HomeMy WebLinkAbout20233467.tiff INVENTORY OF ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
Applicant Leslie D . Matson c/o USS Auburn Solar, LLC
Case Number USR23-0028
Submitted or Prepared
Prior to At
Hearing Hearing
1 Pamela Heidbrink — email received July 24 , 2023 X
2 Dennis and Sharlene Loose — email received July 24 , 2023 X
3 Todd Loose — letter received July 24 , 2023 X
I hereby certify that the three items identified herein were submitted to the Department of Planning Services
at or prior to the scheduled Planning Commissioners hearing .
OvCQ9,-
Diana Aungst, Planner I
Diana Aungst
From: Eric Sheley
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2023 4: 52 PM
To: Maxwell Nader; Diana Aungst
Subject: FW: Case # USR23 -0028 Solar Facility
Please see letter of opposition below .
From : P Heidbrink < pheidbrink@gmail . com >
Sent : Monday, July 24, 2023 4 : 09 PM
To : Eric Sheley <esheley@weld .gov>
Subject : Case # USR23-0028 Solar Facility
Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Please forward to Diana Aungst
I received a card in the mail about this project which is within 500 feet of my property at 22115 County Rd 52 . I am
opposed to this project being put in at this location . I feel it' s not a good fit for an agriculture area and would negatively
affect the wildlife in the area and would be detrimental to the property values surrounding the facility.
Thank you,
Pamela Heidbrink
EXHIBIT
b
3
.0
USR23- 0028
1
Diana Aungst
From: DI < mugsyinco@aol .com > EXHIBIT
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2023 5:05 PM sow) 2
To: Diana Aungst
Subject: Fw: Case # USR-0028 ATTENTION : DIANA AUNGST USR23- 0028
Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Forwarded Message
From : DI < mugsyinco@aol . com >
To : ESHELEY@WELD . GOV <esheley@weld . gov> ; esheley@Weld . Gov <esheley@weld .gov> ; mugsyinco@aol . com
<mugsyinco@aol . com>
Sent : Monday, July 24 , 2023 at 03 : 32 : 50 PM MDT
Subject: Case # USR-0028 ATTENTION : DIANA AUNGST
I am writing to voice our opposition to the Case Number USR23-0028 Solar Facility (SEF ) in the A
(Agriculture Zoned District , South of and adjacent to County Road 52 and east adjacent to Road 45 .
Our property , Dennis and Sharlene Loose at 22035 Road 52 is directly north of the proposed site
within 500 feet.
We are strongly opposed the the proposed solar farm at this location . for the following reasons :
1 . Our property value will be diminished considerably by the unsitely instillation of solar panels just
across the road from our home . We have seen many locations across Weld County where these
facilities have been built and they are not complimentary to the "country life" that we have paid to live
in for the last 25 years . We much prefer the current AGRICULTURAL view of the cattle , pasture land
and growing crops to looking out my front window to rows and rows of soar panels . I doubt you
yourself would want this facility just across the street (road ) from your front window and the disrupting
of your peaceful view .
2 . There would be considerable increase in traffic to build and maintain such a facility and these ARE
dirt country roads that spew considerable dust and dirt onto our home and property . The traffic count
is already much higher than the last 25 years have produced .
3 . We live in what has always been an AGRICULTURAL ZONE an NOT a Commercial or Industrial
Zone. We would want it to remain an Agricultural zone with no changes that affect our life style and
property value . This facility would most certainly affect both .
4 . Environment and Habitat : We have seen and have many pictures of the pasture land of this
property across the road while under water during heavy rains or flood situations . There are two (2 )
ditches that come from the Latham reservor, one to the west side (Overflow ) of this property and one
to the northeast ( main outflow Ditch ) as I am sure you are aware . We have many pictures of both
those ditches ready to overflow being stopped only by county road 52 and 45 . There is very little to
no maintenance done to those ditches by Latham Reservor and this causes considerable concern for
our property and its saftey and security if a solar facility is build on the adjacent property . Many years
1
ago the Latham Reservor burst and flooded our property and followed the railroad tracts almost to
Kersey . Could it happen again ? No guarantee not to even with a sturdier damn .
The habitat we enjoy here includes Bald eagles , hawks , deer, coyotes , several blue Herons , ducks
and geese along with a great variety of other birds . We feel we would loose many of the opportunities
to view and enjoy these animals and birds if the farm were covered with soar panels . What effect will
this facility have on the environment and the habitat that currrently exists here ?
5 . Maintenance who will keep the weeds and undesirable vegetation from growing under the panels
and becoming a nuisance to our adjoining properties?
6 . What studies can you provide to us in regards to the safety and security of our living conditions
with a solar facility that close to our home . Studies have shown that high powered lines are not a
healthy condition for living close to and we would be very close to this facility that produces electricity .
We would like you to provide to us all studies negative or positive , in regards to solar farms in close
proximity to dwellings and farming operations . What effect will it have on our health , our ability to
produce a crop , the effects of weather around this facility and any other concerns that might change
our living conditions?
7 . What benifit would we receive by the unpleasant view and disturbance of building , maintaining and
managing this facility? I feel that we would pay a great price and a tremendous devaluation of our
current property and the surrounding neighborhood . I find this completely unsatisfactory .
8 . We still own a very small piece of land on the south side of the Latham Ditch and have not been
contacted about its use .
Please respond to Dennis and Sharlene Loose at 970-330- 1696 or to Mugsyinco@aol . com .
Your consideration of our concerns will be appreciated and we hope acknowledged .
2
EXHIBIT
Todd Loose
.), 3
25201 WCR 52
a
Kersey, CO . 80644 USR23-0028
Dear Weld County Planning and Zoning Commission,
Please consider the following letter as my statement of opposition to the proposed Solar development
listed as case number USR23 -0028 located near the intersection of WCR 52 and WCR 45 .
My parents and I own property that share a fence line with the proposed project. To my knowledge they
have never been contacted as neighbors . This is specifically required in development submissions and in
any work I have been part of the board will ask for feedback from meetings with neighboring residents .
There is certainly an argument that both the property value and local aesthetics are impacted . This is an
argument that is historically ignored by county process . What should not be ignored under county
process is the approval of industrial sites in agricultural zones . Nothing in your comprehensive plans
suggests to a prospective land buyer that they will soon have a commercial neighbor. The land is zoned
agriculture and is used extensively for this purpose . Weld County has changed the recorded exemption
process making it more difficult to divide and develop land in the county. USR and commercial
developments should be impacted and held to a higher standard than in the past as part of those
processes .
It is also my understanding that such projects are to be placed in areas of the county that minimize
impact on both residential and agricultural activities . This property has significant grass resources and is
pastured year- round . Your environmental study must have missed the numerous cattle grazing in the
location . The carrying capacity of this parcels significantly exceeds dry parcels nearby.
With regards to your environmental review, I would also point out that this is habitat to eagles, hawks,
and other non -common predator species that do not simply move across the fence when disturbed .
There will be impact at this site, and it will be much than it would be on one of the thousands of acres of
dry pasture sites close by and south of the proposed location . There is no specific reason that the site is
more conducive to solar generation than these sites .
Another concern is the extremely high groundwater table in this location . In places very near to the
surface . Construction of a site on a pad that has such high groundwater would be discouraged by most
legitimate engineers . I am uncertain if you have confirmed this location does not meet the criteria of
wetland, but although it may not be designated as wetland, it may very well meet the Army Core of
Engineers standard for such designation .
For these and numerous reasons I would ask this project to be denied . Although I support the
development of Solar options, there are hundreds of sites close by that receive the same amount of sun
and reach the same infrastructure that are much more suitable to the project .
Toad Loose
Hello