HomeMy WebLinkAbout911787.tiff INVENTORY OF ITEMS SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION
Applicant: Environmental Recycling and Disposal Company
Case Number: USR-925
Submitted or Prepared
Prior to Hearing At Hearing
1. Landfill Design, Operation and Closure Plan X
Table of Contents 1.0 through 6.0
Bibliography, List of 19 Table,
List of 11 Figures, List of Appendices
A through F.
2. Plates 1 through 8 of the Landfill Design X
Operation, and Closure Plan.
3. Use by Special Review Permit Application. X
Table of Contents 1.0 throught 4.0
Bibliography, Vicinity Map, Plot Map,
List of 2 Tables, List of 5 Attachments.
4. Addendum to Landfill Design, Operation and X
Closure Plan, February 20, 1991, 17 pages.
5. DPS Referral Summary Sheet X
6. DPS Recommendation X
7. DPS Surrounding Property Owner' s Mailing X
List
8. DPS Mineral Owner' s Mailing List X
9. DPS Maps Prepared by Planning Technician X
10. DPS Notice of Hearing X
11. DPS Case File Summary Sheet X
12. DPS Field Check X
13. 30-20-104 C.R.S Factors to be considered for X
a Certificate of Designation.
14. Referral List - 1 page X
15. Colorado Department of Health letter, X
April 3, 1991, 3 pages
16. Environmental Protection Services memo, X
January 17, 1991, 2 pages
17. Weld County Engineering memo, X
October 10, 1990, 1 page
18. Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company, X
September 24, 1990, 2 pages
19. Boulder Valley Soil Conservation District, X
September 5, 1990, 2 pages
20. Federal Aviation Administration letter, X
August 20, 1990, 4 pages
21. Longmont Fire Protection District letter, X
September 24, 1991, 1 page
22. Longmont Fire Protection District letter, X
March 13, 1991, 1 page
23. Colorado Geological Survey letter, X
September 24, 1990, 3 pages
931 787
6� & T A
INVENTORY OF ITEMS SuJBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION
Page 2
Submitted or Prepared
Prior to hearing At Hearing
24. Division of Water Resources letter, X
September 11, 1990, 2 pages
25. Oil and Gas Conservation Commission X
letter, August 23, 1990, 1 page
26. City of Broomfield letter, X
September 20, 1990, 4 pages
27. City of Broomfield letter, X
January 28, 1991, 3 pages
28. Town of Erie, October 3, 1991, 2 pages X
29. Town of Erie, February 1, 1991, 1 page X
30. Town o£ Erie, March 12, 1991, 1 page X
31. City of Thornton, September 17, 1990, X
1 page
32. City of Thornton, March 13, 1991, 1 page X
33. City of Northglenn, September 24, 1990, X
1 page
34. Adams County, March 15, 1991, 3 pages X
35. Ed and Judy Lasnik, February 20, 1991, X
1 page
36. Elden and Diane Moore, February 10, 1991, X
1 page
37. Elden and Diane Moore, February 10, 1991, X
1 page
38. Wilson and Lila West, May 7, 1991, 1 page X
39. Environmental Recycling and Disposal Inc. , X
May 2, 1991, 26 pages
40. Environmental Recycling and Disposal Inc. , X
May 1, 1991, 3 pages
41. Environmental Recycling and Disposal Inc. , X
May 2, 1991, 1 page (Broomfield)
42. Environmental Recycling and Disposal Inc. , X
May 2, 1991, 1 page
(Division of Water Resources)
43. Environmental Recycling and Disposal Inc. , X
May 2, 1991, 2 pages (FAA)
44. Environmental Recycling and Disposal Inc. , X
April 25, 1991, 3 pages
45. Environmental Recycling and Disposal Inc. , X
May 2, 1991, 4 pages
46. Environmental Recycling and Disposal Inc. , X
May 10, 1991, 5 pages
47. Environmental Recycling and Disposal Inc. , X
May 20, 1991, 1 page
48. Office of Energy Conservation, X
September 14, 1990, 1 page
49. KRW Consulting, Inc. , May 8, 1991, 2 pages X
INVENTORY OF ITEMS SLnMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION
Page 3 Submitted or Prepared
Prior to hearing At hearing
50. The Rocky Mountain Fuel Co. , May 10, 1991, X
1 page
51. Diane Williams, May 17, 1991, 1 page X
52. Elisa Gaul, May 14, 1991, 2 pages X
53. Mid American Waste System, Inc. , X
Company Brochure
54. Gary Sanitary Landfill Brochure X
55. Landfill Operation Brochure (Mid-Amercia) X
56. Mid Amercia Waste System, Inc. , Form 10-K X
Securities and Exchange Commission
57. NRT Recycle VCR Tape and letter dated X
May 6, 1991, 1 page, submitted by Ted Zigan
58. Mid-Amercian Waste Systems, Inc. , X
3 pages Agency references
59. To be submitted per Lee Morrison-mine X
plan maps
60. Fax from the Colorado Department of Health, X
May 17, 1991, 2 pages, both sides
61. VCR of a solid waste disposal site in X
Pittsburg, PA
62. Population Distribution of Homes in X
landfill area
63. Letter from S.E.E. , May 20, 1991, 4 pages X
64. Letter from concerned citizen, April 6, 1989, X
2 pages
65. Letter from Mr. Pedrick, May 17, 1991, 1 page X
66. Letter from Mr. James Kirgler, May 17, 1991, X
1 page
67. Letter from Mr. Betty Salazar-Hinzaber, X
May 17, 1991, 1 page
68. Letter from Virginia Blacker - May 17, 1991, X
1 page
69. Letter from Patricia Rice - May 17, 1991, X
1 page
70. Letter from Fed Mack Jr. , May 17, 1991, X
1 page
71. Letter from Edna Fery, May 17, 1991, 1 page X
72. Letter from Herta Guenblia, May 17, 1991, X
1 page
73. Letter from Barbara Kirkmeyer, May 17, 1991, X
1 page
74. Letter from Lea West, May 17, 1991, 1 page X
75. Letter from Barbara Tillman, May 17, 1991, X
1 page
76. Letter from John Lewis, May 17, 1991, 1 page X
77. Letter from Fred Kelly, May 17, 1991, 1 page X
INVENTORY OF ITEMS SL.MITTED FOR CONSIDERATION
Page 4
Submitted or Prepared
Prior to hearing At hearing
78. Letter from Bill Roberts,
X
May 17, 1991, 1 page
79. Letter from Richard Mederalelt, X
May 17, 1991, 1 page
80. Letter from Pat and Dan Montgomery, X
May 21, 1991, 1 page
81. SWAT MAP of Existing & proposed X
landfills submitted, May 21, 1991,
1 page
82. BASE MAP of existing & proposed X
landfills submitted, May 21, 1991,
1 page
83. Hazardous Waste News #116 submitted X
May 21, 1991, 2 pages
84. Castayson Associates, submitted May 21, X
1991, 9 pages
85. Letter from Dorothy Shammy, submitted X
May 21, 1991, 1 page
I hereby certify that the 85 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 May 24, 1991.
anator
Principal Planner
STATE OF COLORADO )
COUNTY OF WELD )
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS ar-day of
19 \j„..
.."P 9
., S.'
R y';
• :N
s 1,►
. "Pt) e t !, N AR PUB
. My commission expires October 15, 1994.
My Commission Expires
f MAY 2 4 1991 �'
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-925
NAME: Environmental Recycling and Disposal Company
c/o Mr. Ted Zigan
ADDRESS: 2200 E. 104th Avenue, #214B, Thornton, CO 80233
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a
Recycling and Solid Waste Disposal Site and Facility.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The W2 of Section 28, T1N, R68W of the 6th P.M. , Weld
County, Colorado.
LOCATION: The W2 of Section 28, T1N, R68W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County,
Colorado.
be recommended unfavorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following
reasons:
1. In accordance with Section 24.3.1.1 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance,
the applicant has not demonstrated the proposal is in compliance with the
Weld County Comprehensive Plan. The proposed recycling and solid waste
disposal site and facility is located within the urban growth boundary
areas of the Cities of Broomfield, Thornton, and Northglenn and the Town
of Erie. The location of the proposed use requires the applicant to
demonstrate compliance with the urban growth boundary goals and policies
listed in the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. An urban growth boundary is
an area located within three miles of a municipality where future
municipal uses and services are planned. Weld County urban growth
boundary goals and policies are intended to allow the County and
municipalities an opportunity to coordinate plans, policies, and land-use
standards affecting orderly development. Through the County's referral
process, representatives from the Cities of Broomfield and Thornton and
the Town of Erie have indicated the proposed recycling and solid waste
disposal site and facility is not compatible with the future land-use
plans in this urban growth boundary area. Municipal representatives
within this urban growth boundary area have expressed concerns about the
regional character of the use, the location, and the compatibility with
existing and future land uses. As a result, the proposed recycling and
solid waste disposal site and facility is not in compliance with the Weld
County Comprehensive Plan.
' /IA hiTdg-
RESOLUTION, USR-925
Environmental Recycling and Disposal Company
Page 2
2. The applicant has not demonstrated the proposed recycling and solid waste
disposal site and facility is compatible with existing surrounding land
uses as required by Section 24.3.1.3 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance.
Carol Heights, Leisure Living, and Ranch Eggs are subdivisions located
east and southeast of the proposed use in unincorporated Weld County.
These subdivisions contain approximately 72 residential home sites located
800 feet to a 1 1/4 miles from the proposed special review permit area.
The Erie Air Park is located within the Town of Erie, southwest of the
proposed use. This subdivision contains approximately 127 residential
home sites within 1 1/2 miles of the proposed special review permit area.
A regional solid waste disposal site and facility is not compatible with
the surrounding residential development. Potential negative impacts
associated with the proposed use include windblown trash, fugitive dust,
truck traffic, odor, and noise and visual pollution.
3. The applicant has not demonstrated the proposal will comply with Section
24.3.1.4 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. Section 24.3.1.4 requires
the proposed use to be compatible with future development of the
surrounding area as projected by the comprehensive plan or master plans of
affected municipalities.
The Broomfield City Council, in a letter dated September 20, 1990,
recommended denial of the proposed recycling and solid waste disposal site
and facility. A representative of the City indicated the proposed use was
not located in an appropriate area due to the high visibility of the
proposed site and the incompatibility of the proposed use with other
municipal uses planned for the area. In a letter dated January 28, 1991,
a representative of Broomfield explained the future land uses planned by
the City include a high quality office park west of I-25 along the north
side of State Highway 7, and residential development north of the planned
office park in the area of the proposed recycling and solid waste disposal
site and facility. In a public meeting on May 14, 1991, the Broomfield
City Council considered the Environmental Recycling and Disposal Company's
application and the City's referral letter of September 20, 1990 and
reaffirmed a recommendation of denial.
RESOLUTION, USR-925
Environmental Recycling and Disposal Company
Page 3
The Erie Town Administrator, in letters dated October 3, 1990, February 1,
1991, and March 12, 1991, stated that Erie's planning and zoning
commission recommended denial of the proposed use. Representatives of the
Town of Erie indicated the proposed use was not compatible with its
comprehensive plan and that residential and commercial uses were planned
in this area. The expansion of residential uses east of the Erie Air Park
and the expansion of Ranch Eggs were also projected as future development
that would be incompatible with the proposed recycling and solid waste
disposal site and facility.
The Thornton Planning and Development Manager, in a letter dated March 13,
1991, recommended denial of the proposed use because there is not an
immediate need for new landfill facilities in the area. The letter also
explained that the impacts to existing residential uses and growth
associated with the proposed E-470 Highway and the new international
airport should be studied before additional landfill sitings take place in
this area.
4. In accordance with Section 45.4.2 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance, the
applicant has not demonstrated a need for a recycling and solid waste
disposal site and facility in this area. There are two regional solid
waste disposal sites located and operating within one-half mile of the
proposed site. Based upon current use rates these two existing sites have
an estimated life expectancy of ten years.
Representatives of the Town of Erie are currently planning, with a private
developer, to site a regional solid waste disposal site and facility
approximately one-half mile north of the proposed site. This facility is
projected to have a 12.5 year life expectancy.
Representatives of the Town of Dacono are also currently planning, with a
private developer, to site a regional solid waste disposal site and
facility approximately 5.5 miles northeast of the proposed site. This
facility is projected to have a 20 year life expectancy. Based upon the
fact that there are 2 operating regional solid waste disposal sites in the
area and 2 regional solid waste disposal sites proposed by municipalities
in the area, the applicant has not demonstrated a need for this proposed
use.
RESOLUTION, USA-925
Environmental Recycling and Disposal Company
Page 4
Motion seconded by Judy Yamaguchi.
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage
Richard Kimmel Shirley Camenisch
Ann Garrison
Jean Hoffman
Judy Yamaguchi
Bud Clemons
Jerry Kiefer
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, Sharyn Ruff, 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 W ounty, Colorado, adopted on May
21, 1991.
d the 2 of May, 1991
'Sharyn F. Ruff ')::%-(2-0
Secretary
a
OFFICE OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PHONE(303) 3564000, EBo 4200
P.O. Box 758
G REELEV, COLORADO 80532
11 I I
C.
COLORADO May 31, 1991
Environmental Recycling and Disposal Company
c/o Mr. Ted Zigan
2200 East 104th Avenue, #214B
Thornton, Colorado 80233
Dear Mr. Zigan:
Your application for a Site Specific Development Plan, Special Review
Permit, and Certificate of Designation for an environmental recycling and
solid waste disposal site and facility has been recommended unfavorably to
the Board of County Commissioners by the Planning Commission. The legal
description of the property involved is shown as the W/2 of Section 28,
Township 1 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado.
If you wish to be heard by the Board of County Commissioners, it will be
necessary for you to indicate your request by signing the bottom of this
letter and returning it to this office. You are also required to submit
$300.00 for the Certificate of Designation fee. Regular hearing
procedures will then be followed. This includes publishing a Notice of
Hearing in the legal newspaper, an expense to be paid by you.
In order to proceed as quickly as possible, we must receive your reply by
June 10, 1991, and the tentative date for you to be heard by the Board of
County Commissioners will be set as June 26, 1991. If you wish to have an
extension of said hearing date, you must request this in writing. The
alternative hearing dates are as follows: July 10, 17, or 31, and August
7 or 14, 1991. If we are not in receipt of your request by June 10, the
matter will be considered closed.
Sincerely,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Gordon E. Lac Chairman
skm
I/we, \rl _ do hereby request the Board
of County Co 1 1 er to review the above mentioned application.
cbanc3,_ . .,uAi tis n
41 (9i
E NVIRONMENTAL
R ECYCLING
AND 2200 E. 104th Ave., Suite 214
Thornton, CO 80233
DISPOSAL, INC. 457-3333
June 7 , 1991
The Honorable Gordon E. Lacy , Chairman
Board o£ County Commissioners
Weld County Colorado
P . O. Box 758
Greeley, Colorado 80632
Dear Mr . Lacy :
Thank you for your letter of May 31 , 1991 . Due to
scheduling problems with our presenting team on June 26 ,
1991 , I respectfully request an alternative hearing date .
July 17 , 1991 would work well for all of us . I hope this
will be a convenient date for the board.
Sincerely,
Ted Zigan
President
TZ/gw
a
OFFICE OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PHONE(303) 3564000, EBT. 4200
P.O. Box 758
GREELEY, COLORADO 80632
COLORADO May 31, 1991
Environmental Recycling and Disposal Company
coo Mr. Ted Zigan
2200 East 104th Avenue, #2148
Thornton, Colorado 80233
Dear Mr. Zigan:
Your application for a Site Specific Development Plan, Special Review
Permit, and Certificate of Designation for an environmental recycling and
solid waste disposal site and facility has been recommended unfavorably to
the Board of County Commissioners by the Planning Commission. The legal
description of the property involved is shown as the W/2 of Section 28,
Township 1 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado.
If you wish to be heard by the Board of County Commissioners, it will be
necessary for you to indicate your request by signing the bottom of this
letter and returning it to this office. You are also required to submit
$300.00 for the Certificate of Designation fee. Regular hearing
procedures will then be followed. This includes publishing a Notice of
Hearing in the legal newspaper, an expense to be paid by you.
In order to proceed as quickly as possible, we must receive your reply by
June 10, 1991, and the tentative date for you to be heard by the Board of
County Commissioners will be set as June 26, 1991. If you wish to have an
extension of said hearing date, you must request this in writing. The
alternative hearing dates are as follows: July 10, 17, or 31, and August
7 or 14, 1991. If we are not in receipt of your request by June 10, the
matter will be considered closed.
Sincerely,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Gordon E. Lacy, Chairman
skm
I/we, , do hereby request the Board
of County Commissioners to review the above mentioned application.
P 387 472 691
RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL
NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED
NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL
ENVIRONMENTAL RECYCLING AND
DISPOSAL COMPANY
C/0 MR. TED ZIGAN
2200 EAST 104TH AVENUE, #2148
THORNTON, CO 80233
Postage _ 5
Certified Fee
Special Delivery Fee
Restricted Delivery Fee
Return Receipt showing
to whom and Dale Delivered
N 0,w Return Receipt showing to whom.
Date.and Address of Delivery
N
j TOTAL Postage and Fees S
Postmark or Date u.co
-3-7.•5/M/
a
pl/oe •
Cola&rig/?
SENDER: - I also wish to receive the
• Complete items 1 and/or 2 foronal services.
• Complete items 3, and 4a & b. following services (for an extra
• Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so fee):
that we can return this card to you. 1. ❑ Addressee's Address
• Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the
• beck if space does not permit.
2. El Restricted Delivery
• Write "Return Receipt Requested" on the mailpiece next to
the article number. Consult postmaster for fee.
3. Article Addressed to: 4a. Article Number
4.72 — 9/
ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECYCLING AND 4b. Service Type
❑ Registered, ❑ Insured
DISPOSAL COMPANYfilter ' ❑ COD
C/0 MR. TED ZIGAN ❑ Ex r ad ❑ Return Receipt for
2200 EAST 104TH AVENUE, #214B Merchandise
THORNTON, CO 80233 P Da;Deli
— ---- . - ✓
5. Signa (Ad see,Y f�ry •• 1 $• A ressee's Address(Only if requested
L// `I and fee is paid)
6. aura (Agent) 79�J �
(� r
PS Form 3811, October 1990 Gus. "2rse61 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
May 21, 1991
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held May 21, 1991
in the County Commissioners' Hearing Room (Room #101) , Weld County Centennial
Building, 915 Tenth Street, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was called to order
by the Chairman, Jerry Kiefer at 1:30 p.m.
Tapes 394 and 395.
Roll Call
Richard Kimmel Present
Ann Garrison Present
Shirley Camenisch Present
Jean Hoffman Present
Don Feldhaus Absent
Judy Yamaguchi Present
LeAnn Reid Present
Bud Clemons Present
Jerry Kiefer Present
Also present: Rod Allison, Principal Planner, Department of Planning Services, '
Wes Potter, Weld County Health Department, Lee Morrison and Bruce Barker, County
Attorney' s Office, Sharyn Ruff, Secretary.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission
held on May 7, 1991, was approved as read.
CASE NUMBER: USR-925
APPLICANT: Environmental Recycling and Disposal Company, c/o Ted Zigan.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review permit for a
recycling and solid waste disposal site and facility.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The W2 of Section 28, T1N, R68W of the 6th P.M. , Weld
County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to the Town of Erie and Weld County Road 6;
east of and adjacent to Weld County Road 5.
Jerry Kiefer explained the guidelines of the hearing and registration cards were
passed through the audience to anyone who wished to speak for the record.
b4 -1-f.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
USR-925
Page 2
Ted Zigan, applicant, explained this location was chosen because it offered a
good place for a secure liner, a low water table, high terrain, good
transportation access, and it was close to the Denver Metro area and would be
competitive with existing landfills in the area. After finding the location, Kip
White, Engineer, initially drilled 10 holes. Nothing was found in these holes
so they spent 6 months drilling 55 holes and compiling data. This proposal is
not in conflict with possible oil, gas or coal production due to the fact that
no large reserves were found. It was determined this was a safe and suitable
site.
Kip White, Design Engineer, has been consulting on projects such as this since
1979. His 20 years of experience include older landfill sites with problems.
An overview of soil and subsurface findings was discussed. There will be an
enclosed tipping floor and a retention pond for water that contacts trash.
Incoming loads would be in covered trucks. There would be a 12 foot litter fence
that would be cleaned as necessary. Operations would stop when winds reached 40
mph, or gusts up to 55 mph. The haul roads would be wet down to minimize dust,
and fire control would be supplied by 240,000 gallons of fresh water housed on
the property. Spotters would be employed to look for hazardous substances mixed
with acceptable trash. This proposed facility would open 100 jobs with a minimum
pay scale of $6.00 an hour. He stated that a landfill is only as good as its
construction. This design is good and represents the dedication of the owner.
He stated this type of recycling facility is needed on the Front Range in
Colorado.
Jean Hoffman asked about the availability of topsoil. Kip White explained they
would stockpile top soil to maintain a maximum of 18 inches for the surface. Ann
Garrison asked how they planned to remove the methane gas known to exist in
landfills of this type that creates the greenhouse effect. Kip White explained
blowers or compressors would be used to vent the gas and this falls within the
guidelines of the new regulations regarding methane gas. The greenhouse effect
is a combination of methane and carbon monoxide. If they flare the gas they
would be reducing the methane and converting it to carbon dioxide or carbon
monoxide. Ann Garrison asked if enough methane gas could be collected at this
site to have a commercial value. Kip White said this site would be designed with
that in mind. Ann Garrison asked if there would be composting, or waste energy
conversion at this facility. Kip White stated at this point they haven' t
proposed any composting and there would be no waste energy conversion.
Jerry Kiefer asked where they would be taking the leachate. Kip White believes
the leachate will be of sufficient quality so they will be able to use it for
wetting within the already contained areas of the site.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
USR-925
Page 3
Jean Hoffman asked about the problems with birds. Kip White said they will be
removing certain types of matter, such as grass clipping and food waste to
recycle and this will help cut down on the number of birds around the facility.
Jean Hoffman asked what the eventual height of the landfill would be. Kip White
explained this location is at a high point anyway and the landfill would
ultimately be 50 feet above the existing high point.
Ann Garrison asked about the subdivision known as Ranch Eggs being 800 feet from
the proposed site and if the prevailing wind blows in from the northwest. Kip
White answered no.
Bud Clemons asked what the life expectancy of the landfill is, and what the hours
of operation would be. Kip White explained life expectancy is somewhat
subjective because there might be closures of landfills in the vicinity, and this
will effect the life span. The estimated life of this facility was 32 years.
If the volume increases or decreases then their life expectancy would change.
Bud Clemons asked if the other facilities would be closing due to fill capacity
or being out of compliance with health regulations. Kip White said both.
LeAnn Reid wanted to know if the winds prevail, who would determine closure. Kip
White talked about wind gauges being posted within the facility at different
sites and employees there would determine closure based on readings from these
gauges.
Jay Roberts, Vice President of Landfill Operations for Mid American Waste, talked
about the proposed regulations for methane gas. He explained regulations will
be imposed on landfills that have "in place" more than one hundred thousand
metric tons of waste. This will effect both closed and existing operating
landfills as well as new landfills. These regulations are designed to control
the non-methaniginic gases. Jay Roberts gave an overview regarding recycling.
He stated that studies on residential trash, which is less than half of the
existing trash, found that a range of 4,000 homes over a couple of years
generated 2,284 tons of trash. 514 tons of this trash was recyclable, which is
about 22%. He feels their proposed operation would eliminate problems with
curbside recycling. He also stated that they would not take out-of-state trash.
A five minute recess was taken and the meeting readjourned at 3:45 . The
applicant showed a recycling facility video tape.
Arthur Roy, Attorney, for the applicant explained how the County sends referrals
of the application to surrounding communities to be reviewed and commented on.
He said the primary reason the Department of Planning Services' staff has
recommended denial of this proposal is due to the response of Erie and
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
•
USR-925
Page 4
Broomfield. He said the operation and proposed site for this landfill had been
approved by the Colorado State Department of Health, Weld County Health
Department, State Engineer, State Geologist, Federal Aviation Administration and
the Longmont Fire Protection District.
Ann Garrison asked if Mid America had ever been charged with ,illegal disposal of
toxic waste in any state. Arthur Roy said that to his knowledge they had not.
Bud Clemons asked how many landfill applications are presently in process in the
general metro area.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who would like to speak
for or against the application.
Mike Settell, Environmental Chemist, surrounding property owner, agreed with the
necessity of recycling and involvement by everyone toward this purpose. He feels
this proposal is a blight to the community and the community has little control
over what is happening. He said most of the Erie community is low-income,
uneducated people and are targeted with proposals such as this for exactly that
reason. He feels this will result in a loss of property values, and definitely
loss of pride in the community. Why should only 1200 local people be impacted
by garbage from 2 million. He asked for a strong recommendation against this
project.
Robert Farnsworth, surrounding property owner, is also an avid recycler. He
feels this proposal is not compatible with Erie's Comprehensive Plan. The
desirability of this site is height, but the areas should be preserved for view
and enjoyment. Children need a decent place to grow up. He feels this proposal
is for business, not what's best. Is this a great place to dump or a great place
in which to live?
Richard A. Medenwaldt, surrounding property owner, lives in the Erie Air Park and
is worried that land values will decrease. The truck traffic this proposal will ,
bring in is too heavy for the area. Trucks do not stay at posted speeds.
Marilyn Brand brought in letters from people who couldn' t attend the hearing.
She is concerned about ground trash, noise, air pollution, loss of growth to the
community, bird population, loss of quality of life. She said the Laidlaw
Landfill liner is now leaking, yet at the time it was built it was considered
state-of-the-art. There is no proof there will not be leakage in time with this
proposal.
George Ruff, surrounding property owner, is concerned about blowing debris in
irrigation ditches, and then out onto fields. Clean up efforts only happen in
the immediate vicinity.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
USR-925
Page 5
Barbara Kirkmeyer, South Weld Against Trash, stated that this proposal is not in
compliance with the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. If this proposed landfill will
not accept hazardous materials, then by turning them away after they have been
spotted, this facility would then have to be considered a hazardous transfer
station.
LeAnn Reid left the meeting at 4:30 p.m.
Wilson West, surrounding property owner, feels he is the most effected because
his property is the closet to the proposed landfill. He has an 889 foot deep
water well that is already full of sodium. It's so bad they can't even grow
grass. He said they saw two - three layers of coal under their land after
drilling the well. How can this landfill not have found a substantial amount
during their drilling.
Virginia Blacker, business owner in Erie, talked about no compensation for
home/land owners. Everyone knows how much coal is in the area, the clay is
unstable. This area has bad faulting, the bedrock is unstable. Even with the
bird population reduced, they not only eat food products, they eat dirty diapers
also.
Janice Whalen, Committee for a Safe Ecological Environment, is concerned about
the long-term plans for all of Weld County. We need to set sights beyond 1 to
2 years. This landfill will hurt residential growth. The back-up bells on the
vehicles, lights from the installation shining into home windows, and dust are
nuisance factors.
Rosemarie Zahn, surrounding property owner, stated that Erie doesn' t create alot
of waste. She is the biggest owner of chicken farms in the area (there are
seven) and they do not want or need this landfill. Highway 7 is going to be a
busy road with the new airport proposal.
Bob Fortner, surrounding property owner, said if they hear noise from the Laidlaw
Landfill which is 1 1/2 mile from their property, what will the noise be like at
this facility which will be only 1/2 mile down the road.
Jerry Kiefer asked Rod Allison to read the staff' s recommendation into the
record.
Ann Garrison moved Case Number USR-925 be sent to the Board of County
Commissioners with the Planning Commission' s recommendation for denial based on
the testimony heard today and also the Planning Staff' s comments . Judy Yamaguchi
seconded the motion.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
USA-925
Page 6
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission
for their decision. Richard Kimmel - yes; Ann Garrison - yes; Shirley Camenisch-
no; Jean Hoffman - yes; Judy Yamaguchi - yes; Bud Clemons - yes; Jerry Kiefer -
yes. Motion carried.
Jean Hoffman moved to deny the Certificate of Designation in Case Number USR-925.
Bud Clemons seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission
for their decision. Richard Kimmel - yes; Ann Garrison - yes; Shirley Camenisch-
no; Jean Hoffman - yes; Judy Yamaguchi - yes; Bud Clemons - yes; Jerry Kiefer -
yes. Motion carried.
Jerry Kiefer said he thinks everyone appreciates the type of recycling activity
that is being designed here. When the Planning Commission visited the proposed
site they moved around the area. This is a highly intense residential area, even
though it's rural. Someday this type of facility is going to be placed in an
area that will not impact people. Someday society will have to pay. Our trash
rates may have to be higher to carry it further or to recycle it better. He
- appreciates the efforts that you people are making and he hopes they will be able
to do one that will work for us. It shouldn' t be in an area that is so highly
impacted. Good luck.
Bud Clemons wanted to second the comments made by Jerry Kiefer and said we are
all trying to be better at recycling and would like to wish the applicant' s well
in planning another site and wanted to take the opportunity to advise the
audience that this is not a dead issue, it will be heard before the Board of
County Commissioners if you so desire, appear then.
Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
Respectfull submitte• ,
Sharyn F. Ruff
Secretary
WELD t _?QTY
;,,cc,n,,rnS
Bob and Rose Fortner
"
3298 West WCR 4
'`i 31 Air 9: 54
Erie , Colorado 80516 CLERK
TO 1,-E- n0
VUFl,'.4
May 28, 1991
Gordon Lacy
Chairman of the Board of Weld
County Commissioners
915 10th Street
Greeley , Colorado 80631
Dear Gordon :
I am writing in regard to the application by E.R.D .
for a recycling and landfill facility near WCR 5 and 6 . I
live in ranch eggs subdivision , less than a mile from the
site .
In the past I have been a stauch opponent of any
landfill in the area . I ' m still against any standard
landfill . What I am for , is a recycling facility that can
reuse one-fourth o£ our trash . I understand that E .R.D .
can ' t build the recycling facility without it ' s own
landfill . Therefore I now support both the recycling
building and the landfill .
Recycling needs to be done or we will bury ourselves
in trash. It is my opinion that curbside recycling is only
partly successful . No one talks about recycling commercial
and industrial solid waste . E .R.D . ' s plan will recycle all
residential , commercial , and industrial waste . No other
landfill company has made that commitment .
No body wants a landfill within one mile of their
house , but if it means that recycling will take place , I am
willing to support it in my backyard . I hope you and the
other commissioners have the leadership qualities necessary
to recognize , as I have , that the E.R. D, plan is different
from any other landfill plan and that you will support it .
Sincerely ,
Bob Fortner
Rose Fortner A14,O
910613
Cie; a ��k .r��
'Tr(
1] r'i
r- n P
,, i .
C�Jst t/sir �., t �,
$�Sr4441P.1As , � . y ---7/
e /4:- 6/a-,tc'7-3/ zietr 6,5- s'n,e, ?`ffr`S
SC,p 4-'Age- z9 i' ..4, 6-71 u4 i-
zit?fv,- el
P-c> f' N I
Dp tcbPo ,
K) o Lo
f t
lthe other motherhooddertrents sit out in the - •safe.it is unh a matter of Una'until they allow
plan. What 1 am advocating, however,a an kachatc generated in the landfill to pollute
dement lin the plan)where the Society une- ground waters.An HUM liner has holes in it m
quivocalb establishes a goal to improve con at the time of construction. and lit decrier — ,
dilons for its employee engineer members. rates over time. It ultimately disintegrates. � M
-
providing little or no barrier or capacity to -
John Ferritto transport leadtale to a sump where it can be
Ventura,Calif. removed. _
Municipal landfill teachate has a tremen- . ii
dons potential for polluting ground watt.,
in y
Municipal landfills conta a wide variety of -heavy metals(such as lead and cadmiumt per- . DeNo Blame Assigned sistent organics.and salts that will b.a threat 3
to ground-water quality as long as they re- mTo Ute Fdilocmain in the landfill. Indeed.Califon 1i< rid- F1
M the March 1991 issue of ASCE NEWS.in the fill regulations require municipallanm.il de- m
column CE's in ilia News. page 16, you cal{, signs to preven! ground-water pollution,and Ut
about a Michael J. Oltourlce and his work protection to be a(fotded as long as the
wastes threaten ground-water quality. In !
concerning snow loads. In the article you m
state."In 1978,Travelers Corp.faced a$125 order to be a truly "safe landfill, nom a
million claim after the roof of the Hartford ground-water quality perspecln•.. the lit o
Civic Center in Connecticut collapsed under Canyon Landfill would have to incorporate -
the weight of snow. A court eventually found plastic and clay liners that preen"; ground Z e
that faulty design was to blame. Traveler water pollution forever No flojNi. mum- _ �
says"We were theatlorneys for th.designers. lido' n. clay Iuwr used l"day prn.i;f_> this ;y m
of the roof, Faioli Blum& l'esselm an. Du' ievei m 1 oeie tn,n Furtherme n ground -1 rp
ing the course of almost five years cf litiga- water monitoring programs, of the type- pre-
'I
lion. many theories were advanced as to the scribed 1 day to"det. 1 ¢round »o'er pollu �� m i—
c-, I
cause of the Civic Center roof colt apse=1'ar- lion by hued landfill:. ha‘., a loo pr. ,abihty � N
bus parties were targeted for the blame in of detecting such poi]ut io n. Ur,e ground -
eluding the contractor., the steel fabricators water iscmaaro :et with nun ip '•landl,!' r-'
on
and the city as well as the design engineers. lea-h:I sail'. ! k qu
ad ,!cl r m-d td - .n /
The case was settled No lrie'of the facts even for US(' la ' enmesh,: watch supph p, loses: m ( �•
made a final determination as to the ultimate therefore,the alit ct.d ground wale' ,s lost as 1 y
r\---
d
cause for the collapse. a domestic water-supply s.ur.e. f u;thel. _�
there is no reliable w-a} to routinely inspect all
Robert B.Cohen elements of the containment system to en- to
Cohen Sr Channin.Attorneys at la • sure integrity. Even if points of failure could .
Hartford,Conn. be identified. there is no way to repair these e_-,..
systems without exhuming the wastes.There
are those who feel that a serious mistake is
f � being made'in allowing lhc• construction of e
•
landfills with this design. I(there is ground s
Long Term landfill water near them tc be polluted. there is no
Safety QueStlOned _ question that. ultimately. such pollution will
Y - occur It would be highly inappropriate for
t.
\ ASCE to select this landfill as an example of _
To the Editor: an outstanding achievement based on its`en-
This refers to a statement made in ASCE vironmentar safety. Landfills of this type s
News. Much 1991, page a. concerning the provide a false sense of security: the best i
oo c Li a
nomination of the Bee,Canyon Landfill in -protection-they provide is to pactponeirtev- Q,
California's Orange County as the Outstand- itable ground-water pollution. Rattier, it is
ing Civil Engineering Achievement for 1991. time that civil engineers work toward level- -
The statement reads "With regulators de- oping municipal solid waste management
manding an environmentally safe design,en- systems that will not leave a legacy of threats
gineers were able to provide an advanced sys- to public health,ground-water pollution and
lam for making the landfill operation water- environmental and CCODOMIC problems fox fu- �.
tight and gas-tight in order to prevent any ture generations to face. The "dry-tomb" n I. es' •
environmental problems.In providing a pro- plastic dayaimed landfills of the type being •
teclive layer to prevent migration of water designed today donut provide for true protec• .
and gas through the landfill and into the sub• tionof groundwater quality. Ott
i
surface of sobs and ground waters,a compos-
Ite system of light day and high-density poly C.Fred Lee.Ft'.li s It
ethylene liner(HOPEI was used" R.Anne Jones,Ph.D. Ooa�afeF
Landfill systems using UPE and rnm- lunar laot. ,N"_ II
H
�' k a-,, . tt nit. • r . ' " ' 4,. x�.4
e
s
Z 'a a.
< -6 4.. y' ' in
'Peet°# WOr�1 8� IIR tt , t � ,
..,
tem t ,c
5500 .. .News'1:' dirt our Ai
pin d
put, the hors To the ?dicer: Ai
the mountains, or
on a ' "DAIS NOP 14Y
� �� are i WADER' �' oat as ,
.a - tas ticket. Then nester- in "beh � ebeloved trustworth� was "Gas Day." and slur- promises j
D fie. surprise, gas had citizens of Dacono and miles p��
chopped six cents per gallon beyond, from child to mother, 'When I
at Del Camino. I don't know to brother to father to daugh-
�Glo the
N how I am going to be able to ter. out of malic
put up with all this good news. In behalf of all envtron o� legal
r� Right now I-am writing this mental. egncerns, from the - fight eLittl
column in my shorts, due to grass of green, to the cows coming in.
` the fact that I have only one that trod upon it, from the hard our
at.„).. pair of pants that fit me--three streams to the water beneath the Medica
pairs of pants slide right off it. the edit
my behind, and two pairs are In behalf of the farmer upon our p
urde
too tight. The pants that fit are with calloused hand, sweat not forerunner
"Z now in the washer and then he mutters as he nourishes all, war. As
the dryer--my wife knows how with water to all the land. i n t e r v i e
D to keep me in the house. In behalf of the growing inter in e
child, the old, the unborn, the and lainidecis o
4th of July Celebration
sick, the crippled, yes all of had mad
...honoring the veterans of us, all of life, let us not pollute anxious to
all wars, should be the top our virtuous water, the con- These C
event of the year, judging by veyer of all life.
the number of people work complains
ing Therefore we must not, compld Lit
on the various committees. I therefore we cannot, risk a believe
his army t
was present at one of their landfill. One reapmeetings last week, and IN behalf of you, friends, became so
picked up the following info: countrymen. I have come to yelled th
parade will start from Fire- preserve all of life. homes v h
stone Park to Frederick Park, Take my soul, take my (or es we
_ 10 a.m. to 11 a.m.--pig roast iri money, but 'DARE NOT TAKE into pone
Frederick Park all day from 10 My WATER" the dum
A.m. to 7 p.m.. adults f in
5. chit- D D. SD�000 the cm
dren =3.25, under 8 years, —
free. Regina Gabriel will sing
in the opening ceremonies- 91 .2.61_9 i w ter i
posters going up alt ova the pear t ater:
��zytown area--moth ink next Me 1
I � * AP s ..
YYLa•
_, Dlaast toy it. St:pal wee tot
held theft the meant.A recently. tI1 ` ' flair �
0414
. Out") 1 x � .
_ Telefax Numbers:
Y L)_ . i Main Building/Denver
(303) 322-9076
Ptarmigan Place/Denver gpy ROMER
421{1Faetalth Avenge 7 (303) 320-152s
Deriver,Coloradb 80220=3716 Governor
Phone(303) 320-8333 First National Bank Building/Denver
(303) 355-6559
' / ' JOEL KOHN
Grand Junction Office Interim Executive Director
Pueblo
COLORADO Pueblo Office
DEPARTMENT (719) 5438441
OFAHEALTH
June 10, 1991
Gordon Lacy
Weld County Commissioners
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, Colorado 80632
Re: ERD May 10, 1991 Response to Conditions
Applications for Certificate of Designation
Dear Commissioner Lacy:
The Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division (the Division) has reviewed the
Environmental Recycling and Disposal, Inc. (ERD) May 10, 1991 response to the conditions
outlined in the Division's April 3, 1991 recommendation of approval for a Certificate of
Designation.
Based on the information provided in the May 10, 1991 submittal, the Division finds that the
conditions have been adequately addressed. Therefore, if the Weld County Commissioners so
choose, a Certificate of Designation may be issued to the ERD facility.
I may be contacted at this office if you have any additional questions.
cincerely,
Austin N. Buckingham
Geologist
Solid Waste and Incident Management Section
Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division
ANB/p/9611K
enclosure: ERD May 10, 1991 letter
cc: R. Allison, Weld County Planning w/o enclosure
W. Potter, Weld County Health Dept. w/enclosure
T. Zigen, ERD w/o enclosure
K. White, KRW Consulting w/o enclosure
// (d p.iwed on.ecydedpaper
EV Vie Aver � CC.
4ryu�
E NVIRONMENTAL
RECYCLING
AND 2200 E. 104th Ave., Suite 214
Thornton, CO 80233
DISPOSAL, INC. 457-3333
June 17 , 1991
The Honorable Gordon E. Lacy , Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
Weld County Colorado
P . O . Box 758
Greeley , Colorado 80632
Dear Mr . Lacy :
Environmental Recycling and Disposal, Inc . is making
an all out effort to prove to the people who live adjacent
to our proposed recycling facility and landfill , that we
will be good neighbors . We have offered to do several
things to show our readiness to be cooperative . One of
these things I am referring to is to pave the following
streets .
1 ) 175th Ave . for 2178 ' West of WCR 7
2 ) WCR 4 for 2620 ' East of WCR 7
3 ) Johnson Lane for 2620 ' East of WCR 7
4 ) Lowell Lane for 2290 ' East of WCR 7
We have agreed to pave these streets to County
specifications and guarantee them for one year. We would
ask that the County take over maintenance of these streets
after the guarantee period . I am now asking you to make
this offer a condition of our U. S .R. , with the understanding
of the County accepting the paving after the guarantee
period.
Sincerely ,
Ted Zigan
President TZ/gw tkni (�s;- `,� D
/V I/a cc : Drew Scheltinga , County Engineer
(VII/
, Pod , acluc--
E NVIRONMENTAL
R ECYCLING
AND 2200 E. 104th Ave., Suite 214
Thomton, CO 80233
DISPOSAL, INC. 457-3333
June 25 , 1991
Mr. Drew Scheltinga
Weld County Engineer
915 10th Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Dear Drew :
I understand you have concerns about the impact of
trash truck traffic associated with our facility on Weld
County roads . Our haul route , nearly exclusively, is north
on WCR 5 from state highway 7 to our entrance , which is 800
feet south of WCR 6 . This stretch of WCR 5 has been built
to very high specifications to handle traffic to and from
the Laidlaw landfill . Our position as to maintenance of
this portion of WCR 5 is the following. The 5% gate fee tax
that the county will be receiving from our facility will be
more than adequate to ensure the impact of the trucks
hauling to and from our facility will be addressed. •
If we have truck traffic from north of our facility ,
it will be a very small percentage of our total traffic . In
that event , we will be willing to cooperate with the county
and the town of Erie to contribute our fair share to the
maintenance of WCR 5 from WCR 6 to WCR 8 and WCR 8 from WCR
5 to I-25 .
If you have any further questions , please do not
hesitate to contact me .
Sincerely,
A2PGTt,le°1—
Ted Zigan
President
TZ/gw
cc : Honorable Gordon Lacy
Q
r
5
Cityof •
Planning & Building
July 3 , 1991
Chuck Cunliffe
Weld County
Department of Planning
915 10th Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Dear Chuck:
I have reviewed the Environmental Recycling and Disposal Co.
Special Review permit request for Weld County with the
Lafayette Mayor. The primary concern of the City is the
potential for increased traffic loading on Highway 7
(Baseline Road) and SH 287 (Public Road) . Should traffic
generated from an approved facility impact road conditions
within the City, the applicant should be prepared to
contribute toward the costs of necessary road improvements.
The reports supplied by the applicant indicate that no off-
site environmental consequences will occur that could effect
the City. If this information is accurate, the City has no
further comments.
Sincerely,
/oJi2
Brent H. Bean, AICP
Director of Planning
c-bbwc9l
Etr.S41
1290 S. Public Rd. . Lafayette, Colorado 80026 . (303) 665-5588 Fax (303) 665-2153
X11 /62T l��
F,4`._. -, 4,o TOWN OF ERIE , ..1. °' 1; ,
645 HOLBROOK P.O.BOX 100
a - ERIE,COLORADO 80516
,-, , 828-3843
e\ �- - � � �.. 665-3555
s cii
1974
July 3, 1991
Mr. Gordon Lacy, Chairman
Weld County Commissioners
P . O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632
To the Honorable Gordon Lacy:
I have been informed that the Commissioners will hold a hearing on
the Zigan landfill July 17 , 1991 . I have been informed that Ted
Zigan is spreading rumors that the Dan Horst landfill is not a
viable plan.
The Town of Erie has approved Horst' s landfill pending state
approval . The state has recently responded to his submittal. The
state is requesting additional information before they permit his
landfill . However, I have been told by Austin Buckingham,
Department of Health, that there is nothing substantively wrong
with his proposal and that there is nothing that will cause a
denial of his application. In order for her to insure that she
gets all of the additional requested information, she is holding
on to the permit.
Therefore , the Dan Horst landfill is a reality and must be
considered when determining need for any more landfills.
The Town of Erie is still highly opposed to the Zigan proposal .
Sincerely,
��-7
Scott A. Hahn
Town Administrator
SAH/ jm
D: \WPWK\LET\ADMINIST\LACY or - *
POLICE DEPT. METRO 449-3156 LOCAL 828-3200 P.O.BOX 510 LONGMONT FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 666-4404
eel.-5C\itStr z--
May 17, 1991 -
To: Weld County Commissioners
Re: Proposed E.R.D. Landfill in Southwestern Weld County, Colorado
We would like to voice our opposition to this proposed 200 acre landfill and recycling
facility and bring to your attention some of our concerns. We had hoped to see an
end to the landfills in this area which are causing -
-Increasing dangerous truck traffic on all surrounding roads in the area
-Blowing trash from site on hill
-Lights from equipment operated
-Noise from equipment operated
-Unsightliness of operation near residences
-Air pollution - small quantities emitted with methane gas
-Water contamination likely, as shown by the old and current landfills nearby
-Loss in potential Denver metro growth spinoff
-Decreased property values for Town and County taxes
-Decreased property values for individuals
-Difficulty selling properties
-Increased bird populations endangering pilots at two nearby airparks
-Manmade mountains to obstruct views
-Loss of quality of life - rural lifestyle and residential lifestyle
Many of these problems constitute substantive reasons for the Commissioners to
deny the proposal. Ranch Eggs Estates and Leisure Living subdivision are residential
developments and farms less than 1 mile from the development. The residential portions
of Erie are slightly over a mile.
The Town of Erie is opposed' to the E.R.D. proposal and the proposal is definitely
within Erie's Urban Growth Boundary. _ These landfills serve the entire metro area
- not just Weld County, as you well know, and we feel our burden has been borne.
The facility in not needed for Weld County residents.
The area has better potential, too much population and valuable, hard-earned home
values. One negative does not justify the next, but it does encourage it - just as
positives can beget positives. We do not want to see this area continue to develop
in this manner.
We are sure you will all carefully deliberate a proposal with such tremendous current
impact on the citizens and future impact on the use of the land. Thank you for your
consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
'1-?GeOt x /11
yaa nWc,L�
lai //
11- l04 6oS1G
gam?3345-
211,361.9
eI-44 e lrl C e fQ � �s�
C`
May" 17, 1991 p'' ._`. fi' '.i
To: Weld County Commissioners
Re: Proposed E.R.D. Landfill in Southwestern Weld County, Colorado
We would like to voice our opposition to this proposed 200 acre landfill and recycling
facility and bring to your attention some of our concerns. We had hoped to see an
end to the landfills in this area which are causing -
-Increasing dangerous truck traffic on all surrounding roads in the area
-Blowing trash from site on hill
-Lights from equipment operated
-Noise from equipment operated
-Unsightliness of operation near residences
-Air pollution - small quantities emitted with methane gas
-Water contamination likely, as shown by the old and current landfills nearby
-Loss in potential Denver metro growth spinoff
-Decreased property values for Town and County taxes
-Decreased property values for individuals
-Difficulty selling properties
-Increased bird populations endangering pilots at two nearby airparks
-Manmade mountains to obstruct views
-Loss of quality of life - rural lifestyle and residential lifestyle
Many of these problems constitute substantive reasons for the Commissioners to
deny the proposal. Ranch Eggs Estates and Leisure Living subdivision are residential
developments and farms less than 1 mile from the development. The residential portions
of Erie are slightly, over a mile. '.
The Town of Erie is oppo§ed to the E.R.D. proposal and the proposal is definitely
within Erie's Urban Grorth'Boundary. These landfills serve the entire metro area
- not just Weld County, as you well know, and we feel our burden has been borne.
The facility in not needed for Weld County residents.
The area has better potential, too much population and valuable, hard-earned home
values. One negative does not justify the next, but it does encourage it - just as
positives can beget positives. We do not want to see this area continue to develop
in this manner.
We are sure you will all carefully deliberate a proposal with such tremendous current
impact on the citizens and future impact on the use of the land. Thank you for your
consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Vve) W
9106. 19
else
rr �
May 17, 1991
To: Weld County Commissioners
Re: Proposed E.R.D. Landfill in Southwestern Weld County, Colorado
We would like to voice our opposition to this proposed 200 acre landfill and recycling
facility and bring to your attention some of our concerns. We had hoped to see an
end to the landfills in this area which are causing -
-Increasing dangerous truck traffic on all surrounding roads in the area
-Blowing trash from site on hill — ,500 feet'
tKON 4Via- veG; C4etice. t
-Lights from equipment operated
-Noise from equipment operated
-Unsightliness of operation near residences I�
-Air pollution - small quantities emitted with methane gas - Wile Vel0C( � i -ip0 ILI eg
-Water contamination likely, as shown by the old and current landfills near 014k4 itt e
-Loss in potential Denver metro growth spinoff 999 wrest.
-Decreased property values for Town and County tavPs
-Decreased property values for individuals
-Difficulty selling properties
-Increased bird populations endangering pilots at two nearby airparks
-Manmade mountains to obstruct views
-Loss of quality of life - rural lifestyle and residential lifestyle
Many of these problems constitute substantive reasons for the Commissioners to
deny the proposal. Ranch Eggs Estates and Leisure Living subdivision are residential
developments and farms less than 1 mil,@ from the development. The residential portions
of Erie are slightly. over a mile.
The Town of Erie is opposed to the E.R.D. proposal and the proposal is definitely
within Erie's Urban Growth-Boundary. ; These landfills serve the entire metro area
- not just Weld County, as you well knov, and we feel our burden has been borne.
The facility in not needed for Weld County residents.
The area has better potential, too much population and valuable, hard-earned home
values. One negative does not justify the next, but it does encourage it - just as
positives can beget positives. We do not want to see this area continue to develop
in this manner.
We are sure you will all carefully deliberate a proposal with such tremendous current
impact on the citizens and future impact on the use of the land. Thank you for your
consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
tev 1 l,. Cruel/rite (�
I(f2,4- 14 c z. 7 IPCvs-f0ot{-_.
SNe, Co . gosly
91639
6\i-c1,1-t r T O
May 17, 1991 7
To: Weld County Commissioners
Re: Proposed E.R.D. Landfill in Southwestern Weld County, Colorado
We would like to voice our opposition to this proposed 200-.acre landfill and recycling
facility and bring to your attention some of our concerns. We had hoped to see an
end to the landfills in this area which are causing -
-Increasing dangerous truck traffic on all surrounding roads in the area
-Blowing trash from site on hill
-Lights from equipment operated
-Noise from equipment operated
-Unsightliness of operation near residences
-Air pollution - small quantities emitted with methane gas
-Water contamination likely, as shown by the old and current landfills nearby
-Loss in potential Denver metro growth spinoff
-Decreased property values for Town and County taxes
-Decreased property values for individuals
-Difficulty selling properties
-Increased bird populations endangering pilots at two nearby airparks
-Manmade mountains to obstruct views
-Loss of quality of life - rural lifestyle and residential lifestyle
Many of these problems constitute substantive reasons for the Commissioners to
deny the proposal. Ranch Eggs Estates and Leisure Living subdivision are residential
developments and farms less than 1 mile from the development. The residential portions
of Erie are slightly over a mile.
The Town of Erie is opposed to the E.R.D. proposal and the proposal is definitely
within Erie's Urban Growth Boundary. These landfills serve the entire metro area
- not just Weld County, as you well know, and we feel our burden has been borne.
The facility in not needed for Weld County residents.
The area has better potential, too much population and valuable, hard-earned home
values. One negative does not justify the next, but it does encourage it - just as
positives can beget positives. We do not want to see this area continue to develop
in this manner.
We are sure you will all carefully deliberate a proposal with such tremendous current
impact on the citizens and future impact on the use of the land. Thank you for your
consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
e 1291 - -(-7
vi{ k).O.. 2. A
G G y7._1' gar�7
S10619
e < P
I3
May 17, 1991 .
To: Weld County Commissioners
Re: Proposed E.R.D. Landfill in Southwestern Weld County, Colorado
We would like to voice our opposition to this proposed 200 acre landfill and recycling
facility and bring to your attention some of our concerns. We had hoped to see an
end to the landfills in this area which are causing -
-Increasing dangerous truck traffic on all surrounding roads in the area
-Blowing trash from site on hill
-Lights from equipment operated
-Noise from equipment operated
-Unsightliness of operation near residences
-Air pollution - small quantities emitted with methane gas
-Water contamination likely, as shown by the old and current landfills nearby
-Loss in potential Denver metro growth spinoff
-Decreased property values for Town and County taxes
-Decreased property values for individuals
-Difficulty selling properties
-Increased bird populations endangering pilots at two nearby airparks
-Manmade mountains to obstruct views
-Loss of quality of life - rural lifestyle and residential lifestyle
Many of these problems constitute substantive reasons for the Commissioners to
deny the proposal. Ranch Eggs Estates and Leisure Living subdivision are residential
developments and farms less than 1 mile from the development. The residential portions
of Erie are slightly over a mile.
The Town of Erie is opposed' to the E.R.D. proposal and the proposal is definitely
within Erie's Urban Growttitoundary. , These landfills serve the entire metro area
- not just Weld County, as you well know, and we feel our burden has been borne.
The facility in not needed for Weld County residents.
The area has better potential, too much population and valuable, hard-earned home
values. One negative does not justify the next, but it does encourage it - just as
positives can beget positives. We do not want to see this area continue to develop
in this manner.
We are sure you will all carefully deliberate a proposal with such tremendous current
impact on the citizens and future impact on the use of the land. Thank you for your
consideration.
Respectfully/ubmitted,
144-44-
/
/-//[ 6
b9576
el fl.4
SHADY ACRES RANCH_, .f'.e. BE RT M. and JANE E. j:.`E_DDL�E1a. . ..
36,O WE..1.. D COUNTY •
3RClA-D '7
ERIE, COLORADO f-l.D,''`,j 1. 1u•. - —. 7.()
n
Weald County Commissioners
Box 758
Greeley, Colorado 80632
Dear- Sirs:
We are unalterably opposed to the intended use of this
ground by E.R. D. for a landfill . Southwest Weld County
should not be used any a dumping ground for the Denver Metro
area.
When we obtained ned a Conditional Use Permit to build our homes
and later permission to locate a trailer home on our
property for use of help in maintaining our horse operation ,
Weald (county was very definite that this area was for.
Al1F'..CCt.,1LTURAL.. USE ONLY. Recently we obtained a Recorded
Exemption to sell five acres to our daughter and son-in-law
who will continue the horse operation. At that time much
was made of taking care that the waste from the horses not
be allowed to pollute either the air or the irrigation
ditch.
We::: do not need additional truck: traffic , the dust from the
dir't'. roads , which have not been gravelled since we moved in
,..,.., _, the.., trash_.��.
.. . .t ..� already atrocious. We don 't need l_,�r": _._.>h that
will be blown all over .the area. We don 't need the air and
water pollution t.h'.at will result. If we wanted a "brown
cloud" , we could have moved to Denver. We don 't need the
decreased property values that are sure to follow if
landfills and salvage yards continue to multiply.
We understand the::: Planning Commission is opposed to this
landfill . We ask: that you not approve this or anymore
landfills in Southwest st. Weld County. We have had enough !
!
We will not be able to .:attend the hearing on this matter- on
July : thr , f:_ut ask that this letter be read into the record
of the proceedings of that meeting.
Thank you for your attention.
C♦ ��J. i
�d ,E 4-y1-�, „
Robert M. and Janet. E. Meddles
21.fiG19
Cu i ocr R-
_.
. :=
^ 7/5/91
Mr. Gordon Lacy
Weld County Commissioners
P .O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632
Dear Weld County Commissioners,
I am a resident of Southwestern Wdd County and a resident
of Erie, CO. In the past 10 years that I have lived here
our quality of life has been constantly influenced by
people who make their living developing landfills-dumps .
Now Mr . Zigan is requesting a landfill and recycling
building within one mile of the town. I am opposing
this request . This proposal is not in compliance with
the Erie comprehensive plan nor is it in compliance with
the Weld County Comprehensive Plan of 9/22/1987 .
Urban Growth Boundaries " The size of the urban growth
boundaries have been set at three (3 ) miles to conform with
Weld County ' s policy of referring land-use proposals for
review " "Goals and policies with the urban growth
boundaries are intended to address the deveopment of land
on the border of a municipality. "
For residents in close proximity this is a visual, noisy.
fly infested litter problem. Southwestern Weld County
is already over whelmed with truck traffic and unsightly
trash along the highways .
Recycling needs to be the answer to the great problem of
trash but Mr . Zigan offers no more than a place to sort
trash next to a landfill to suit his monetary needs . By
the way, why are they called landfills when then turn out
more like mountains?
Mr . William Rathje, Anthropoligist professor at the University
of Arizona, writes in the May 1991 National Geographic,
" The best way to change our garbage treatment is to change
our garbage ; first, by reducing the amount that goes in
the landfill . " I challenge Weld County to set a precedent
of leadership in this state and say no to Denver ' s garbage
and help Colorado educate people to alternative solutions .
7—f76
rely, �/J�//
a'`-4--- / ��
i/Jeanne Marks
145 East Cessna Dr,
Erie, CO 80516
CD�-���
EVP O-c.7 S)
Cr' „ -77)
;7-, PP —n fee f r
June 24, 1991
To: Weld County Commissioners
Re: Ea'rapitisada.42.;. Landfilflin Southwestern Weld County, Colorado
We would like to o'c me
oosition„to this proposed 200 acre landfill and recycling
facility and bring to your a o our concerns. We had hoped to see an
end to the landfills in this area which will continue to cause -
-Increasing dangerous truck traffic on all surrounding roads in the area
-Damage to roads in the area
-Blowing trash from site on hill and trash hauling trucks
-Lights from equipment operated
-Noise from equipment operated and truck traffic
-Unsightliness of operation near residences
-a, - small quantities emitted with methane gas
-Water contamination likely, as shown by the old and current landfills nearby
-Loss in potential Denver metro growth spinoff
- reased property values for Town and County taxes
'Ci' 4s for individuals
-Difficulty selling properties
-Increased bird populations endan ering pilots at two nearby airparks
-Manmade mountains to obstru PlitrOP NS
Lo s of qualit Hof ,w20- rural lifestyle and residential lifestyle
�iin mile of residential areas. )
Many of these problems constitute substantive reasons for the Commissioners to
deny the proposal. In addition, a 24 hour operation with 100 employees would cause
another disruption of residential lifestyles. -
Ranch Eggs Estates, Carol Heights and Leisure Living Subdivision are residential
developments and farms less than 1 mile from the development. The residential portions
of Erie are slightly over a mile.
The Town of Erie is opposed to the E.R.D. proposal and the proposal is definitely
within Erie's Urban Growth Boundary. Broomfield is opposed to this development and
has other plans for this area. They have zoned a residential section within a ' mile.
These landfills serve the entire metro area - not just Weld County, as you well know,
and we feel our burden has been borne. The facility in not needed for Weld County
residents and certainly has questionable need for the entire metro area.
The area has better potential, too much population and valuable, hard-earned home
values. One negative does not justify the next, but it does encourage it - just as
positives can beget positives. We do not want to see this area continue to develop
in this manner. Please fulfill your obligation to protect the citizens' interests
in this area.
We are sure you will all carefully deliberate a proposal with such tremendous current
impact on the citizens and future impact on the use of the land and its citizens.
Thank you for your consideration. /
<
Respectfully submitted, eili)szhile&k,_
CAPT. R. BOLAND'R
3015 Cherokee Court e40619
Erie, Air Park, CO 80516
C
7
July 3, 1991
1
To: Weld County Commissioners
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632
Re: Proposed E.R.D. Landfill in Southwestern Weld County, Colorado
We would like to voice our opposition to this proposed 200 acre landfill and recycling
facility and bring to your attention some of our concerns. We had hoped to see an
end to the landfills in this area which will continue to cause -
-Increasing dangerous truck traffic on all surrounding roads in the area
-Damage to roads in the area
-Blowing trash from site on hill and trash hauling trucks
-Lights from equipment operated
-Noise from equipment operated and truck traffic
-Unsightliness of operation near residences
-Air pollution - small quantities emitted with methane gas
-Water contamination likely, as shown by the old and current landfills nearby
-Loss in potential Denver metro growth spinoff
-Decreased property values for Town and County taxes
-Decreased property values for individuals
-Difficulty selling properties
-Increased bird populations endangering pilots at two nearby airparks
-Manmade mountains to obstruct views
-Loss of quality of life - rural lifestyle and residential lifestyle
(Area is within 1 mile of residential areas.)
Many of these problems constitute substantive reasons for the Commissioners to
deny the proposal. In addition, a 24 hour operation with 100 employees would cause
another disruption of residential lifestyles.
Ranch Eggs Estates, Carol Heights and Leisure Living Subdivision are residential
developments and farms less than 1 mile from the development. The residential portions
of Erie are slightly over a mile.
The Town of Erie is opposed to the E.R.D. proposal and the proposal is definitely
within Erie's Urban Growth Boundary. Broomfield is opposed to this development and
has other plans for this area. They have zoned a residential section within a 1 mile.
These landfills serve the entire metro area - not just Weld County, as you well know,
and we feel our burden has been borne. The facility in not needed for Weld County
residents and certainly has questionable need for the entire metro area.
The area has better potential, too much population and valuable, hard-earned home
values. One negative does not justify the next, but it does encourage it - just as
positives can beget positives. We do not want to see this area continue to develop
in this manner. Please fulfill your obligation to protect the citizens' interests
in this area.
We are sure you will all carefully deliberate a proposal with such tremendous current
impact on the citizens and future impact on the use of the land and its citizens.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
G1/441-( 06.-Cr LA, -cis-c �� %% i0 5�k Q ;�'�
LL'
`2
June 24, 1991
To: Weld County Commissioners
Re: Proposed E.R.D. Landfill in Southwestern Weld County, Colorado
We would like to voice our opposition to this proposed 200 acre landfill and recycling
facility and bring to your attention some of our concerns. We had hoped to see an
end to the landfills in this area which will continue to cause -
-Increasing dangerous truck traffic on all surrounding roads in the area
-Damage to roads in the area
-Blowing trash from site on hill and trash hauling trucks
-Lights from equipment operated
-Noise from equipment operated and truck traffic
-Unsightliness of operation near residences
-Air pollution - small quantities emitted with methane gas
-Water contamination likely, as shown by the old and current landfills nearby
-Loss in potential Denver metro growth spinoff
-Decreased property values for Town and County taxes
-Decreased property values for individuals
-Difficulty selling properties
-Increased bird populations endangering pilots at two nearby airparks
-Manmade mountains to obstruct views
-Loss of quality of life - rural lifestyle and residential lifestyle
(Area is within 1 mile of residential areas. )
Many of these problems constitute substantive reasons for the Commissioners to
deny the proposal. In addition, a 24 hour operation with 100 employees would cause
another disruption of residential lifestyles.
Ranch Eggs Estates, Carol Heights and Leisure Living Subdivision are residential
developments and farms less than 1 mile from the development. The residential portions
of Erie are slightly over a mile.
The Town of Erie is opposed to the E.R.D. proposal and the proposal is definitely
within Erie's Urban Growth Boundary. Broomfield is opposed to this development and
has other plans for this area. They have zoned a residential section within a h mile.
These landfills serve the entire metro area - not just Weld County, as you well know,
and we feel our burden has been borne. The facility in not needed for Weld County
residents and certainly has questionable need for the entire metro area.
The area has better potential, too much population and valuable, hard-earned home
values. One negative does not justify the next, but it does encourage it - just as
positives can beget positives. We do not want to see this area continue to develop
in this manner. Please fulfill your obligation to protect the citizens' interests
in this area.
We are sure you will all carefully deliberate a proposal with such tremendous current
impact on the citizens and future impact on the use of the land and its citizens.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Id X42 21.0619
E�( btf w C , 7( ��751--,a,, v X13
n
,2"
fv e,z.t/ . iLL, ,•t0c" �( Zrc� 0- U „ /
/ 26} . {0 ze ce-L i , trn
�1 - - c, CZ�if,�E'eL� �'z „ ��
�� � e.- i �� :2f �
l -7 UJ et„,"
1 i Li / 'C �e/9--t--2,4:_.�� ��
l'e t/1 I�0 r C /L< , rkz I p,
-/;
//rr ( C'ct � re0-[.7 (Uflzch ' (�'�7LC�'Q.
Q1.v619
July 3, 1991
To: Weld County Commissioners
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632
Re: Proposed E.R.D. Landfill in Southwestern Weld County, Colorado
We would like to voice our opposition to this proposed 200 acre landfill and recycling
facility and bring to your attention some of our concerns. We had hoped to see an
end to the la9n9dfills in1 this ar which will continue to cause -
-1/vetA5� t":;-�v�.ve.:ttek1 .+e-C� 4' ,��, /...�,�
-Increasing dangerous truck traffic on all s r�Y rounding roads in the area
-Damage to roads in the area
-Blowing trash from site on hill and trash hauling trucks
-Lights from equipment operated
-Noise from equipment operated and truck traffic
-Unsightliness of operation near residences
-Air pollution - small quantities emitted with methane gas
-Water contamination likely, as shown by the old and current landfills nearby
-Loss in potential Denver metro growth spinoff
-Decreased property values for Town and County taxes
-Decreased property values for individuals
-Difficulty selling properties
-Increased bird populations endangering pilots at two nearby airparks
-Manmade mountains to obstruct views
-Loss of quality of life - rural lifestyle and residential lifestyle
(Area is/within, % mile of residential areas. ) r 11,-7
Many of these problems constitute substantive reasons for the Commissioners to
deny the proposal. In addition, a 24 hour operation with 100 employees would cause
another disruption of residential lifestyles.
Ranch Eggs Estates, Carol Heights and Leisure Living Subdivision are residential
developments and farms less than 1 mile from the development. The residential portions
of Erie are slightly over a mile. jj ��, ,L 0
t%.J. G- - '�,;_,_.� F-�tC ('v1ti Gcce17et ('a�,C7�, ..�" � , Y-, ��t-c,�� �L.i.�..�.
The Town of Erie is opposed to the E.R.D. proposal and the propose is definitely
within Erie's Urban Growth Boundary. Broomfield is opposed to this development and
has other plans for this area. They have zoned a residential section within a 1 mile.
These landfills serve the entire metro area - not just Weld County, as you well ]mow,
and we feel our burden has been borne. The facility in not needed for Weld County
residents and certainly has questionable need for the entire metro area.
The area has better potential, too much population and valuable, hard-earned home
values. One negative does not justify the next, but it does encourage it - just as
positives can beget positives. We do not want to see this area continue to develop
in this manner. Please fulfill your obligation to protect the citizens' interests
in this area. cx1
We are sure you will all carefully deliberate a proposal with such tremendous current
impact on the citizens and future impact on the use of the land and its citizens.
Thank you for your consideration. _, �� c �_v�,�4� a ��v✓,
-1112_ l —
`- ✓
Respectfully submitted, �, ? .��4, ��,.c eir1
n
•
•- r
June 24, 1991
To: Weld County Commissioners
Re: Proposed E.R.D. Landfill in Southwestern Weld County, Colorado
We would like to voice our opposition to this proposed 200 acre landfill and recycling
facility and bring to your attention some of our concerns. We had hoped to see an
end to the landfills in this area which will continue to cause -
-Increasing dangerous truck traffic on all surrounding roads in the area
-Damage to roads in the area
-Blowing trash from site on hill and trash hauling trucks
-Lights from equipment operated
-Noise from equipment operated and truck traffic
-Unsightliness of operation near residences
-Air pollution - small quantities emitted with methane gas
-Water contamination likely, as shown by the old and current landfills nearby
-Loss in potential Denver metro growth spinoff
-Decreased property values for Town and County taxes
-Decreased property values for individuals
-Difficulty selling properties
-Increased bird populations endangering pilots at two nearby airparks
-Manmade mountains to obstruct views
-Loss of quality of life - rural lifestyle and residential lifestyle
(Area is within 'g mile of residential areas. )
Many of these problems constitute substantive reasons for the Commissioners to
deny the proposal. In addition, a 24 hour operation with 100 employees -would cause
another disruption of residential lifestyles. -
Ranch Eggs Estates, Carol Heights and Leisure Living Subdivision are residential
developments and farms less than 1 mile from the development. The residential portions
of Erie are slightly over a mile.
The Town of Erie is opposed to the E.R.D. proposal and the proposal is definitely
within Erie's Urban Growth Boundary. Broomfield is opposed to this development and
has other plans for this area. They have zoned a residential section within a mile.
These landfills serve the entire metro area - not just Weld County, as you well know,
and we feel our burden has been borne. The facility in not needed for Weld County
residents and certainly has questionable need for the entire metro area.
The area has better potential, too much population and valuable, hard-earned home
values. One negative does not justify the next, but it does encourage it - just as
positives can beget positives. We do not want to see this area continue to develop
in this manner. Please fulfill your obligation to protect the citizens' interests
in this area.
•
We are sure you will all carefully deliberate a proposal with such tremendous current
impact on the citizens and future impact on the use of the land and its citizens.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
(--pi - 6,,,,Ag � � z k
020 - e o-5r Cocsw « p,z
o1 04315,
(WALL( y It cz Kc5,7.6
June 24, 1991 ~5
To: Weld County Commissioners
U
Re: Proposed E.R.D. Landfill in Southwestern Weld County, Colorado
We would like to voice our opposition to this proposed 200 acre landfill and recycling
facility and bring to your attention some of our concerns. We had hoped to see an
end to the landfills in this area which will continue to cause -
-Increasing dangerous truck traffic on all surrounding roads in the area
-Damage to roads in the area
-Blowing trash from site on hill and trash hauling trucks
-Lights from equipment operated
-Noise from equipment operated and truck traffic
-Unsightliness of operation near residences
-Air pollution - small quantities emitted with methane gas
-Water contamination likely, as shown by the old and current landfills nearby
-Loss in potential Denver metro growth spinoff
-Decreased property values for Town and County taxes
-Decreased property values for individuals
-Difficulty selling properties
-Increased bird populations endangering pilots at two nearby airparks
-Manmade mountains to obstruct views
-Loss of quality of life - rural lifestyle and residential lifestyle
(Area is within 1 mile of residential areas. )
Many of these problems constitute substantive reasons for the Commissioners to
deny the proposal. In addition, a 24 hour operation with 100 employees would cause
another disruption of residential lifestyles.
Ranch Eggs Estates, Carol Heights and Leisure Living Subdivision are residential
developments and farms less than 1 mile from the development. The residential portions
of Erie are slightly over a mile.
The Town of Erie is opposed to the E.R.D. proposal and the proposal is definitely
within Erie's Urban Growth Boundary. Broomfield is opposed to this development and
has other plans for this area. They have zoned a residential section within a '� mile.
These landfills serve the entire metro area - not iust Weld County, as you well know,
and we feel our burden has been borne. The facility in not needed for Weld County
residents and certainly has questionable need for the entire metro area.
The area has better potential, too much population and valuable, hard-earned home
values. One negative does not justify the next, but it does encourage it - just as
positives can beget positives. We do not want to see this area continue to develop
in this manner. Please fulfill your obligation to protect the citizens' interests
in this area.
We are sure you will all carefully deliberate a proposal with such tremendous current
impact on the citizens and future impact on the use of the land and its citizens.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
21.06/9
,_5,_ /9571 --/7/1 .91 ivhy 7-«y L)0/f/7- fro-% l7 NEX7 sh,F/ri 1/2777,2 C47
Eti iA, r T 7_ -T -2c
Hello