HomeMy WebLinkAbout971886.tiffHEARING CERTIFICATION
DOCKET NO. 97-41
RE: SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT #1154, WHICH
AMENDS SUP #68 AND SUP #105, TO EXPAND AN EXISTING LIVESTOCK
CONFINEMENT OPERATION (L.C.O.) FROM 12,000 CATTLE TO 20,000 CATTLE IN THE
A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT - ENGLISH FEEDLOTS, INC., C/O PATTY
DEPLAZES
A public hearing was conducted on August 27, 1997, at 10:00 a.m., with the following present:
Commissioner George E. Baxter, Chair
Commissioner Constance L. Harbert, Pro-Tem - EXCUSED
Commissioner Dale K. Hall
Commissioner Barbara J. Kirkmeyer
Commissioner W. H. Webster
Also present:
Acting Clerk to the Board, Carol Harding
Acting Clerk to the Board, Esther Gesick
Assistant County Attorney, Lee Morrison
Planning Department representative, Gloria Dunn
Health Department representative, Trevor Jiricek
Public Works representative, Don Carroll
The following business was transacted:
I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated July 30, 1997, and duly published August 14, 1997,
in the South Weld Sun, a public hearing was conducted to consider the request of English Feedlots,
Inc., do Patty Deplazes, for a Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit #1154,
which amends SUP #68 and SUP #105, to expand an existing Livestock Confinement Operation
(L.C.O.) from 12,000 cattle to 20,000 cattle in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. Lee Morrison,
Assistant County Attorney, made this a matter of record. Gloria Dunn, Department of Planning
Services representative, presented a brief summary of the proposal and entered the favorable
recommendation of the Planning Commission into the record as written, as well as staffs
recommendation for proposed changes to the Planning Commission resolution which adds
Condition of Approval 2.1 and Development Standards 20 and 21. Ms. Dunn stated the proposal
is two miles from the Town of Hudson; however, it is not located within its Urban Growth Boundary
or Comprehensive Planning Area. She explained the original permit was for a 10,000 -head
livestock confinement operation which was expanded in the early 1970's by English Feedlots, Inc.,
to a 12,000 -head operation. Ms. Dunn further explained the applicant owns and farms 320 acres
adjacent to the feedlot site, well permits exist for irrigation and livestock feeding, and there is an
existing septic system on the property. There are two accesses onto the property; one from Weld
County Road 10 which is not a through road, and one from Weld County Road 41 which is across
land farmed by the applicant. Ms. Dunn stated Public Works is requesting a Road Maintenance
Agreement for improvements to Weld County Road 10, as stated in Condition of Approval 2h. Ms.
971886
ed,, OL
PL1221
RE: HEARING CERTIFICATION - ENGLISH FEEDLOTS, INC., c/o PATTY DEPLAZES
(USR #1154)
PAGE 2
Dunn also stated that many letters have been received in opposition to the proposed expansion;
however, she noted at present there are no Conditions of Approval or Development Standards with
which the applicant must comply. Approval of the expansion would impose specific Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards. Responding to questions from the Board, Ms. Dunn
explained the site is not within the Urban Growth Boundary Area of Hudson and noted there are
250 platted lots within a 2 -mile radius of the site. She explained minimal records have been found
regarding this operation, which is why there are no specific standards attached to it. She presented
a drawing of the site and a letter from Patina Oil and Gas Corporation regarding access to a well
onsite, Exhibits U and V, respectively. Trevor Jiricek, Health Department, responded to
Commissioner Hall that the operation meets the required state health standards at this time.
Patty Deplazes, Eastern Plains Environmental Service, represented the applicant and gave a brief
overview of the expansion. She stated English Feedlots has operated at this site since 1984 and
purchased the property in 1995. Ms. Deplazes noted the applicant is minimizing the environmental
impacts by utilizing biological fly control and a sprinkler system for dust abatement. Responding
to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Morrison verified Ms. Deplazes does have authority to agree to
conditions and standards in the absence of the applicant, Douglas English, since she is listed on
the application. Ms. Deplazes stated, in response to a question from Commissioner Baxter, that
there are three retention ponds which have been approved by the Health Department for storm
water retention. Responding to Commissioner Hall, Mr. Jiricek stated two fly complaints have been
received this year; however, in both cases staff found the facility to be well maintained and
managed and did not observe a problem. Ms. Deplazes verified for Commissioner Hall that the
applicant has agreed to fencing the well.
George Kennedy, surrounding property owner, stated he lives within one-half mile of the feedlot
and has experienced a tremendous odor problem. He noted he lived there before the feedlot and
there are approximately 400 homes within a two-mile radius of the site. Mr. Kennedy also stated
the previous owner agreed to a 10,000 -head cap during a Board of Commissioners' hearing in
1971 and the expansion to 12,000 head was done by administrative review. He indicated the
feedlot has not operated continuously and stated there were several periods of time during which
no cattle were in the feedlot. Chair Baxter commented that 20,000 head operating under new
Development Standards would be better than 10,000 head operating under no Development
Standards. Mr. Morrison verified for Commissioner Kirkmeyer that a copy of the 10,000 -head cap
agreement was not located, and Ms. Dunn included the combined Planning file for SUP's #68 and
#105 in the record. She noted there are no Board of Commissioner minutes or agreements
concerning a cap in the file.
Wayne Dunker, surrounding property owner, moved into the area in 1968 and did not object to the
small, 500 -head operation next to him. He submitted a letter of opposition and a Plot Plan
(transparency), Exhibits S and T, respectively, and noted the areas marked in blue are what were
971886
PL1221
RE: HEARING CERTIFICATION - ENGLISH FEEDLOTS, INC., c/o PATTY DEPLAZES
(USR #1154)
PAGE 3
present in 1968. Mr Dunker verified the 10,000 -head cap set in 1971 when surrounding property
owners objected to the requested expansion and that during the 1970's and 1980's there were
several years with no cattle present at the site. Mr. Dunker further stated that the condition of the
feedlot began deteriorating in 1985 when Mr. English began leasing the site. Concerns discussed
by Mr. Dunker include drainage problems, fencing the water into present-day containment ponds,
excessive flies, and high nitrate levels in the surrounding water supply. In response to
Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Dunker stated he does not call the Health Department to complain
about flies because there is no response and, when he did call a couple of times, no follow up was
done.. He further stated he had his well tested two months ago, and the results showed the well
to be okay for human consumption; however, a level of 19 nitrates were found and the maximum
recommended by the State Health Department is 10. At the request of Chair Baxter, Mr. Jiricek
addressed concerns of about the containment pond installed in 1972 to standards in effect at that
time and verified nitrate levels can be caused from seepage. Responding to Commissioner
Webster, Mr. Jiricek stated there is no such thing as an impermeable pond; it will inevitably
discharge into groundwater. Chair Baxter verified that, if this request is approved, more restrictive
Conditions of Approval are proposed than currently exist. Mr. Jiricek verified for Commissioner
Kirkmeyer that if the request is not approved, CAFO regulations will still apply to the operation;
however, no changes would be made unless a complaint was received and outside discharge is
observed. Mr. Jiricek also noted if approval is given, the applicant will have to submit a manure
handling plan and a wastewater management plan, upgrade the retention facilities and
demonstrate that they meet 10-5 requirements, have a survey done to demonstrate the surface
drainage will drain to the retention ponds, as well as other items required by proposed Conditions
of Approval and Development Standards.
(Changed to Tape #97-22).
Gerry Coe, surrounding property owner, stated he has lived at his present location since 1984
when the feedlot was dormant. He noted his main concern is quality of life and the English family's
disregard for the effect of the expansion on the neighborhood. He stated the expansion of the
feedlot will escalate current problems and responded to Chair Baxter that expansion by 66 percent
needs close control. He also stated concerns regarding water pollution, flies, road use, dust, noise,
and stench. Responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Coe stated he is not opposed to
residential expansion because the negative effects on the neighborhood are minimal.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer noted most of the complaints and letters she has reviewed have indicated
approval for the residential area to encroach upon the agricultural area; however, the feedlot should
not be allowed to expand. She also noted the previous number of animal units may have been due
to requirements and standards at that time; however, new technology might justify a larger number
of cattle.
971886
PL1221
RE: HEARING CERTIFICATION - ENGLISH FEEDLOTS, INC., do PATTY DEPLAZES
(USR #1154)
PAGE 4
Doug Wilch, surrounding property owner and Vice President of Citizens for Orderly Growth
(CFOG), stated the quality of the feedlot can be upgraded even without approval to expand. Mr.
Wilch presented overhead transparencies, letters from members of CFOG opposing the expansion,
photos, and a summary of his comments, which are marked as Exhibits W, X, Y, Z, AA, BB, and
CC. He noted over 250 signatures were obtained on the petition presented to the Board and
discussed his concerns regarding odor, noise, dust, and flies. He also expressed concern that the
lifestyle and living standard in the area would be negatively impacted if the expansion is allowed,
particularly given the applicant's history of poor management. In response to questions from
Commissioners Baxter and Kirkmeyer, Mr. Wilch stated he has filed several complaints and the
feedlot is poorly managed, resulting in excessive odor and noise. Mr. Jiricek verified for
Commissioner Kirkmeyer that there have been no discharge violations by the feedlot. Mr. Morrison
indicated that discharge does include proof that infiltration in excess of the allowed seepage rate
is another form of discharge violation; however, a new facility or a facility requesting an expansion
of more than one-third is required to submit a wastewater and manure handling plan, while an
existing facility that does not expand leaves the burden of proof of a seepage problem with the
State or County before a plan can be required. In response to Commission Webster, Mr. Jiricek
noted that the largest pond is designed on the premise that it is evaporative treatment; however,
he is not sure what system is used for the other three ponds shown on the plat. Commissioner
Kirkmeyer stated that citizens do have a bearing on the decisions before the Board, although it is
more narrow than most people realize, since the Zoning Ordinance requires a public hearing be
held and the Board must consider any facts presented at said hearing. However, the Zoning
Ordinance further states the applicant has the burden of proof to show the standards and
conditions listed are met. Commissioner Kirkmeyer emphasized the applicant has to show he/she
has met these standards, which the Planning Commission and staff believe to be true in this case.
Responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer's question regarding whether there is adequate coverage
for the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood, Mr. Wilch reiterated that he believes there
is a lack of enforcement and a lack of County personnel to enforce the regulations. Ms. Dunn
noted that a complaint was received from Mr. Wilch's wife regarding the number of cattle; therefore,
an inventory sheet was requested to verify the current number of cattle is 10,014.
Raymond Joachim, property owner, stated he has only been in the area for six years; however, he
is concerned that regulations look nice on paper but have little chance of being enforced since the
larger tax -paying feedlot has more political clout than the individual taxpayer. Mr. Joachim also
spoke of the possibility that each Commissioner might be more concerned about getting feedlots
away from Greeley than Hudson. He noted he has a problem with excessive flies and odor;
however, he does not know who to call to lodge a complaint. Chair Baxter noted the Board must
recess because of another scheduled appointment; however, Mr. Morrison stated one of the
recommendations requires the applicant to submit a plan addressing the various issues under
discussion. He also stated an exhibit which has not yet been presented (a display of flies caught
in a fly trap) would be better suited to a photograph taken before the recess is over. Chair Baxter
971886
PL1221
RE: HEARING CERTIFICATION - ENGLISH FEEDLOTS, INC., c/o PATTY DEPLAZES
(USR #1154)
PAGE 5
addressed the issue of Commissioners' loyalty and the difference between the subject applicant
and Greeley feedlots.
A recess was taken from 12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m
Kent Hickman of Eaton spoke in favor of the expansion. He noted the operation has shown
improvement since Mr. English took over, a watering system has been installed, erosion has been
stopped, cleanup has been done, and BioSwat and parasitic wasps are being used for fly control.
Responding to Chair Baxter, he said he personally was not aware of the feedlot before; however,
an associate told him about it. Mr. Hickman also indicated he has been working for English
Feedlots since 1995.
Norma Taylor, surrounding property owner, submitted a series of pictures and overheads taken on
June 30, 1997, as well as a list of questions and proposed Development Standards, marked
Exhibits DD through MM. Ms. Taylor read the list of questions and Chair Baxter stated the Board
will request the questions be answered when the applicant is called upon for rebuttal.
Alice Green, adjacent property owner, stated she requested the Health Department perform an
odor test before this hearing; however, she was told it would not be performed until this matter was
decided. Responding to Chair Baxter, she informed the Board the Health Department staff does
not respond to anything when called.
Barbara Perkingson, who lives in Vantage Acres, stated the fly -trap was her invention and it
contains flies captured during one month. She presented two photographs of the trap, marked
Exhibits NN and OO, and stated she sees no benefit to the expansion. She also complained about
excessive noise at midnight and 3:00 a.m. when cattle were being loaded.
Anita Gentry, who also lives in Vantage Acres, stated she agrees with all of her neighbors'
concerns as discussed in this hearing. Responding to Chair Baxter, she stated she has not noticed
appreciable difference since Mr. English took over the feedlot; in fact, the dust continues to be
excessive and the odor is extreme.
Dave Lavanway, surrounding property owner, said his problems are worse when the wind is from
the north, northwest as it blows directly from the feedlot onto his property. He said his house is
covered with spots from flies, the screen doors are totally covered with flies, the odor is unbearable,
and he has problems with rodents.
There being no further testimony, Ms. Deplazes returned to rebut the problems and concerns being
discussed. Ms. Deplazes reiterated no violations have been found by County staff and any
concerns have been addressed immediately. She noted water quality tests have shown there are
971886
PL1221
RE: HEARING CERTIFICATION - ENGLISH FEEDLOTS, INC., c/o PATTY DEPLAZES
(USR #1154)
PAGE 6
no nitrates on the feedlot. She indicated there are many other agricultural sources in the area
which should share the blame for the fly problem and reiterated the applicant uses the best
management practices and the biological control of flies is the newest method known. Ms.
Deplazes also noted the pens are graded to keep the manure dry and worked up; Mr. English has
agreed to enter into a road maintenance agreement with Weld County; and the dust abatement,
manure control, and drainage plans all need to be completed and approved. She reiterated that
all the claims made are without proof and the applicant has not been shown to be in violation.
Responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Ms. Deplazes stated neither an on -site or off -site
geological study has been completed and there is no evidence of nitrates on the feedlot,
wastewater and manure handling plans were submitted with the application, and the containment
pond constructed in 1991 was designed by an engineer. She also responded the need for
expansion is because of the competitive nature of the agricultural business, which requires more
economy of scale and more efficiency in servicing a larger amount of cattle to increase the profit
margin. She explained Mr. English did not explain to her why he was unable to attend this hearing
except to state he had a business emergency, and responded to other questions from the Board.
Ms. Dunn, Mr. Jiricek, Mr. Morrison, and Ms. Deplazes responded to the questions posed by Mss.
Taylor as appropriate. Don Carroll, Department of Public Works, responded to question #26,
stating Weld County Road 10 is a local road so there are some legal ramifications to be considered
before vacating it. He also discussed a proposed road improvements agreement and dust
abatement on Road 10. Mr. Morrison, answering question #27, explained an entity cannot impose
regulations without knowing what they are; therefore, an applicant cannot be required to meet
future requirements as such. He also reiterated to the Board the fact that it is not specifically
mentioned in the Permit does not prevent staff from making an unannounced inspection which was
not initiated by complaint. Responding to Chair Baxter, Ms. Taylor explained her fear is that Mr.
English may know of new regulations coming in the future and is concerned about the effect new
regulations will have if implementation of the expansion is delayed. Commissioner Webster stated
there are existing regulations to be met for noise, dust, flies, odor, etc. which must currently be
complied with. Mr. Morrison indicated the County cannot change the applicability of new State
regulations and make different regulations apply than would apply to another feedlot in the same
situation but not in Weld County. Commissioner Kirkmeyer agreed the County cannot impose
regulations that do not exist. She also explained the Health Department will inspect as each phase
is completed and not wait for completion, and explained to Ms. Taylor that the applicant cannot
expand until Condition of Approval #2 is met.
(Chair Baxter called a recess.)
Upon reconvening, Ms. Deplazes summarized that there are regulations and ordinances which are
in effect and, although they might not be agreeable with all citizens, the applicant has a right to
operate under the current regulations.
971886
PL1221
RE: HEARING CERTIFICATION - ENGLISH FEEDLOTS, INC., c/o PATTY DEPLAZES
(USR #1154)
PAGE 7
Ms. Dunn clarified for Commissioner Kirkmeyer that this request is an amendment to existing
SUP #68 and SUP #105, although no Board resolution or Development Standards exist in County
records. She entered the Planning file for those two permits into the record. Commissioner
Kirkmeyer, quoting the Planning Commission minutes for SUP #105, indicated Mr. Buckley,
representative for Fred Anschutz said: "There would be 24 additional pens and increase to 5,000
head. At the present time they are feeding 12,000 head..." Commissioner Kirkmeyer interpreted
this to mean that if increasing to 5,000 head, the feedlot was never permitted for 10,000 or 12,000.
Ms. Dunn indicated 12,000 were allowed. Commissioner Kirkmeyer also referred to a Wastes
Inventory Livestock Feeding Operations Report to the State Department of Health which shows the
average stock population is 10,000 head per day; however, the average capacity is shown as
12,000 per day. Ms. Dunn stated her interpretation is there were 12,000 allowed, but they were
asking for an additional 5,000 head, which was not permitted. Commissioner Kirkmeyer also
referenced a December 1994, Inspection Report from Keith Schuett, Planning Staff, stating the
maximum number of animals allowed on the property was 10,000. Monica Mika, Director of
Planning Services, explained Ms. Deplazes did ask for clarification on the number of animal units
allowed at this facility. She explained that, since the information was not available, she and Mr.
Morrison determined the best guess was that they were permitted for 12,000 head on -site. Ms.
Mika noted a memo to the file dated March 20, 1997, indicating that is the best guess.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated this is relevant because the request is to expand from 12,000 to
20,000 head; however, the surrounding residents have said they would be happy if it stayed at
10,000 head, but she cannot even get from 12,000 to 20,000 when no Board resolution exists to
allow 5,000 or 10,000. Ms. Mika indicated the Zoning Map correlated the use on the site, but the
numbers were staff -determined. Chair Baxter asked Mr. Morrison to clarify whether, in absence
of any documentation, an approval would in essence approve whatever was in use. Mr. Morrison
indicated if the County has viewed 12,000 as the existing number and treated that as the legal use,
there is at least an argument on the operator's behalf that is the use being allowed for the permit.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer expressed her disbelief that anyone would purchase a feedlot in 1995
and not have a copy of the existing Permit or any type of resolution. Ms. Deplazes stated that, at
the time the feedlot was purchased, they requested a letter from the Department of Planning
Services which stated the Permit was SUP #105, the capacity, and that it would transfer with the
property. She also indicated that letter was issued at that time, although there was some question
in the documentation as to the actual number of animal units allowed; however, the letter stated
12,000 were allowed. Ms. Mika also indicated a Mobile Home Permit dated August 27, 1970,
Exhibit PP, indicates 20,000 or 30,000. After further discussion regarding this matter,
Commissioner Kirkmeyer clarified that if it is a permitted use, it would have to comply with Section
47 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Morrison answered that Section 47 became effective in the late
1980's; however, it would apply currently to the extent the provisions are health and safety
provisions, because there is not the same type of retroactivity as with other regulations.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer said that part of the recommendation to approve is because more strict
regulations will be applied; however, that reason does not exist if there are already standards and
971886
PL1221
RE: HEARING CERTIFICATION - ENGLISH FEEDLOTS, INC., do PATTY DEPLAZES
(USR #1154)
PAGE 8
provisions to be adhered to for the safety and health of the inhabitants. She also questioned
whether CAFO regulations would apply; however, Mr. Morrison indicated the State operates strictly
on the basis of the number of animal units on site and CAFO was not in effect 20 years ago. Mr.
Jiricek stated CAFO regulations were not effective until August 30, 1992. Mr. Morrison reiterated
the State does not make provision for any local permit in its provisions, it operates strictly on the
number of animals in place; therefore, the one-third increase is based on actual increase, not on
the allowed or permitted number. Commissioner Kirkmeyer further clarified her point that, with no
proof of the number of animal units allowed on the property, the County would be able to consider
this a complaint, and find the permit holder in violation of the Permit, and require compliance with
the existing SUP #105 or SUP #68. That being the case, the permit holder would have to lower
the number of head then, if they wanted to expand to 12,000 head, they would fall under CFOA
regulations. Mr. Morrison reminded the Board that Section 47 of the Zoning Ordinance is currently
proposed with major changes to it, however, those changes have not been adopted. He also said
the provisions in the proposed Permit are more detailed and stringent than those included in
Section 47. Commissioner Kirkmeyer reiterated that, although not as stringent as CAFO, Section
47 does make provision to protect the health and safety of the inhabitants, there are standards to
be complied with, and regulations are in place to cover all the concerns mentioned in this hearing.
(Changed to Tape #97-23)
Commissioner Hall stated that, although the Board has approved expansion of dairies and feedlots
near towns, it has not done so where there are surrounding residences and subdivisions. He noted
item #22 on the application indicates the pressure of urban sprawl requires feedlots to be located
in rural areas with minimal impacts on surrounding urban areas; however, he disagrees and feels
this is already an urban sprawl area. Commissioner Hall also stated he does not feel the expansion
would be compatible with the existing surrounding land uses or future development in the area, and
he has concerns for the adequate protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants
of the neighborhood, based on odor and fly complaints. Commissioner Hall, therefore, moved to
deny the request of English Feedlots, Inc., c/o Patty Deplazes, for a Site Specific Development
Plan and Special Review Permit #1154, for expansion of an existing Livestock Confinement
Operation (L.C.O.) from 12,000 cattle to 20,000 cattle in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Kirkmeyer. Commissioner Webster noted this is a classic
example of urbanization going into an agricultural area which was a farm that was developed and
has grown and, in order to gain, must utilize facilities with better efficiencies. Commissioner
Kirkmeyer stated she agrees with Commissioner Hall's comments and she has also voted for other
expansions; however, in this case the applicant has not proven they have met the standards, nor
have they proven there is adequate provision for the protection of the health, safety, and welfare
of the inhabitants, as required by Section 24.4.2.7 of the Zoning Ordinance. She agreed that it is
not compatible with the existing surrounding land uses or future uses, as required by Section
971886
PL1221
RE: HEARING CERTIFICATION - ENGLISH FEEDLOTS, INC., do PATTY DEPLAZES
(USR #1154)
PAGE 9
24.4.2.3, and 24.4.2.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Kirkmeyer reminded the Board
that, whether intentional or not, this Board voted for the change in zoning from Agricultural to Estate
and permitted a subdivision in the area. Commissioner Hall stated instead of urbanization moving
in on agricultural, in this care the residential community has been growing along with the
agricultural uses. Chair Baxter stated the stance of this Board has always been pro -agriculture,
however, the fallout of this decision will be an agricultural use which will suffer. On a call for the
vote, the motion carried three to one, with Commissioner Webster voting nay.
This Certification was approved on the 3rd day of September, 1997.
APPROVED:
ATTEe,- BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELDUNTY, CORADO
4-1
Georg E. Baxter, Chair
EXCUSED
TAPE #97-21, #97-22, #97-23
tance L. Harbert, Pro-Te
Dale1(. Hall
DOCKET #97-41
arbara rJ. Kirkmeyer
f'( / /7 ) ;1 D0 17 C4171
W. H. Webster
971886
PL1221
EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET
USR - 1154 ENGLISH FEEDLOTS, INC
Date
Exhibit
Name
Exhibit Description
7/30/97
A.
Clerk to the Board
Notice of Hearing
8/7/97
B.
Gloria Dunn, Dept. of Planning Svcs
Letter of Opposition
Jason & Kristen Gustafson
8/8/97
C.
Bill and Angela DeLap
Letter of Opposition
8/12/97
D.
A. Christine White
Letter of Opposition
8/12/97
E.
Ken and Sharon Shoemaker
Letter of Opposition
8/12/97
F.
Sandi and Paul Harmon
Letter of Opposition
8/14/97
G.
Kathleen A. Martin
Letter of Opposition
8/14/97
H
John F. Pfister
Letter of Opposition
8/15/97
I
Thomas and Elizabeth Wray
Letter of Opposition
8/15/97
J
Jason and Heather Kovac
Letter of Opposition
8/18/97
K
William and D.Ann Adams
Letter of Opposition
8/19/97
L.
James and Nancyann Nolan
Letter of Opposition
8/13/97
M.
Teresa Barrutia
Letter of Opposition
7/25/97
N.
Gloria Dunn - Planning
Inventory of Items
7/25/97
O
Planning Commission
Resolution
8/22/97
P
Shirley D. Bauer
Letter of Opposition
8/22/97
Q
South Weld County Residents
73 Letters of Opposition
8/22/97
R
Edward and Merla Yost
Letter of Opposition
8/27/97
S
Wayne and Joann Dunker
Statement of Opposition
8/27/97
T
Wayne Dunker
Transparency
8/27/97
U
Public Works
ADT - 24 hour count
8/27/97
V
Patina Oil and Gas
Letter of Concerns
8/27/97
W
Citizens for orderly growth - Doug
Wilch
Overlay Transparency
8/27/97
X
CFOG - Doug Wilch
Photo - August 24, 1997
8/27/97
Y
CFOG - Doug Wilch
Photo - June 30, 1997
8/27/97
Z
CFOG - Doug Wilch
17 Letters of Opposition
8/27/97
AA
CFOG - Doug Wilch
Photo
USR1154- EXHIBIT LIST
PAGE 2
Date
Exhibit
Name
Exhibit Description
8/27/97
BB
CFOG - Doug Wilch
Photo
8/27/97
CC
CFOG - Doug Wilch
Written Statement
8/27/97
DD
Norma Taylor
Written Statement
8/27/97
EE
Norma Taylor
Photo - June 30, 1997
8/27/97
FF
Norma Taylor
Photo
8/27/97
GG
Norma Taylor
Photo
8/27/97
HH
Norma Taylor
Photo
8/27/97
JJ
Norma Taylor
Photo
8/27/97
KK
Norma Taylor
Photo
8/27/97
LL
Norma Taylor
Photo
8/27/97
MM
Norma Taylor
Photo
8/27/97
NN
Barbara Perkingson
Photo - Fly -trap
8/27/97
OO
Barbara Perkingson
Photo - Fly trap
8/27/97
PP
Monica Mika
Mobile Home Permit
Application
ATTENDANCE RECORD
HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS ON THIS 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1997:
DOCKET #97-97-41 English Feedlots, Inc., c/o Ptty DePlazes - A Site Specific Development Plan
and Special Review Permit #1154, which amends SUP #68 and SUP #105, to expand an existing
Livestock Confinement Operation (L.C.O.) from 12,000 cattle to 20,000 cattle in the A
(Agricultural Zone District
PLEASE legibly write or print your name and complete address.
NAME AND ADDRESS (Please include City and Zip Code)
32,27 e, i, P rt �%-.k,.a.. ea/ G*�.-fir 6 / �,t, Co Fe 6 9-
40a....i I, ,f ... i kG v u}, c', Q �/ '/� AL ----2., -_-- a ✓- ,._
...,(22/ s 6 s---/ , q SJ A vc, Alm. at o j tia 8o 64- 2,
) s*a
L
v
Ay,: I. std: wive -/ I 1 i 31 M 5.111 /7(i127 LIM el So/O (in
l/i cw-- Lam. c.<t,rw l5 J_3c� r4SY-A U /
Co -/o(-04-712.____
-7 ( `rJu ) (O
Toriarci
/7�
i,eGL)-100chcim / 73- 1 �[e%c RI/a hF�,d3c;,ci Co
l�'� / 7E- ��"' /9%/4" Lditn /)�.v�.('c;R4 8 f0.Dmvr/.�/n, a:5/.Z
kPN jr. �r1' S'D
5(7 -. 5'z
t3cO fr a,
<v416' / 9Y/ 3 1 97 t `{ tiJ4/ 4vO<0,
Hello