The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About972513.tiffWeld County Dept. of Planning Services 1400 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Joe & Liz Krueger 8657 WCR 21 Fort Lupton,gc, 80621 Planning nnn Dept. JUL 0 8 1997 re: Case number: USR-1158 James E. Younger -- application for poultry/egg processing facility We are neighbors to Jim and Jan living in the second house north of their home. We are opposed to their application as we find it totally inconsistent with the nature of the land in the immediate area. Our 2 acre lot is zoned as residential and is taxed as such. I have checked and found that the properties on both sides of Jim and Jan are also residential. I did not check Jim and Jan's zoning but it must be zoned the same as the rest of us. Their lot is the same size and their home is one of the nicer ones in the neighborhood. The proposed site is not large enough for this type of operation. It would almost certainly cause problems of noise, odors, and insects. The argument that the nearby turkey farms have established a precedent is not valid as the farms are located on large acreage with large buffer zones around their operations. Jim and Jan cannot possibly provide this kind of protection for us or their ducks. (We are well aware of the disease problems of poultry in high concentrations). Jim and Jan have been good neighbors and we consider them friends but we feel we must oppose them in this venture as it seems very ill advised and would certainly make our neighborhood a less desirable place to live. Joe nd Liz Krueger Lqiitetre-ci 972513 JUN 1 7 177 J // /997 r 7 -Arne -5 1-t2 . //yOn pSod 44/ C'AIteleAic" 4. /i'ompsob/ a c ca, 51a- L.J e 2d a/ ,c/ 1 c/ 74O 11 (0 0 b, f PC 7- 7-o C74S E A/un7b fez cc 3 /2 -i/S `b 7 /e,2e ,J 4/0 f 4 goksf/ f/' Eegy e .cot ,, !ott/illy ? e,9 Lys?O,'/,'2. vice C ) a Al D f JAe 6 En ":7245t67-2 re C7 O L✓ - Y1/ 724 w,S t 6 e C'/PA,,/ tc 7-7l74., GO:// ig4, Aq /,DoW n! Ott, Pier iy l it/v124 t 9 7- LJe /,),//9/2‘ /. /// I�JOQKP d / 1 17OLc/t! //Pi91 / &eel- /Joe d %U /CP Pt a. Aoo d 614,t< dad r 7- Lc7,`// a7.56 < e D),-/ey e /Ds e- 70 /0 %� us C.5 %7�.vf gli} " /go e flll ees r fog /%7.414'x 9 ecteS . Ma5 e /71St out 949 ,o/t= 2 972513 74 * id$:.1..5 .( JUN 1 1997 • • Dept. of Planning Services Weld County Admin. Offices 1400 North 17th Avenue Greeley, Colo. 80631 Dear Sir. 8519 Weld County Road 21 Fort Lupton, Colo. 80621 May 1, 1 997 ' at County Manning Dept: JUN 0 5 1997 4. V `�' IL I Concerning the development of a poultry/egg processing facility adjacent to my property for James Younger is out of the question. I protest this idea very strongly. I base my objection as follows: 1. We already have two large Turkey farms near us which are well maintained. However, the turkey farms will most likely be concerned due to diseases passing between poultry facilities. Of course this will be their problem. 2. Since Mr. Younger has moved into the area, his attitude towards neighbor's concerns has been very negative. His maintaining his property has been poor and it has progressed to look junkier daily. Our property values are of great concern. We pay very high property taxes already and we expect to be rewarded for it through a good appearing neighborhood, throughout. 3. Since he has been here, he has raised hundreds of ducks and they have been able to pass through his fencing which appears to be sloppy. Should he go on with this plan, I expect the worst as he will have an unsanitary facility and poultry all over the place. Also, I wish to mention that recently one of his barns burned to the ground. With his weed patch, the fire could have wiped out the whole neighborhood. Had it not been for our son seeing the fire while still dark and waking James up to control the fire we could have lost every thing. Mr. Younger has not kept his weed patch mowed completely. I am convinced that his construction practices were inadequate. Should he be allowed to grow bigger, we will have a bigger fire and a bigger junk yard. NO WAY! o ' r-4 el Charles M. Baum 4. This area is classified as residential and it should remain that way. A few animals or birds well maintained and under control is not a problem. 5. He has fabricated a plastic greenhouse without our knowledge before hand and it reflects into our home and also cheapens the neighborhood. Looks crummy. I feel that Mr. Younger has no consideration for his neighbors and for the appearance of his property. It will be just as sloppy in his planned adventure. Therefore I am against any further development on Mr. Younger's part. As yet I have not seen him start a project and finish it before finishing his other projects. As I mentioned before, he is a sloppy neighbor and adding a facility which could be a health problem is not something that I wish to face. Should Mr. Younger be allowed to proceed with his plans, I feel that he shall be responsible in putting up an eight foot privacy fence on the north and south sides of his property as a minimum and be required to maintain it on both sides to last and appear nicely and in good order. Sincerely 8519 Weld County Road No. 21 Ft. Lupton, Colorado, 80621 June 20, 1997 Mr. Hodges, I was surprised to learn from my Son-in-law about our neighbor's plans to build a Duck Processing Factory. I did not receive any written notice about this venture. I live less than a hundred feet from the Youngers property and feel as much effected as anyone else. I live in a double wide home located on Mr. and Mrs. Baum's property which was approved by the Court so as to be near my Daughter and Son-in-law due to my health. I pay my Weld County taxes like everyone else and I am as much against any commercial and unpleasant operation close to me as the rest of my neighbors. Due to my condition and age, I am not able to attend a hearing and will place my trust in my neighbors to defeat this proposal. Please accept this letter as my personal opposition to any plan that will create a noisy, unhealthy and unsightly condition. Sincerely itect 9v1 i iiuvv>tiC iz Dorothy Trumbull e .5- / / EXHIBIT I I 7 el 972 -1 gneigiav J i1 g'z,ai ige' etdev.d'Af//gig Se--fit*at j/1240 rt. 17,1/ a-e-fel7-1/Pied atese, '1l'C'.-t /et -42 �rro a- cy L j-aa -e 4tA-e ./2-yuw-e-an '-a��G —4 / �_VVieWe . a- -7;D; aft 0-,�l�a.-U/ .mac' -- -ter , -aer-%-Alat 8cs. /tea/ 857- 97L/P EXHIBIT 1 972513 JUN 1 6 1997 8519 Weld County RD. #21 Fort Lupton, Co. 80621 June 26, 1997 Tom Hodges Weld County Planning Services 1400 north 17th Avenue Greeley, Co. 8063] Dear Mr. Hodges, This letter is in response to case USR - 1158 to Mr Jim Younger's request to build more buildings on his two acres of land and adding more ducks to have a total of 4,000. I live on the 2 acres just to the south of him. I am totaly against this. He has too many ducks already and they are the noisiest ducks I have ever heard, and I can't imagine what the noise would be like with 4,000 of them. I have had people visit me and have heard the noise they make and they have said they wouldn't want to live next door to that all the time. Also with the ones he has, we are getting a terrible smell from them. Again, I can't imagine what the odor would be with 4,000. He doesn't seem to have a feeding place for them. I have seen him walk around the yard with a bag of feed and pour the feed on the ground and the ducks eat this way, manuer and all. I am very concerned about our safety and health. He already has had one fire. If that had happened a few days before when we had the very high winds we often have here the whole neighbor hood could have been lost including his own home. This was early morning, like 4:30 AM. Our son was visiting us and he was the one who discovered it, and awoke the Younger's. The fire started in a little shed that had loose straw in it and an incubator. He said he lost about 300 baby ducks. Also I feel he does not have adequate land for this many ducks, and operation. He also states he is going to expand his residential leach and septic system for this operation. This, to me should not be allowed. Again, this worries me because his excessive leach would be running right onto our property. I am also concerned about the amount of traffic this business would put on our road and in our area. Our road is a dirt road and with the amount of traffic he will cause, we will not be able to keep our homes clean. To me his property is messy. Things are not picked up and put away. He leaves things right where he drops them. I feel his place is deprecating the value of our home, and that of our neighbors. If I had wanted to live near a junk yard I would have moved close to one. 1 love my home and feel we have some very nice neighbors, and not any of us have been approaached by Mr. Younger. If he would have considered us and talked to us about what he wanted to do we could have saved him the time and money he has put into this adventure and told him right from the beginning we did not want to live next door to this noise and smell. From what I have observed of Mr. Younger, he does what he wants and does not care about his neighbors Property. If he wants to get some place instead of driving on his own property he will drive on his neighbors. He has driven on our property a couple of times that I have seen. Mr. Hodges,] hope this letter will help you and the planning services defeat this project. Sincerely, Marian Baum 3'72,747 (USR -IiS8) Tom Hodges, Weld County Planning Services 1400 North 17th Avenue Greeley, Colorado, 80631 8519 Weld county Road No. 21 Fort Lupton, Colorado, 80621 June 25, 1997 Dear Mr. Hodges, We have already responded to the original letter concerning Mr. Younger's request to build a business in our neighborhood. Of course our letter was in strong opposition. Since that time, we just received a copy of the individual questions answered by Mr. Younger; plus a copy of his layout. We will answer them individually, where applicable. Please note, that we are not familiar with the Comprehensive Plan mentioned in the questionnaire. Question l: flow is this proposal consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan? Mr. Younger: He answers in a positive way. Our Response: We strongly disagree. He claims to add a business locally. His purchases will be a one time purchase to build and a small amount for feed and other services. Therefore his claim is not worthy of consideration. Question 2: How does this proposal meet the intent of the zone district it is located in? Mr. Younger: This facility is located in A (agricultural) zone district on land Considered non -prime farmland. Our Response: His answer is not quite true as our property and some of the neighbor's is zoned as agricultural/residential for tax purposes and insurance coverage's. Our understanding is that we are allowed to have a few animals as pets with no restrictions as to the type of animals. However, we are limited in their quantity. We are also required to maintain them in a dean domain and keep them contained within our boundaries. Mr. Younger's proposal not only reclassifies it as agricultural but extends it to commercial (or industrial). This is not an acceptable change. Should this plan be approved, our taxes must be cut in half due to the lost property values caused by Mr. Younger. Question 3: How is the use compatible with future development as stated in Weld County Comprehensive Plan? if yes, how? Mr. Younger: This site is not located in the growth path - etc. Our Response: Sony, this area has continuously been growing with new homes long before he moved into the area and continues to grow. These homes are generally in the high value brackets based on being more residential with lawns and landscaping rather than agricultural. We who reside here settled here to be in a quiet neighborhood away from the noises of the big city. To have peace and privacy with neighbors who supported one 972t13 Question 6: Mr. Younger: 1 Our Response: e Question 7: 1i Mr. Younger: C Our Response: W h c 0 another when in need. Not to put up with strong offensive odors from over stocked and unmaintained acreage. Should this arca become commercial, any future taxpaying homeowners moving here will cease. They will not build here. As said in our previous letter, the Turkey Farms are maintained and also have a wide area for a neutral zone to limit the passing of disease and contributing offensive odors from waste and creating excessive noise from their stock and equipment. Question 4: Mr. Younger: Our Response: Question 5: Mr. Younger Our Response: c a n What type of uses surround this site? Is this request compatible with surrounding uses? He is correct in his answer to this question except for adequate an size area. If Mr. Younger owned about fifty acres and provided a wide neutral zone like the Turkey Farms do and promised to maintain cleanliness and odor and noise controls, he would more likely qualify to proceed with his plan. As it now stands, he is too close to other properties with his facilities, has a record of not adhering to laws and codes and his area is too small to qualify. Is this property located within a -Flood Hazard zone, Geologic Hazard zone, or Airport Overlay zone- and does it meet these special requirements? He is correct in his answers except for the Flood Hazard zone. We are all located downstream of a watershed plain. We have experienced high water runoffs more than once prior to his moving here. He therefore is not aware of the possibilities of washouts. We personally have built an earth wall to divert high water runoffs to the South and prevent flooding. Please note, before we purchased our property, we were told by the sellers and J.L. Sears - Realtors that our home was full of water up to the windows in the late sixties (our home is a bi-level where windows are lose to ground level). Yes this area is threatened by high water and should it happen gain, the poultry waste and other materials would travel onto and contaminate our eighbor's land as well as the road. What efforts have been made to conserve productive agricultural land? le did not answer this question correctly or fully. Mr. Younger has made no effort to change his property for the better. He has made no ffort to create a means of conservation except for a few scattered trees. low will public health, safety and welfare be protected? lairns to adhere to all codes related to the above. e can not agree with him. He has constantly had no regard for the above concerning is unlawful population of Ducks. His property is very offensive in odors and noises aused by his flock. He told me prior to his having ducks some years ago that he was my providing a project for his son to use for his Boy Scout project, which would 972513 consist of less than fifty ducks. We understood at the time that it was a temporary adventure. May we add that the Youngers feed their ducks by spreading the food upon the ground which is fully covered by the ducks manuer. They provide no sanitary feeders or areas. to us this is bad for the ducks as well as for those who would eat them. Mr. Younger's past practices will not change. He hs proven to us that he will not abide by the laws, period. Question 8: Mr. Younger: Our Response Question 9: Mr. Younger: Our Response: Question 10: Mr. Younger: Our Response: Question 11: Mr. Younger: What will the site be used for? For poultry/egg production and processing facility. :NO WAY: If he wants to go into this business, he needs more land so as to have a wide neutral zone so as not to offend others. He needs to change his ways and attitude towards obeying laws and codes and concerns for others. How close is this site to other residential structures? Within 150 feet of other residential structures. Wrong: His illegal noisy greenhouse is less than 100 feet from our home. His planned Greenhouses will be within seventy feet. Too close and four times the noise: As far as we are concerned, this unlawful greenhouse should be removed. If this can't be done, He should install a noise barrier between our property and his. This would be a privacy fence about eight feet tall maintained by him. How many people will be employed at this site and what hours will they work? This site will be family operated. Under his direction, his family will operate this facility as sloppy as he will. We are afraid to trust them in maintaining a quiet, clean and safe operation based on their past practices. How many will use this site? Four. Our Response: "true for the time being, however this will decrease as his children leave home in the near future. Thus leaving this operation to the care of two or by hiring others later to fill the vacancies. Question 12: Mr. Younger: Our Response: I h 0 What type and how many animals, if any, will be on this site? Poultry will be Ducks with a maximum of 4,000 units. t is our understanding that a maximum of 200 animal units per acre are allowed. He as a two acres of property of which one fourth of it is for residence purposes, leaving ne and one half acres left for his plan. This would permit him to have no more than Olaf r" ni 298 ducks along with his two dogs. Also we wish to mention, that his present flock of about 600 plus must be reduced and thus maintained for health, cleanliness and odor free requirements per all codes. Question 13: Mr. Younger: Our Response Question 14: Mr. Younger: Our Response Question What type and how much, if any, operating and processing equipment will be utilized on site? Egg and Poultry processing equipment, etc. :None: What type and how many structures will be erected (built) on this site? He stated five dwellings and explained them :His plans also show three additional greenhouses - totaling eight new buildings. far too many for such a small area. His leach field is close to our property line and this is in no way acceptable. We will not tolerate the possibility of any contamination to our property. He must relocate it as far away from other residences as possible. preferably to the west central edge of his property line. 15: What kind (type, size, weight) of vehicles will access this site and how often? Mr. Younger: Our Response Question 16: Mr. Younger: Our Response Question 17: Mr. Younger: Our Response: Question 18: Mr. Younger: Our Response: Normal pickup and small tractor. Feed trucks 20.000 GVW once a month. :His tractor is a full size tractor. No other comment concerning this mater. Will this site use a septic system or public sewer facilities? He specifies his residential system and future leach and septic system. :His plans show these systems joined together which appears to be the wrong approach. With the possibilities of high water runoff mentioned previously, this really scares us. Are you proposing storage or stockpile of wastes on this site? lie states that disposal will be transported elsewhere, etc. His present practice with his oversized population has been to leave it lay in the duck yard. He also has stockpiled it for long periods of time. The smell when down wind is very offensive and even gets into our home. This is intolerable and must not continue. How often will debris, junk, or waste be disposed or By what means? Debris and junk will be hauled as needed to comply with County ordinance. He has not complied to any codes in the past. What makes you feel that he will comply in the future? We have no faith in this family to comply to any rules. He builds 97251.3 buildings without permits and not to code. He lost one illegal facility already due to poor wiring practices and it cost the Fire Dept. time and money to respond to this un-necessary fire. Had it not been for our son being outside so early in the morning and getting him up from his sleep, the Youngers and we may have lost everything we have due to his lawlessness and carelessness. Question 19: How long will it take to construct this site and when will construction begin? Mr. Younger: Construction will begin as soon as possible after issuance of USR and will run approximately for two years. Our Response: We hope that issuance of USR will not be done and therefore no construction be allowed. Mr. Younger needs to comply to codes pertaining, first to his present situation. It is our wish that the Planning Dept. take into consideration the feelings of the neighbors very strongly. We do not want our properties degraded and devalued due to his carelessness and to this unhealthy and unwanted facility. Question 20: Explain the proposed landscaping plans and erosion control measures associated with this site. Mr. Younger: Landscape is mostly in place with windbreak trees and cover crop for erosion control. Our Response: All that he has done so far is plant a few trees which will not provide an adequate wind break for a few years, if at all. They are spaced too far apart to be effective. You need more than one row of trees to make it work. As far as his erosion control is concerned, he has made no changes or improvements to the grain field that existed when he moved here. It is a weed patch uncared for. 1-Ie has very seldomly mowed it completely. We feel that his intentions are to do the very minimum to improve his landscaping. If anything, his activities made his property appearances much worse. Things just lay around where he drops them.. Question 21: Explain any proposed reclamation procedures when termination of the Special Review use begins. Mr. Younger: The structures that will be erected are not specific for one purpose, and could be utilized for other purposes if the special use was terminated. Our Response: We are told that the facilities will be designed for specific use. A processing facility will have no future use should he terminate. A rearing facility also has a special use. How can he claim that these facilities can be used for another purpose? He most likely will let them set there and rot or fill them with junk. This will create an unwanted junk yard. His present situation is bad enough. Question 22: Explain the need for the proposed use (activity) in Weld County. Mr. Younger: He claims that it will provide for supply and demand, etc. 97251..3 Our Response:His operation will be too small to have any effect as he claims. There is no need or demand for his small activity. A much larger facility in another location with lots of acreage would more likely be of some value. This he can not provide in this neighborhood with his small area. Question 23: Who will provide fire protection? Mr. Younger: Fort Lupton Fire Protection District. Our Response:None Question 24: What or who will provide water to this site? Mr. Younger: Central Weld County Water District Our Response: None Question 25: How will storm water drainage be handled on the site: Mr. Younger: He has not experienced any flooding in his nearly ten years living here. Our Response: Sorry that you missed all the fun before you moved here Mr. Younger. As stated previously, we have had flooding and erosion before you moved here. In the last twelve years, we have had very dry years without any downpours. When our past flooding occurred, we had several periods of rain which saturated the watershed; thus it was unable to absorb any more water when we had a severe storm. Therefore we got real wet and had to do reconstruction to our properties afterwards. Don't be too surprised to see this happen again and wash out your manuer and etc. onto road no. 21 and into the neighbors across the road. Please Note: Mr. Younger did not approached his neighbors about this venture before hand. Had he done so, he would have been told up front that we objected to any operations of this type and it would have saved him a lot of trouble and expense applying for a hearing and County approval. We have owned and resided on our property for close to 27 years. We moved here to be in the country to breath clean air and be away from the Big City humdrum. We have been happy here during this time (except for the bumpy dirt roads) and do not want someone to destroy that atmosphere or to devalue our huge investments. Being retired, we can not afford to move just because some one wants to build an operation requiring large acreage to comply in a one and one half acre useable area. Also, we have one neighbor who said, should this operation be allowed, they would sell out and move. Is this any way to treat a neighbor by forcing them to leave? In our opinion, it is a darn shame. With Sincere hope that this plan will be defeated. --VP(�C4u uv�, W U ,ate,- —747' ,, stau Charles and Marian Baum, 972,r13 Jul -11-97 1O:59A Waynes Electric Inc 303 654 0877 P_02 7 o u.vG-E R, 7s 75 WC 2 2 - Pi Lv PTON, CO A-12 irNM! 1 -r • FRANI< -t\% SS gS~? wc2 -2 F-1 t -u ProA7 C -qvu/ /0 IV?? LA% REG-ARoS 1 cXeM25Ioi OF yDu2 ��wL O P FR A---rs..-3n A IA/ AGRE oneArc Warty T--ttE wELi Any Co✓n,()REtfErvs.rvi S'i,14 Pb-a_ THE_ PRonter vn/ (� F /P-Crl-Zict.c.-r v g e/ A As St Afro c t-1 SfE N-et-RvI-. `t+}.L i�LA4<Evr►E,✓c /o2 c)PFR4mn/ you ✓z- l2apasE\--) ISCHIBIT I 13e, 07/11/97 10:17 s7z1.J .3 TX/RX NO.7846 P.002 • • Dept. of 1 i ice S eeley, Oole soKP e es Dear sir, Concerning the development of a poultry processing facility ofour neighbor James Younger, We object to it 1. We don't like the though of 4000 ducks on just 2 acres of ground in mostly residential neighborhood, it will cheapen all the neighbor— hood, 2. He has one green house and it has a big fanin it, It is so noises we can not open our window at night, and he will be putting in more fans for his poultry houses. 3. When it rain last spring his rain water Crain off his yard into our yard. The ground can not absorb the wa4rfast enough to keep it from runing in the spring. 4. He has a stockpiles of raw manure in his yard a lot of the time. 5. I think if it is approved it will become a health hazard to all neighbors. Sincerely Calvin and Patricia Hall 8540 Weld county road 21 Ft Lupton, Co. 80621 0 JUL 1 1 1997 97251 Weld C000t\d/ Plant, -Kg JUL 1 `' 1997 �t'cld (loan /7 arfodd me4i 143 e Ayrlbet Lt3 2 1/J 1. )40.1, 4, 17 /to tc) ;s •'/t,'6 9/2 ore seri (o .2,5 i'Qgf' 1740 &Cloy Clou///y (3ni/dc /, r,9 e 19Q 2CJJ914Siay r/AI V Cote r1 / _e- 4 0/ g 5 an, n e ,youn9 e _pt,(cIta -r-0 Ay,J a) 1-t2,)y 5104 /�l ) -77,2i5 4/2 to L4///// was co rL des; oleo /ct/ o�/)/ / 4 5it74// peter/7/- ' l lgI 010,.;.) 5...4(04 d ee9,504 i S 4o > 4 T7 aD an / Edon-, 7-23 •/2Je oto/lei9 an a> r /fie,,%/ /b0g 5 ate°/ eg ro / /2 'Feel t-5 bii/ye O04 -e. )94/ O7 �aQe5 anal Qc?/rey'c ade 50: / /7 of #95 ✓i%Q• 2 pug9l4i' 12/5 / 7M (� Lc - O4 A, ,recd a L 6 44e; 42 Pk 2r//75 Po/ Po- _ ola. 61-2; // Ala vre// p/oea-I )2e ez; /f2 /,Jr/ canny r/nly of 25 zn oa/2 4/low 4 /1cz0.-7 e i't 10/95 542 di0;drat 44 d R7 Q, cit-kJ/9/ %21r/1r i S aid 4fr-t7 ,17/2ynitni? /9 'ry as y3 of l2 k 72471 ou',7 ; /'/ `/.�5'y :> of Mt< eeia-z-9 ex ov 04 X D .641-.',7-, cute %O .&o .4; /etc £t qt-ea/)17 ii 3 e- t -4/2m e 04//yL ,C/�rn 4ao/ i5 ,Dkc o4 y 972511 3) /o w % 5122 s (l0g7 �'e ,enw 1 CoanIy c -c 1/I Sinew -�A,i ,96y Foe f1Jksi.i2 o,il Id clti ?vat PI -1 0 1997 eel 6/e— --te Koow 771;5 d o u - a1 4/b/i{ -nit-Fe c lot - )4n'9)9 355ued 3 ref n•t6 //O6 £c'e,, 10 1 o C 1Q(-'oe/op;ne f 12 c1 62,3 fl 04/-1-1 cc led 010 1 f Sf--es,- ,egini5 Wetee -rc 5e)) (1ouniy Wok_Jci Aet 777 pm 54b C1, JLe 1,0e t< 7d Ji,We ,4 lot Odle Jo(m/'r,� '-%O 'Pape -4/7 004 S' d r ae / �cc n (1 . Si -c fo (oo,t .Sow %S gdps q L( S/J '5 f , on # L' y tou,J' lid C' w e quu..e. f,o4 I u 6f61/e fine/ Cove, P.5-1, o d ao !70/9 #42 dr; ij7' )4(r t# ao a&. /l%,i e -e fps/ en //6' e &•4 c1 sifop e ,?o o,-7 ° Lcj 5 fk i e 77/41 g ✓✓J --1`3 104[r (2c P rt i<1b 50€ q h k P�, on AI o7j 72/ , / red- / 721/9/ e3 ti 5 �o/,y/ re -el 1-0 -04Af 0,7 piob)Pm s Td,zm of,/eorslG Berl/s cce '5O;1, (3,V%%gr I.-C/9Trr[ rgsf- ez',o4.9 c3 ,fa e'o//o0S /4901.1— De°,Ain 4 i 3 d/ 7 e er,7 f 79n5 W et$.. X2,01 771r Cock nW .4 /1 ££ //.tve c% .f t" 4 LJ O4 -771r & O/7 7 i ihie i?e5 !emu•e Tn 7-2-)r "A5/. �,s/ Qu /1 o /F' o/ �c�,rob_5 7%7/ Cho k �� ,6e used 04 Td my (do/fit s. WelCale-e 5/27,7 '6e "lmo U e de -PR9 e 3 JUG 1 p "�9�1 tgd a/ o/7 T� 972 -# rte -e/ (.0 t1�r /LOb/a.�� s •77J S Lo : /1 no,! 7-.;,,07, nctie 2fl�P�fi w ; 't7-) C� f� r„-7 ; r�5 Oe_ o 77Y etc (i�o o7u c /S e--01 edge//el / tin d/07/7;.y 64/9";P 4 b l -t• lie/V-771 34 re etn P2oieeled. CJe ie pig c - e*fl 5K /7 19)/ 6,77,,0001 z n &y Ke„7,a;,7 �J� �2G�4c/S /77,nc'/ To 77 T ,w0,7/a c / r7Yi77es— T-eiy71ux/ e7 s,44*/d /2, elz 67144 r , :, 77A (70/7 _`i r%7/ `e c -c .cue fJ e ta/Z 67/ y e /J%e)7A bee// l%%9it T %di fi 7 61, 7_ ie/en/ ACe.10, / r % Spun al %O 7l/e /. /teen e Ot'// 13e tile ) m.7 %y O,7/7e Ge/: �// V4 5A% 00 e -T/1/A f /7%ly/7 Lv o/Aloe /fou5 e A%//.5 e 7,%e 5,77 (,)71757//„ t .S 972:31 3 /%t ,7b e" /led 1 Sgre/v o -C %74 1772e,e Go: /I 6 e //ay/e , WY. '771 .8 y &a o'K e's cc,l c/ —1--Al, / 01€ 4 y 0o2,5Onfs , (oyo/e6 , ni;PC, Qg/S,c't. colt 1'5 , ; s W ' // no I- /8'9 Syc E ton - L 1/e i(,' (As 2 ✓I 7'e /.L V Fe4 77/e "•e - GO; %/ \ige Sf49 0o9 S /WE,/ o/ - r ,1.1,-X9 Gv///eie‘e W , a7,Z (-2;// ��/C�,� 774,�cc.S . cO2 9oa s1// o {' T%le /4:4 U e /7i7 a%S Gtr // Oi9gey So/j/ E Ac, rr or c ¢' ,D; - bie Htle -7:97k' of ,qkb Oki 72/C Gt>e /CC?, ' di PA I -t -2e Age %,9/RI4 7 ,t%hd •<.f g'eIO/e wAlo Co 4c>.t h/AUe /1 St .-n ,j ©/ s�ey A do not //eed ,% ,; GOO. �K ek- FQ(l i .l- r7 e a a 46P/rl 9- fi e/ ' r - Gtil 6,97-e_ geed i le/ "flex 007/6,' (lied 471, on Al ,6e fogy. `Sam P 771;,-z, X, K( t -TJ-Ji 5 3 u A 004s�2lcc/el of/ a klk °"97 WO, rs n re e 7—U 'to/ 7o J%AeJ o c /! �I /R 1/ eg y Tee/ '7) e qu,9 dcc12 4r 2,l „.� r,7 Pet Vwc Ks bore A/e>oa7 tt e S c ,, 5 / f in, �n to 6r2g1/ IC/9Weli 'uFs/,6,7 5 u /y s i rig ID e e e Ws ]-G Piet 01 r� �) ,t i3 weize ,- r? /er'eae/4/• •//ete i J f'/9f ©T .-f2/e 69n!e q acr' on A5ked //loll e -7i9ii 04(IP zn_o &)e,r r/nS toe, eI O' {-leg12/1f e pot/ 7,57-zel //le 5 ea . c2 nips0A7 `r- CAI/02 P7 e 171OrZf n /%D /G ,lf GJe ,Do /lo f te2/9/171 .fie// P k canal /tea C1 et. 5i flfr //9,71 A,P re k.- 7 /ft cV- Ct'4.z%er7 e 1.-77 d y/er ;sic ,.-t `Yf JUL 1 0 1997 372:2:1.3 Bruce J. Fitzgerald 8653 Weld County Rd 21 Fort Lupton, CO 80621 July 9, 1997 Mr. Todd Hodges Weld County Planner 1400 N 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Todd: This letter concerns the special permit requested by my neighbor, James Younger. Jim has asked for permission to raise up to 4000 ducks on his two acre lot. My home is about 120 feet north of the proposed site. I am asking you to not recommend this project. There are a total of seven lots, each with 2 or 3 acres, adjacent to Jim's home. All the homes are valued between $150.000 and $225,000. I understand that most of the lots are zoned residential. A duck raising facility would not be compatible with the neighborhood. Jim has stated that his facility would be like the turkey farms that are west and southwest of us. The turkey farms have a buffer zone of at least 200 to 300 yards. Jim's facility would have only a ten to twenty foot buffer from my property. The turkey farms have maintain a rigid maintenance program. Jim's facility has no maintenance program that I have seen. The turkey farms stay within the county requirements of 200 animals per acre. Jim's request is for ten times the county's limit. Again, I ask that you not recommend this project, and keep the neighborhood as it is. Thank you, Bruce J. Fitzgerald 1_,e, JUL 1 6 1997 37^r"4 int Case Number USR - 1158 Longmont Foods' Postion Ducks and Turkeys Don't Mix Turkeys and other fowl do not mix well. The reason is simple. One type of feathered animal may carry diseases that affect the other. It is never advisable to raise chickens and turkeys together. Chickens normally carry infections called ntvcoplasmas that can easily be transmitted to turkeys. These mycoplasmas cause no disease in the chickens. However, the same infection causes the turkey to suffer from severe chronic respiratory disease. This disease results in higher than normal death loss and higher than normal condemnation rates when the birds are processed. For this reason, turkey companies raises turkeys only. No chickens allowed. It is also a mistake to raise turkeys and ducks together. Ducks may be infected with several agents which can cause severe disease in turkeys. Two of the worst are a bacterium called Pasteurelia anatinTstifer and a virus (actually a group of viruses) called Avian Influenza. Both of these agents can cause extraordinary death loss in turkey flocks. Presently, an outbreak of Asian Influenza in Pennsylvania has caused the government -mandated slaughter of several million dollars worth of egg and meat producing chickens. In 1991 - 1992 it cost the combined American poultry industries $80 million to eradicate Avian Influenza. In Minnesota, the main source of annual outbreaks of Avian Influenza is free -flying waterfowl, especially ducks. This infection could decimate our 4 million bird operation, either as a result of disease affects, or as a result of government disease control actions. It is also possible that ducks can carry other agents such as Avian Pneumovirus, Pasteurella multocida (the agent which causes Fowl Cholera), and salmonellas (the worst of which for turkeys are S. puliorum, S. gallinarum, and S. ryphimurium). It is extremely likely that another poultry or duck growing operation located as close to our farms as the proposed duck facility would cause our operation ongoing and possibly irreparable damage. Such a facility violates all of our current biosecurity guidelines as it places infected fowl in close proximity to our operations. At any one time the two farms on either side of the proposed (and currently established) duck operation contains 170,000 turkeys the value of which may exceed $2.5 million. Any disease in these flocks can cost our company hundreds of thousands of dollars in a matter of a few weeks. As a matter of simple common sense we would not even locate another turkey farm as close to our present operations as this duck operation is. We have learned the hard way over many years that serious disease problem will typically affect a large number of our farms. We know that many infections will spread by airborne means over fairly long distances. In fact, a viral infection which began on the farm adjacent to the duck operation in May 1996, eventually spread to all but four of our Ducks and Turkeys Don't Mix Page 2. farms. The cost of this infection to our operation in fiscal year 1997 was over $3 million. A repeat of this disease would put us out of business. While we do not yet know where this catastrophic infection came from, the proximity of the duck operation makes it a distinct candidate as the source. We know from our own experience that this virus can be spread by airborne methods for over 1.5 miles. The ducks are only 300 yards from our turkeys, and they are in open pens. One of the aspects of the duck operation that is so frightening to us is the lack of practices related to biosecurity. It is apparent that there are no efforts taken to control contact between these animals and free -flying birds. It is also unlikely that serious efforts are made to understand (a) the true health status of these birds (by blood testing and other microbiologic means), and (b) the health status of the breeding flocks and hatcheries that produced them. It is apparent that new individuals are introduced to the flock fairly often, thereby offering many opportunities during the course of a year to bring new diseases to the duck population. The proposed, and the existing operations are a severe threat to Longmont Foods. We have been raising turkeys in Weld and Boulder counties for almost 40 years. We spend $60 million each year raising our turkeys for processing in Longmont. Our company employs over 1,100 people, with 250 of those being associated with our farms. In our small -margin business, anything that threatens to raise that cost, threatens to put us out of business. The consequences of approving such an operation close to our farms would be disastrous. It is not a question of whether or not this operation will cause us to have severe disease problems. It is only a question of when. Perhaps it already has. Robert K. Edson, DVM, PhD Director of Veterinary Services for Longmont Foods July 7, 1997 972513 972511 Z Looking East from the West side of the duck operation. Turkey buildings on our Strear Farm are just across the road. From the same location looking West. Turkey Buildings on our Premium Farm are approximately 350 yards away. 972,513 Typical Longmont Foods Turkey Building, it is screened and enclosed to elimate direct contact with wild birds. Fenceline between the duck operation and Longmont Foods Premium Farm. 972513 Hello