HomeMy WebLinkAbout982620.tiff R O P = -1NC. Weld County Planning Dept.
!PP VIIIIFF G ni i 199$
rio ,CeR IVELI
"Crop Care By Air"
To Whom it May Concern:
This correspondence is in response to the notice that we received from your office that was dated
September 14, 1998, regarding case number Z-516.
My company is engaged in the business of aerial application of crop protection products in Weld,
Larimer and Morgan counties. We have been operating continuously from our current location of 21532
Weld County Road 72 since 1980. The airstrip that we own and fly from has existed since approximately
1946. We intend to continue to operate this aerial application service for the forseeable future. Our
company employs six full time employees.
We are opposed to the change of zoning proposal on the property adjacent to ours. We do not
have anything personally against the Sutters. In fact, they are customers that we serve in our business, and
they have been good to work with. We do not feel that this zoning change would be in the best interests
of either our company or other landowners in the vicinity of the Sutlers' property, as it will have a
negative impact on agriculture nearby.
We are very concerned about the high number of houses that are being built throughout the
agricultural areas in Weld County. Each new home presents the chance of people who are not
agriculturally oriented moving into the country. Many of these people do not understand what goes on in
an agricultural community to make it work. When farmers work at odd hours and their equipment makes
noise, these people complain. When these people fuid out that crops cannot be grown without the use of
crop protection products, they complain, because they do not want to be near chemicals. Each time a new
house is built in an agricultural area, a new area of buffers must be maintained by a company such as ours,
in order to protect the grower and ourselves from lawsuits that might arise if a crop protection product
should accidentally get onto someone else's property. If this rural development is not stopped soon, there
are going to be more and more acres of crops that can no longer be treated for pests by air at all, because
by the time you leave the necessary buffer zones all around, there is nothing left to spray. Our company
has given up treating thousands of acres of agricultural lands over the past ten years, especially in the Fort
Collins, Loveland, and Berthoud areas because of rural development. The risk of problems becomes too
great and the only prudent thing to do is to abandon the grower, and let him try to find some other way to
protect his crops, which is sometimes impossible for him to do. We receive noise complaints, odor
complaints, and other complaints that are almost beyond belief Many of these people want agriculture
stopped. They do not understand that almost everything they eat, drink, wear, or use comes from
agriculture, and the number of people who are actively lighting to preserve agriculture for all is much too
small to have a significant effect on educating the others.
We simply believe that measures must be taken to preserve Weld County's agricultural areas and
the people who work in agriculture before it is too late, and preventing the development of these areas for
uses other than agriculture is the best place to start. Thank you for your attention in this matter.
Sincerely,
/t
Dana Gustafson, President
Crop Air, Inc.
P.O. Box 266 Eaton, Colorado 80615 982620 (970)454-2939
-1t '1/21(k) J?,(:�z,2?c
Win,
cue— ,7LCl ' 81,--1--L-4---' (e/14,4_,.-7 S eft;-V
Lz. a�
t
-7 , ' ;44- Z.--.57 /L 7 1( ,2 J
`ti.,. et r- Til.t. <4- f ,. 1-%vt.; L. L i- t(r) )u l' t. /.
',J c V-4-1-'et ( , t R (t J-i< I ,Z' 't.l i"td t (.1t 1 L ,-/' c,"t tile(17`
*
ILL LLk_ ek'LA f o --vl-t(t ti t s -I t a cC1
1 .etid.)-(l d 11,6 c.tid_c I
- i
CQ (-LE (YC(.U -(4.1y 1 /Lem . Le jc),-L)i f Ili'1-1'•G (aItC(.
4
1,'‘..-a/ , el�� �zt', ,ct4 l
� ' �t! tics ‘).ct 6‘il A 131144
>> J
/9��n 7j tit" t
ri JA
ce i 4-f , K. C L at, .u LCn rt. //a 7 k:.,Q./S iti et' (;t
, 3
(/1- (ul-Cc,- i24 ( y-
CL 'o-y 4-t 4e,,ii ti; 1Qt it„Gdi[ (7 .1L d-7
OItitt_t-e s7ttu,-t. 4,tio4f'. 1iLkdL./. C ) QrlA( V4LA7Cl'
-t v` `� 5"-�culr L4.,. tic ,1L,,,a
4
` -1Ltd 7tCr(c K r'�
C �/ ,� L✓Il..z, ,„ ,,,
t� (f�Zt.CL-Le / l.elic/�te
Z'`Qtil vLe z--n 1. .s- 2.. l t� JdL „I . Hl LL;id� �ltt
tZ (✓ (`' pc,t. eld County Planning Dept.
0CT 16 1998
RECEIVED
_IT.,;,. ,
Avery Farms Weld County Planning
c/o: John and Jim Sutter g Dept.
800 Hawkstone Drive, #27
Eaton, CO 80615 OCT 1 9 1998
Phone: (970) 454-3322 (John)
Phone: (312) 831-2040 (Jim) 11�1ec yC�..'■
Fax: (970) 454-2594 �� VED
October 15, 1998
Ms. Sheri Lokman, Current Planner
Weld County Planning Department
1400 I!7th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Dear Ms. Lokman,
Thank you for forwarding us the letters you have received from various interested parties
with regard to the proposed Avery Acres Planned Unit Development.
We have replied to two of these letters specifically and also sent a general letter to each of
the neighboring property or mineral interest owners. We have enclosed copies of these
letters for you to read.
With regard to the Crop Air letter we believe that Mr. Gustafson may be confused as to
where exactly the lots are going to be located on the overall property. There are already
several houses closer to his airport than our houses, 2 or 3 of which have been built in the last
few years. It would be unrealistic to try to restrict our right to put our land to its highest and
best Oq while much other property in the area is doing that.
Mr. Rggstad of the Division of Wildlife makes several good points in his letter and we will
update our covenants to include his suggestions. He does suggest relocating the site of the
lots father north on our property - we believe this is not wise as it would put the various
types of land and topography to their highest and best use. The proposed site of the
homesites is not good farmland due to its western facing slope and the soils whereas the field
he proposes is much flatter and raises good crops. We will be the operators of the farm
forever,we hope, and foresee no problems with the location of the homesites. We also
believe that the future owners of these sites would prefer this location as it maximizes their
view as well as their privacy.
If you, or your colleagues at the planning department, have questions or issues with regard to
our application we would be pleased to discuss them prior to our meeting in early November.
Thanks jin advance for your help!
Si2 cere y yo
EJ. titer, I cc: Johb. Sutter "+'
.1/4,Lt4. w1, nay., J4ta W an of um lINgtalUIJ }lonn9 out w0 pan to t,ottttttu0 tanning tutu faun.
'foreveriii so that is quite important to us just as it is to yourself
Avery Farms
c/o: John and Jim Suffer
800 Hawkstone Drive, #27 1>
Eaton, CO 80615 L �
Phone: (970) 454-3322 (John)
Phone: (312) 831-2040 (Jim)
Fax: (970) 454-2594
October 12, 1998
Mr. Dana Gustafson, President
Crop Air, Inc.
P_O. Box 266
Eaton, CO 80615
Dear Mr. Gustafson,
We have received a copy of your letter addressed to "Whom it May Concern" and sent to the
Weld County Planning Department. We are concerned by your comments regarding our
proposed Planned Unit Development and would like to address them. We disagree with your
conclusion that the conversion of this marginal land to its highest and best use would be
detrimental to the adjacent landowners (including ourselves).
We want to point out that there are already at least 5, if not 7 or 8, houses that are closer to
your airport than our proposed "Avery Acres" Planned Unit Development lots will be. In fact
there are at least 2 newly built homes which are significantly closer to your runway. As
current laws/ordinances allowed these sites to be developed we are surprised you would
consider objecting to our small project quite a way south from your airport. We are not
proposing that these lots be located on the north end of our property but rather south of the
small field on the east side of our property, which is adjacent to Road #72, which leads up to
your airport. We hope that your letter is purely the result of some confusion as to where our
proposed "Avery Acres" will be located.
The world we live in keeps evolving and it is impossible to stop that. The tone of your letter
sounds a bit like we want to preserve the "good old days" and not see changes or
improvements from today onwards. We all know that won't happen - there will continue to
be more and more people living in our country and those of us involved in Agriculture will
need to learn how to co-exist with these people who are anxious to move into the country.
I'm sure the crop protection business has undergone many changes since the airfield you
presently operate from was started in 1946,just as the farming business we are involved in
has changed. The pace of the changes we are faced with in crop protection and agriculture
will likely accelerate over the coming years. The successful operators will he able to balance
their interaction with the environment, their neighbors and the markets in an acceptable
manner - if they fail in any of these areas they will be out of business. We have placed a
"right to farm" clause in the plat and this will forever ensure that we will have the right to be
agricultural producers on the land adjacent to this proposed subdivision. As the attached
letter we have sent to all of our neighbors points out we plan to continue farming this land
'forever' so that is quite important to us just as it is to yourself.
Page 2 - Letter to Crop Air, Inc.
We believe that so long as we continue to evolve with the industry, and use best practices as
they become available, that our future as agriculture producers is not threatened by the trend
towards more people moving into the traditional countryside. The people will gain a better
appreciation for the issues we are faced with and can help to strengthen the voice of
agriculture communities such as ours rather than leave our issues to the voices of the few
farmers who will be left in the future.
We have always believed that it is our right to use our property as we see fit just as it is yours.
Historically we have been supporters of the airfield operation you now operate and we would
appreciate your respect, and support, for our right to use our property as we best see fit. The
land we are planning to convert to homesites is marginal farmland and has beautiful views of
the Colorado Rockies to the west. We believe that by converting this marginal farmland to
homesites we are taking this land to its highest and best use just as you are doing with your
airfield. We strongly believe that this conversion would not have any negative impact on
either ourselves, as adjacent landowners, or other adjacent landowners so long as we all
operate our businesses in full compliance with all regulations and laws.
We would welcome the opportunity to discuss your concerns personally. Our phone numbers
are listed above and perhaps you have a regular opportunity to see my brother, John,
personally. We would hope that we could persuade you to withdraw your comments from
the County for the reasons listed above.
Sincerely yours,
Jim Sutter
cc: John Sutter
Avery Farms
c/o: John and Jim Sutter �
800 Hawkstone Drive, #27 C� � i�—
Eaton, CO 80615 /J
Phone: (970) 454-3322 (John)
Phone: (312) 831-2040 (Jim)
Fax: (970) 454-2594
October 14, 1998
Mr. Larry Rogstad, District Wildlife Manager
1528-28th Avenue Court
Greeley, CO 80631
Dear Mr. Rogstad,
We have received a copy of your letter addressed to Sheri Lockman, Planner with regard to
the Avery Farm change of zone request. Thank you for efforts and we appreciate the
thoroughness of your reply and will incorporate several of your suggestions into the
covenants.
I lowever we also note a few comments in your letter which we believe should be changed
after we provide you with some clarification. Attached to this note is a copy of the letter we
have sent to all the adjoining property owners explaining what we are doing - you will note it
explains that we plan to keep the adjoining farmland in our family "forever" and therefore we
are quite interested ourselves in seeing this subdivision turn out to be a success with no
negative impacts on the environment.
-Your letter states: "However, the alfalfa could be easily rehabilitated or plowed and planted
to alternative irrigated crop."
We have farmed this land for many years - this field is easily erodable when planted to
row crops and very difficult to irrigate due to its slope and the nature of the soils. If it was
planted to a traditional row crop then it would be very likely to have wind erosion either
during the growing season or in the windy winter season. This land is far from ideal farm
ground and we believe that it will be put to its best and highest use by allowing folks to enjoy
the beautiful views to the west and the tranquillity of the location.
-Your letter states: "Lone Tree Creek has flooded on several occasions during my seventeen
years on this district. I have seen WCR #43 in this vicinity barricaded on more than one
occasion because of high water at this site."
It should first be noted that the land we are considering for homesites is on a hillside well
above any risk of flood water. Secondly, it should be pointed out that while the Lone Tree
Creek has had some high water over the last 50 years the last major flood was in 1965, which
didn't wash out any of the bridges on WCR #43, and floods since that time may have caused a
little high water but no significant damage to the road.
-Your letter discusses the idea of moving the proposed homesites to the north boundary of the
property. This would not be the best and highest use of land as the field in the northeast
corner of the property is good agricultural land, and it does not enjoy such good views to the
west. Therefore we believe that the potential problems for the operators of the farm (which
Page 2 - Letter to Larry Rogstad, District Wildlife Manager
is ourselves -and we hope it will be that way forever)are well worth the allocation of good
farmland to farming, and good homesite land to homesites.
You also suggested that we access the proposed homesites off WCR #72 rather than WCR
#43. We also had that idea and discussed the same with representatives from the Weld
County Roads department. We learned that WCR #72 is not a fully maintained county
roadway and it was their preference that we take the access off WCR#43. We would not be
opposed to changing to the WCR#72 access and keeping the lots in their proposed location
but we do not believe that the Road department would be in favor of same.
We will amend the covenants to include the grasses and trees that you suggest. We are a hit
curious though about your comments as to not allowing Russian Olive or Siberian Elm on
this site. We are talking about a hillside and 1 can still recall from my days in 4-H of planting
a Russian Olive windbreak on a hillside north of the feedlot my family operated - we would
be interested in some more information as to why they should not be allowed on this hillside
site. Before finalizing the covenants we will contact you on this point.
Your comments with regard to livestock are very practical and we will amend the covenants
in this area, too.
We will suggest to the developers that they purchase ditchwater rights for each property. It is
sad to think that there are people who steal ditchwater but I suppose that is possible in today's
society.
Your suggestion about hometrash being "contained in raccoon proof containers" is an
excellent one and we will also amend the covenants in this regard, too.
Thanks again for your detailed comments.
Sincerely yours,
Jim Sutter
cc: John Sutter
Avery Farms
c/o: John and Jim Sutter
800 Hawkstone Drive, #27
Eaton, CO 80615 /J
Phone: (970) 454-3322 (John) 1
Phone: (312) 831-2040 (Jim)
Fax: (970) 454-2594
October 9, 1998
Dear Neighboring Landowner or Mineral Interest Holder,
In the last month you should have received a letter from the Weld County Planning
Commission that we have applied to create a PHD (planned unit development) allowing for 5
residential lots and 1 agricultural outlot on the Avery Farm.
We wanted to give you a bit more information about this project. Our plan is not to turn the
farm into a residential development. We are working with the County to get permission to
develop five 2.5 acre residential lots on the hillside at the east side of the property - this is
land which today is marginal farmland but we think would make beautiful homesites due to
its western facing slope and the mountain views. The access would be off WCR#43
utilizing a driveway north of where the old farmyard used to be.
We have been working with the Weld County Planning Department for the last year and it is
finally coming to a conclusion. The covenants which would be in force forever on these lots
require that the homesites be tastefully built and maintained, that the landscaping bring a
return to natural grasses/plants on the lots and that there be only a minimal number of
animals on each site- if any. We are calling this PUD "Avery Acres" and we want to be sure
that it is something that Grandma and Grandpa Avery would be proud of.
We also want to assure you that it is our intention to have the balance of this farm remain in
our Family forever. We see this transfer of marginal farmland to beautiful homesites as a
transfer toward highest and best use for this land. We are planning to have the ancestors of
the Avery family involved in farming in this area, in a growing way, over the coming years
and see this shift of assets as one means of accomplishing this. We believe that our ancestors
would have been in favor of this step.
If you have questions or concerns regarding this project please feel free to call either of us.
Sincerely yours,
John Sutter Jim Sutter
CITIZEN INQUIRY FORM
WELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES/BUILDING INSPECTION
1400 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, CO 80631
Phone: (970) 353-6100 Ext. 3540 Fax: (970) 352-6312
U TELEPHONE OFFICE FIRST INQUIRY? ❑ YES El NO DATE: 1 fr& Ic
NAME: ‘J\. s 1LPXj PHONE:
ADDRESS:
TYPE OF INQUIRY:
MHZP _ SKETCH PLAN MINOR SUB SKETCH PLAN
_ ZPMH _ PRELIMINARY PLAN MINOR SUB FINAL PLAT
RE _FINAL PLAT _ ZONING
_ AMENDED RE _ RESUBDIVISION - ADDRESSING
_ SE - FHDP _ BUILDING PERMIT
_ AMENDED SE _ GHDP _ SETBACKS/OFFSETS
_ SITE PLAN REVIEW - USR _ HOME OCCUPATION
REZONING _ AMENDED USR _ VIOLATION
X PUD SKETCH PLAN - USR MINING _ OTHER
X PUD DISTRICT _ USR MAJOR FACILITY
_ PUD FINAL PLAT _C USR DISPOSAL SITE
�(�STAFF PERSON: I-A-SlC (
ITEMS DISCUSSED: r / t ^ 5-( c COltaL
h.---
Mg. KA-6c:- emus- AoJ4CeN-r e2t aurti.
kMS FoLuoYufILIG 0-oxiC -AlS 1-
c S R C$IL)0,.,jl A L 1 TI'S Mc L tw7u1J ) A)
It 6C(P A 12-at km140-1 R13 f2oPcTtPy &2AINS D.
O At-50 N/} C#'C 'z jS ,3atitr L' k≤e)vteNTS
4- /L64 -5 --6/A-1 tttALI /7L eJ 4utvZ PRi>eazr f,
(jai Ate/{ He c6&At a 92%141,4z stir
f17maw I
9
Time Spent: S r^4 Staff Member's Initials:
citizen.shl
MEMORANDUM
falcitaz
Ii`P C SUBJECT: Avery Acres
Phone message from 11/3/1998
COLORADO
Mr. Bill Haydon, a mineral rights owner on the proposed site, called to go on record as opposing
the proposed PUD.
SERVICE,TEAMWORK,INTEGRITY,QUALITY
m
From: <Jim_Sutter@cargill.com>
To: NORTHDOMAIN.NORTHPOST(SLOCKMAN)
Date: 10/26/98 8:48pm
Subject: Avery Acres PUD Proposal - Case Number Z-516
Date: October 26, 1998
TO: Sherry Lockman/Current Planner
Weld County Planning Department
FM: John and James Sutter/Avery Farms
RE: Environmental Impacts 6.3.1.2 .1 of the Weld County Planned Unit
Development Ordinance - Avery Acres PUD Proposal - Case Number Z-516
Dear Sherry,
Persuant to your discussions on October 26, 1998 with John Sutter
regarding our explanations on the environmental impacts of our PUD
proposal we are sending you the following more detailed explanations.
I hope that this E-mail format is acceptable as we understand that
time is of the essence and this is the most expedient method of
getting the information to you available to us.
General: This PUD will consist of a large, non-buildable agricultural
outlot and 5 residential lots. The 15 acre site selected for the
residential lots is a part of a 197 acre farm which is higher ground
and cannot be economically irrigated. The residential lots will have
beautiful views as they slope to the west.
All residential lots will be zoned for personal residences only,
there will be covenants specifying house sizes, type of fencing,
ability to have animals, ability to park automobiles outside, and
setting minimum landscape requirements.
Environmental Impacts:
Noise and Vibration: The noise from 5 residential lots will not
impact the area adversely. The traffic noise would be very minor and
noise during construction should not be a problem as the sites are not
near existing residences. Vibration is not a concern.
Smoke, Dust and Odors: Because of the restrictive covenants which
will be in place smoke and odors should be minimal. There are
covenants which restrict the use of the properties to residential only
and also further restrict the number of livestock which may be kept on
the property. Furthermore the 2.5 acre lot size should ensure that
both the neighboring residences, and the outlot owner are not bothered
by the development.
Dust could be created by the gravel road but this will limited in
nature due the limited size of the PUD. The road's location, at the
western extreme of the residential lots which is the low point in
altitude, should ensure that the residents are not negatively impacted
Fri
by any dust. Furthermore, the return to natural vegetation on the
residential lots, and alongside the roadways, will limit the dust
generated by wind even in dry months of the year. The road traversing
the outlot will cross between 2 fields where dust will not be a
negative impact.
Heat, Light and Glare: We forsee no negative impact from heat, light
or glare to either the new residential lots nor the agricultural
outlot. The return to natural vegetation on the residential lots, and
alongside the roadways, will limit the heat being radiated from the
soil.
Visual/Aesthetic Impacts: The intent of the restrictive covenants is
to assure that the project is done in good taste and that the area
will be developed into a top-end, exceptional neighborhood. It is our
personal intent to retain ownership of the outlot forever and,
although we obviously cannot guarantee this, it will be on our minds
in the next few years while the actual development work is taking
place.
Electrical Interference: We forsee no negative impact from electrical
interference to either the new residential lots nor the agricultural
outlot.
Water Pollution: Each residential lot will be required to return the
property to native vegetation and to build a small burm to capture
run-off from rainfall. This means that less run-off will occur than
historically has when this land has been flood irrigated. The
agricultural outlot will have not change in its run-off system
although it should be noted that we have significantly reduced the
farm's run-off by the installation of a central pivot sprinkler in
recent years.
The septic systems on each residential lot will comply to ISDS
regulations and will not adversely effect groundwater supplies.
Waste Water Disposal: See previous comment on septic systems.
Wetland Removal: There is not wetland associated with this project.
Even though the lower part of the non-buildable agricultural outlot is
in a flood plain there is not wetland present.
Erosion and Sedimentation: The 15 acre site selected for the
residential lots is a part of a 197 acre farm which is higher ground
and cannot be economically irrigated. This land will be returned to
natural vegetation, as specified in the covenants, so the limited
erosion which now occurs as irrigation is done on this sloping land
will cease. Furthermore windbreaks are to be constructed between the
lots with the shrubs planted on the lots northern property land
(running in an east-west line) which should reduce wind erosion which
at times occurs during the dry, windy spring months. The vegetation
and shrubs specified in the covenants was suggested by the Division of
Wildlife and is suitable proposed for this area and these purposes.
Sedimentation should not be an issue as the opportunity for
erosion will be eliminated. As another means of ensuring there is not
a problem the lower end of each lot will be shaped to catch any excess
runoff from each lot.
Excavating, Filling and Grading: The process of building the road and
shaping the lots will be carefully done to prevent erosion. The
landscaping plan calls for native grasses to be planted adjacent to
the roadway and along an old ditchway which will be graded. The road
association will be responsible for maintaining the roadways ensuring
future problems are managed by those who use the roads.
Drilling, Ditching and Dredging: Drilling will be done to provide
water to the lots - usual precautions and regulations will be followed
to ensure that this does not cause problems.
No ditching or dredging is required.
Air Pollution: We forsee no negative impact from air pollution to
either the new residential lots nor the agricultural outlot. The
restrictive covenants will limit the use of the residential lots
adequately to ensure that no air pollution is generated on that
property and the agricultural outlot's use will be unchanged.
By returning the 15-acre site for the residential lots to natural
vegetation the air pollution from wind erosion/dust which occurs at
times should be minimized.
Solid Waste: Because there will very strict limitations on the number
of animals which may be kept on the property the 2.5 acre lot will be
adequate to allow natural disposal of the small amount of waste
generated. Domestic garbage/trash will be kept in raccoon proof
storage containers and collected by disposal companies.
Wildlife Removal: The local wildlife population should be enhanced by
this development. By returning the majority of each lot to natural
grasses, trees and shrubs we will be developing new habitats for
wildlife versus the limited places they now have to live in an
intensive agriculture environment.
We are leaving significant buffer between the residential lots and
the existing county roads so that the farmground will also continue to
act as a habitat for existing wildlife at times of the year.
Natural Vegetation Removal : As outlined above this project will
actually be returning poor farmland to a more natural state. We plan
to increase the natural vegetation rather than decrease it.
Radiation/Radioactive Material: None in the area.
Cct.ober 30, 19'43
i !;.'. : Weld County tV Department of Planning Services
1400 N . 17th Avenue
t. tee ey , r.:o o r ado 0631
FROM: Cozzen ;- army_ Company
'454'i WC R #4I
r_at.on, Col or.:..do 80G15
This correspondence is Ic resporE;ca to tie Septembcr 14 ,
193, notice regarding case number 7-~516.
Co:zr;s F:.irrr:.s Company is involved in crop and livestock
t`.,.: mi :rg . Our pr.opert.y is adjacent to Avery Farms on the
west. side of Weld County Road #43, no. th of Weld County :load
# i0 and south of Weld Cou..ty F:oad #72. Our family hat'
farmed th;.s property continuously since 1';15.
We: are oppo .:d to the change of ::one to PUD for five
re-sidenti. l lots and one agricultural outlet . Our
abjection is regarding the impact on farming in our
c:ormuni ty,/cour''..y
Since 19q , we have experienced the building and oc_cupanc;y of
t.11 e. residential lots located adjacent to our north
property line bordering Weld County l-toad #72 . l hi.s has
raised our concern abut:t increased traffic, increased
roaming dogs , firework threatening out buildings . trash in
t nce line due to open trash dumpsters, lack of
:rt der �.t.anding by neighbors regarding odd work hours, nosy
machinery , ue of chemicals and relatod applications
there-of , control of crop and livestock pests, weed burning ,
r:i.< ht.-t:.f-ways to perform our routine work , odor , the •c.bi li ty
u move machinery and livestock -free y , irrigation method!. ,
and most importantly water right; that govern irrig.ition
methods.
There seems to )e subdivisions being built tar,. omly-
We., understand that progress will occur , however , we. would
.I i ke to see art or gari z.ed plan in place that weu '.d :aot e�'`'
;eip ard:; ze the a ntec,r i ty of Weld County 's agricultural
tural O
4a-4J A
r_:oz Tss„• Leon L . Golf-.n�O� O
(Z Off' '
. . r
9
Hello