HomeMy WebLinkAbout972048.tiffSUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
T(res'derJuty 15; 1997
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held on July 15, 1997, in the County
Commissioners' Hearing Room (Room #101), Weld County Centennial Building, 915 10th}Streec-Greeley,
Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chairman, Arlan Marrs.
Tape 529
Glenn Vaad
Cristie Nicklas
Fred Walker
Marie Koolstra
Jack Epple
Rusty Tucker
Stephen Mokray
Shirley Camenisch
Arlan Marrs
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Also Present Todd A. Hodges, Current Planner II, Kerri Keithley, Current Planner, Shani L. Eastin, Current
Planner, Gloria Dunn, Current Planner, Department of Planning Services; Lee Morrison, Assistant Weld County
Attomey; Don Carroll, Weld County Public Works; Trevor Jiricek, Supervisor, Weld County Health Department;
Tammie Pope, Secretary, Sharyn Frazer, Secretary.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on July 1, 1997, was
approved as read.
Glenn Vaad moved to reverse the order of the last two cases, thereby hearing USR-1158 fourth and USR-1154
last. Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Glenn
Vaad-yes; Cristie Nicklas-yes; Fred Walker -yes; Marie Koolstra-yes; Jack Epple-yes; Rusty Tucker -yes;
Stephen Mokray-yes; Shirley Camenisch-yes; Arlan Marrs -yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1155
PLANNER: Kerri Keithley
APPLICANT: SBA, Inc. d/b/a Wireless Solutions do Bob Przybylo
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Major Facility of a Public
Utility consisting of a 155 -foot Free -Standing Lattice Wireless Communication Tower (150'
tower plus 5' lightening rod).
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the W2 of Section 16, T7N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Highway 14; east of State Highway 257.
Fred Walker withdrew from the case. Kerri Keithley gave an overview of the proposal. Ms. Keithley noted that
the tower will be only 100 feet tall originally; the additional 55 feet is reserved in the event a co -locator requires
a taller timer. The original application called for a lattice -type tower. The applicant has since agreed to use
a monopole, as it is less obtrusive. The Department of Planning Services' staff recommends approval of the
application with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. Marie Koolstra asked if a co -locator
will be required to go through the USR process. Ms. Keithley explained that co -location will be allowed by right
as long as the height does not exceed 155 feet The USR would have to be amended if they would like
additional height.
Bob Przybylo, applicant representative, discussed the proposal. He noted that a Christian radio station will be
the co -locator, pending the approval of their license. The radio station will add an additional 50 feet to the
tower.
972048
WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 15, 1997
Page 2
There was discussion about possible public confusion regarding the approval of a 100 -foot tower with the
option of adding additional height. Ms. Keithley stated that there have been no complaints or inquiries. Lee
Morrison stated that legal notice was given that the tower would be 155 feet tall.
The Chairman asked if the applicant was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. The applicant was in agreement.
Glenn Vaad moved that USR-1155, SBA, Inc., be approved with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. Cristie Nicklas seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Glenn
Vaad-yes; Cristie Nicklas-yes; Marie Koolstra-yes; Jack Epple-yes; Rusty Tucker -yes; Stephen Mokray-yes;
Shirley Camenisch-yes; Arlan Marrs -yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1157
PLANNER: Shani L. Eastin
APPLICANT: SBA, Inc., c/o Bob Przybylo
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review permit in the A (Agricultural) Zone
District for a Major Facility of a Public Utility (three panel antennas for a total of nine antennas
and two 2'6" square X 5' pre -fabricated, weather resistant, self-contained equipment
cabinets).
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The SE4 SE4 of Section 18, T3N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Weld County Road 32; approximately 1/2 mile east of State Highway
85.
Shani L. Eastin gave an overview of the proposal. Antennas will be painted to match the water tower. The
Department of Planning Services' staff recommends approval of the application with the Conditions of Approval
and Development Standards, with the addition of Condition of Approval #3C, which Ms. Eastin read into the
record.
There was discussion as to what would happen to the antennas if the Town of Platteville no longer needed the
water tower.
Bob Przybylo, applicant representative, discussed the proposal, noting that the water tower was chosen rather
than the existing monopole due to its height. The water tower is 48 feet tall; the monopole is only 30 feet tall.
The Chairman asked if the applicant was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. The applicant was in agreement.
Jack Epple moved that USR-1157, SBA, Inc., be approved with the Conditions of Approval, with the addition
of #3C, and Development Standards. Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members ofthe Planning Commission for their decision. Glenn
Vaad-yes; Cristie Nicklas-yes; Fred Walker -yes; Marie Koolstra-yes; Jack Epple-yes; Rusty Tucker -yes;
Stephen Mokray-yes; Shirley Camenisch-yes; Arlan Marrs -yes. Motion carried unanimously.
WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 15, 1997
Page 3
CASE NUMBER: USR-1156
PLANNER: Todd A. Hodges
APPLICANT: US West Communications, Inc. c/o Bob Przybylo, SBA, Inc.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Major Facility of a Public
Utility for addition of nine (9) whip antennae and an electrical equipment cabinet to an existing
tower (150' in height).
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A tract of land located in the SE4 SE4 of Section 22, T5N, R67W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Weld County Road 54; west of and adjacent to State Highway 257.
Todd A. Hodges gave an overview of the proposal. The Department of Planning Services' staff recommends
approval of the application with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. Cristie Nicklas asked
why three different planners were involved with this and the two previous cases, all from the same company.
Mr. Hodges explained that this was due to the time involved in preparing each case.
Bob Przybylo, applicant representative, discussed the proposal.
The Chairman asked if the applicant was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. The applicant was in agreement.
Stephen Mokray moved that USR-1156, SBA, Inc., be approved with the Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards. Glenn Vaad seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Glenn
Vaad-yes; Cristie Nicklas-yes; Fred Walker -yes; Marie Koolstra-yes; Jack Epple-yes; Rusty Tucker -yes;
Stephen Mokray-yes; Shirley Camenisch-yes; Arlan Marrs -yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1158
PLANNER: Todd A. Hodges
APPLICANT: James Younger
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review permit for a poultry/egg processing
facility in the A (Agricultural) zone district.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Located in Section 22, T2N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: Approximately IA mile south of Weld County Road 20; west of and adjacent to Weld County
Road 21.
Todd Hodges explained that the site is located west of and adjacent to Weld County Road 21; approximately
1/4 mile north of Weld County Road 18. The site is also located one mile east of the Town of Firestone's Urban
Growth Boundary area as delineated on the Tri-Area Intergovernmental Agreement map. The City of Ft.
Lupton reviewed this request and indicated they have no specific concems. The concerns listed are addressed
by the conditions of approval and development standards. Staff did not receive a referral response from the
Town of Firestone.
y
The site and surrounding properties are zoned agricultural. The existing uses surrounding the site include
residential to the north, south and east and turkey facilities to the west and southeast. It is the opinion of the
Department of Planning Services' staff that this proposal is in compliance with Section 24.3 of the Weld County
Zoning Ordinance if all conditions of approval are met. This proposal is also consistent with the Tri-Area IGA,
consistent with the existing agricultural uses, and through the conditions of approval and development
standards, will be consistent with the existing residential uses.
WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 15, 1997
Page 4
This proposal is an agricultural business to be located within the A (Agricultural) zone district as allowed by a
Use by Special Review. The A (Agricultural) zone district is intended to provide areas for the continuance of
agricultural activities without the interference of other incompatible land uses. Staff recommends approval of
this request, the conditions of approval and development standards, as written.
Todd introduced Trevor Jiricek, Weld County Health Department, and Don Carroll, Weld County Public Works
Department.
Arlan Marrs asked for more detail regarding the make-up of the properties to the east and the approximate
distances of surrounding residences from this proposal. Todd explained that a few of the acreages were
created through recorded exemptions. This area has a long history of land splits. The lots north and south
from this proposal (four total) were all produced prior to zoning, thereby categorized as nonconforming lots.
Arlan Marrs and Rusty Tucker had concerns about burying dead ducks on the property. Trevor Jiricek
explained that Development Standard #7, addresses this issue, and the language therein is similar to language
used in state statute. The dead ducks have to be covered in two feet of soil.
James Younger, applicant, explained this proposal is for a poultry rearing facility existing of two 27' x 60'
greenhouse style buildings. These buildings will have 4' side walls with poly -film plastic sides and screen
floors. This greenhouse style plastic sided building decreases the stress to the birds by exposing them to
sunlight without ultra -violet rays. However, drawbacks unique to this design are possible structural damage
due to hail storms and high winds. Manure will be removed by a pit scraper system. Mr. Younger explained
that the flock numbers will constantly fluxuate. Mr. Younger also expressed concerns about burying the ducks
on the property and explained that they have considered other options, such as, an on -site incinerator, possible
composting, and/or freezing dead ducks for removal to landfills. A buffer of a 6'-8' foot pressure treated wood
privacy fence has been considered to separate this operation from surrounding property owners on the north
and south side of the property.
Shirley Camenisch asked about the consumer market for ducks and duck eggs. James Younger explained
there would be a steady asian market through the City of Denver. There is not a U.S.D.A. inspected facility
in the State of Colorado. Revolving duck production at this facility would typically be on an average of nine
months. Approximately one year for the "layers", and 0-12 weeks for the "meat ducks". Mr. Younger stated
that they do not hatch their own ducks, they are obtained from a registered farm located in California. Marie
Koolstra had questions about extreme temperatures affecting the operation. James Younger explained that
in the summer they would use shade cloth and cooling pads maintaining 75-80 degree temperatures. The
birds help to provide their own heat in the winter. Arlan Marrs asked about the amount of water required to
dispose of the waste after cleaning the buildings. The applicant explained they have an oversized septic
system and this type of operation would only utilize 300-500 gallons weekly. Normal household uses can
reach numbers of 1,500 gallons a week.
Man Marrs asked Mr. Younger to address the letters of concern from surrounding property owners sent to the
Department of Planning Services. James Younger stated that the Use by Special Review permit consists of
very specific regulations binding them to follow County standards regarding odor control, dust abatement, etc..
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Bruce Fitzgerald, surrounding property owner, also representing the local homeowners group, expressed
concerns about their quality of life in the area and stated that he feels that property values could be negatively
impacted. This is a large concentration of ducks in a small area. He explained that the surrounding property
owners understand the agricultural zoning requirements, but this operation borders on commercial.
WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 15, 1997
Page 5
Larry Hatcher, surrounding property owner, Manager, Longmont Foods, explained that this proposed operation
poses a health risk to Longmont Foods existing turkey operation. He referred to a letter from the Longmont
Foods veterinarian listing concerns that turkey operations need to minimize contact with wild birds and species
of poultry can infect other species. Stephen Mokray asked what precautions Longmont Foods takes to
minimize disease. Larry Hatcher explained that employees "shower our and "shower in", wearing only farm
clothes when in contact with the turkeys.
Charles Bobb, surrounding property owner, complained of flies and odor. He expressed concerns that the
greenhouse style structures could not contain the birds or the debris if flooding or runoff occurs.
The Planning Commission members asked Trevor Jiricek and Lee Morrison to revise language in Development
Standard #7, and provide additional language to address processing facility concerns. Trevor Jiricek and Lee
Morrison proposed the following language for Development Standard #7, and proposed a new Development
Standard #16, with subsequent renumbering:
Development Standard #7.
In accordance with C.R.S. 25-1-612 the applicant shall not place any dead ducks in any manure piles or within
one (1) mile of any residence. Dead ducks shall not be placed in manure piles to be relocated within one (1)
mile of a residence in the future. Dead ducks shall either be incinerated in an approved incinerator unit or
disposed of by alternative methods approved by the Weld County Health Department. If final disposal of eggs
or dead ducks is more than 24 hours after initial disposal, dead ducks shall be maintained in a frozen state.
Development Standard #16
All activities associated with the processing facility shall comply with the requirements of the U.S. Department
of Agriculture.
Glenn Vaad moved to forward Case Number USR-1158, James Younger, to the Board of County
Commissioners with the Planning Commissions recommendation for approval. Fred Walker seconded the
motion.
Glenn Vaad comments - "I have been agonizing over this from the moment I read it when we got these last
week. It seems to me, and I'll try to make some differentiations, there is, in fact, a difference, a distinction and
I hope there is a difference here. It seems like we are being asked to be, in many cases, the first line of
defense. Coning to the Planning Commission and hoping that we stop something before it ever gets started
and I'm not sure that that's appropriate, I see our role as different. Nonetheless we have a responsibility to
surrounding neighbors to not let things happen. The Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, or the
Subdivision Ordinance request that we not allow the atmosphere. I have talked about the police powers of the
county before in protecting the health, safety and welfare of the citizens and I think there are adequate powers
there. The Health Department that Trevor represents here, the Police Department and the Sheriffs to do that.
To add ahother level through the Planning Commission and the whole planning process I think is burdensome
to the public. Having said that, at the same time buildjpg homes in an agricultural zoned area and then
thereafter declaring yourself to be a residential area, you are nonetheless still in an agricultural area and I think
our citizens need to understand that and certain things are allowed in an agricultural area. So you can go back
and ask for zoning change of the whole area and hope that everyone votes for that and, in fact, change the
nature from agricultural to residential, but that hasn't happened on this site. The issue of two economic
enterprises within the county and the one being a problem to the other, is even more perplexing to me, how
that works out here. The Comprehensive Plan and the zoning plan all work to, the intention is to guarantee
the economic viability and the resources for the county. Well now we have two different enterprises that may
work at odds with one another. I'm not sure whether is appropriate for us to step into that, county government
WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 15, 1997
Page 6
to step into that or the economics of the situation to step into that. Maybe one buy out the other so this doesn't
happen. I don't know how you would go back and determine who is liable for some catastrophe that may or
may not happen. Having said all that I feel I'm obliged to make the motion, thoughtfully and honestly in good
heart we should approve this, I don't see a reason not to approve it, particularly with the amended conditions
we put in".
Man Marrs comments - "I feel our job here is to send a recommendation to the County Commissioners and
this is a use by special review case. It is an agriculturally zone area and this is certainly an agricultural
enterprise. However, over the years this areas character has changed from a traditional agricultural area to
a combined area. You've got residential, as well as highly intensive agricultural uses in this area. I believe
folks can exist, can co -exist together, but in this particular case I don't believe they can and this is too many
animals for too small of an area and with that I would probably have to vote no on that. Any other discussion?"
Stephen Mokray comments - "I would have to agree with you. Somehow I just get a bad feeling, a lot of
potential problems that it will bring out in the county, and I just, my gut feeling is that we shouldn't do this."
Cristie Nicklas comments - "I tend to agree with Glenn, you know, if we truly go by all the rules and regulations,
and the Comp Plan and the zoning, and everything that the Planning staff has to go by, that they recommend
for approval, but the nature of the area is as Arlan has said, and I am a vehement supporter of agricultural
uses. However, the intensity of the use that's going to be done on this 2 -acre parcel is, it just doesn't sit well
with me."
Marie Koolstra comments - "I also, I feel that the venture sounds good, I, you know, think is has potential, I have
a problem with 2 -acres for this much use. I think it's going to be very, very, very hard to regulate the smell, I
think it's going to be very hard to regulate the flies, just knowing the nature of a duck, and to be this close to
residences around them."
Rusty Tucker comments - "I always look at it as the impact it has on others and certainly everything we vote
on has an impact on somebody and somebody's not happy about it, but due to the fact that the disease factor
with the existing turkey farm, I have a real problem with that. I think we have an obligation to, I don't know if
protect is the right word, but look at their interest also, so I have a problem with this, I will vote no also."
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Glenn
Vaad - yes; Cristie Nicklas - no; Fred Walker - yes; Marie Koolstra - no; Jack Epple - no; Rusty Tucker - no;
Stephen Mokray - no; Shirley Camenisch - no; Arlan Marrs - no. Motion denied.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1154
PLANNER: Gloria Dunn
APPLICANT: English Feedlots, Inc., do Patty Deplazes, Eastern Plains Environmental Service
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Amended Special Review Permit (SUP -68 and SUP -
105) to expand an existing Livestock Confinement Operation (L.C.O.) from 12,000 cattle to
20,000 cattle.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The SW4 of Section 8, T1 N, R6.5W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Weld County Road 10; approximately Y mile west of Weld County
Road 41.
Gloria Dunn, explained that this proposal for expansion is located two miles from the Town of Hudson but not
located within its urban growth boundary or comprehensive planning area. Ms. Dunn explained that the original
Special Review permit was for a 10,000 head livestock confinement operation. In the early 1970's English
Feedlots, Inc., expanded to a 12,000 head operation. English Feedlots, Inc, owns and farms 320 acres
adjacent to the feedlot site. Well permits exist for irrigation, livestock feeding and there is existing septic on
WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 15, 1997
Page 7
the property. There are two accesses into the property,Weld County Road 10(not a through road west of this
site) and Weld County Road 41, which is across land farmed by the applicant. Comments and
recommendations from referral agencies have been included in the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. The Public Works Department is requesting a Road Maintenance Agreement for improvements
to Weld County Road 10; as stated in Condition of Approval 2h. This application is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and existing land uses such as crop production, a dairy, and a turf farm. The agricultural
zone is not targeted for future residential uses. This expansion will incorporate an additional 28 acres included
in the quarter section, additional pens, and the proposed location on the property will least impact the
surrounding property owners.
Doug English,applicant,explained this is a family corporation. Most of the six hundred acres are irrigated and
in crop production. The proposed expansion is located on 160 acres of non-irrigated land to the north, away
from the majority of surrounding residential and productive farmland. Mr. English explained that they have
addressed dust control by installing extensive computer controlled automatic sprinklers. Biological wasps are
incorporated into the environment and utilized between the months of April through October. The cattle pens
are dragged with a float and the manure is compressed constantly. The manure that is not contracted for pick
up is spread throughout adjacent farmland. Infrastructure (water lines,sewer,drainage to ponds) exists for
the expansion. There are two employees who live on this site.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
George Kennedy, Joan Dunker, Doug Wilch, Barbara Perkinson, Ms. Kenneth Green, Dave Labandway,
Kathryn Dinkas,Jerry Coe,Randy Ferguson, and Norma Taylor, surrounding property owners, all expressed
concerns,stating they were in opposition of this expansion. Argument included the prior special review permits
were lacking in detail, previous expansions were staff approved, lack of dust control, the sprinkler system
affects visibility on nearby roads at night, northwest winds bring odors directly into the subdivision, nightly
loading and unloading noises,higher taxes,and decreasing property values,quality of nitrate levels in shallow
wells located throughout the subdivision,flies,odors,retention pond runoff, and ground water quality concerns.
An expansion of 66%would not be in the best interest of the surrounding property owners.
Stephen Mokray asked Trevor Jiricek how many complaints the Health Department had received,to date?
Trevor Jiricek cited three complaints in 1996 (two for odor and one for dust and mosquitos) and one in 1997
regarding mosquitos and flies. Trevor read a field check done by a field specialist,dated July 3, 1997,which
stated that the facility appeared to be very clean and well kept. The bunks seemed to be clean with very few
flies. This facility is in good condition and is well operated.
Kent Hickman,K.C.Martin, Marvin Spade,Mike Lane,spoke in favor of the expansion. They agreed that the
existing operation was efficient and very well run. Mr. English's efforts to control dust, odor,flies, etc.,were
above standards. His equipment was well maintained and this operation was a benefit to the economy of Weld
County. It was determined that flies and mosquitoes do not originate from just one operation and could also
be attributed to the dairy nearby. It was reiterated that the nearby subdivision is zoned agricultural and
residents should accept the "country"for what it is.
Lee Morrison explained the process that would ensue if the operation did not follow compliance standards.
Enforcement of the permit itself is through the Planning Department. Planning staff would initiate a probable
cause hearing which would take approximately 2-3 weeks to set up. Then the Board of County Commissioners
would decide whether to initiate proceedings to a full hearing. The Board of County Commissioners set the
time frames at which the actual hearing for revocation of the permit might occur. Other compliance issues
could involve agencies like the Health Department, Public Works Department, etc. Mr. Morrison further
explained that criminal penalty for violation of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance is not usually used. The
County uses a civil process in violations of the Zoning Ordinance and all revocation processes.
WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 15, 1997
Page 8
Doug English,applicant,introduced Patty DePlazes, representative, assisting English Feedlots with technical
aspects of this application. Ms. DePlazes explained that English Feedlots has historically complied with the
rules and regulations of Weld County. She explained that water flows from the northwest to the southeast and
there has been no reported incident of increasing nitrate levels in the area. Nitrate levels at this location range
between 4.5nrl.and 6.2mi1. Lagoon water wells are below 2.0 mil per litre. A professional engineer is required
to evaluate the water plan. The Weld County Health Department's recommendation will help assure that
ground water will be protected at this site. She stated that Mr. English has invested $250,000, in dust control
measures that are state-of-the-art. This expansion involves new pens located to the north, away from the
population in the area, infra-structure is already in place, the lining methods for the proposed pens have
already been approved,and there is sufficient dryland pasture that makes the proposed expansion desirable.
Rusty Tucker,asked if there was an agency who recommended the proper methods of fly control. Mr. English
explained he contracts with an expert, in Boulder,who conducts site visits monthly. He also explained that
weather is a big contributor to fly control. May and June of 1997, were extremely wet months and helped
enhance the fly problem. Dry weather now makes it easier to get the problem into control. Trevor Jiricek
explained that the proposed expansion would require new and existing retention ponds to meet compliance
standards.
Arlan Marrs asked if Doug English and Patty DePlazes agreed with staffs recommendation conditions of
approval,and development standards? Patty DePlazes had some concern regarding Development Standard
#12. She stated that Colorado State Health Department Regulations establish a level of odor control. She has
concerns that the Weld County Health Department's recommendation could allow for the opinion of one field
staff member to make a determination regarding odor instead of utilizing existing standards of the law.
Discussion followed regarding the intricacies of a SCENTOMETER (an instrument used to measure smell).
Trevor explained staff takes two readings, 15 minutes apart, at two locations on the property line. Cristie
Nicklas asked how far the dairy was from English Feedlots? Doug English said approximately 1/8 mile.
Glen Vaad stated that he could understand Ms. DePlazes hesitancy because this standard is left to
interpretation, but it would be reasonable to leave it as is.
Gloria Dunn addressed the typographical error on Condition of Approval#2A, on Page 3. The date is typed
as August 30, 1972, and should read August 30, 1992.
Shirley Camenish asked Trevor Jiricek to explain the process if a compliance issue should arise regarding
odor. Trevor Jiricek explained the Health Department would conduct an informal hearing between the health
officer and reporting field staff. The health officer would make the determination regarding compliance. If
revised odor plans were not then implemented,the Health Department would then issue a violation.
Cristie Nicklas moved to forward Case Number USR-1154,to the Board of County Commissioners with the
Planning Commission's recommendation for approval. Glenn Vaad seconded the motion.
Fred Walker commented that approval of this expansion will require English Feedlots to comply with more
stringent guidelines and will help to keep the operation "in line". It is possible there will be no more dust,flies,
or odor with the expansion than there is today. There are 250 people (signatures on the petition submitted)
that will hold the English Corporation to this standard and make them accountable.
Cristie Nicklas commented that it is very easy to point the finger at one existing business. Ground water quality
and insect control concerns don't come from just one source.
Jack Epple commented that the whole area has a nitrate problem. This is a common problem with agriculture
vs. residential uses.
WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 15, 1997
Page 9
Marie Koolstra commented that a lot of residential areas that deal with the sheer number of people who just
want it one way. Protection for agriculture exists within the same climate.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Glenn
Vaad-yes;Gristle Nicklas-yes;Fred Walker-yes; Marie Koolstra-yes;Jack Epple-no; Rusty Tucker-yes;
Stephen Mokray-yes; Shirley Camenisch-yes;Arlan Marrs-yes. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,Qa_fyinvic
Tammie Pope Sharyn Fr zer
Secretary Secretary
Hello