9 , 1987 Telephone 532-2096 307 Welch Avenue DIRECTORS Carey d selomonson, Drawer G Resident Berthoud.Colorado 80513 Gttatles Allen Leo Bake! Keith DrODnOui5I David McGee E.Thomas Ricord EXHIBIT Dean Anderson ";MANAGER'. John M.Gmner (�/_, 67 Mrs. Nanette Adler 17972 Weld County Road 15 Johnstown, Colorado, 80534 Re: Water Commitment North, Range 67 West in Section 31 , Township Dear Mrs. Adler: The purpose of this letter is to confirm some of9t the 7 information that we discussed in our meeting of January 6 , regarding the water commitment for the proposed dairy. The Water District has made a commitment for water service at ehaand d that is identified below. Additionally, it appears is an existing residential-sized water service which presumably could be utilized by the proposed dairy and that is also shown below: Flow in gallons Flow in gallons Tap Size-Commitment per minute nar day _ One inch Tap (Commitment) 50 GPM 72, 000 gallons 5/8"x3/4" Tap (Existing) 10 GPM 14 , 400 gallons_ Totals 60 GPM 86 , 400 Gallons It is to be emphasized that the Water District has only to hcoe mrittedd itted to fifty gallons per minute, via the one inch tap, oposedd dairy and the relationship of the existing 5/8" tap to the p dairy is not known. This Water District has not made any verbal or written commitment to Rocky Mountain Consultants, Inc . of Longmont relative to any amount of water being available to the proposed dairy . Each summer the Water District has eincouraged Oaall lEtapholdven waters todays participate in a voluntary program for outside irrigation. It is anticipated that ftrthis s will lncontiu . The District does not have a mandatory program tap- holders or for commercial tapholders . In the event you desire any additional information regarding this matter, please advise. Sincerely yours, y S\\R HN M. GRUNER, Manager .- m x fl_4. }-/ ) Ill I I� 1171 , al' ,_, J � A --- --- ______ e tO ~ 4 t'� ;-.74 Z AV g i v1 rnd0 N 'J 3 z1 d z� 0 . M la La > 1 • H � � Z li L o L.) N • � X al i a.M X XG. 1um Ill = (k "L---- ....s---- ' - ------- LT — 'C GI # © 'd ,1. 1N n © wer,- •z 3 Fv-A, a'- Lilt -.--....a=-- - 2_s_ _ �'w•��.it - • n - - -^-��I0r i—' - : ----- - r1 -1. L,-4—,r -,�- r4,�--1 r-I,� C�I---' � � ��i� � t«a-+ c '1"' c m ° rf=z 1 u_o.c uy--:� ,emu .�I •_1,r, � '■r 13'1 fir • l • • ❑•. • ark .."3.) ■ o ■ ■L. r - r �� • 13 17......r....,-_...r - Z b �' 1_- r-a-Try'- a .1-1111W- 11...a r � ■ \._._,.1, � ;- ■.a '(AZ--: 1.N. ,\ I �i C:.iu • •� r�� ■�■LC��• �,,,r1:1::„), Ci ❑ iQ• 'Y' 'ic \ k ❑ N N ❑ �'❑ . Y u • ■ � ❑, •N a yfiNi r� ..e•r ` .,tt�+ rr■'t ^rte IT L r {• �, �..«l l __ ,---/ .•----::: -,�j Jr •x ; •1'k•- - ■ 1 rLL i max. .-_,.....,-_,••• • ( d- w( -ryT I:: x ■ * .-____,_.. _., , 1♦•6.�^J . '� a ❑' •„�harr 0411 _�► Il 1 0 (■l J� j ■❑ ■1 1� i CJ 1 , LE _, 11 i z �• R 1 ■ ■ u3'� Y ,,,,,,,,,,, ,-. ! ` ••� Q)'/ _I M7-) ) Wi • U r i �,.�� top 1 rirte-ra-t 71■ ;� � • +R c\., EL, ■1 r , , I 3 , i • d 3 lig •,, I,O'H S 'Or Ole # Iiiik la� lc: .., 1'-- 1) • •1 I V I' 0 L ''i_ .a ■ ❑—• in j; z s ❑ i • € O „1�a_ ".u_.a 'c. ..:1 � n �� _ / a^ / w u o rQ o S ❑ �• , a An I i ■ ■ [ 7' 'C to •■ ❑ •■• T ct ■ m f �� 'J�� r o o: - • • - • r� --1 C❑ a ❑ , , I�■ °' ,,, _,•9.F ,—,CF •'❑ s / ' k•■ _ Jl L ❑I ■� n ' i-y is_ _i 11:]1..^-r?u_S1:2',:.'.S1 r1�1L-ij'fl:]ISl. -� / —13 d Ci S1 D .1 l�� ■ IL•---�m V� ■ Lo J� L ,■'' o A d r _ o • 1 • •• LI r< , ��Mit ' Z AiynoD mcr ( 2 1_I3HS ) • • \ \ W I q1 �' 'Q 'f1' V' InM N) 1■% 2400- COW DAIRY ANALYSIS WELD COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS - SECTION 24. 4. 2 1 . Consider the Weld County Planning Commission ' s recommendation - which is , as follows , dated December 16 , 1986 : "This proposal is not consistent with the intent of the district for which the use is located. Although the district is zoned agricultural , the use of this land would be much more intense , and the more intense use of the land would create problems for the residents. While the Corporation intends to protect the welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and the County , correcting problems after they exist is not sufficient protection for its neighbors. Also , the uses of the land (as a dairy ) would not be complimentary or compatible with surrounding land-uses as the surrounding land-uses are not used in such an intense manner. In the future , land will probably not be developed agriculturally in such an intense manner and , therefore , the property would be not compatible with future development of the area. " 2. Information in the Planning Services Case File , including Applicant ' s proposal shall be considered. 3. APPROVAL MUST BE DENIED IF APPLICANT FAILS TO MEET ONE OR MORE OF THE STANDARDS OR CONDITIONS OF WELD COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE SECTIONS 24. 4. 2 , 24. 5 and 24. 6. 4. The Applicant has the BURDEN OF PROOF to show that the standards and conditions of Sections 24. 4.2 , 24. 5 , and 24. 6 are met. REVIEWED FOR EMPHASIS FOR THE WELD COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE - current (R. 13 1164r edition R. B. WILLSON , Engineering Consultant , B. S. M. E. DATE : January 10 , 1987 4 EXHIBIT SUMMARY ZONING ORDINANCE 24. 4.2. 6 - " DEMONSTRATE DILIGENT EFFORT TO CONSERVE PRIME LAND AND LOCATE IN NON-PRODUCTIVE AREAS" APPLICANT IS IN VIOLATION 1 . Applicant chose proposed facility in heart of Weld County Prime agriculture crop production area (See USGS/SCS Aerial Overlays ). 2. Applicant has demonstrated no effort to choose non-productive land for facility. 3. Applicant is apparantly unaware that non-productive land that meets the Zoning requirements is available just east of Platteville, Colorado - at a much lower cost per acre - $400-$500/acre and not the $2200/acre he paid for the proposed facility (without irriga- tion water ). (:,‘ 6 0 JA0_ ,,,__ PREPARED BY : R. 8. WILLSON Engineering Consultant, B. S.M. E. DATE : January 10 , 1987 EXHIBIT vv 2400-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS DILIGENT EFFORT TO CONSERVE PRIME AGRICULTURE LAND The Applicant does not discuss what efforts were made to locate his facility in a Weld County land area not detrimental to prime agriculture land. The Warranty Deed enclosed in the Applicant ' s proposal is dated August 7 , 1986. Na water rights were passed on to the Applicant from the seller - Mr. Glen R. Anderson. The purchase price of $350 , 000. 00 for approximately 160 acres (140 farmable acres ) is about $2200/acre, or approximately 2 3/4 times the selling price of good dryland acreage in this area. Since there is no valid reason to purchase prime farmland in the heartland of Weld County' s prime agriculture land, for a non-crop production facility , it must be assumed that proximity to Applicant ' s existing facility and some sense of urgency to start the new dairy were the only considerations. HOWEVER , "A" District property just east of Platteville , Colorado , is available , and just a few miles from Applicant' s existing dairy on Highway 66. All land classification east of Platteville is "OTHER" or non-productive in nature as classified by USGS/SCS, an abbreviated copy of which is enclosed. This land of non-productive classification is located east of Platteville , Colorado , adjacent to Highway 85 (a four-lane major artery State Highway ) , the Central Weld County Water District ' s main feeder domestic water lines, subsurface water potential of stockwate- ring quality due to gravel strata of the South Platte River and ample electrical power that could be extended to a site in the area selected by Applicant. The Applicant has not submitted any information showing pursuit of property in this area. As a minimum, letters from Real Estate Agents , copies of newspaper "For Sale" columns , or any other dat8 showing at least an intent to locate in a lesser than "PRIME" classi- fication have not been provided. It is obvious that Applicant has not even considered Zoning Ordinance Section 24. 4. 2.6 for any locational decision in an attempt to conserve productive agricultural land. t3C .i . - PREPARED BY: R. B. WILLSON Engineering Consultant , B. S.M. E. DATE : January 10 , 1987 IMPORTANT FARMLANDS OF WELD COUNTY COLORADO FARMLANDS OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE al PRIME (IRRIGATED) FARMLANDS OF STATEWIDE IMPORTANCE IRRIGATED LAND (NOT PRIME ) HIGH POTENTIAL DRY CROPLAND - PRIME IF THEY BECOME IRRIGATED OTHER CATEGORIES Deal PRIME IF THEY BECOME IRRIGATED URBAN AND URBAN BUILD-UP LAND all WATER OTHER LAND :dt' A . / Tr �.-pi'3 PLy " i" AWL.4,461: ,4 H,� yfur, $i9 v.... ¢ h it iM'YT fn 4 r Spey "_" ltltl+��7 1}� Vr •�%�13^'v f 61t7 jy a�if-: t Al 4,^ I. ,Is nn sti i ^ I jJ4T ,,,�e gyp' 5 n c > t �` 7, 'GS 4sr� -- nc�tk`k� wiEntir...�iLtra .4444,✓. ' W,..4 V 4tic '4 dC�lr'..., 4 T ..TK%�ry&�M>A� ,,,„,n th�yy r� Sm �} 1.0 r 1 f..,: l rn cy, °f° r g11, 'w, X'cyl,a-,4 / / .i3�t t4 :,,, i. z . "�y a < -,1 °` �'Z:uk¢ 'r Cn �wi5,4%,1+'�''Y 5r3. �(�[{ try^t^!„mr 9 'd 2, +� yN Y 'a,''1+dE'4 �! ;till. ��"4 y / At•iJ' '1��Y11#‘0t � �W�'t pr�VV",'�Y � � '. r k .R � i � 4 l wVf i;�i 'f �. h i s .X J � y 1:77 '''—',It 14 2� �— #,x.�r sbr ` . xrh .7h " �'i a Ir.-'r SSY ' 'curl] , s ' Y (�1 (t '' d{4 ,,,- a� t. �,'``_,. dap + tu+,v \ Ik st,riii lr ��+,. �,1k c / \,'i '1' fit 1 k. y 4'i •,, "d'.t i..4 P/ Fa-) ` d z ., . eP . .Road #38 r.. �r�.`*. A "., v'w,I K . 1 x • 1• N _... �� (\kv drib I; ( .,r.�„)' ,� A,,ri rk%a p .'.ws -tn.. a"'� C ter,, rA ,Jj " II� L--,,e,,,-� `u+C �+,Y ire .y A rI' jai• ,,j„V ilt+' Yrgt^t Al:U _4. f ,fix ""i�a,. . I a I it Y y t Y� a'77fly IT "wl y`•`',,9 +1�+ ✓ �c tr i4 t...F u 4+ __ I .y t l-"7A✓' ':nor ( t�\io,z 1y'kpge.a l 1, °rrt u�li L _;-. nas -� r �Ai µ, itcpq(h1q,. " " ``'te 9 2 •V j --�,7444.ttr ,i4{ 1�3,, r�r.r, n'' F-y g vt# I.� � � Ftli II ' pllerville — 1 I.. .t�"',1 1 / VVVr p[[p l 1.2:4'41 'ta-.44 g f5*7y r V1 L❑ 1a . 66 �' �' , f� _ •\alit \�`r a �� 1--- I/ `: ' Cell p 1 ,+ I ♦ t +* �a�,,{ te � ' -'..•. W{eeler 1`R (`� (`\ - F '4.--','4g 'S v*Y L _ _ A _440-4°\\'` sps, / i aAc � �I,dd�� a ��,C'sa, •lPoYA"hti^, (. �lyq rP Po �y"`.'jcu �tt�� '1 ', - R d itt g N� u O < I ��. ��i , r al eii , i. el ® '. t. � °5ir,ti+ dch,_ �"k'r�t 1 ^ � �® 2 ' •;A • R`�y lcsr n �.f� l!�yq�G'.}jjµµ}}yp'',,,`'' f,�'. , '\ 1111 E+r'ar�"y "fr�:'ip�yLeY,'' -' � t4� 1 ]' •l 'i t 447_ 4st .:tiiiik_7::‘(::?go Iiikw -_.a _ _ _ _ r r' gyp+ �b, ad+,is LTh." I 1 5i i y "Jfir. *s x bikeky�,•9. i \\l t: � x'"r'"'9 ,,,,a-ter.'"”,Via+ ---( �_ 1i I vianills l 7 f�.y �1II ,r vy,21, r'₹ ,,,44. , ,. ,.. ar f r -n-•'int Rt a"-',r)4 2. e,AU l r'1"= "V` ,"y',g7G pi ..des:$Ai' I __� b , 1YA. — jJE! kç& l �du �r'ri ,7 �5 M�e ,r,:re,,� 4 o' fey v 2 7`j y ./"`r,S w�'tr}-'f�' Sat, }tt ae� fi ✓ t i I * ' t a! .v\_1 .{ 4raa r ,k0:44:'a'M to _gar.l ...,4 4 } ' X4,5"7 I r It j' ,a fhadio o d> ,•i`t ty,t rScwg,,,op �,l' "~° �p,+ � ,; r,.^tP `.:. i f 1 1� ci SUMMARY ZONING ORDINANCE 24. 5. 1 . 1 -- ADEQUATE WATER SERVICE APPLICANT IN VIOLATION 1 . Applicant requires a minimum of 132, 000 gallons per day , requested Little Thompson Water District to supply 144 , 400 gallons per day. 2. Little Thompson Water District will ❑nly commit to deliver 72 , 000 gallons per day. 3. Dairy daily need short fall is 60, 00❑ gallons per day. 4. NO ajudicated wells OR drilling permits available in four-mile radius ❑f site for any quality or quanity ❑f water. 5. Water must be hauled in - minimum ❑f 9 daily truck trips @ 7200 gallons/trip. 6. NO documentation has been provided as to Applicant ' s alternate source ❑f potable drinking water , in quantities needed. (RC IA/4 PREPARED BY : R. B. WILLSON Engineering Consultant, B. S. M. E. DATE : January 10 , 1987 EXHIBIT 2400--COW DAIRY ANALYSIS WATER REQUIREMENTS - DAILY 1 . Assume 2400 head ALL milking 3 times a day as MAX. 2 . Average daily drinking water per 1400-1b. cow = 40 gallons per day (GPD) - normal days - minimum 3. Four (4 ) Residences 4. Equipment and Udder Washing - 12 gallons per cow/day (Assume vacuum pumps and bulk tank compressor cooling are part of this ) 5. Employees ' (35 ) Toilet and Sanitary (includes general public consump- tion ) - 30 GPD/man 6. Sprinkler Systems Flushing - daily - 1/2 hour run time - 2 pumps - 150 GPM each 7. Contingency - Hot Dry Spells , Equipment Breakdown, etc. - assume 1 . 5% 8. No Reserves Assumed CALCULATIONS (Peak Demand ) 1 . Drinking - 2400 x 40 96, 000 GPD 2. Equipment , Lines & Udder Wash - 12 x 2400 29 , 000 GPD 3. Sprinkler Flushing (30 ) (300 ) 9000 GPD 4. Employee Sanitary (35 ) (30 ) (Septic ) 1000 GPD 5. Residences - 4 x 170 GPD (Septic ) 700 GPD Average Daily Input Needed 135, 700 GPD 6. Assume Barn Flushing is REUSE of Line & Equipment Cleaning (5700 GPD) Daily Net Input Need 130 , 000 GPD 7. PLUS - Reasonable Contingency for 3 months Hot Weather & other miscellaneous needs - 1 .5% 2000 GPD DAILY TOTAL NET INPUT NEED 132, 000 GPD PREPARED BY : R. B. WILLSON , Engineering Consultant, B. S.M. E. 6 i January 10, 1987 2400-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS LITTLE THOMPSON WATER DISTRICT POTABLE WATER SUPPLIER Meeting with John Gruner , Manager, and Barney Dykes , Operations Super- visor, on January 6, 1987, regarding request by Applicant. 1 . Little Thompson Water District (LTWD) will commit only to a 1 " water tap w/meter at the 4" diameter trunk line on Weld County Road 38 - junction with Weld County Road 15 —with a 50 psi , 50 GPM restriction at the meter. The Applicant must install his own trans- port line from the meter to his point of use , at his expense. 2. Maximum water delivery available at the meter will be 72, 000 GPD. 3. In the hot weather (approximately 5-6 months ) , the peak residential tap demand along this main feeder line is about 2.5 GPM continuous duty. The Computer Study of this section of the LTWD distribution net (from the 8" main feeding the Road 38 trunk to the end of service ) shows the pressure drop t❑ be about 50 psi at the area of the proposed new 1 " tap. This would diminish the normal line pressure from 110 psi to 60 psi , which Mr. Dykes feels is an abso- lute minimum pressure to preclude minimal service t❑ existing residential and farm water taps. 4. Actual output of the proposed 1 " tap at minimum 60 psi upstream pressure conditions in the main tank is indeterminable ; but the 72 , 000 GPO full-flow condition at 110 psi trunk pressure will de- minish , possibly 5-10% or a possible lowered output during peak demand periods of 65-68, 000 GPD. 5. The possibility was discussed of system expansion by installing larger trunk lines, bigger pumps , etc. , by the District - for the benefit of the Applicant who had requested a 100 GPM tap (144, 000 GPD). Mr. Gruner stated that LTWD' s commitment of 72 ,00❑ GPD maximum is all that can be provided by the existing system. He further stated that LTWD had authorized a computer study of the existing residential taps with a 50 psi , 72, 000 GPD 1 " tap. The study showed this is the maximum load increase without deleterious effects to existing taps. 6. A discussion was held to determine if the alternate-day watering full tap conditions would apply (voluntary ) t❑ the Applicant as well as all other system users. Mr. Gruner stated that it would not apply since the 1 " tap is deemed commercial. 7. Mr. Gruner stated that LTWD' s position is one of service. The system is approaching maximum capacity in some areas , and the possibility of mandatory water use restriction in the future is quite foreseeable - particularly in light ❑f the new zoning for the Race Track on Road 9 , 5 miles south of Road 38; the possible sewage district in the Del Camino area, and other high-family density units planned or zoned in the immediate area. As the exis- ting reserve for the Road 38 feeder line is used up, the possibility of any additional flow t❑ this requested area will disappear. - 2 - 8. The CWCWD (Central Weld County Water District ) has an 18" main line running north to south on Road 15 from their 20" main running west to east on Road 42. Both lines are main feeders to their water districts. CWCWD must coordinate all water usage with LTWD, since they share common treatment and feeder facilities. IF LTWD turns the Applicant down for any water service , then applications to CWCWD would require hydraulic analysis , review of current requests , such as the 12 " main tap from CWCWD' s 18" main at Road 15 and Road 24 just to feed the proposed St Vrain Sanitation District at Del Camino , and majority approval by the Board, inclu- ding meeting all conditions set on the Applicant by the Weld County Board of Commissioners as condition for approval by Special Use Review. SUMMARY Based upon Mr. Dykes ' letter t❑ the Applicant , letter from Mr. Gruner (attached ) , and the above data, the following facts are presented : 1 . Applicant will receive a maximum flow of 72 , 000 GPO potable water at the junction of Roads 38 and 15. 2. High-peak demands in the summer months may reduce this to 65 , 000 GPD 3. Expansion of the existing system will not be made by LTWD for the benefit of the Applicant. 4. When the system reserves are diminished , mandatory full-flow restrictions will reduce Applicant ' s water by 50% - or 36, 000 GPD. PREPARED BY: R. B. WILLSON Engineering Consultant , B.S.M. E. DATE : January 10, 1987 r., ..�. . •fir. 2400-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS SUPPLEMENTAL POTABLE WATER SOURCES 1 . REQUIREMENTS Without consideration ❑f peak demand days ❑f water consumption by the Applicant due t❑ long periods of high-heat days in the summer , hot blowing winds , or drought conditions (all estimated t❑ raise cow drinking consumption another 10 gallons per day maximum or a total dairy needs of an additional 24 , 00❑ GPD) , and no mandatory water restrictions of up t❑ 50%, the short fall ❑f water provided by Little Thompson Water District (LTWD) is : Total Daily Average Consumption 132 , 000GPD Maximum LTWD Commitment 72 , 000GPD Average Daily Short Fall 60 , 000GPD OR 42 GPM delivered t❑ the Dairy Watering System This short fall is consistent with the Dairy 's original request t❑ LTWD of 10❑ GPM when added to the 50 GPM commited by LTWD. 2. Provision of Daily Short Fall ❑f 60 , 000 Gallons The availability of potable water in this area is restricted t❑ tw❑ ❑ther sources: a. Adjudicated and Public Health Tested Wells. b. Hauling from a certified source , such as Platteville , Greeley , Johnstown, etc. - IF AVAILABLE. 3 . Since the Applicant stated that the entire source ❑f water will be LTWD, n❑ indication ❑r information is available as t❑ the source for the additional 60 , 000 GPD. Applicant was notified by LTWD of the maxi- mum amount t❑ be supplied (72 , 00❑ GPD) long before the Planners from the Planning Commission completed their report. 4 . A survey conducted by the State ❑f Colorad❑ Division ❑f Water Resources (Mr. Les Dolby in Allen Berryman' s office , Greeley , Colorado ) , failed t❑ uncover any ajudicated stock well - Public Health Tested ❑r not - within a 4-mile radius ❑f the Applicant ' s site. In addition , very few domestic wells are in use due to the very high nitrate content ❑f well water in this area. All ajudicated domestic wells , ❑f course , are limited t❑ a maximum flow of 15 GPM. Since the Applicant must make up the short fall for this proposed dairy , the following data must be supplied by Applicant to the Board of Commissioners for their review to determine if the Application meets USR standards and the Evaluation Guidelines : - 2 - 1 . Letter of Commitment of supplemental water to supply up to 60 ,000 GPD 2. If well supply , what ajudication number? 3. If well or wells ajudicated for stock use, state code. 4. If well or wells , is water certified by Public Health Department ? 5. What is water decree to use water for dairy? 6. If water is to be hauled , who is transport company? What is their certification? List Public Health Hauling Permit Number. 7. What is cost impact on roads , highways , and bridges , of the added intensity of 9 dairy trips (7200 gallons or 80 ,000 lbs/trip gross weight ) delivery and 9 trips empty of 20 ,000 lbs , every day , 365 days per year - or 3285 round trips per year? From where? 6R\ . 3� I LJ� itzt&---- PREPARED BY: R. B. WILLSON Engineering Consultant, B. S.M. E. January 10 , 1987 LITTLE THOMPSON WATER DISTRICT December 18 , 1986 DIRECTORS. Telephone 532-2096 Carey J.Salomonson, 307 Welch Avenue President Drawer G Charles Allen Leo Bakel Berthoud,Colorado 80513 Keilh Croonquist David McGee E.Thomas Ricord Dean Anderson MANAGER: John M_Grunor Mrs . Nanette Adler 17972 Weld County Road 15 Johnstown, Colorado, 80534 Re: Water Commitment for proposed dairy in Section 31 , Township 4 North, Range 67 West Dear Mrs. Adler: This letter is in response to your telephone request of December 17 , 1986 relative to precisely what commitment the Water District has made for the proposed dairy. The commitments of the Water District are public information and as a District tapholder who may have experienced low water pres- sure during the summer months your concern on this matter is understood. Based on a telephone request in early August of this year, the District reviewed the possibility of providing water service to the proposed dairy. This review included an engineer ' s hydraulic analysis of our water mains in the area of Section 31 (please see enclosed sketch map) and this analysis concluded that the District could permit one new tap at the intersection of Weld County Roads 15 and 38 if we allowed no more than 70 gallons per minute for that new tap. Based on this engineering analysis the District did commit to serve a single 1" water tap, subject to a 50 gallon per minute restriction and subject to that tap being placed on the District' s 4" water main located on Road 38 west of the intersection of Roads 15 and 38 . The letter of commitment specifically stated that we would not commit to the full 70 gallons per minute figure identified by the engineering report as we did not want service to our existing tapholders placed in a "marginal" category. At this point and time, the limit of the District' s commitment is for the single 1" tap with 50 gallons per minute, which equates to 3 , 000 gallons per hour or 72, 000 gallons per day . The District could provide additional water for the dairy, up to 100 gallons per minute; however, to do this the one mile of 4" water main on the south section line (Section 31) would have to be replaced with 6" water main. The proposed dairy would be responsible for the costs associated with this one mile of new line and this in fact could be Page 2 December 18 , 1986 Ltr to Mrs. Adler re: Water Commitment for proposed dairy accomplished providing the dairy agrees to fund the new water line. I trust that this will provide you with the information you have requested and if you need additional information, please advise. I am taking the liberty of sending a copy of this letter to Mrs . Reichert as she was also inquiring about this matter. Best wishes for a happy holiday season. S' ncerely yours, ten. JOH M. GRUNER, Manager Encl : Sketch Map of Area Copy to: • Mrs. Edward S . Reichert 19279 Weld County Road 17 Johnstown, Colorado, 80534 _-- / \ Ia • / • '-.- ai m , r +r / 1 : r Fn•4,0N b 0 ca In i Tx vtHT l r v a !! ) --, , ...-: 1 Ity - \\:9-::4 i „ 'cc)', l 'i .n t 7.X11.. ti4?: •e�1.Y .:pY:: ..{.;:e5{4::'.S,:::: :R:+.•l•r•: •;•i[• a• ;" :::::i:•:-&.:17.-Ift:Yv 5ii5:' ` 'r Sa c7� '- - :$ »•Nfr4 N••‘ w As w /1 6 �� : 0 C�B°�C ` A �F 70 R U ` 1 }, u ut _ • 19 ROAD 15 nj I ,. • I, o 2" 0 $ --- t t 12 l� p_ e - Ir ^r _ v ."� Pz C z a . • I. I\- r' W , -I y Or roq W p .:Z. ., 3 40 a �� O r 3 1.11 u Z' / " `/-'‘ W �fln in lam. �GTIj I r �r 40 • - 0.i. iliCILD9. / C�. N Nom' ,. r.....---; c 1 r cy / �\ _ 00 \ N (7 - ♦93 O • I g (l to 0 ‘.-. <c ' 1 L 11 I r `1 w • o " r r'10 n 0, rY „ T ,,1 &I LITTLE THOMPSON WATER DISTRICT DIRECTORS. January 9, 1987 Carey J.Salomonson, Telephone 532-2096 President 307 Welch Avenue Charles Allen Drawer G Leo Bakel Berthoud Colorado 80513 Keith Croonquist David McGee E Thomas Ricord Dean Anderson MANAGER'. John M.Gruner Mrs. Nanette Adler 17972 Weld County Road 15 Johnstown, Colorado, 80534 Re: Water Commitment for proposed dairy in Section 31 , Township 4 North, Range 67 West Dear Mrs. Adler: The purpose of this letter is to confirm some of the information that we discussed in our meeting of January 6 , 1987 regarding the water commitment for the proposed dairy. The Water District has made a commitment for water service and that is identified below. Additionally, it appears that there is an existing residential-sized water service which presumably could be utilized by the proposed dairy and that is also shown below: Flow in gallons Flow in gallons Tap Size-Commitment per minute per day One inch Tap (Commitment) 50 GPM 72, 000 gallons 5/8"x3/4" Tap (Existing) 10 GPM 14 , 400 gallons Totals 60 GPM 86, 400 Gallons It is to be emphasized that the Water District has only committed to fifty gallons per minute, via the one inch tap, to the proposed dairy and the relationship of the existing 5/8" tap to the proposed dairy is not known. This Water District has not made any verbal or written commitment to Rocky Mountain Consultants, Inc . of Longmont relative to any amount of water being available to the proposed dairy. Each summer the Water District has encouraged all tapholders to participate in a voluntary program involving Odd/Even watering days for outside irrigation . It is anticipated that this will continue . The District does not have a mandatory program for residential tap- holders or for commercial tapholders . In the event you desire any additional information regarding this matter, please advise. Sincerely yours, L HN M. GRUNER, Manager J S , SUMMARY I . Zoning Ordinance Section 25. 5. 1 . 5. 1 - 100 Year Runoff Applicant is in violation A. Does Not address requirement (used 25-year runoff ). B. System is grossly under designed for waste storage ponds , including 100-year runoff. C. Applicant does not consider waste runoff impoundment at south end of property nor disposal methods of same. II. Applicant ' s dairy waste management systems are in error or d❑ not address the solution to the following : A. The method and means ❑f daily removal from site ❑f 97 tons solid waste (6 truck loads/day ) , and 36 , 00❑ gallons of surplus liquid waste daily by trucks ❑f 720❑ gallons capacity weighing 80 , 000 pounds (5 trucks daily ). B. Applicant does not demonstrate how he will : 1 . Prevent ground water pollution at the confinement area. 2. Prevent odor pollution of neighborhood due t❑ overloading 100-acre crop production area with crusted liquid wastes becoming air borne. 3. Prevent polluted ground water from entering residences ' basements. 4. Provide French Drain Effluent capture. 5. Techniques ❑f removal ❑f fats and protiens in settlement ponds and particularily in the storage ponds. 6W 6.) dkr-_ PREPARED BY: R. B. WILL50N Engineering Consultant , B. S.M. E. DATE : January 10 , 1987 EXHIBIT 2400-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS DAILY ANIMAL WASTE From SCS Charts and review by local dairys , the following criteria is used : 1 . Maximum daily feces and urine production for peak milk production is 90 lbs/1000 lb live weight cow or for 1400 lb adult milkers - 126 lbs/day. Volume ❑f waste is 1 . 37 CF/1000 lbs liveweight or 1 . 92 CF/day for 1400 lb dairy cows. 2. Lagoon solid sedimentation is about 40 , 00❑ MG/liter , assuming 400% dilution ❑f influent waste remaining after most solid removal ❑r . 333 lbs/gallon ❑f retained , diluted dairy facility effluent. 3. Of the daily waste production of 126 lbs/day , approximately 37 lbs is compacted solids and 89 lbs is liquid waste or urine. It is estimated that of this total , ❑nly 63 lbs , or 50%, can be removed ❑ff site by manure spreaders as semi-solid waste. The makeup ❑f this will be 30 lbs dry solids and 33 lbs of liquid. 4. Added t❑ the removal of the semi-solid waste by truck is the bedding used. Study of local daries shows use of 7 - 10 lbs/day/animal. Total daily solid waste removal then is as follows : a. Direct waste 63 lbs b. Bedding 7 lbs Total Waste 7❑ lbs/day/cow Dairy semi-solid waste removal per day = (70 ) (2400 ) = 168 , 00❑ 5 . Sedimentation pond waste cleaning must be done periodically (Applicant states possibly every 3 months ). This waste must be dried t❑ haul ❑ff , so while one sediment pond is ❑perating , the other can be pumped dry into ❑ther pond and scraped clean. Expec- ted sediment sewage is as follows : a. Influent t❑ Ponds (Daily ) (1 ). Direct cattle waste - (63 lbs ) (2400 ) = 18, 130 GPD 8. 34 (2 ). Dairy barn and equipment wash/flush - 29 , 000 GPD (3 ). Average rainfall (12 "/yr avg ) daily equivalent over 35 acres = 31 , 20❑ GPD (4 ). Total retained daily - 78 , 330 GPD. Assume no evapora- tion due to surface scum. - 2 - b. Daily equivalent pond waste removal : (. 333 lbs/gal ) (78, 330 gal ) = 26, 083 lbs/day 6. Total Equivalent Daily Waste Removal a. Dairy semi-solids 168, 000 lbs b. Sediment solids 26 , 083 lbs Total waste 194 , 083 lbs ❑r 97 ton/day (. 04 ton/cow/day ) This compares with local dairys that average .06 t❑ .07 ton per cow per day without waste lagoons. 7 . It must be assumed that the cattle confinement areas are sealed t❑ prevent liquid percolation into the soil , thereby producing ground water contamination. 8. Haulout will be 97 ton/day - average manure truck capacity is 18 tons - ❑r 6 trips out @ 50 , 000 lbs gross and 6 trips in @ 14 , 000 lbs empty. 0. b r hm-„- PREPARED BY : R. B. WILLSON Engineering Consultant , B. S. M. E. DATE : January 10 , 1987 P� -� ' i�p January 14, 1987 Dear Weld County Commissioner (iaec__o n tie ,;' f I was saddened not to have the chance to address you today; therefore I hasten with some comments which I sincerely hope you will take the time to read. Please excuse typing errors. It has been a long day for me as well . I thought as I sat that how ironic it was that exactly 36 years ago today my "Father purchased our 320 acres which lie directly south and across the road from the proposed dairy farm. Dad was Dr. Harvey Brewbaker, Ph.D. in Agronomy from the U. of Minn. and for many years director of research at the Experiment Station, G.W. Sugar Co. of Longmont. Dad knew then he had purchased prime agricultural land and it has proven itself all of these 36 years. In retirement Dad traveled with with International Executive Service Crass to many lands. He was internationally known as an agricultural wizard. Upon his death my only sibling, Jim, and I became the co-owners of the Brewbaker-Sorensson Weld Co . Farm. Jim is Dr. James L Brewbaker, a graduate of Cornell University in Agronomy. For almost 30 years Jim has headed up the Horticulture Department, University of Hawaii. John was my husband of almost 32 years. His background was ranching, farming and industrial management. He managed the farms until his sudden death in a car accident in 1984. At that time I was suddenly left with all the problems a relatively young widow faces with 3 children, but almost also the managemen of 320 prime acres in Weld Co. I have been forever grateful, then, for the help, concern, and clever manage- ment of our tenant farmer Gary Adler. Gary was hired by Dad 14 years ago and moved onto the farmer with a darling wife and 2 year old son. I point out the above only so that you will know that all these important men in my life have known agriculture so thoroughly and so very well . They recognized this acerage was prime and should be respected, managed that well. Thanksgiving, ' 86, Jim and family spent 3 short days with us. We all recog- nized at that time that we needed more information about Co . Dairy Farms . Nov. 29th, at 4 PM we approached the mother facility on Hwy.66 heading west. We parted by the side , tested the winds on this very chilly afternoon and to be very polite, were extremely offended by the odor. We could estimate that where we were parked was about where the home of our tenant, Gary Adler, would be located should the dairy farm go into existanfl. Stated more correc4 his home would be located about that close to the lagoons proposed. l We then visited with Asst. Gen. Manager, Mr. George Smith. Our visit lasted slightly over two hours for we discussed the proposed farm and its implication: from all angles, pro and con. We saw and discussed the blueprints and asked all manner of questions . When we left we were unsatisfied and remain so today Is the proposal consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan: ; ;? We think now, that iI is not . Unanswered are such concerns as : 1) What about the environmental �imade on otherwise peaceful prime agricultural land. Traffic , air and water pollution? The very real danger of underground pollutants seeing onto our property? 2)Could this not drastically alter the life-styles of those who have chosen to live on the land, love and protect the land. Survive from what the land will give them. Given the number of people I know who wish to sell now, won' t land values plummet? They all believe so . These people are suffering They are being faced with changed life-styles that directly affect themselvc and their families. ExHavl XX lage 2 3) We asked ourselves how dan such a facility be allowed or even thought of in view of the 1985 Federal Government byout Irogram to areduce eoday� the quantities of dairy products being produced? this is not supposed to be a major concern of yours but I can assure you the taxpayers who can be directly affected are certainly asking that question of us, who are involved. We can find no logical reason for approval simply because of that question to begin with. 4) We asked Mr. Smith, wasn' t land in the immediate area of the mother facility for sale and he answered that yes, there was, but it was considered far too expensive . We wondered aloud why the company was not willing to pay for land more expensive , initially, which lay immediately adjacent to the mother facility and thewreby centralize lize the entire operation? Surely by doing so the company regain hat initial expense rather quickly and over years of operation would rea- lize a dividend on that money. Mr. Smith' s answer an this was very vague at question to wasraised today.her level maI canent . As not take time ou from recall that a very you listen for my job to attend more meetings , but I earnestly hope some kind of answer to this in the rebuttal. 5) We asked about the incestides that would be used to control pests and Jim, who works with pesticides daily on his experimental farm in Hawaii, was not convinced with the answers. So , as stateJbefore , we left thisediscussionevery unsag tisfied dswwith h.the answers and remain so n tem question as honestly as possible and he if a he would answer one remaining e i said yes�. I asked if it were his home or the home of persons especially dear to ;'gas the Adlers are to us, and if his home thedorrtheirs watirs ses located as close as it will be to the catching ponds of concerns? He thought a moment before answering that yes, he would share the same concerns . I have 3 other witnesses to his response which he made with no urging on our part and to which we believe he answered honestly. Finally, I refer to the following from the Code: 24. 5.1 . 11 Uses by Special Review in the A-District shall gbesllocated unless n the least productive soils on the p p Y in the applicant can demonstrate why such a location would be impractical or infeasible . I strongly believe the applicants have not addressed themselves to this issue in anyway at all. The application has been reduced, as of today, from 2,400 head to 1 ,200 . Which reminds me of a question asked e of Mr . Smithson Nov. 29th. Jimmakked how ny a large the acerage was on Hwy . cattle , answer 3,700. It wouldrf� em to be out of reason, therefore , to look at these 161 acres and in the future , somewhere , envision a population of that size or larger. In conclusion, I sincerely hope you will deny this application as being unnecessary for the enhancement of the persons of Weld Co . Very teru yours? Ann Brewbaker Sorensson 1 EXHIBIT SUMMARY APPLICANT' S WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 1 . Applicant ' s facility will discharge about 47 , 000 GPD - not 25 , 000 GPD as stated in proposal . 2. Applicant should have provided a minimum liquid waste storage capacity of 1 , 900 , 000 cubic feet not considering 10 ' operational depth recommended by ASCS ❑ik any abnormal storms. 3 . Applicant only provides approximately 1 , 600 , 000 cubic feet in his proposal. 4 . Applicant did not consider sterilization limit on 100 acres in disposing of liquid waste. 5. Applicant did not consider the need to haul liquid waste off site. 6. Applicant does not propose containment of possible waste runoff at south end of property due to storm runnoff , pond overflow, or french drain effluent. 7. Applicant has chosen the least expensive technique of waste treatment - anaerobic treatment - if ponds are not maintained full to 10 ' operating level , severe odor problems will result in addition to the odors from functioning anaerobic systems. 8. Applicant has not provided means to seal the surface of the contain- ment area for livestock (30 acres ). This unsealed area will con- taminate ground water and soil as well as being a source for air- borne contamination. i , (? rJ C( )) — PREPARED BY : R. B. WILLSON Engineering Consultant , B. S. M. E. DATE : January 10 , 1987 2400-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS ANALYSIS OF APPLICANT' S WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Review of the Applicant ' s design perameters for the proposal show the following assumption : 1 . 25-Year Event Rainfall @ 3. 8" depth over the area of 1 , 305 , 000 s. f. (30 acres ). 2. Actual Runoff Water in the amount of 3. 22 " depth was assumed ❑ver the 3❑ acres. 3 . Storage and solid ponds als❑ will receive the same 3.8" depth - no runoff. (4. 16 acres ) 4. Total average precipitation during the months ❑f November , December , January , February , and March - or 5 months = 323 , 254 CF or total rainfall of 2. 61 " for the 5-month period. 5. Total dairy facility effluent to ponds will be 499 , 045. CF for N , D , J , F , M (5 months ) or a per day discharge of approximately 25 , 000 GPD as stated in proposal. 6. Total designed proposal storage of 1 , 612 , 250 CF included a 31% ❑verdesign with the above data for a 5-month , non-irrigating , season. Briefly , the design analysis of this study assumes the following : 1 . Total actual waste area of facility that will be captured in the proposed ponds (total 181 , 225 SF) is 35 acres or 1 , 524 , 600 S. F . including berms that slope to ponds. 2. Dairy liquid waste product effluent delivered to ponds is 78 , 330 gallons/day (See Animal Waste Analysis ). 3. Total Annual precipitation in this area is 12 "/year. 4. Lake and pond evaporation rate (best condition ) is 40 " of depth/year. 5. The limit for application ❑f liquid wastes (from dairy lagoons ) without soil sterilization on a consistent yearly basis is 6 " depth/acre/year (S. C. S. Tables based on average salt and nutrient content ❑f 400% diluted animal waste ). 6. N❑ waste crust will be allowed t❑ form on crop production areas irrigated by the waste. The waste must be mixed int❑ the soil and subsoil continuously by cultivator ❑r other soil mixing practice. - 2 -- 7. Weld County Zoning Ordinance Section 24. 5. 1 . 5. 1 requires a 100-year Water Runoff Criteria. The Applicant only chose to use a 25-year event, for whatever reason. This analysis will thus use Applicant ' s 25-year data including runoff , but it is noted to be incorrect. 8. Since ground and climate conditions can easily be frozen or snow covered as early as October 15 and as late as April 15 , a more reasonable 6-month period for non-irrigation sprinkling is assumed rather than 5 months. 9. Only 100 acres of crop production land remains after complete dairy is built. The following analysis is made based on the above assumptions, not those provisions by the Applicant ' s Proposal for Special Use Review. 1 . Limit of pond waste storage use for sprinkler irrigation. Limit = (6" waste/year ) (100 acres ) = (. 5' ) (43 , 560 ) (100 ) = 2 , 176, 000 CF/Year or 16, 291 , 440 gallons/year limit. 2. Total liquid run into ponds , annually Dairy effluent - 78, 330 gal/day = 28, 59❑ , 450 GPY This includes average annual rainfall , barn wash effluent , and net liquid waste from cows not trucked out as semi-solid waste. NOTE : This excludes the 25 year event of 3.8" rainfall w/3. 22" runoff. 3. Exclusive of the 25-year event or the required 100-year event , the liquid surplus to be hauled offsite to prevent soil sterili- zation due to excessive salts applied by over-irrigation of liquid wastes is : Yearly diluted liquid run into ponds - 28 , 590 , 450 GPY Less maximum applied to 100 acres/year- ( 16 , 291 , 44❑ GPY) Yearly net to be hauled offsite - 12 , 299 , 010 GPY This is the daily equivalent of 7000 gallon tankers 5 times @ 80 , 000 lbs out and 5 times @ 20 ,000 lbs in. If the 25-year event is considered, the storage pond design capacity must be at least as follows : (assuming 6 months storage, not able to sprinkle irrigate ) T - 3 - 1 . Total 25-Year Event on 35 acres as captured runoff , Total = (35 ) (43 , 560 ) (3. 22 " ) = 409 , 178 CF 12 (Neglects the . 58" cliff. in rainfall of ponds that will result from 3.8" rainfall or about 8800 CF ) 2. Total Process Water w/o Rainfall Dairy total daily effluent = 47 , 130 GPD For 6 months = (47, 130 ) (180 ) = 8, 483 , 400 = 1 , 134, 144 CF 3. Average precipitation on 35 acres for 6 months Assume winter distribution of 3 " total precipitation. Rainfall equivalent = 3 (35 ) (43 , 560 ) = 381 , 150 CF 12 4. Must assume minimal evaporation due to scum and floating sludge, plus low or no-heat days during the 6-month period. 5 . If the perfect evaporation over the entire ponds area : (40 " depth annually ) Annual evaporation removal = (((40 " ) (181 , 225 SF ) = 603 , 479 CF possibly , 20% efficiency due td21Ow-heat days and 10% of that due to scum can be assigned. This is only a guesstimate = 12 , 000 CF. 6. Total liquid to consider for retention during 6-month period : a. 25-year event 409 , 178 CF b. Process effluent 1 , 134 , 144 CF c. Precipitation on 35 A. 381 , 150 CF d. Less possible evap. (12 , 000 CF ) Net Required Storage 1 , 912 , 472 CF OR an under-design capacity of 300 , 222 CF 7 . The total surplus to be hauled offsite yearly due just to 25-year event is : 409 , 178 CF = 3 , 060 , 651 GPY. The number of 7200 gallon truckloads required at 7200 gallons/truck is 425 80 , 000 lb loads. - 4 - SUMMARY The total waste removal management system proposed is grossly under designed , necessitating physical hauloff of liquid waste by truck . In addition, n❑ mention is made in the proposal ❑f utilizing the 100-year rainfall criteria as required by the Weld County Ordinance Section 24. 5. 1 . 5. 1 . This would increase the under design by at least 2-300%. No mention is made in the Applicant ' s proposal of how they plan to retain runoff at the south end ❑f the proposed side, running west to east on Weld County Road #38. Significant concerns about area pollution, ground water contamina- tion, and odor have not been addressed. Specifically , there is no mention as to how the Applicant proposes t❑ solve the following : 1 . Ground water contamination due t❑ seepage in the containment corrals. 2. Runoff ❑f surface water caused by the proposed French Drains (t❑ be located downstream, but adjacent to the ponds t❑ prevent pond bottom rupture in the summer ) , discharging for approximately six months. 3. Capture ❑f crop land surface runoff of wastes caused by heavy summer rains , which are quite common. The clay soils on this farm, and all in this area, seal up and discharge runoff during a 1'h" - 2" rainfall. 4. The application of pure lagoon wastes ❑n cropland in the summer without burial , the resultant 100-acre site (encrus- ted with deposits from the maximum 6 " waste application ), will be highly polutting in the following areas : a. If crop production is grass ❑r hay , no agitation is possible. The odor from 100 acres will be unbearable. b. Ground water contamination is very probable due to soil penetration ❑f the wastes at this high rate of appli- cation. c. Physical penetration ❑f this long-term pollution (as carried by ground water ) int❑ exposed building basements such as the Adler Home next t❑ Road 38 south ❑f the pro- posed facility. They consistently pump seep water from the proposed site each summer during irrigation season as it passed below Road 38 in the existing shale formation. 5. The system as designed , is anaerobic in nature and, in our climate , is not considered a true waste treatment facility. - 5 - 6. The anaerobic system generally stops functioning in cold winter months. High surface odor is common in these lagoons. Mechanical surface agitation helps the odor problem somewhat , but Applicant does not propose to do this. 7. Fats and protiens in the milk that finds its way to the storage ponds is a major disposal problem. They will not decompose in anaerobic system and cannot be removed in settling ponds. The Applicant has not addressed this problem. 8. The area of the ponds falls within the very low side of design perimeters (50 to 125 SF )/cow. This dairy is 67 SF per cow and should be toward the upper end due to tempera- ture and elevation conditions of the site year round. 9. Prevailing winds in the area of the proposed facility are generally from the west and northwest in the summer time. At times , strong east winds occur. The upslope conditions of the mountains tend to deflect southerly winds since this area is close t❑ the foothills. Thus Stapleton wind rose is not accurate for this area. Summer winds will distribute severe odors over residents at Northmoor Acres (a very large family residential area ) as well as all farm residents within several miles distance. 10. Odor problems at the CSU Dairy Waste Disposal System have forced the closing of a very sophisticated lagoon system, and now requires removal of all wastes by truck. All of the foregoing shows that the Applicant' s proposal is in direct violation of the Comprehensive Use Plan as well as several special Sections of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance - current edition. ffff� .\ {/ 1.✓ '�l/J� /' i PREPARED BY: R. B. WILLSON Engineering Consultant , B.S.M. E. DATE : January 10, 1987 ' �. 11 ,', ' � T !' I _ t ��L: - / S o, (w_.\ S' Aµ ` ) , I .,. ., • ,'..' ,� non 1 . 1 �. t , /,. I� / ,y / ; • • I v I J •cr ��.-14-40 t • i� 141 Titt1 1 ,1 � �1�/ Wto v • ` r • 1 ` LAKEr` EJ�/RPv,Q,4T441;it ( , S}tom, �N M 1 LY •r ! - .i� l SRS 1 • ••,;-,-1. .. 1 r Iyl '. i�. � a:1 1 !�i t��r ] v' z F , �,. 1� t1 r1 . ,t 1 1 .. r ^c.t . • COLORADO.DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WATER QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION • • GUIDELINES • pEsIGN OF FEEDLOT RUNOFF • CONTAINMENT FACILITIES MAY 1978 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALT'• ' 'Water Quality. Control ConElis on 4210 E. Ilth Avenue Denver , Colorado 80220 • Adopted : May 3, 1978 Effective: May 3 , 1978 8. 3.0 GUIDELINES FOR DESIGN OF FEEDLOT RUNOFF • CONTAINMENT FACILITIES • • 8. 3. 1 AUTHORITY C.R. S. 1973, 25-8202(1 ) ( i ) and (2) and 25-8-205(1 ) (6) and (c) , as amended. 8. 3. 2 PURPOSE The purposes of this publication are to provide guidance for the design and construction of runoff containment facilities to comply wi Estate and federal regulations and to provide technical informa- tion on which to base the review of plans and specifications . Al - • ternate criteria will be accepted if it can be justified.____ 8. 3. 3 DEFINITIONS (I ) "COMMISSION" means the Colorado Water Quality Control Com- mission. (2) "DIVISION" means the Water Quality Control Division, Colo- rado Department of Health. . (3) "FEEDLOT" means a concentrated animal feeding operation for• meat , milk, or egg production, or stabling in pens or houses . wherein the animals or'poultry are fed at the- place of con finement and crop or forage growth or production is not sustained in the area of confinement. • (4) "10-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM" means that storm of a 24-hour dura- tion which yields total precipitation of a magnitude that has the probability of recurring only once every 10 years. Such values are provided in Figure I . (5) "25-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM" means that storm of a 24-hour dura- tion which yields total precipitation of a magnitude that has the probability of recurring only once very 25 years. Such values are provided in Figure 2. Gu•idclines for Design of Feedlot Runoff Containment Facil .cs Adopted: May 3, 1978 Effective: May 3, 1978 (6) "WATERS OF THE STATE" means any and all surface and sub- surface waters which are contained in or flow in or _ through this state, except waters in sewage systems, waters in treatment works of disposal systems, waters in potable water distribution systems, and all water • withdrawn for use until use and treatment have been completed. _._ (7) "DRAINAGE AREA" means feedlot containment areas , alley- ways, manure holdings arid- storage areas , and other ap- purtenant areas soild be manure excrement. 8. 3. 4 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS (1 ) Provision is required for adequate drainage to prevent the col - lection of contaminated waters within feedlot or stockyard en- closures, areas where manure is stockpiled ,_or other appurte- nant areas.'--All livestock confinement areas, alleyways, etc. , should be graded to prevent accumulations of surface waters and • to drain all contaminated water to adequate 'retention facili - ties. Drainage ditches shall be -`— �. provided as necessary. (2) All possible means to minimize quantities of contaminated run- off should be implemented. Uncontaminated storm runoff from areas external to the feedlot should be diverted by means of interceptor ditches, earth embankments, etc. , from flowing over the drainage area.(3) All runoff containment facilities should be designed with the means for proper and efficient maintenance in mind. - (4) An engineering report should he prepared and submitted to this Division 60 days prior to construction for review for any type of control or treatment facility. The report should be prepared under the seal of a professional engineer licensed to practice engineering in the State of Colorado or the Soil ConservationService may agree to design containment facilities at a feedlot. Such plans prepared by the So-i1 Conservation Service do comply_with the professiona.l-_ enginec:r requirement. The report should contain all_pertinent in- formation that will affect the feasibility and acceptability of the proposed facility and shall inc I_ude—but_not be to the following: (2) C,ulurtl Ines for Design or f-t'•°d lot Runoff Containment Faciiit Adopted: May 3, 1978 Effective: Nay 3, 1978 (a) The location and direction of all residences, conrnercial developments and domestic water supplies or sources within 1/2 mile of the • proposed -facility, (b) Results of soil studies to determine surface • and subsurface soil characteristics of the .area proposed for location of the facility. (c) Direction of prevailing winds. (d) Acreage of pens and appurtenant areas. (e) Dimensions (feet) and capacities (acre-feet) of containment structures. • - (f) Design storm in inches per 24-hour period. • (g) Acreage available for disposal of liquid and solid waste and location of" the acreage. (h) A map of the drainage area and containment facilities drawn to a legible scale. (i ) Projected seasonal high groundwater through- • out_the_.acea_of the retention facilities. • This will generally occur in the spring of the year. — -- oCt,rt.iu/li • 1 (5) One of the main considerations in the guidelines is proper operation and maintenance of the pens and containment facili- tie's. The above includes but is not limited to maintenance of grades for drainage, proper disposal of runoff with the allotted time, cleaning of pens on the average of once a year and cleaning of runoff containment ponds as necessary but at least once every four_years . Facilities as exist at a dairy may require more frequent cleaning due to the daily volumes . (6) Runoff containment facilities must be capable of containing runoff from a lO-year 24-hour or 25-year 24-hour design storm. /Ov I I. For facilities with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination r�V System (NPDES) permits, the design storm must correspond with that stated in the permit . The design engineer should refer to the appropriate _state and federal regulations and laws relative to feedlots for determination of the proper design storm • .,.,. - 3- -Guidelines for Design of Feec .Jt • Runoff Containment Facilities Adopted : May 3, 1978 Effective: May 3, 1978 (7) From a review of documents and data , it has been determined that the volume of containment facilities should be based on runoff, as opposed tb actual precipitation. For feedlots that have an earthen base, runoff may be obtained by using the Soil Conservation runoff curve 91 shown in Figure 3. For feedlots that are primarily paved , the Soil Conservation Service runoff curve 95 shown in Figure 4 should be used. If conditions at a facility would result in more-than average runoff (excessive slope) , partial pavement , etc.) a more conservative runoff curve than required above should be utilized. More conservative curves can be found in the National Engineering Handbook , Section 4 , Hydrology. (8) Containment of runoff need not always be controlled by actual .ponds. If containment can be guaranteed by location or by diking or terracing an area, this will be acceptable. In the case of containment by location, an onsite inspection by per- sonnel of this Division will be necessary. Diking or terracing to provide containment will require an engineering report as discussed in Section 8. 3.4 (4) . Water originating upgradient of the drainage area will need to be diverted around the feed- lot and any manmade structures designed and constructed for containment of feedlot runoff. 8. 3. 5 SEALED STRUCTURES All runoff containment structures that will hold liquid must be sealed. Removal of porous top soil and proper compaction of suitable sub-soil improves the water holding characteristics of the bottom. ' Removal of porous -material such as gravel or sandy pockets and replacement with • suitable material may be required . Suitable materials for sealing may include a clay blanket , asphalt coating or manure. 8. 3.6 RUNOFF CONTROL FACILITIES (1 ) Sedimentation Structures : Sedimentation ponds or 'sedimenta- tion ditches should be provided ahead of all evaporation and retention ponds. (2) Sedimentation Ponds (a) Capacity - The capacity of the pond should be on the orderof 209_ ofthe runoff volume from the 10-year_ 24-hour design storm. • . •r.uidclines For Design of Fe w lot , Runoff Containment Facilities ,Adopted: May 3, 1978 Effective: May 3 , 1978 (b) Inlet and Outlet Structures - Inlet and outlet struc- tures of the pond should be situated ' so as to avoid short circuiting of flows through the pond. In addi- tion , the outlet structure should facilitate dewater- ing of the solids. An example is the use of a flash- , board overflow weir. (c) Depth: The pond depth should be minimal , _ less than 3 feet (679T-meters), and facilitate easy maintenance • by mobile equipment. • (3) Sedimentation Ditch (a) Location - It should be located outside the pen area for easier cleaning and maintenance. (b) Gradient - Where site conditions permit, the gradient • should allow a velocity of flow, under design storm conditions , of not more than 1 ft/sec. (30.48 cm/sec. ) . (c) Side Slopes - The side slopes should he at least 8 to I . • • 8. 3. 7 . RETENTION PONDS WITH LAND APPLICATION • All retention_,pond systems shall be sealed and have a means for proper disposal of the retained wastes within 15 days after each storm. (1 ) Capacity - The pond should be capable of containing _ all runoff from Shefeedlotand appurtenant areas that results from the design storm. Precipitation resulting from a 10-year 24-hour and 25-year 24-hour storm event tie Iota 'ft. are shown by isopluvial lines in Figures, ) and 2. If a Fen. sedimentation pond cannot be provided ahead of the re- tention pond, the capacity should be increased by 202 W DI D of the runoff volume from the 10-year 24-hour storm. (2) Shape - The shape of the pond should facilitate case of cleaning and maintenance with the equipment to be used. • ••I' •\ (3) Depth e . A maximum t depth, of 15 m feet f (4 :ee ( . 1 is recom- mended .mended . In addition, a minimum r�( 2 feet (0.61 meters) should exist between the poond1nvert and the projected seasonal high water table. (5) Cui'dcl incs for Design of F- ,d lot Runoff Containment Facilit S. Adopted: nay 3 , 1978 Effective: may 3, 1976 (4) Surface Area - Exact criteria do not exist on this sub- ject. However, retention ponds of several surface _acres _ should be avoided due to potential odor roblems . It is recommended that ponds approaching several acres should be separated into at least 2 ponds . The first pond in series should provide 20 10 25 percent of the total de- sign capacity with the second pond providing the remainder. In this way, the smaller volumes of runoff normally en- countered can he collected in the first pond. (5) Bottom - A slope, not to exceed 0. toward the, SS, should he a provided minimiz e odors pump. This will aid in dc.raterinq and help to (6) 'Embankments and Dikes - Embankments and dikes should be con- structed of relatively impervious materials and compacted sufficiently to form a stable structure in keeping with standard dam construction practices. All vegetation should he removed from the area upon which the structure is ':o be placed. (7) Side Slopes - Side and end slopes . both inside and out , shout—be no steeper than 2 feet (0.61 meters) horizontal to t foot (0. 3.0 meters) vertical . However, the equipment for cleaning and maintaining the facility and soil charac- teristics should actually dictate the slope in the event it should be flatter. _____ _ (8) Width - The ' top width of the dike should be a minimum of . 8 feet (2.4.4 meters) to permit access of maintenance vehicles. (9) Spillways Spillways should he provided on all retention ponds to prevent a washout of the pond during a precipita- tion event exceeding the design storm. The volume of the pond to the invert of the spillway should be at least that required in Section 8. 3 . 7(1 ) , ( 10) Freeboard - Freeboard of at least I foot (0. 30 meters) should exist around the pond and should he measured above the invert of the spillway. Greater freeboard should be provided where wind action dictates such. (II ) Erosion Protection - Provision should he made to protect the -6- • Runoff Containment Facilities • Adopted : May 3 , 1978 Effective: May 3, 1978 • embankment from erosion. Normally, seeding with suitable grass above the high water line is acceptable. However, greater protection such as riprap may he necessary de- pending on soil conditions and pond size. (12) Fencing - The pond should be enclosed with a stock type fence. A vehicle access .gate of sufficient width to accommodate maintenance equipment and trucks should be provided. (13) Land Disposal Systems - A retention pond is designed to contain runoff from one major storm only. Distri-bulion of the waste may be achieved by tank trucks, irrigation systems or other methods. It ' is mandatory that the land distribution system provided be capable of removing the volume of :waste at n capacity ent designed 'retention_. .— ---_. wi thin 15 days after the storm. In addition, the disposed . waste cannot return to waters of the state. 8. 3.8 TOTAL EVAPORATION SYSTEMS (} U)(-; ) ltM6,dit5- ; L i'3 1-54 Systems, of this type are not suitable for use in many areas of the state due to odor problems and land requirements. An additional problem for a system of this type lies. in designing a suitable system that guarantees compliance with state and federal regulations but yet is not drastically over-designed. The Soil Conservation Ser- vice has a procedure based on the annual rainfall expected 1 year in 25, and the annual evaporation expected 9 years in 10. If a total evaporation system must be utilized , the design should be based on • this SCS procedure. Information relative to the procedure can be found in Agricultural Waste Management Field Manual , August 1975, pages 12-70. 8. 3.9 BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT Biological treatment systems for runoff from feedlots would be diffi - cult and expensive to operate. In some operations , such as totally enclosed facilities, a biological treatment system may be desirable. However , land disposal of the waste may still be required due to stringent effluent limitations . Completed plans and specifications for any biological treatment system shall be submitted to this Divi - sion for review before construction is initiated . 8. 3. 10 ENCLOSED LIVESTOCK CONFINEMENT FACILITIES Enclosed facilities such as dairy or some swine operations produce a -7- • Guidelines for Design of FeL- lot Runoff Containment Facilities Adopted: May 3 , 1978 Effective: Hay 3, 1978 • rather continuous waste stream. General practice is to collect this waste in liquid manure holding tanks for extended periods followed by land disposal . This system has proven successful . Twin-cell settling basins , two in parallel , have also proven successful . While one is used , the other is dried and cleaned. • The sizing of the ponds need not be excessive as' flow to them is usually limited. 8. 3. 11 NOTIFICATION Upon completion of a containment or treatment facility immediate notification, in writing, should be made to the Division. In- cluded with this notification should be "as built" dimensions of the respective ponds. 2400/1200-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS REVIEW OF PROPOSED WASTE POND DESIGN From Drawing Sheet 1 of 2 of the Applicant' s proposal , the Profile of the proposed ponds is as shown on Sheet 2. The next exhibit , entitled "Waste Pond Profiles " expands for your clarity the proposed pond design of the proposal , shows the Colorado Health Department Guideline Require- ments for Sedimentation Pond depth and proximity to :projected ground water , and, finally , a pictorial representation of what those guidelines require for the proposed waste treatment facility. Looking at Profile D (or Section A-A for 1200 cows ) on sheet 1 , the proposal shows the pond bottom (invert ) at 4934' and existing ground elevation of 4949' at the north end of the pond. This is 15' of excava- tion to finished bottom; but proposal also calls for 2' of compacted clay , or 17 ' depth of penetration from the surface. The finished pond bottom of compacted clay would then be 11 feet below the top of ground water (4' below grade ) found by the Consultant during test borings. Final excavation depth would be 13 ' below the top of ground water eleva- tion. The 4' below grade depth to top of ground water was during October - well past the irrigation season. A reasonable projection for ground water at peak irrigation and soil water profile saturation is June , July , and August. At this time, from the irrigated basin above (north ) of the proposed facility , water movement to the south would be anticipated , due to the shale shelf throughout this area. First indication of water levels in this area , just by putting in fence posts , is 2 - 2Y/z' during this time. Guidelines call for pond invert to be no lower than 2 ' above projec- ted ground water profile. The ponds will therefore be required to be composed of berms of earth hauled in , compacted and standing some 15' in height at the north end of each pond and approximately 21 ' at the south end. This is a huge quantity of dirt and must all be removed from elsewhere on the site to be even realistically economical. Again , the Applicant did not consider all the rules. French Drains , by the way , would never solve the ground water problem in the Applicant ' s proposal. If, for some reason, the Colorado Health Department accepted the proposed design , some form of ground water drainage would be required, and it would have to be pumped into the waste storage ponds due to contamination by waste perc.ul.a.tio.n from the cow confinement area , which at present , shows no sealing systems to prevent ground water contamination. In conclusion , the applicant has not addressed .the design parameter requirements required the Colorado Health Department. SUBMITTED BY: R. B. WILLSON 1 5(`)1"' Engineering Consultant , B. S. M. E. DATE : January 16 , 1987 2400/1200-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS TECHNICAL SUMMARY OF APPLICANT' S PROPOSED TREATMENT FACILITY 1 . Applicant fails to provide documented proof of compliance to all re- quirements of waste treatment. 2. Applicant admits that Consultant has never developed a dairy proposal. 3. Applicant could have used Soil Conservation Service (S. C. S. ) - a free service - as the planner, whose Base Criteria and Field Design Manual form the basis of Colorado Health Department guidelines. 4. Applicant fails to consider the 100-year requirement. 5. Applicant chose the most odorous but cheapest waste storage system. 6. Even by reducing herd size to 1200, Applicant does not consider sterilizing soil (SCS recommends not every year application - only alternate years. This means that the same waste volume size must be hauled off as for a 240Q-cow herd. ) In fact, Applicant has testified they will use only 50 acres to sprinkle, not the 100 acres as the 2400-cow system proposed. 7. Applicant fails to consider those steps that can be taken to minimize odor , i.e. , keeping ponds full (10' depth ) to maximize anaerobic action (lower odor ) , aereation of surface to cause aerobic action during summer months , design review by users of these types of Waste Treatment Facilities in the area. (Example : CSU' s Mr. Bill Wailes , Manager of CSU Dairy and Facilities. ) 8. Applicant provides only testimony as to the injection or sprinkling on the ponds of a "blue-green" algae substance that would be provided by a local product sales company, whose salesman testified only that they had "great confidence " in using their product - none of which is currently or has been used in Colorado for reducing odor for any large confinement operations waste storage lagoons - no written documentation or proof of chemical composition , S. C. S. acceptance, Colorado Water Quality Health Commission acceptance , or even useage of the material , has been submitted - only oral discussion. 9. Applicant provides no monitoring of the proposed French Drain for ground water polution; and , when questioned by the Board of CommissionerE proposes to discharge effluent from the French Drains , opening into the field belnw ponds. In fact, however , the Colorado Guidelines requi.re. the. bottom of the ponds (invert ) to be a minimum of 2 ft from the pro,Zected seasonal high-water table (4 ' below surface as tested by Applicant on October 16, 1986 - well past the maximum irrigation season ). No design intent has been shown as to technique of removal from the facility of French Drain effluent , its composition, or the quantity of water involved. As a minimum, written documentation as to the proposed solutions of the problems should have been presented. 10. Applicant has failed over and over again to document his solutions to problems he apparently is unaware of. Submittal of sufficient data for review is mandatory to enable the Board to reach denial (or approval ) decision. - 2 - 11 . Oral testimony , with statements such as "We will comply with regulations " , or "We want to be good neighbors" , is certainly insufficient proof of the Applicant ' s fu.lf_illment of Weld County Ordinance Requirements - and certainly not commensurate with sound engineering and planning operations. 12. As a professional Engineer and Consultant , with over 28 years of formal education and experience all over the United States - dealing with governmental requirements , waste and facility water system design and planning of large and small facilities for a great number of clients (both private and government ), I am saddened to see such a low level of effort put forth by the Applicant in addressing this proposal to the Board of Weld County Commissioners - and, for some reason, not even commenting on many basic requirements. This shallow review of the proposed waste treatment facility is just one example of non-compliance with the regulations. 13. In conclusion, I urge the Weld County Board of Commissioners to actually visit The Colorado State University ' s Research Dairy Facility. Mr. Bill Wailes , General Manager for the Facility , con- ducts daily tours for a variety of visitors. He will personally conduct you throughout the entire facility and discuss any aspect of dairying you wish to know. They are recognized as one of the leading authorities in the United States on design, research , operations and management , of simple or complex dairy systems. At the same time , please , before reaching any conclusions on Applicant ' s proposal , please ask Mr. Mel Brown to give you a guided tour of the CSU Dairy Facility' s Waste Treatment Facility. Mr. Brown has been operating this system for several years and is extremely knowledgeable of the pitfalls and problems associated with large confinement livestock facilities waste treatment. Tours may be arranged with only 3'2 day' s notice. It would be most expedient to arrange with Mr. Brown to accompany you and start the Waste Treatment Tour immediately after the Dairy Tour . You may contact : 1 . Mr. Bill Wailes (or Mr. Willy McConnell or Mr. Ken Schallenberger ) at 491-1239 or 491-1279, Fort Collins. 2. Mr. Mel Brown - 587-2249 (evenings - Mr. Brown has several field locations and cannot normally be reached in the day. ) a 6 .-mih,„ SUBMITTED BY : MR. R. B. WILLSON Engineering Consultant , B. S.M. E. DATE : January 16, 1987 F- o C S U - 400 COW a U) z a WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY m 1- W w FLOW DIAGRAM w Lin + o H } J m O ~ O m CC W m J 'Zr x oO a 1- H mW 0 F- • U7 n a d11k z w a U Co a co m w mH a w Ha m a O CC a a O O J O O z n S O J C3' LL z Cr 1- 0 W I- H H Li a O W m Cr W 0 J W C O H a o W J a a o U 0 1-- U a a F-- .._J0 F- T 1- H 0- a J M D dpillp.. O H F- CC a CO 0_ 0 a O Z CL W W CC 0 w W W x U7 W Cr W a Cr v Cr I- CO z Cr U W W W a a X Cr U7 W w H O CO Cr W O ci Z H CO a O F- 0 H w LL 0 0 LO I- a o J J H Cr U C U7 B v 0 F- CC CO H CO F- q a J w J z 0 Ul U a U7 . . N- N N' ..7 zl c F- H z ♦ 4 J w _J J a LL 11 F- LL O W I- EXERCISEIII z CONFINEMENT n o a .. a H o a O F- H O o_ a F- H LOAFING H Cr W J u i' o U H SHED/ W CO 0 Lil ¢ 0 co a w 0 Cr o a F- a ma o 0 w CONFINEMENT a a o I-- Cr w F- 0 a Ln 'Zr 3 F- a Q a J Cr U 3 O a W O C] O F- 0 J Cr a .. O O t . -‘ m 0_ MILKING 0 z a a BARN ~' a � F- 0 w m *1 agekYatil PREPARED BY : R. B. WILLS0N , Engineering Consultant , B. S. M. E. 1-18-87 Hello