HomeMy WebLinkAbout971828.tiffWeld County/ Planning Dept.
MAY 1 6 1997
RESOLUTION
I 'ED
RE: DENY REQUEST FROM HORTON CATTLE COMPANIES TO PREADVERTISE
SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT #1152
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to
Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of
administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and
WHEREAS, the Board has received a request from Horton Cattle Companies, P.O.
Box 517, Eaton, Colorado 80615, for preadvertisement of an application for Special Review
Permit #1152 for expansion of an existing feedlot operation, and
WHEREAS, said property is described as the E1/2 of Section 18 and part of the NW1/4
of Section 17, Township 3 North, Range 64 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado, and
WHEREAS, after study and review the Board deems it advisable to deny said request,
since no undue hardships have been placed upon the applicant and to provide adequate public
notice.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Weld County, Colorado, that the request from Horton Cattle Companies for preadvertisement of
an application for Special Review Permit #1152 for expansion of an existing feedlot operation
be, and hereby is, denied.
The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted
by the following vote on the 7th day of May, A.D., 1997.
ale K. Hall
puty Clerk'. the Board
APPRO AS TO ..RM:
ounty Atto
y
Gc : PL.; Horan
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
EXCUSED DATE' OF STriNTN(;
George E. Baxter, Chair
instance L. Harbert,
EXCUSED
Barbara J. Kirkm=yer
W. H. ebster
971828
(AYE)
, eti I (AYE)
(AYE)
(NAY)
‘atzki.
COLORADO
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Shani L. Eastin, Current Planner
SUBJECT: USR-1152, Horton Cattle Company
DATE: May 2, 1997
Horton Cattle Company has submitted an application to the Department of Planning
Services, for an expansion of their existing feedlot operation which is location in the NE4
of Section 18 and Part of the NW4 of Section 17, T3N, R64W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado. The Weld County Planning Commission will hear this case June 17,
1997. The applicant, in their attached letter, request that the Board of County
Commissioners approve their request for pre -advertising for the Board hearing.
SERVICE, TEAMWORK, INTEGRITY, QUALITY
571828 1828
MAY 01 '97 04:12PM
P. 2
NORTON
CATTLE
COMPANIES
P.O. Box 517
Eaton, CO 80615
(970} 454-3000
May 1, 1997
Weld County Board of
County Commissioners
915 1Oth
Greeley, CO 80631
Dear Commissioners:
Horton Cattle Companies, Inc. has submitted a Use by Special Review application to the
Weld County Department of Planning Services. The planning commission is scheduled to
review our application on June 17, 1997. We are requesting that this application be pre -
advertised to allow the County Commissioners to review this application following the
Planning Commission's meeting.
This request is made to expedite the USR process and therefore allow Horton Cattle
Companies to complete construction of new pens and the feedmty prior to the fall run of
cattle placements. Horton Cattle Companies, Inc. will continue to work with Weld
County on this proposed expansion and provide all information requested_
Thank you for your prompt consideration of this request.
Sine
Joseph A. Hoff
JAH/ms
05/01/97 15:14
n Planning Dept
MAY 0 2 1997
971828
TX/RX NO.7192 P.002
•
7
. U
4 5 v 5 r'
QccEh5 PL..,,
TRAFFIC C(2cULAT,0.1
O
0
U
3
U
n
�YJ 0350 a 4d ,--MO
re
00
K)-
0
-I
N
b9 J --
;io
Ty 215 r,\
3
O W
J V
�1 v
4
W b „
r a
3 4
y
= I- 0
x
1-- TRAILER
x
x x
Ctj
2
a
d
-b_
a:
0
77UM O
fl II i
----�
II
'4°..I !
I
II
4W 0
oO
a
UI
co
W
4
3�
H
N
e 9702845382
KERSEY LDS FARM P02
CORP OF PRESIDING BISHOP
OF CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST
OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
DBA
GREELEY LDS FARMS
25401 SCR 32
LASALLE' CO 80645
JUNE 13, 1997
ATTENTION: SHAMI L. EASTIN
WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
DEPARTMENT AND PLANNING RER1/10ES
1400 N. 17TH AVENUE
GREELEY, CO 80631
Shani L. Eastin,
Regarding Case Number: t3SR-1152, our position is to remain neutral
in the matter of the feedlot expansion.
Dallas Horton has contacted us about using the waste water from the
feedlot to irrigate our adjacent farm ground. We have decided this
ics noL in our best interest and have declined to use the waste
water.
Mr. Horton has asked us if we are interested in closing Weft SI
between WCR 34 and WOR 32. We do not support this actiert.
Thank You,
Eric Angus, Manager
Greeley LDS Farms
(090) 381 1343
IY11,w?r'.
JUN 1 6 1997
971023
06/13/97 14:58 TX/RX NO.7612
EXHIBIT
1
--1.-111-11461-•
June 5, 1997
Shani Eastin
Weld County Planning Department
1400 N 17m Avenue
Greeley, CO. 80631
Ms. Eastin:
JUN 1 0 1997
I am writing in opposition to the proposed Horton Feedlot Expansion at the
Greeley Feeders location. I am a property owner bordering the proposed expansion
area. We purchased this property approximately 3 years ago and have recently built
a new home on our property. When we built our home the land behind us was not
approved for any special uses. This feedlot, if allowed to expand, will be within
approximately 600' of my back door. This will dramatically affect my property as
well as my quality of living. I realize that we live in a county with a Right to Farm
statement. However this statement is only a statement that protects
"long-established agricultural practices". A 50,000 head feedlot 600' from my back
door is not long-established. The covenant does not provide the right for new or
expanded agricultural uses which will have a negative impact on surrounding land
owners. In fact, the Weld County Comprehensive Plan only allows such uses
"within Agricultural zoning when the impact to surrounding properties is
minimal..". For the following reasons I believe that this expansion will have much
more than a minimal impact on surrounding properties.
1. Inconsistent with Surrounding Uses.
Although the surrounding properties are zoned agriculture, one must take a
doser look at what compromises this area. According to the Weld County Assessors
office there is almost 70 different properties within a 1 section radius of the proposed
expansion. A 1 section radius could easily be expected to be impacted by such an
expansion. Of these 70 properties, over 20 of them consist of 20 acres or less. Of
these 70 properties, only around 10 of these are larger than 80 acres. As you and I
discussed when I met with you on May 14, if this type of division were to be done
now, these would not be zoned agriculture. Also many of these are taxed as
residential and not as agricultural. As can be seen, although this is currently zoned
agriculture, the surrounding use is almost entirely comprised of small acreage's.
This also means that there is going to be a large number of properties that will be
directly affected by the proposed expansion. This would be in opposition to 4.1.8
and 9 of the Zoning Ordinances which charges the planning department to protect
"urban and non -urban development" and to conserve "the value of property". This
would allow the loss of a large number of families for the gain of one.
971[ 323
EXHIBIT
13
use-�i6z
2. Location Within a Flood Plain
With recent storms that have been encountered in Weld County one can
easily understand the concern of locating a feedlot within a flood plain. This would
include all of the new proposed waste lagoons, a large number of pens, and some of
the proposed housing. Even with the best efforts to make these lagoons flood proof
it would be virtually impossible to ensure that the waste would not enter into the
stream. Also, with a "hard pack" on the corrals much of the storm water will flush
into the flood plain, especially with several corrals already located in the flood plain.
There also must be a concern about approving 12 mobile homes which several
appear to be located within a flood zone.
Besides the actual structures of the feedlot located in the flood plain, I am
concerned about the proposed waste proposal. This is the proposal that would allow
the lagoon waste to be pumped directly onto a neighboring field. Although there is
no specific regulations in the Zoning Ordinances about animal waste, there is with
domestic sludge. These two wastes are going to have a similar concern with metals,
nitrates, and microbiological contamination. In section 49.2.1.12.7 of the Zoning
Ordinances, the application of domestic sludge in a flood plain is forbidden. Again,
because the two wastes will have similar concerns, cattle waste must not be applied
either. This then leaves a concern as to who the lagoon waste will then be handled.
There is no proposed acceptable method for handling of manure and wastewater. If
no disposal methods were used then the stockpile of these wastes would contribute
to additional problems with environmental concern.
3. History of Feedlot Operations
The history of this particular operation has been poor. There have been
significant problems in the past with items attributed to the feedlot.
The fly problem has been terrible in this area. This is a problem that almost
all neighbors have experienced. With the current feedlot I am over 1/2 mile away
from the pens. We have only been in this house one full summer, and I have had to
repaint several walls because the flies were so bad. This is why I am confident that
all 70 properties around the feedlot are going to be dramatically affected.
Because of the situation of the hills behind my house I do not commonly
encounter dust or smell from the current operations. However I have seen evenings
where the dust from the feedlot has literally stretched over a mile from the feedlot. It
is so bad that one of the neighbors has actually gone out and recorded the dust
clouds on videotape. I am concerned that with the way the hills lie, if the feedlot is
allowed to expand, I, along with several neighbors will also experience the severe
problems with dust and smell that many of my other neighbors already experience.
The possibility of placing more cattle in the pens than allowed concerns me.
We have been told that in the current operation, which was only pens enough for
15,000 head, there were times there was over 21,000 head. This is 40% more cattle
than allowed. I also know that this has been a problem at other locations run by
Horton Cattle Company. If this statement is in doubt I would encourage someone
to take a look at the current operations. This would only intensify the impact of the
feedlot.
971828
4. Environmental Quality
Many of these concerns have been expressed in the concerns about the flood
plain and the history of past operations. The other issue I am concerned about is
water quality. All of the homes in this area are serviced by domestic wells and are
on the same aquifers. This means that any waste that is generated at the feedlot has
the potential to seep into the ground water. Because there are so many domestic
wells on this aquifer I am concerned what effects this may have on the surrounding
population.
In regards to the flood plain concerns listed above, there are some additional
concerns. This is from both runoff/ lagoon overflows and the proposed land
application of waste. This is of concern because there are homes near the feedlot
whose domestic well is only around 70 foot underground. This means that the
potential for seepage to occur for this short distance would be very likely.
I would like to see actual proof that shows that there will be no damage to the
local water shed.
5. Location of Pens
The final concern that I will address in this letter is the location of the pens.
The application is very non-specific as to the location. If the feedlot were to be
approved I would like to see the pens at least 700' east of the property line. As
mentioned earlier there are hills on the feedlots side of the property line. If the pens
were 700' back most of the pens from my house would not be seen, assuming that
there is no major earth work done. If the pens were allowed any closer than this the
runoff from these pens would flow directly on my property as well as my neighbors.
This would also ensure that the nearest residence, located at the turkey farm, is at
least 500' away, which is the what is stated in the application in section 9 which says
no residence will be within 500' of actual facilities. By staying 700' off the property
line this would also be consistent with the distance from the property line the feedlot
has maintained with other property owners with existing pens. I would also like to
see trees planted on the west and south side of the feedlot pens to help reduce there
view.
Although I have addressed some issues in 5 about location of pens, I would
like to stress that I am against in all forms any future expansion of this feedlot at this
location. The suggestions in 5 do not solve any of the problems in the first 4
concerns.
Summary
This list is not all inclusive, but I believe that because of the previous
concerns, this proposed expansion should not be approved. When the feedlot was
first built there was about 5 homes in dose proximity to the feedlot. Now, we have
around 70 different properties in this same area. This expansion will not be
compatible with this many small acreage's around the facility. There is also a large
concern about the environmental impact of this expansion. There is a myriad of
problems such as flies, dust, etc. as well as water quality of the water shed and flood
areas that will have a large impact on many people. If the history of the existing
feedlot is an indication of how an expanded feedlot will be run, even with
regulations, it will be a detriment to a large number of people. I believe that these
971828
concerns demonstrate that there will undoubtedly be much more than a minimal
impact on the surrounding properties.
Jkmes W Welch
24331 WCR 32
LaSalle, CO. 80645
971828
Howcvc R'a okI .v
Co.ucev.uS
l Omil co,c) Tro
a) ≤pr i K/er e (eetriwiar
g wuTh:,;.v7 c,,; 76
a r Ft. 404) 1.-0
cij Fly- Olac/Cr
6) &Os
CT) Wes. /12
3, S4e—ii
aj C-/6 eta" eltiy
[, Roo o f
ir
77-04-(Z
„ntv Planning Dept.
JUN 17 '1997
O1 Lap oo-chr �f y
J al/etwy rC9adi (2,o fvo � /eC/`;e9
2) N a Pica Pl -va:
ser ba.c.. K
cfroNt £OOa 40;74 yveeo& Be (7`•
LOGIC, c7vv c¢, e -AL7 eeJ
a).S,vte11' DUs r eclecYN cP atox4,(441�e
a os
'7= Pas 1 4 I c o y a/ a e cif f u9..0 t -o /r her
Yb0 97162.3
Odor Control
Establish good pen drainage
Regular Manure Removal
Reduce standing water
D Physical features and barriers
D Land application timing
971329
Fly Control
Regular Manure Removal
Reduce standing water
Minimize fly habitat
Weeds and grass management
Minimize stockpiles or storage of manure
D Biological Treatments
D Fly Baits and Chemical Treatments
971828
Dust Control
Pen Density
Regular Manure Removal
Sprinkler Systems
Water Trucks
Hello