HomeMy WebLinkAbout972564.tiffV��
DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO 'r`''
Case No. 97 -CV- , Division
t /r
n„.
SUMMONS - CIVIL
DANIEL J. RAUH and WENDY L. RAUH,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JACOB W. HIRSCH, III d/b/a HIRSCH DAIRY; PARAGON CONSULTING GROUP, INC.,
A COLORADO CORPORATION; THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE
COUNTY OF WELD; and JOHN DOE'S 1 THROUGH 5,
Defendants.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO TO THE DEFENDANT(S) NAMED
ABOVE:
You are summoned and required to file with the clerk of this court an answer or other
defense to the attached complaint within twenty (20) days after this summons is served on
you in the State of Colorado, or within thirty (30) days after this summons is served on you
outside the State of Colorado, or by publication.
If you fail to file your answer or other defense to the complaint in writing, as required by
Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, within the applicable time period, judgment by default
may be entered against you by the court for the relief demanded in the complaint, without
any further notice to you.
The following documents are also served with this summons: Complaint
Dated this 14th day of November, 1997
LIND, -ENCE & . HOFF, LLP
e H ttenhoff #209
Attorney . r Plaintiffs
1011 Eleventh Avenue
Greeley, CO 80632
Telephone: (970) 353-2323
This summons is issued pursuant to Rule 4, CROP, as amended. A copy of the complaint must be served with
this summons. If served by Publication, summons shall briefly state sum of money or other relief demanded.
?mid
117
/�, 104/7 /n/ FAKFULINDIHIRSCHIRAUH.SUM
0_6-'1 0 AI?
972564
DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO
Case No. 97 -CV- , Division
COMPLAINT
DANIEL J. RAUH and WENDY L. RAUH,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JACOB W. HIRSCH, III d/b/a HIRSCH DAIRY; PARAGON CONSULTING GROUP, INC.,
A COLORADO CORPORATION; THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE
COUNTY OF WELD; and JOHN DOE'S 1 THROUGH 5,
Defendants.
COME NOW the Plaintiffs by and through their attorneys, Lind, Lawrence &
Ottenhoff, LLP and for their Complaint against the Defendants hereby allege and state as
follows:
VENUE AND JURISDICTION
1. The Plaintiffs, Daniel J. Rauh and Wendy L. Rauh ("Rauh") are residents of
Weld County, Colorado and own property described as Lot "B" of Recorded Exemption No.
No. 0705-25-1-RE955, recorded December 19, 1986 in Book 1139 as Reception No.
2081363, being a part of the Northeast One Quarter (NE%) of Section Twenty-five (25),
Township Seven (7) North, Range Sixty-seven (67) West of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado including 2% shares of the capital stock of The Smith Lateral Company.
2. The Defendant, Jacob W. Hirsch, III ("Hirsch") is a resident of Weld County,
Colorado and owns real property located in the Southwest One Quarter (SW/.) and South
Half of the Northwest One Quarter (S%NW%) of Section Twenty-four (24), Township
Seven (7) North, Range Sixty-seven (67) West of the 6th P.M. in Weld County, Colorado.
3. Weld County is a body corporate and politic capable of suing and being sued
in its own name. The Defendant, The Board of County Commissioners of Weld County
("Commissioners") is delegated the authority to exercise powers granted to Weld County
by statutes of the State of Colorado, Constitution of the State of Colorado and the Home
Rule Charter of Weld County, Colorado.
F:\KFL\LI NO\HI RSCH\RAUH.00M
1
4. The Defendant, Paragon Consulting Group, Inc. ("Paragon") is a Colorado
corporation in good standing which performed work upon the property owned by the
Defendant Hirsch in Weld County.
5. The Defendants, John Doe's 1 through 5 are unknown at this time but may
have been involved in planning, financing and performing construction work upon real
property owned by the Defendant Hirsch in Weld County.
6. The real property and personal property, the subject matter of this Complaint,
are located in Weld County, all of the Plaintiffs and Defendants except the Defendant
Paragon are residents of Weld County, and as the Defendant Paragon and Defendants
John Doe's 1 through 5 performed services in Weld County and upon real property and
personal property located in Weld County, this Court has jurisdiction over all Plaintiffs and
Defendants and Weld County is the proper place of venue.
GENERAL STATEMENT OF FACTS
7. Paragraphs 1 through 6 hereinabove are incorporated by reference.
8. On December 16, 1996 the Defendant Commissioners conditionally approved
a Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit No. 1091 for a 2,000 head
dairy operation (hereinafter "USR 1091").
9. USR 1091 was submitted by the Defendant Hirsch and the site of said USR
1091 was the real property owned by the Defendant Hirsch as described hereinabove at
Paragraph 2.
10. One of the numerous conditions of approval was the requirement that the
Defendant Hirsch submit a comprehensive Manure and Wastewater Management Plan
which would be in compliance with regulations promulgated by the State of Colorado
known as the Confined Animal Feed Operations Control Regulations (hereinafter "CAFO")
as well as the conditions of approval, development standards, applicable Colorado State
statutes, and applicable provisions of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance.
11. Beginning in March of 1997 the Defendant Hirsch caused Paragon (at that
time Terracon Environmental, Inc.) to submit to the State of Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment as well as the Weld County Health Department, plans for a
second manure retention pond to be constructed on the Southeastern side of the
Defendant Hirsch's property, said new pond to be located East of The Smith Lateral Ditch
and North of Weld County Road 78. A copy of the location of the proposed new manure
retention pond is attached hereto as Exhibit "A", said copy being received by the Weld
County Health Department on May 2, 1997.
12. On September 18, 1997 the Defendant Hirsch and Defendant Paragon
submitted a draft Manure and Waste Water Management Plan (the "September 18 Plan")
F:\KFL\LI N D\HIRSCH\RAUH. COM
to, among others, the Weld County Department of Health and Colorado Department of
Health. As part of said September 18 plan, Figures 3 and 4 were submitted, pertinent
portions of which are attached hereto as Exhibits "B" and "C" respectively.
13. Said Exhibits "B" and "C" purported to show the location of the new manure
pond, the size of the manure pond as well as a cross section construction schematic.
14. In said September 18 plan at Page 11 under Section 2.4.4, soil borings
identified as B-1 and B-2 were reviewed and said plans specifically state that due to
underground utilities in the area of boring B-2, the area around said boring B-2 could not
be used as part of the new manure pond and a new boring, B-7, was completed at what
would be the southern portion of the new manure pond.
15. Said September 18 plan, at Page 11, states that falling head permeability
results for soil samples collected from soil borings B-1 and B-7 could meet CAFO
requirements and results of the falling head permeability results were included in Appendix
"D" of said plan.
16. No falling head permeability tests or results were performed for boring B-2.
17. On September 29, 1997, a final Manure and Wastewater Management Plan
(the "September 29 plan") was received by, among others, the Weld County Health
Department and the Colorado Department of Health. Figures 3 and 4 (Exhibits "B" and "C")
for the new manure pond as well as the boring logs and falling head permeability tests and
results in the September 29 plan were identical to those as contained in the September 18
plan.
18. On September 29, 1997, Trevor Jiricek of the Weld County Health
Department submitted to the Defendant County Commissioners a memorandum
concerning, among other things, the September 29 Manure and Wastewater Management
Plan. In said memorandum the Weld County Health Department recommended approval
of said September 29 plan.
19. Said September 29, 1997 memorandum was also presented to the
Defendant Commissioners at a public hearing held November 5, 1997 which hearing was
for the purpose of, among other things, to specifically review said September 29 Manure
and Wastewater Management Plan.
20. Based upon the plans and data submitted in said September 29 Manure and
Wastewater Management Plan the Colorado Department of Health also recommended
approval of said plan which plan includes the location of the new manure pond as shown
in Exhibits "B" and "C".
21. On or about October 3, 1997 the Defendant Hirsch commenced construction
of the new manure pond. Said construction was purportedly under the supervision and
F:KFLMIND\HI RSCH\RAUH. COM
3
approval of the Defendant Paragon (then Terracon) as stated in a letter dated March 17,
1997, attached hereto as Exhibit "D".
22. On October 10, 1997 a representative of the Weld County Department of
Building Inspection inspected the site where the new manure pond was being constructed.
Said representative determined that a building permit was required for excavation of said
manure pond. A copy of the report of the Building Department is attached hereto as Exhibit
"E"
23. On October 10, 1997 the Defendant Hirsch submitted to the Department of
Planning Services an application for a building permit. A copy of the application is attached
hereto as Exhibit "F".
24. Said building permit has not been issued by the Weld County Department of
Planning Services as the USR Resolution provided on Page 5 at Paragraph 4'The special
review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on the
property until the Special Review plat is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld
County Clerk and Recorder."
25. The Special Review plat has not been submitted nor is the same ready to be
recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder.
26. Despite the plain language of the USR Resolution, the Defendant Hirsch has
been conducting the Special Review activity on site.
27. Despite the plain language of the USR Resolution, the Defendant Hirsch
proceeded with construction of the new manure pond.
28. Construction of the new manure pond was completed on or about October
24, 1997, even though a building permit had not been issued and the same had not been
approved by the Defendant Commissioners
29. Contrary to preliminary plans, drafts, and the September 29 plan, the new
manure pond was constructed in a different location and a different size without a building
permit.
30. At no time did the Defendants Hirsch or Paragon inform the Defendant
Commissioners, the Weld County Department of Health, or Colorado Department of Health
that the new manure pond had been constructed, that the same had been constructed
without a building permit, nor did said Defendants inform these entities that the new
manure pond was not constructed in accordance with the plans as submitted.
31. In fact and in truth, at the public hearing held on November 5, 1997 the
Defendant Hirsch and Defendant Paragon failed to disclose and intentionally concealed
F:1KFL\LI ND1HI RSCHIRAUH.COM
4
that the new manure lagoon had been constructed, had been constructed without permits
and had not been constructed in accordance with the submitted plans.
32. The Defendant Hirsch and Defendant Paragon concealed and failed to
disclose such construction and plans despite the fact that the Defendant Paragon had
prepared new plans prior to October 9, 1997. Those new plans did show the new manure
pond in the location and vicinity of borings B-1 and B-2 despite the fact that boring B-2 had
never had proper falling head permeability tests performed on the soils.
33. The Plaintiffs have an identified and known easement over, across and
through the Defendant Hirsch's property which provides for delivery of water from The
Smith Lateral to Plaintiffs property. Such existing pipeline (and prior pipeline) and
easement have been installed and used in excess of fifty years and constitute a vested
right which cannot be changed without Plaintiffs permission.
34. The October plan and construction activities did destroy said water delivery
pipeline located within said easement located upon the Hirsch property, said easement
being owned by the Plaintiffs. In fact, the pipeline and easement were destroyed before
Plaintiffs were notified of the new manure pond plans.
35. The Defendants Hirsch and Paragon further concealed and failed to disclose
to the Defendant Commissioners, the Colorado Department of Health and Weld County
Department of Health the fact that the lagoon had been constructed in the vicinity of boring
B-2 and the fact that said Defendants had caused the destruction of the water delivery
pipeline and easement.
36. A copy of a letter dated October 9, 1997 from John H. Chilson, attorney for
the Defendant Hirsch and a drawing prepared by the Defendant Paragon of the new East
manure pond is attached hereto as Exhibit "G". This letter was received by Plaintiffs after
the pipeline and easement had been destroyed.
37. The Plaintiffs did not receive said October 9, 1997 letter and plan (Exhibit
"G") until on or about October 14, 1997. The Plaintiffs placed several phone calls to John
H. Chilson, attorney, in an attempt to inform Mr. Chilson that said Plaintiffs did not consent
to or approve of the proposed by-pass, destruction of the existing pipeline and easement.
38. The Defendants Hirsch and Paragon were specifically aware of the easement
and pipeline and even went so far as to state in said October 9, 1997 letter (Exhibit "G")
"Hirsch Dairy fully recognizes your easement and has no intention of interfering with it." The
pipeline has been destroyed which constitutes destruction and interference with the
easement and pipeline.
FAKFL\LI ND\HI RSCH\RAUH.COM
5
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Trespass -Defendants Hirsch and Paragon)
39. Paragraphs 1 through 38 hereinabove are incorporated by reference.
40. The Defendant Hirsch, under the direction and supervision of the Defendant
Paragon, have trespassed upon the easement of the Plaintiffs.
41. Such trespass upon the easement has materially interfered with the
easement, intent of the easement, and operation of the pipeline located within said
easement. In fact, the trespass has destroyed the pipeline of the Plaintiffs.
42. The Plaintiffs have been damaged thereof and pray for relief as requested
hereinbelow.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Negligence -Defendants Hirsch and Paragon)
43. Paragraphs 1 through 42 hereinabove are incorporated by reference.
44. The Defendants Hirsch and Paragon owed a duty of care to Plaintiffs. Said
Defendants Hirsch and Paragon breached their duty when they destroyed the water
pipeline, failed to recognize the easement and interfered with said easement in light of the
fact that said Defendants knew of the existence of the easement and pipeline long before
commencing construction. Defendants further breached their duty of care by failing to
guard the Plaintiffs against the loss of the pipeline located within Plaintiffs easement.
45. Said Defendant's breach of duty is the proximate cause of Plaintiffs
damages.
46. The acts of the Defendants Hirsch and Paragon were negligent.
47. The Plaintiffs have been damaged thereof and pray for relief as requested
hereinbelow.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Reckless Conduct -Defendants Hirsch and Paragon)
48. Paragraphs 1 through 47 hereinabove are incorporated by reference.
49. As the Defendants Hirsch and Paragon knew of the existence of the
easement and pipeline, their acts in destroying the pipeline and interfering with the
easement were done in a wilful and wanton and reckless manner with the intent to destroy
the pipeline and cause damages to Plaintiff.
F: KFL\LIN0\HIRSCHIRAUH.00M
6
50. The Plaintiffs have been damaged thereof and pray for relief as requested
hereinbelow.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Intentional Destruction of Private Property -Defendants Hirsch and Paragon)
51. Paragraphs 1 through 50 hereinabove are incorporated by reference.
52. The Defendants Hirsch and Paragon have intentionally destroyed the private
property of the Plaintiff, namely the pipeline.
53. Said pipeline is the private property of the Plaintiffs.
54. The Plaintiffs have been damaged thereof and pray for relief as requested
hereinbelow.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Fraud, Deceit and Negligent Misrepresentation -Defendants Hirsch and Paragon))
55. Paragraphs 1 through 54 hereinabove are incorporated by reference.
56. The Defendants Hirsch and Paragon knowingly and intentionally provided
and submitted false information as has been described previously in this Complaint to
regulatory authorities including but not limited to the Weld County Department of Health,
Weld County Department of Planning Services, Colorado Department of Health and the
Defendant Commissioners.
57. The information misrepresented was material.
58. The Defendants Hirsch and Paragon made the representations knowing them
to be false.
59. The Defendants Hirsch and Paragon made the representations with the intent
that Plaintiffs and others would act or fail to act in reliance on such representations.
60. The Plaintiffs had reviewed Figures 3 and 4 in both the September 18th and
September 29`" plans, relied on representations made by Paragon and Hirsch, and then
acted or failed to act to their detriment.
61. Plaintiffs reliance was justified as the September 18'" and September 29t
plans had been submitted to State and County officials for the purpose of public hearing
and to allow the Plaintiff Hirsch to receive approval for construction of the new manure
pond and to conduct the Special Review activity upon the subject property. Plaintiffs
reliance on the misrepresentation caused damage to Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs are entitled
F:KFL\UND\HIRSCMRAUH.COM
to injunctive relief, restoration of the easement and pipeline, restitution, monetary damages
and punitive damages and pray for relief as requested hereinbelow.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Conspiracy to Defraud -Defendants Hirsch, Paragon and John Doe's 1 through 5))
62. Paragraphs 1 through 61 hereinabove are incorporated by reference.
63. The Defendants Paragon and Hirsch, along with John Doe's 1 through 5
(possibly being legal counsel, financial representatives, contractors, and others), upon
information and belief, did unlawfully and illegally engage in a conspiracy and/or a joint
scheme.
64. The object of this conspiracy and/or joint scheme was to divest through fraud
deceit and/or misrepresentation the property and vested rights belonging to Plaintiffs.
65. Said Defendants agreed to, and did in fact take such concerted action to
effect the conspiracy and/or joint scheme.
66. Such conspiracy is further evidenced by the fact that these named
Defendants intentionally provided inaccurate plans and drawings to State and County
officials, intentionally failed to disclose any changes in plans, did construct the new manure
pond without proper permits or authority, and did not notify Plaintiffs of the "plans" until
after the pipeline and easement had been destroyed.
67. The Plaintiffs have been damaged thereof and pray for relief as requested
hereinbelow.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Conspiracy to Commit a Tort -Defendants Hirsch, Paragon
and John Doe's 1 through 5)
68. Paragraphs 1 through 67 hereinabove are incorporated by reference.
69. The Defendants Hirsch, Paragon and John Doe's 1 through 5 consciously
conspired and deliberately pursued a common plan or design to commit tortious acts
against the Plaintiffs.
70. The Plaintiffs suffered damages as a result of said Defendant's conspiracy
to commit tortious acts against the Plaintiffs.
71. Pursuant to C.R.S. 13-21-111.5, the Defendants Hirsch, Paragon and John
Doe's 1 through 5 are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiffs for their damages as
caused by said Defendants conspiracy to commit tortious acts against the Plaintiffs.
F:\KFL\LI ND\HI RSCH\RAU H. COM
8
72. The Plaintiffs have been damaged thereof and pray for relief as requested
hereinbelow.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Outrageous Conduct -Defendants Paragon, Hirsch and John Doe's 1 through 5)
73. Paragraphs 1 through 72 hereinabove are incorporated by reference.
74. The acts of the Defendants Paragon, Hirsch and John Doe's 1 through 5
were done wilfully, maliciously, in a reckless manner and with full knowledge of the location
of the easement and property owned by the Plaintiffs.
75. The malicious acts of the Defendants, as previously described in this
Complaint, were done with the intent to deceive, humiliate, and cause damage to the
Plaintiffs.
76. The Plaintiffs have been damaged thereof and pray for relief as requested
hereinbelow.
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Injunctive Relief -Defendant Hirsch)
77. Paragraphs 1 through 76 hereinabove are incorporated by reference.
78. The Plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction against the Defendant Hirsch
requiring said Defendant to re-establish the easement and install in the same location,
same depth, of similar quality material, same size and grade, the pipeline which Defendant
Hirsch and the other Defendants destroyed.
79. The Plaintiffs did not provide permission of any type to the Defendant Hirsch
or other Defendants to remove or destroy the pipeline nor to interfere with the long
established easement, all being vested rights of the Plaintiff.
80. The Plaintiffs are further entitled to injunctive relief to require removal of soil
and materials located on top of the easement which substantially interfere with
maintenance, repair and replacement of the easement and water delivery pipeline.
81. The Plaintiffs are also entitled to injunctive relief against the Defendant Hirsch
prohibiting said Defendant from using the new manure pond as constructed until the
pipeline and easement are replaced. If the new manure pond is used, installation of the
pipeline and re-establishment of the easement will be impossible as said pond will fill with
manure and other waste materials.
F:KFL\LIND\HI RSCH\RAUH. COM
9
82. The Plaintiffs have been damaged thereof and pray for relief as requested
hereinbelow.
TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Punitive Damages- Defendants Hirsch, Paragon and John Doe's 1 through 5)
83. Paragraphs 1 through 82 hereinabove are incorporated by reference.
84. The injuries suffered by the Plaintiff which were caused by the Defendants
Hirsch, Paragon and John Doe's 1 through 5 were attended by the circumstances of fraud,
malice or wilful and wanton conduct.
85. Pursuant to statute, the Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages for such
conduct.
ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Injunctive Relief -Defendant Board of County Commissioners)
86. Paragraphs 1 through 85 hereinabove are incorporated by reference.
87. Plaintiffs have been informed that the Weld County Department of Planning
Services has prepared a building permit for the new manure pond but are holding the same
until the Defendant Commissioners authorize issuance of said permit.
88. As stated hereinabove at Paragraph 18, the Weld County Department of
Health is recommending approval of the September 29 plan despite the fact that the new
manure pond has not been constructed in accordance with proposed plans, the fact that
the pond has been constructed in the vicinity of boring B-2 for which no falling head
permeability tests have been performed, and also in spite of the fact that construction of
the lagoon has totally interfered with Plaintiffs' easement and destroyed the water delivery
pipeline.
89. Another public hearing concerning the Manure and Wastewater Management
Plan is scheduled for November 19, 1997 before the Defendant Commissioners.
90. Approval of the plan by the Defendant Commissioners would result in the
issuance of the building permit, and ratification and approval of the new manure pond in
spite of the fact that the new manure pond has totally interfered with Plaintiffs easement
and destroyed the water delivery pipeline.
91. If the Defendant Commissioners approve the September 29 plan, including
the new manure pond, the building permit will be issued. Such approval also constitutes
an approval of the destruction of the pipeline and interference of the easement such that
the Plaintiffs would not have an adequate remedy at law and the Plaintiffs would suffer
immediate, real and irreparable injury.
F:\KFULIND\HIRSCH\RAUH. COM
10
92. The Plaintiffs have been damaged thereof and pray for relief as requested
hereinbelow.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray for relief and against the Defendants as follows:
I. As against the Defendants Hirsch, Paragon and John Doe's 1 through 5:
a. An award of actual damages and interest, including pre and post
judgment interest, in an amount to be proven at trial;
b. Punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial due to the
reckless conduct, outrageous conduct, conspiracies, fraud, malice,
and wilful and wanton acts of said Defendants;
c. All costs and attorney fees incurred in this matter in an amount to be
shown at trial and such costs and attorney fees as allowed due to the
trespass; fraud, misrepresentation and deceit of said Defendants;
their reckless conduct; conspiracies; intentional destruction of private
property and their outrageous conduct. All of these acts were
attenuated by circumstances of fraud, malice and/or wilful and wanton
conduct;
d. Preliminary, permanent and mandatory injunctions requiring said
Defendants to reinstall the water delivery pipeline in the same
location, of similar material, the same size, the same gradient and
same depths as prior to its destruction;
e. A preliminary, permanent and mandatory injunction requiring said
Defendants to remove dirt and other materials placed on top of
Plaintiffs easement;
f. A temporary restraining order, preliminary, and permanent injunction
prohibiting said Defendants from using the new manure pond until
Plaintiffs easement and pipeline are reinstalled and restored;
A temporary restraining order, preliminary, and permanent injunction
ordering said Defendants not to further interfere in any way or manner
with Plaintiffs easement or pipeline; and
h. For such other and further relief deemed just and appropriate by this
Court.
g.
F:\KFL\LINO\HI RSCH\RAUH.00M
11
II. As to the Defendant Board of County Commissioners:
a. A temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunction
against the Defendant Commissioners prohibiting them from
approving the September 29 Manure and Wastewater Treatment Plan
which includes the new manure pond as constructed; prohibiting said
Defendant from authorizing building permits for said new manure
pond; and
b. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Dated: November 14, 1997
LIND, LAWRENCE & OTTENHOFF, LLP
Plaintiffs Names and Addresses:
Daniel J. Rauh and Wendy L. Rauh
11570 WCR 78
Eaton, CO 80615
F1KFL\LIND\H IRSCH\RAUH.COM
ci
Attorney fo laintiffs
1011 11th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
(970) 353-2323
12
H. 0 en off #209
1lerracon
ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
10625 west I-70 Frontage Roao Norm
Suite 3
Wheat Riooa. Colomoo K,033
(3031-23-77CC Fat .333) :23.77:3
Bonn F Hamra+. PE.
Davie M. Rau. PE
Thomas A Harp
Brick Smrtn. PE.
Garry V. Wooaman. A.I.A.
SENT VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
Certified Number P 566 145 281
April 30, 1997
Mr. Victor Sainz, P.E.
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
Mail Code: HMWMD-FS-82
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, Colorado 80222-1530
RE: Stormwater Conveyance/Drainage Plan
Hirsch Dairy
Severance, Colorado
Project Number 43935049
Dear Mr. Sainz:
C--- ' t A"71
MAY 62 1997• (�)!
The purpose of this letter is to present the proposed stormwater conveyance/drainage
plan for the above -referenced site pursuant to agreements made during our meeting of
December 20, 1996 at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
(COPHE). This letter also serves as a proposal to the Weld County Planning and Health
Departments to implement the changes discussed herein.
Offices of The Tetracon Companies. Inc Emuenmental Engineers and Serenest.
Anzona ■ Arkansas I Colorado I 'aano • Minors • Iowa I 'canes ■ Minnesota
Missoun U Montana I senses S Nevada I Oklahoma I Tennessee ■ Texas ■ Utan ■ M'ommg
QUALITY ENGINEERING SINCE 1965
EXHIBIT "A"
Mr. Victor Sainz, P.EJColorado Department of Public Health and Environment Terracon
Project Number 43935049
April 30, 1997
Page 2
STORMWATER CONVEYANCE
A diagram of the proposed drainage and retention plan for the site is enclosed with this
letter as Figure 1. The figure is based on a topographic survey of the site completed in
March 1997 by Landstar Surveying of Loveland, Colorado. The approximate direction of
surface water/ditch water drainage is shown by direction arrows on Figure 1. As seen
from Figure 1, stormwater from the existing dairy corral area west of the Smith lateral
Ditch will flow though the existing corrals area to the existing retention pond. Future
corrals (north of existing corrals and west of the Smith Lateral Ditch), if constructed, will be
filled and graded to drain to the existing retention pond.
Stormwater from the corral and commodities area east of the Smith Lateral Ditch will drain
to the west into a diversion ditch constructed along the east side of the Smith Lateral
ditch. The diversion ditch will direct flow to the south and into a proposed stormwater
retention pond which will be sized to contain the 24 -hour, 25 -year storm for the drainage
area. The diversion ditch will also be sized to carry the 24 -hour, 25 -year storm. The ditch
and future retention pond will be tested for compaction to confirm permeability
requirements. The compaction requirement will be based on permeability testing which
has been performed on soil samples collected from the vicinity of the ditch and the
proposed retention pond. The proposed stormwater retention pond represents a change
from previous plans submitted to the Weld County Planning and Health Departments.
PROCESS WATER CONVEYANCE
As seen from Figure 1, process water and stormwater stored in the existing retention pond
will be pumped from the pond to an irrigation header located in the north central portion of
site, just west of the Smith Lateral Ditch. Pumping will occur via a buried pipeline which
has been installed at the site. From the irrigation header, process water can be directed
to the north, south or west along header pipes such that the fields to the west of the Smith
Lateral Ditch and north of the Dairy can be flood irrigated. Natural drainage patterns will
direct the majority of unconsumed process tailwater towards the proposed tailwater pond
to be installed in the west central portion of the property. The remainder of the
unconsumed process tailwater will be captured by drainage/diversion ditches which have
been installed along the north and west boundaries of the property and will be directed to
the proposed tailwater pond. The tailwater pond will operate in two (2) modes: a pass -
through mode when irrigation is occurring with ditch water, and, a detention mode when
irrigation is occurring with process water. The detained process water will be pumped
back to the retention pond. A portion of the buried tailwater return line has been installed
at the site. It is our understanding that the tailwater pond will not be required to meet the
Mr. Victor Sainz, P.E./Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
Project Number 43935049
April 30, 1997
Page 3
Terracon
maximum permeability of 1x104 cm/sec requirement since it is anticipated that it will be a
flow -through pond.
As noted on Figure 1, cultivated areas to the east of the Smith Lateral Ditch will not be
irrigated with process water. Also, the area to the southwest of the existing retention pond
will not be irrigated with process water.
REVISION TO EXISTING RETENTION SYSTEM
As shown on Figure 1, approximately 130 feet of the northwest corner of the existing
retention pond is proposed to be filled. It is Terracon's opinion that this action is in
general accordance with Hirsch Dairy's discussion with the Weld County Commissioners
that process water be stored farther away from County Road 23. As well, this action will
negate the need for the coffer dam across the pond which was proposed in Terracon's
letter to COPHE dated March 17, 1997. Also, potential problems with regard to the
expense, maintenance and sealing of the coffer dam, as well as constructability issues
with regard to potentially breaking the existing seal of the pond; will be eliminated if a
portion of the pond is filled. The amount of fill shown on Figure 1 is based on preliminary
calculations which include a reduction of the capacity requirement based on installing the
proposed stormwater retention pond east of the Smith Lateral Ditch; adding the 24 -hour,
25 -year stormwater runoff from the additional area of the proposed future corrals; current
water usage based on meter readings from the meter installed in the milking barn in
January 1997 and scaled to a projected capacity of 2,000 cows; and the current capacity
of the pond based on the new topographic survey.
REWORKING SOUTH EMBANKMENT OF EXISTING POND
With regard to re -working the southern edge of the pond embankment, it is anticipated
that borrow material from the bottom of the existing pond will be mixed with existing
embankment material to conform to the 1 x 104 cm/sec permeability requirement. Since
Terracon's March 17, 1997 letter, permeability testing has been performed on soil mixes
blended from soil samples which were collected from both the embankment and from the
bottom of the pond. A mix of four (4) parts embankment material to one (1) part bottom
material will yield a permeability of 2.19 x 10'7 cm/sec when compacted to 95.7 percent
compaction with a moisture content of 15.2% moisture. A copy of the falling -head
permeability test results for this mixture is enclosed for your review. A Terracon field
technician will be on -site during construction activities to document in -place compaction -
density testing. The frequency of the compaction tests will be one (1) test per 50 linear
feet. A record of the compaction tests will be submitted to COPHE and Weld County as
part of the project documents. As we discussed in our meeting, we anticipate that this
Mr. Victor Sainz, P.E./Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Terracon
Project Number 43935049
April 30, 1997
Page 4
work should be completed by May 20, 1997, assuming that there are no significant
weather interferences. However, on April 28, 1997, the contractor scheduled to perform
the work suffered a broken leg. Depending on whether the contractor has available
personnel to perform the work or if a new contractor will be required, Hirsch Dairy may
require an extension of time to complete the work. If an extension is required, Hirsch
Dairy will notify COPHE and Weld County.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. We appreciate your
cooperation in this matter. -
Sincerely,
TERRACON ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
64/ S714E-
Brick Smith, P.E.
Senior Project Engineer
3S/OMR:bst/kar3
David M. Rau, P.E.
Principal Engineer
enclosures: Figure 1 - Drainage and Retention Plan
Permeability test results for 4:1 mixture
cc: Mr. Trevor Jiricek/Weld County Health Department
Mr. Robert Shukie, Section Chief, Permits and Enforcement/C0PHE
Mr. Derald Lang, Unit Leader, Field Services/COPHE
Mr. J. David Halm, Director, Water Quality Control Division/COPHE
Mr. Jacob Hirsch/Hirsch Dairy
Mr. John Chilson, Esq.
Mr. Todd Hodges/Weld County Planning Department
(DENVER)N:IPROJECTSt439350491WP170430VS.L T R
RIALS
-xj
)aUA IE
7794 CP
1 7M, NA TEN
M PIE
NIURE COa7Ats
GRADE MO ORAM
10 REVELATION POW
FU REMOTER .
Pd.O
917.14 raw
a I
r MCA ILL Nb7
' eE MR7CARD Mn'
PROCESS RAIER
7N
1 MACE
WIN
IP
AREA ML NOT ..•
6E 0MICATEO MM ..
PROCESS NAIER - yr
E —
Y ROAD 23 E
COUNT
L
0 200 400
APPROMEE 9M12
1 in = 200 ft
O%EMCAO Pow; LME
Hirsch Dairy
11283 Weld County Road 78
Eaton, Colorado
Figure 3 Drainage and Retention Plan
P..t e.r
as
o. en tor
99
e.. -M
PAT
'Q SS Mt
DMR/9S
AP...e k
PARAGON
Consulting Group
bwireamenfal ERloerre
and Scientists
1600 ReAbertl
P.en -
109707S
As Then
M Me
490RIYX
owe
09/97
SSW Sr
f rL Collin,.. l.'olnrsi° ML775
EXHIBIT "B"
CO
CO "oj
-C
U O
„,
uV U4
et �z
aCO
m c
CO
EXHIBIT "C"
EXHIBIT "D"
1 Terracon
SENT VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
Certified Number P 273 932 193
March 17, 1997
Mr. Victor Sainz, P.E.
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
Mail Code: HMWMD-FS-B2
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, Colorado 80222-1530
RE: Retention Pond Revisions and QA.'QC Plan.
Hirsch Dairy
Severance, Colorado
Project Number 43935049
ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
10625 West 1-70 Frontage Roaa Norm
Suite 3
wheat Riage. Coloraa° 80033
(3031423-3300 Fax: 1303, 423-'_353
Jonn F. rlarrwelt. PE.
0av,d M. Rau. PE:
Thomas A. Harp
Snot Sown. P E.
Garry V. Woodman. A.LA.
Dear Mr. Sainz:
The purpose of this letter is to present the plan for revisions to the existing retention pond
at the above -referenced site as well as quality assurance/quality control methodologies
which will be employed during reconstruction activities. We have also included discussion
on an additional retention pond which may be installed at the site; irrigation improvements
and a tailwat-; pond; and other activities performed at the site. This letter is being
submitted pursuant to agreements made during our meeting of December 20, 1996 at the
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (C0PHE).
During the meeting, it was agreed that the southern portion of the on -site retention pond
embankment would be reworked to meet the maximum permeability requirement of 1x10"
centimeters per second (cm/sec) as described in the Combined Animal Feeding
Operations and Control (CAFO) Regulation. To facilitate this process and to comply with
ether agreements relative to the location of process water in the retention pond (made
during Weld County Commission hearings), a coffer dam will be constructed across the
pond in a north -south direction. The western side of the pond will drained and allowed to
dry. Control and overfill structures will be installed within the coffer dam to allow for
overflow in the event of a significant storm event such that the capacity of the pond will be
maintained as required by the CAFO regulation.
With regard to re -working the southern edge of the' pond embankment, it is anticipated
that borrow material from the bottom of the existing pond will be mixed -.1th existin
embankment material to conform to the 1 x 10` cTti_JJ permeability reguirer:ent. ' Scii
Commutes. Inc. Etmrenmentai Engine's and Sdwasts
OMee of The Tarteaan S ;dano ■ :tams II:owe ■ Kansas: l Minnesota
Anoxia I ArlafrS Calmat) • cklaroma I Tennessee I Texas ■ Utan ■ 'Nyoming
PAlssoun I Montana IINea23xa / Ye vaaa
QUALITY ENGINEERING SINCE 1965
Mr. Victor Sainz, P.E./Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
Terracon
Project Number 43935049
March 17, 1997
Page 2
samples have been collected from the embankment and bottom of the pond to establish
mix design and develop a QA/QC plan to meet the permeability requirement. Physical
testing of these soil samples is on -going at this time. Currently, it is anticipated that a mix
ranging from approximately 4:1 (embankment:borrow) to 2:1 will be required. Various
blends are currently being mixed, compacted and tested for permeability. A. Terracon field
technician will be on -site during construction activities to document in -place compaction -
density testing. The frequency of the compaction tests will be one (1) test per 50 linear
feet. A record of the compaction tests will be submitted to COPHE and Weld County as
part of the project documents. As we discussed in our meeting, we anticipate that this
work should be completed by May 20, 1997, assuming that there are no significant
weather interferences.
Because a second retention pond is to be constructed on the southeastern side of the
dairy, the CAFQ-required capacity of the existing retention pond will actually ba less than
that currently required. It is anticipated that the second pond shall be designed to accept
run-off from the dairy areas located on the east side of the Smith Lateral ditch. We
believe that a crossing of the Smith Lateral ditch will no longer be necessary. As
discussed in our December 1996 meeting, a storm water conveyance plan will be
submitted to the CDPHE in April 1997. Soil borings have been copto establish lletinthe
c ni y of
the proposed pond and drainage system to classify soil types
methods for construction. Soil samples collected from these areas have indicated that
native-scil permeabilities in the range 10$ to 10-7 cm/sec can be achieved at compactions
o y tcti
,. b
of approximately 95 percent standard proctor. Copies of preliminary
permeability test
results are enclosed with this letter for your review. A Terracon field technician will be on -
site during construction activities to document in -place compaction -density testing. A
record of the compaction tests will be submitted to COPHE and Weld County as part of the
project documents.
Hirsch Dairy is also in the process of improving the irrigation system at the site. Initial
construction of a process -water line from the retention pond to an irrigation header has
begun. The irrigation header will allow the Hirsch dairy to distribute irrigation water on the
property. A tailwater pond will be constructed along the northwest boundary of the dairy
property to accept un-consumed irrigation water. A process -water line is also being
installed from the tailwater pond back to the retention pond such that the excess process -
water from the retention pond will return to the retention pond. The tailwater pond wiii
operate in two (2) modes: a pass -through mode when irrigation is occurring with ditch
water; and, a detention mode when irrigation is occurring with process water. The
detained process water will be pumped back to the retention pond. It is our understanding
Mr. Victor Sainz, P.E./Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Terracon
Project Number 43935049
March 17, 1997
Page 3
that the tailwater pond will not be required to meet the maximum permeability of 1x10'e
cm/sec requirement since it is anticipated that it will be a flow -through pond.
Other activities that have occurred at the site since our December 1996 meeting have
included initiating a topographic survey of the site to be utilized in preparing a grading and
drainage plan; and installation of three (3) groundwater monitoring wells around the
existing retention pond which will be used to document groundwater elevations in relation
to the water levels in the retention pond and which can also be used to -collect'.
groundwater samples.
If you have any questions, please do nct hesitate to contact us. We appreciate your
cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
TERRACON ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
Brick Smith, P.E.
Senior Project Engineer
OMR/85:bsl/ka2
David M. Rau, P.E.
Principal Engineer
enclosures: preliminary permeability test results
cc: Mr. Trevor JiricekJWeld County Health Department
Mr. Robert Shukle, Section Chief, Permits and Enforcement/C0PHE
Mr. Derald Lang, Unit Leader, Field Services/C0PHE
Mr. J. David Holm, Director, Water Quality Control Division/CDPHE
Mr. Jacob Hirsch/Hirsch Dairy
Mr. John Chilson, Esq.
pENVER )N:',P ROJ ECT514393504MP170317VS.LTR
11/13/97 11:45 FAX
.Ti ,Y..,, ��j�y�,�,,yy , ,e
y x... Ja t t . ya ,' '441 \ i Gi •.sc y .
.C •sue '2�'3��.�.
h . rZ i'�^✓ v. � .irv��• ��JL.. i
ail-'••;'•AIY
•sT tl �. is ,v''cco ,:
, .. . •1 •555..7, 1.:-4 .
'J
•
•
Etzsit
erak
r?'v
_ .•:.:a_x.:�
••19 1 •
• .October 30, 1997
_iEP31RTMENT OF Bi5ILDlas'G ]NSPECTI0N '
,:.....
•4 a . PsoNE (9 �oj3s ion; ncr= s f
% :' WE•L Cat. ADhII IRA . OFFICE,S ..
14U0 N,11 AVEt'TtJE
`•LEY, COLORADO' S ISl -
Jacob W. Hirsch III
38446 WCR 23
Earn, CO 80615
Subject VI -9700194, Legal Description: SW4/S2NW4 of Section 24, Township 7N, Range 67
(5R)
Dear Mr. Fusel;
It has come to the attention of the Department of Building Inspection staff that a retention pond has
been excavated on the above described property without first obtaining appropriate building pcmmits.
One of our building inspectors, Jeff Reif, stopped by and visited with the dairy manger on October
10, 1997. At that time he informed him. that a permit was needed.
Please call me within five working days of the date of this letter to review the concerns with me.
ave S
Lead Inspector
EXHIBIT "E"
saVta.T 4 lo4K Mtanv. QUM1Il
11/13/91
PROPERTY OWNER
MAILING ADDRESS
JOB SITE ADDRESS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION_
OR SUBDIVISION
EXHIBIT "F"
P-7
Sr4 AA
PLOT PLANS REQUIRED FOR ALL STRUCTURES
PHONE
t5/yn^ //7/.1
SEC.
G
.N. R_
BLOCK
LOT
T
-W 1
E U0_
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
WELD COUNTY BUILDING INSPECTION
1400 NORTH 17TH AVENUE
GREELEY. CO 80631
19701-353-6100 EXT. 3521
DISTANCE FROM LOT LINES
N S E -
w
GENERAL CONTRACTOR
MAILING ADDRESS
104 PHONE
MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR
ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR
PLUMBING CONTRACTOR
PURPOSE FOR PERMIT
❑ NEW BUILDING
C AOOITION
❑ REMODEL
❑ REPAIR/REPLACEMENT
❑ ELECTRICAL
❑ MOVE -IN > I•E
•THER J� ~
MAILING ADDRESS
MAILING ADDRESS
MAILING ADDRESS
TYPE OF PROJECT
O DWELLING
O PRIVATE
O ATTA 0 DETACHED
❑ SIN O 2 CAR -I-
• C GARAGE
❑ ORAGE SHED
O OTHER
HEIGHT OF BUILDING: -
CARPORT SIZE: - X
NUMBER OF BEDRO•
BATHROO • ' LL- - 3/4: /2:
TO ND AREA:
❑ SINGLE FAMILY
Al OF S
0 TWO OR MORE FAMILY
TYPE OF SEWAGE:
a PUBUC-NAME:
0 PRIVATE
PERM
P- . TEST DATE:
•
SQUARE FOOTAGE
MAIN LEVEL:
2ND LEVEL
FOUNDATION:
CRAWLSPACE:
BSMNT FINISHED:
BSMNT UNFINISHED:
GARAGE: —
OTHER: —
O PUBLIC -NAM
0 PRIVATE
PERMIT 4:
IDS
IDS
PHONE
PHONE
IDS PHONE
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION TYPE OF FOUNDATION
❑ WOOD FRAME C BASEMENT
❑ STRUCTU- EEL ❑ FINISHED -SF:
C MA . ( ❑ UNFI SF:
.-NFORCED CONCRETE 0 0 SLAB SPAC..
C BRICK VENEER OTHER 0 CAISSONS
O POLE FRAME ❑ OTHER �-
❑ __
OF FIREPLACEMASONRY: _0 -CLEARANCE: -GAS LOG: —
PATIO: 1ST SI .-X- 2ND SIZE: -X-- COVERED: C YES CI NO
DECK: 1STS' : -2ND SI
PLOT PLAN 0 ;LE: ■ • LUEPRINT ON FILE OYES C NO EST
DRIVEWAY ACCESS: a EXISTING 0 NEW — CNORTH MOUTH CEAST CW
❑ MOTEUHOTEL S OF UNITS 0 OTHER
TYPE OF HEAT:
O NAT GAS -NAME.
0 PROPANE -NAM -
O + -, .i AME:
• OTHER
ELECTRICA
SIZE OF SVC: -- AMPS
CALCULATIONS:
❑ CONSTRUCTION METER NEEDED
VALUE S y9C) BUILDING FEE s
• • NOT TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING ?SUS IN THE ABOVE PRICE"
ELECTRICAL COSTS S
CONSTRUCTION METER: O YES 0 NO
PLAN CHECK: O YES ONO
OTHER
RECEIPT s
PLEASE ADD ANY *DOI ONAL INFORMATION THAT IS NOT COVERED IN: OVE APPLICATION
t/
FEE S
FEE s
FEE S
FEES
TOTAL FEES 3
one
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT
O
DATE ?al
JOHN H. CHILSON
Attorney At Law
6610 Chokecherry Drive
Loveland, Colorado 80537
303-667-3214
October 9, 1997
Dan and Wendy Rauh
11570 Weld Co. Road 78
Eaton, CO 80615
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Rauh;
My client, Hirsch Dairy, is in the process of con-
structing a holding pond as part of its drainage control
plan. The location of this wpatial
pond is partially on an ease-
ment serving your property
In order to protect your pipeline and not interfere
with the working purpose of your easement,
irsche holdy
-
ing hired engineers to design a bypass around
pond which will maintain the same gradient and flow
capacity. A copy of this design drawing is enclosed with
this letter. Should you have any specific questions about
the engineering design or the functional operation of your
line after bypass installation, please contact Mr. Dave
Rau at the engineering firm shown on the enclosed design
drawing.
Hirsch Dairy fully recognizes your easement
and
has
no intention of interfering with it. If any problems
arise in the future with the operation of this bypass,
Hirsch Dairy will correct the same.
Truly yours,
��-
John H. Chilson
cc: Hirsch Dairy
EXHIBIT "G"
Hello