HomeMy WebLinkAbout20192426.tiffINVENTORY OF ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
Applicant GS Farms, LLC Case Number USR19-0023
Submitted or Prepared
Prior to At
Hearing Hearing
1
Douglas, Letter
in Opposition
X
2
Grigsby/Fieling, Letter
in Opposition
X
3
Griebel, Letter
in Opposition
X
4
Pritchard,
Letter
in Opposition
X
5
Bove, Email in Opposition
X
6
FRNBES, Letter
in Opposition
X
7
G. Anderson, Email in Opposition
X
8
A. Brinlee, Email in Opposition
X
9
J. Callis, Email in Opposition
X
10
R. Chestnut,
Email in Opposition
X
11
C. Day, Email in Opposition
X
12
D. Haberle, Email in Opposition
X
13
E. McCormick, Email in Opposition
X
14
T. Pitts,
Email in Opposition
X
15
B. Blackmore, ckmore, Email in Opposition
X
16
H. Simons, Email in Opposition
X
17
A. Karnitz,
Email in Opposition
X
18
D. Kristoff,
Email in Opposition
X
19.
J. Boutin,
Email in Opposition
X
20.
D. Cumber, Email in Opposition
X
21
L. Reich, Email in Opposition
X
22
L. Gillar, Email in Opposition
X
23
K. Comats,
Email in Opposition
X
24
M. Fairchild, Email in Oppoisition
X
25
C. Stahlcup,
Email in Opposition
X
26
B. Walker, Email in Opposition
X
27
R. Exwards, Email in Opposition
X
28
V. Griebel, Email in Opposition
X
29
K. Jackson, Email in Opposition
X
30
L. Patterson,
Email in Opposition
X
31
M. Gagnon, Email in Opposition
X
32
S. Jones, Email in Opposition
X
33
J. Tasher, Email in Opposition
X
34
A. Colpitts,
Email in Opposition
X
35
J. Adams, Email in Opposition
X
36
E. Burritt,
Email in Opposition
X
37
L. Martin, Email in Opposition
X
38
D. Bove, Letter
in Opposition
X
39
I. Fortune,
Letter
in Opposition
X
40
B. O'Brien, Email in Opposition
X
41
G. Grigsby, Email in Opposition
X
42
K. Beyer, Email in Opposition
X
43
A. Backund, Email in Opposition
X
44
Gracey, Letter
in Opposition
X
45
J. Raese, Letter
in Opposition
X
46
R. Traupe, Letter
in Opposition/Concern
X
47
K. Kupfner & S. Jones, Letter
in Opposition
X
48
D. Raphael, Email in Opposition
X
49
M. Geiger, Email in Opposition/Concern
X
50
T. Pitts,
Email in Opposition
X
51
J. Musson, Email in Opposition
X
52
S. Bay, Email in Opposition
X
53
P. Man nos, Email in Opposition/Concern
X
54
C. Bujol, Email in Opposition/Concern
X
55
S. Kloefer, Email in Opposition
X
56
Timothy
J. O'Neill
Lyons Gaddis, Letter
in Opposition
X
—
57
Petition
in Opposition
to USR19-0023
X
58
Power Point
Presentation
by J. Pritchard
X
I hereby certify that the items identified herein were submitted to the Department of Planning Services at
or prior to the scheduled Planning Commissioners hearing.
Chris Gathman, Planner
Herb and Sandy Douglass
6886 Weld County Road 5 (Parcel4i 131333200010)
Erie, CO 80516
April 16, 2019
Mr, Chris Gathman
Weld County Department of Planning Services
1555 N 17th Ave.
Greeley, Co 80631
RE: Case 14 USR 19-0023 (GS Farms LLC)
Dear Mr. Gathman,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the Site Specific Development Plan and Use by
Special Review Permit for GS Farms LLC.
In reviewing the Responses to the USE Questionnaire by GS Farms LLC, we have a number of concerns
and objections given the Agricultural Zone District in this portion of Weld County and the property we
own that is within 100 feet of the east border of this proposed development.
Planning Department Questions
1. The request to convert a five -acre parcel of agricultural land into a commercial plumbing
business is not congruent with the current agricultural zoning or the current land use of all
adjacent land owners. We purchased our agricultural land in Weld County for the purpose of
continuing to grow grass and alfalfa hay on our farm and we welcome all agricultural activities
on this newly purchased five -acre parcel. However, the addition of an office building, a second
residence, an equipment/maintenance building and permanent storage containers is not
consistent with agricultural operations. in addition, the square footage of the second proposed
house does not seem acceptable for a "caretakers" home on rural property in Weld County. In
the past when we have inquired about the maximum allowable square footage, it was much
smaller than the proposed 3712 square feet. Can you please clarify what the current square
footage requirements are for a "caretakers" home in Weld County? Is there a required acreage
minimum needed in order to build a second residence in Weld County?
2. The proposed new farming enterprises will enable a continuation of the historic agricultural use.
However, the addition of a commercial plumbing business and the requested buildings
completely degrade the quality of life and agricultural heritage of the site and the surrounding
properties.
3. The additional traffic produced by the plumbing portion of the business will negatively impact all
of the surrounding agricultural land. Given that County Road 5 is a dirt road, the additional
traffic and dust will be significant.
EXHIBIT
(Aso 00 23
4. The land surrounding the proposed site includes a mixture of farms under active cultivation,
fields of permanent pastureland and single family rural residences. Many of the small oil and
gas generating facilities are no longer in operation. The proposed commercial use for this five -
acre parcel does not match the intended use for this agricultural property. It would be in stark
contrast to the neighboring agricultural activities.
5. Business Hours of Operation. Again, we have no issue with the agricultural hours of operation
being 7 days a week. The plumbing dispatch business is clearly a commercial enterprise. The
USR Questionnaire indicates plumbing Dispatch will only operate 5 days a week. Based on the
company website, the hours of operation are 7:00 — 9:00 p.m. seven days per week. If plumbing
supplies are stored on site, there could be plumbing traffic seven days per week.
6. Twelve full time employees. None of the adjacent agricultural operations have 12 full time
employees. It appears that four of the employees are associated with the commercial plumbing
business. This is not congruent with the surrounding agricultural activities.
8. Plumbing van maintenance is again clearly commercial and is not appropriate for the
Agricultural Zone District.
9. The application indicates up to 20 horses for boarding and 200 mature birds on this limited
acreage. Given the total proposed square footage of buildings, roadways and parking areas,
there is extremely limited space for farm animals.
11. Can you please clarify the total number of parking spaces being requested? There appears to be
a discrepancy between the twenty parking spaces indicated on the USR Questionnaire and the
Site Plan Map. The number of planned parking spaces seems to indicate significant traffic in and
out of the enterprise each day. As the commercial business continues to grow, we have concern
regarding the increased traffic in the agricultural area.
17. Outdoor lighting for off-street parking areas and various worksites located throughout the
premises will contribute to light pollution and will not be conducive to the agricultural quality of
life being sought by all adjacent neighbors. This type of lighting is essential for a commercial
business and belongs in a commercial or light industrial location — not on agricultural land.
Engineering Department
As previously stated, the increased traffic from commercial plumbing vans and suppliers will make a
significant impact on County Road S which is a dirt road designed for agricultural activities only.
There is a protected Bald Eagle's nest within a few hundred yards of this proposed project. The
additional traffic could disturb the Bald Eagles as outlined in the United States Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act. This Act was passed in 1940 and amended in 1972. This Act is enforced by the U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.
Environmental Health Department
2. The proposal states that "clients on premise will use handicap -accessible bathrooms located in the
office. Employees will use the office bathrooms." if the second proposed home is a single family
residence, how will employed agricultural workers have access to personal bathrooms located in
the proposed second residence? It appears the second residence may actually be another single
family home rather than housing for employed agricultural workers. Can you please clarify this?
3. The three permanent 40' shipping containers will not enhance the value of agricultural land in the
adjacent areas.
In summary, we object to a commercial non-agricultural business being allowed to operate in the
Agricultural Zone District. We fully support all agricultural operations and continue to honor the
Agricultural Zoning District in which our property is located. However, the request for USR19-0023 does
not meet the criteria for a small home -based business. Their website (Planet Numbing & Drain)
advertises they have been in business since 1997, currently have office locations in Boulder and
Longmont and are open 7 days per week (7:00 a.m. — 9:00 p.m. daily). The plumbing business serves the
counties of Boulder, Broomfield, Weld, Adams, Jefferson, Denver, Douglas and Arapahoe.
As landowners, we searched for years to find appropriate agricultural land so we could continue the
historic use and to enjoy the peaceful agricultural lifestyle. We are gravely concerned about the
negative impact this commercial enterprise will have on our land values, local traffic, rural life style and
historical agricultural use. Individuals who have intentionally purchased land in Weld County's
Agricultural Zone District do not deserve to have commercial business injected into this Agricultural
Zone District.
Thank you for your consideration of our concerns and objections. Please notify us of any future
meetings regarding the proposed project on this property.
Sincerely,
Herb Douglass and Sandy Cavanaugh Douglass
Temporary Address:
911 Hope Hill Court
Colfax, CA 95713
303-905-5829
April 19,2019
Chris Gathman, Planner, Weld County
There is a proposal before you requesting a Use by Special Review. This USR
19-0023 application submitted by GS Farms LLC requires our response.
My wife and 1' reside at 6870 County Road 5, Erie, CO on what remains of the original
homestead of my great, great, grandfather Robert Hauck. The first entry in the Weld
County records for this property is the transferal of the property from the U.S.
government to Robert Hauck. This area in the southwest corner of the county, has
changed dramatically over the past 25 years. What was once small family farms has
become small acreages with rural residential homes. Agriculture in the traditional sense
doesn't exist here anymore. When we closed our nursery business two years ago we
were the last economically viable agricultural business within a mile, The land
surrounding us has been divided into small parcels and country homes have been built,
This process is continuing today.
The proposal before you (USA 19-0023) contemplates a commercial development in
the midst of country homes. There are several instances in the county codes that
address this discontinuity that I would like to call to your attention.
Article 11, Sec 22-2-10
E. "The natural landscape and vegetation predominate over the built environment.
Agricultural land uses and development provide the visual landscapes traditionally
found in rural areas..."
The proposed development emphasizes the built environment with roads, parking
areas, buildings, shipping containers, and lighting. The proposal shows little effort to
mitigate the built environment in favor of natural landscape and vegetation. The site
may be too small to accomplish this goal.
Sec, 22-2-20
G. A. Goal 7. "protect individual property owner right..."
2. A. Policy 7.2 "Conversion of agriculture land to..commercial use should be
accommodated 4 t ..and should attempt to be compatible with the region."
There are no similar uses within a mile of the proposed development. The proposed
asphalt roadways, twenty car parking lot, office building, maintenance shop, and
outdoor lighting makes no "attempt to be compatible with the region."
The concept of compatibility is addressed again in;
Sec.22-2-20 -20
i
I. A. Goal 9 Reduce potential conflicts
2. A. Policy 9.2 `{Consider the individuality of the characteristics and compatibility
of the region of the county that each proposed land us change affects."
The land use in the area has been steadily► moving toward single family rural
residential homes situated on small acreages. As the farms have been sold over the
years the properties have been divided into varying sized pieces and homes built. This
area of Rd 5 is especially unique because of the spectacular views of the front range,
the many mature trees, the large green spaces separating homes, the relative quiet with
little traffic on Rd 5 and no busy enterprises nearby. In order to appreciate the
"individuality of the characteristics" of this area one would need to visit the site because
this kind of aesthetic can't be understood from a map or aerial photo. I believe that it is
necessary for those involved in evaluating this proposal to visit the site and the area
before making a recommendation.
Because of the characteristics of the area the following section of the county code is
pertinent;
Sec. 22-2-20 I. A. Goat 9
5. A. Policy 9.5 "Applications for a change of land use in the agricultural areas
should be reviewed in accordance with all potential impacts on surrounding
properties..."
The proposal as submitted represents a distinct change in the direction of the
established land use in the area. There are several potential impacts on the area
including; increased traffic on the road and its associated dust and noise, disruption of
the "visual landscapes traditionally found in rural areas", the toss of aesthetic appeal,
and the reduction in property values of the surrounding land. If the development were
approved as proposed it could set a precedent for future development that would
exacerbate the impacts and further degrade the exceptional characteristics and property
values of the surrounding areas.
It may be possible to amend the proposed development plan to mitigate these
impacts and allow the project to be compatible with the surrounding use. We have
spoken with the owners/applicants about this and they have indicated a willingness to
modify their proposal. If the appropriate changes were made I think the project could
comply with the intent of the county codes.
Respectfully,
Guy Grigsby
Amy Fie ling ng
Jeremy & Victoria Griebel
6868 WCR 5
Erie, CO 80516
April 18, 2019
Weld County Planning Services
Attn: Mr. Chris Gathman
1555 N. 17' Avenue
Greeley, Co 80631
RE: Use for Special Review
Case #: USR19-0023
Name: GS Farms LLC
Dear Mr. Gathman & the Weld County Planning Department,
We, Jeremy & Victoria Griebel, are the property owners of Parcel # 131333200009 in Weld County, Colorado.
We are writing in response to Case It USRI9-0023 proposed by GS Farms LIC. We appreciate the notification of this
proposed project and thank you for the opportunity to express to yourself and the planning department the numerous
concerns we have.
Our property is directly adjacent to the five -acre parcel of agricultural pastureland that is described in this Use by Special
Review, bordering it along the its East property line. Due to the proximity of our property to that of the Gentry/ Shattuck
family, we are greatly concerned about the negative impact the proposed developments would have on our property
value.
We purchased the above mentioned property for the sole purpose of building a home and residing outside of city limits,
in a quiet, rural community. Our intentions with doing so are to raise our family away from the hustle and bustle of
urban life and away from the noise, traffic and density of commercial and industrial developments. We made a
significant investment when we purchased our property due to the superb location and the beautiful valley and
mountain views that it has to offer, as well as the rural atmosphere that we desired to be a part of. We feel that it would
be quite difficult to enjoy our property, for the intentions with whichwe purchased it, if the proposed USR is approved.
Based on information from their website, the Gentry/Shattuck family plumbing business (AKA Planet Plumbing) currently
has two established office locations. Given this, we find it very unnecessary for the development of an additional (or
perhaps replacemerac) office/dispatch facility in an agriculturally zoned location. To impose this type of
commercial/industrial operations on the surrounding neighbors is unacceptable. It simply has no beneficial outcome for
those nearby or adjacent to the property and is a one-sided benefit solely to the plumbing business. We do not see any
possible scenario in which the proposed USR would increase the value of our property or in any way positively impact
our quality of life as an adjacent property owner.
In specific response to the USR Questionnaire as submitted by GS Farms LLC, we find a number of proposals that are not
consistent with the agricultural zoning in this area of Weld County and would significantly and negatively impact the
surrounding properties. These concerns are outlined below.
Planning Department Question #1: A secondary residence, an office building, an equipment maintenance building,
multiple permanent storagecontainers and a twenty -space parking lot do not fall into the category of agricultural
zoning. These proposed developments are not agricultura4 operations and in no way an appropriate improvement to the
nature of the surrounding agricultural and residential properties.
The proposal of an office/dispatch building and an equipment/vehicle maintenance building for the operation of a
plumbing business do not enhance the surrounding properties in any way, and in fact, likely creates a significant decline
in property value of all adjacent and neighboring agricultural and residential properties.
Planning Department Question #2: While the proposed farming operations align with the current zoning of this
property, the combination of a plumbing business does not. We would argue that it does in fact degrade the quality of
life and agricultural heritage of the surrounding properties as well as the site itself.
The proposal is not in alignment with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan as it does not maintain "large contiguous
parcels of productive agricultural land" (Sec, 22-2-10: 8), plumbing dispatch & plumbing vehicle maintenance operations
are not "home businesses" and do not "support a high -quality rural character" (Sec. 22-2-10: E) and lastly} the proposal
does not "support a high -quality rural character which respects the agricultural heritage and traditional agricultural land
uses of the county" as plumbing business operations do not enhance "rural lifestyle" nor do they provide "rural -based
economies' (Sec. 22-2-10: F).
The final statement made in this section is also worrisome to us. Does CS Farms preemptively anticipate concerns from
neighbors so much so that "the ability to quickly mitigate any concerns of adjacent property owners" is included in their
response? We find this statement quite ironic and it merely exacerbates our concerns of this proposed development.
Planning Department Question #3: We understand that the goals and intentions of most businesses is growth. With this
in mind, we would question what the plumbing company's goals are for future growth. One would anticipate the
likelihood of additional dispatch & maintenance employees, fleet vans, deliveries and an overall increase in traffic in the
years to come. How would this be monitored by Weld County, the Town of Frederick, etc. to never exceed the amount
of impact being proposed?
Planning Department Question #4: To our knowledge, there are no adjacent properties of a commercial/industrial type.
The intended use as proposed does not align with the agricultural and residential surroundings.
Planning Department Question #5: While we see no concern with the agricultural hours of operation, we find the
plumbing business hours stated on the questionnaire to be contradictory to the business hours stated on the company's
website. Their website states hours of operation as seven days a week from 7am-9pm. Will dispatch employees be
working at the proposed office building seven days per week? Will fleet vehicles be coming to and from the proposed
maintenance/equipment building seven days per week? Are plumbing supplies and equipment stored at the proposed
site requiring fleet vehicle access seven days per week? Again, these operations are in no way related to agricultural
zoning and are commercial in nature.
Planning Department Question #6-7: Could clarification be made as to why the agricultural operations would require
eight full time employees? Additionally, the four plumbing business employees, being non-agricultural, are not
consistent with the current agricultural zoning of this property and the surrounding properties.
Planning Department Question #8: The traffic, dust and noise pollution created by the commercial, ind ustrial use of this
5 -acre lot is not an appropriate use of the agriculturally zoned location. Plumbing technicians and any subsequent
deliveries in association with the plumbing business do not fall under the definition of agricultural land use.
Planning Department Question #9: Could you confirm whether the Animal Units per Household as specified by Weld
County is in relation to the total acreage of the property or the total acreage that would be accessible to the animals?
The available space for livestock appears to be extremely limited for the proposed amount of livestock, given the total
proposed area of roadways, parking lots and buildings,
Planning Department Question ##11: Per the USR Site Plan, a total of 31 parking spaces are accounted for, This number
is contradictory to the twenty spaces noted in the questionnaire. Regardless of these numbers being inconsistent, the
proposed commercial/industrial parking spaces show a substantial volume of traffic, business activity, etc., of which the
majority appear to be non-agricultural.
Planning Department Question #17: The proposed outdoor lighting for off-street parking and various worksites will only
contribute to light pollution, will negatively impact the quality of life for the surrounding residential and agricultural
neighbors, and subsequently, belongs in a commercial/industrial zoned area.
As stated above, our property is located directly east of this 5 -acre ?at, The required commercial/industrial lighting of
this proposal would greatly hinder our westward view of the valley and mountain landscape, which greatly attributed to
the purchase decision of our property.
Engineering Department Question #1: Again, the increased traffic impact resulting from the proposed zoning change
will greatly and negatively impact the current road system in the area.
Engineering Department Question #2-4: The current amount of traffic on WCR 5 already results in long wait times to
access highway 52 and this will only magnify the situation, especially during peak travel periods.
Environmental Health Department Question #3: The three proposed permanent shipping containers are
commercial/industrial in nature and do not appear to be necessary for the agricultural operations, As stated in the USR
questionnaire, these shipping containers would be used to store mechanical and plumbing parts, leading us to believe
that plumbing employees would be accessing these on a regular basis to carry out commercial business operations,
in closing, we support the proposed agricultural operations that coincide with the current zoning. However, in the best
interest of surround property values and quality of rural life, we are opposed to the requested Use by Special Review for
industrial and commercial operations on this 5 -acre agriculturally zoned parcel,
We thank you for hearing our apprehensions and look forward to your response. We encourage you to protect the
agricultural heritage and high -quality rural character of Weld County,
Sincerely,
- em' an Victoria Griebel
Mailing Address;
6195 Taylor Ste
Frederick, Co 80530
970-4014322
vn grie el@vahoo.cor
John P. Syndia K. Pritchard
6789 County Road 5
Erie, CO 80516
April 19, 2019
Re: Case USR19-0023 Feedback
Dear Mr. Gathman,
We live directly across County Road 5 from the property in the referenced case and are writing to
convey our extreme opposition to the Proposed Project.
Our fundamental objection is the project is completely incongruent with the area, especially the
neighboring properties and violates the zoning. Even the developer acknowledges the importance of
preserving the "historic agricultural use. And yet, his project completely violates this tenant. He
acknowledges the importance of the county's plans by referencing the Comprehensive Plan, and states
in multiple instances the importance of preserving and adhering to the neighboring area's usage, but
submits a plan that completely violates both. The developer continually conflates the project's
agricultural aspects with the commercial plumbing operation. This Is misleading as it attempts to
portray the commercial plumbing operation asdeaminimis to the agriculture activities. The developer
uses the agriculture activities to positively answer questions relating to the zoned use and surrounding
neighbor activities eswhen the commercial plumbing operation completely violates both. This is very
misleading.
All aspects of the project related to the plumbing business should be disallowed.
A commercial plumbing business can, under no stretch of the imagination, be considered an
agricultural purpose. Counties and municipalities spe+cifica l ly plan their communities, especially
the location and mix of zone types, and designate specific, commercial zones. The planners
clearly did not intend for this area to be commercial. The developer knew this when he
purchased the property. His commercial, non-agricultural business should be placed in an area
the planners intended a a commercially zoned area.
The developer correctly states the surrounding land includes "farms under active cultivation,
fields of permanent pastureland, single family rural residences and small oil & gas generating
facilities', but then draws a completely illogical conclusion that a commercial plumbing
operation and extremely high volume of traffic match that usage;
Changing the intended usage of this property to allow a commercial enterprise is wrong and
should not be contemplated.
The amount of increased traffic due to the commercial business operations is completely inconsistent
with the area and neighbors. The developer's traffic estimates are confusing, but could total over 78
trips/day. And Mr Gathman, as an experienced planner, I'm sure you're very aware that nearly all
trafficestimates submitted by developers are extremely understated and the actual volume once the
project is complete is virtually always significantly higher than the developer's initial estimates. These
counts — even without recognizing their understatement - are extremely high for this area.
The developer Oates, "only plumbing dispatch workers will come and go from the site on a daily
basis's, but later conflicts that by saying plumbers will be "checking into the office dais". The
developer states up to 60 trips per day just for the boarding and poultry activities, then
concludes is a "'relatively light impact and high compatibility with the surrounding area".
That's rubbish. The surrounding, area is residential acreages which might have 4 trips per day
per household. The developer's 78 trips per day is a 1,850% increase! No one would conclude a
1,850increase is a *light impact".
commercial signage, lighting, and parking lots are completely inconsistent with the area and
neighboring property. This is not a commercial area. It is a residential acreage area as well as farm
and pasture land, commercial operations should be placed in the zones the planners intended, not
forced into zones the planners did not intend.
The need for a residence to house workers seems inconsistent with the stated purposes. This is not
some 10,E -acre ranch necessitating a house full of ranch hands. Its a 5 -acre residential acreage. And
this neighborhood its not a commercial scale agriculture area. The erection of a residence for workers
should be disallowed.
Our final objection is not legal in nature, but we would hope it be granted significant importance
nonetheless. It is one of courtesy and decency. Common courtesy dictates you don't do something that
is completely orthogonal to your neighbors. The developer knew the usage of properties in this area
when he purchased his lot He should now not attempt to completely change the complexion of the
neighborhood. Each of the developer's neighbors sought out their property because of the
neighborhood. And each followed the zoning as well as the nature of the neighborhood when they
improved their property. Those same principles should be followed by this property's owner. No
developer would attempt to put a large mall in the middle of a residential neighborhood - even if he
thought he could get the zoning changed. it's just not right. Putting a commercial plumbing operation
in this neighborhood is just not right. Putting in businesses. which will increase the traffic by 1,85"6 is
just not right. Putting in a second residence to house agricultural workers on a S -acre lot is just not
right.
I call on the Weld County to reject this project. It along with my neighbors, will continue to do whatever
we can to prevent this from being implemented.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
bhn P. Pritchard
Syndia K. Pritchard
From:
To: QUESuldreida
Subject: (AS Farms I IC (moments
Data: Monday, May 27, 2019 8:19:24 AM
Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not dick links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Mr. Guthman.
1 have left 3 phone messages with your requesting a return phone call about comments for the GS Farms LLC project. Not only has our group copied an incorrect email
address from CPW's letter to you on this matter, but there are no listed email addresses on the Weld County website for any staff or pertinent offices. At least none that I
can find.
Not only has our comments email on the project been sent to the wrong email address that we derived from the CPW letter,.but your email address, like tin the Weld
we)site wasn't even isted in the,lannin,services _ester attached be ow.
At this point, all the emails that have been sent to you from Front Range Nesting Bald Eagle Studies and others that we know have apparently bounced.
I have finally found what I think is your correct email address, 1 want to make sure that our and others comments are recorded in this important matter.
I'd appreciate the courtesy of a response on this matter.
Dana Bove
FRNBES
Front Range Nesting Bald Eagle Studies
Case it USR1 - 2S
Name: GS Fans tt`
C
Proposed Project USR for
residence for agricultural workers
t for plumbing business along
building for �'���� � with equipment maintenance building for
�r� l��� p mbinvehicle in the Agricultural Zone District.
plu g � Location: East of and adjacent to CR 5 (8utrus,
Blvd); approximately 3600 feet north of State Hwy
52.
Planner Chris Gathman
Comments due by: April 19, 2019
Y
INK 44
in
Ii
4
tprit
• 4 sr
Air
i
wrr
VS POSTAGE>> P4TNEY E.
arianStAies
ziPBD63
02 41191
00003
Weld County P13nninq Services
1555 N 17th Ave
Greeley CO 84631
(970)353-6100 ext. 3540
VICTORIA & JEREMY GRIEBEL
6193 TAYLOR ST
FREDERICK CO 80530
ir 'II'II'1I iota s�
20 I'
Meyer Glitzenstein & Eubanks LLP
4115 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Suite 210
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone (2O2) 588-5206
Fax (202) 588-5049
ink.@rneyerglit2. com
May 24, 2019
Chris G .thrnan
Weld County Planning Services
1555 N . 17th Ave.
Greeley, CO, 80631
cgathman@eld,co.us
2601 8. Lemay .ve.
Unit 7-240
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Telephone <970) 703-6060
Fax (202) 588-5049
beubanks@rneyerglitz.com
RE: Comments for G$ Farms LL Project (USR19-0023)
Dear Mr. Gatham:
I represent Front Range Nesting Bald Eagle Studies (FRNBES), which is a Colorado -
based non-profit conservation and scientific research organization. FRNBES is dedicated to
providing scientific information that supports protection of bald eagle populations and habitat
across the northern Front Range of Colorado. FRNBES engages in scientific monitoring and data
collection and advocates for eagle conservation through legislative, regulatory, and legal efforts.
The proposed GS Farms LLC development will be located less than 0.2 miles from the
active "Erie" Bald eagle nest (Fig. 1). The project will also encroach upon the adult eagle's
protective night roost, located about O. I mites north of the proposed project. A quick survey of
this largely agricultural area reveals a dearth of alternative night perch trees in the near vicinity
of the nest tree, These protected environments for night roosting are critical for affording the
protection and quiet required by the nesting eagles to engage in essential biological functions
such as breeding, feeding, sheltering, reproducing, and raising young.
recycled paw
A. Juvenile Perch Usage, June to August 2018
.a rav Saram.
a Elul I I '!v9 ! VP'
1;3r `:A+-RA4iI I:
.... !.
U 7 MB
Figure 1.
Juvenile Minutes
Spent et Perch
60-30D
300•2400
The project will be well within Colorado Parks and Wildlife's (CPW) recommended !4 -
mile protective buffer to avoid disturbance around eagle nests (Fig. 1). CPW has issued highly
pertinent guidance establishing science -based recommendations to avoid activities that will harm
bald eagles or their habitat. See CPW, Recommended Buffer Zones and Seasonal Restrictions for
Colorado Raptors (2008), available at
hftps://cpw.state.co.usiDocumentstWildlifeSpeciesitivingW ith Wildlife .aptorfluffer iuid.elines
2008.pdf. Specifically, CPW recommends the following measures to avoid adverse impacts to
bald eagle nest sites:
Bald Eagle Nest: i no surface occupancy within a 0.25 -mile "buffer zone" around
active bald eagle nests, and (ii) seasonal restrictions to human encroachment within
a 045 -mile "buffer zone" around active nests from October 31 to July 31 each year.
For the purpose of these recommendations, "surface occupancy" is defined by the
Colorado Division of Wildlife as "(a]ny physical object that is intended to remain
on the landscape permanently or for a significant amount of time. Examples
include houses, oil and gas wells, tanks, wind turbines, roads, tracks, etc."
2
Development plans indicate that the currently vacant 5 -acre pasture, which conforms to the
zoned rural/a.gricultural setting of land in the surrounding area, will be transformed into light -
commercial usage that will include: an office building for a plumbing business; two residences;
an equipment maintenance building; at least 32 planned parking spaces; and a horse boarding
and poultry boarding business. Besides encroachment and likely disturbance of federally
protected eagles, this busy commercial and residential operation is incompatible with the
character and values of those that currently live and farm in this area.
Erie Bald Eagle Test history and Future Sustainability,
The original Erie/Wyndham Bald Eagle nest was located about o.5 miles southwest of the
intersection of Highway 52 and CR7 (see "original nest; Fig. 1) and was likely first occupied
between 2006 to 2008. The original nest and tree were removed under a U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service "take" permit in December 2015, to allow construction of 2,000 homes in the town of
Erie. Two failed nesting seasons followed the nest take, and a new nest was built at the current
location in October 2017.
After four consecutive failed seasons, the Erie Bald Eagles finally fledged three juvenile
eagles successfully in June 2018. Comprehensive studies by FR BE (Figure 1) depict the
spatial and temporal land usage for these three juvenile eagles during the post -fledge dependence
time period from June 2018 into August 2018. As is always the case during this post -fledge
period, the juvenile eagles relied exclusively on their parents for food and protection.
As shown in Figure 1, the three fledgling eagles utilized an area that extends well outside the
CPW 'A -mile buffer (green dots are perch locations; surrounding circles denote relative time at
each location). Land -use studies indicate that nearly all of this eagle use area and much of the
adjacent land is planned for near -term development (yellow and orange areas), or will likely be
developed (salmon color; directly south of nest).
Recently, the Town of Frederick approved expansion and increased density of the
Wyndham subdivision, which will allow new homes to be built within 4 -mile east of the Erie
nest (Fig. 1). The extensive new light -commercial and residential development planned for at the
GS Farms LLC property will be a significant addition to the cumulative disruptive impacts on
the Erie nesting eagles. Not only do nesting Bald Eagles require buffers from potential
disturbance, but they also utilize and require open lands for the adults and young to hunt, forage,
and take shelter in.
DISCUSSION
Under federal law, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act ("BGEPA") "renders it a
federal crime to 'take ... at any time or in any manner any bald eagle commonly known as the
American eagle or any golden eagle." United States v. Dion, 476 U.S. 734, 740 01986) (quoting
16 U.S.C. § 668(a)). In particular, BGEPA prohibits the "take" of any bald or golden eagle
"without being permitted to do so" by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 16 U.S.C. § 668(a);
see id. § 668a (directing that "bald eagles may not be taken for any purpose unless, prior to such
taking, a permit to do so is procured from the" Service). "Take" is defined to include "wound,
kill ... molest, or disturb." Id. § 668c. "Take" includes the incidental taking of, as well as
3
intentional actions directed at, eagles. Id. The Service may issue permits under BGEPA
authorizing the otherwise unlawful take of bald and golden eagles, but only if such take "is
compatible with the preservation" of eagles. Id. § 668a.
Based on CPW's 2008 studies and recommendations, and detailed research by FRNBES
in the northern Colorado Front Range, it is highly likely that the GS Farms LLC project will
interfere with the normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behaviors at the Erie Bald Eagle nest to
a degree that could cause nest abandonment and or impair other essential biological functions, or
potentially result in the death of eagles. In other words, due to the close proximity of this loud,
invasive project to an active eagle nest, it is foreseeable that unauthorized "take" of eagles will
occur as a result of the human -induced disturbances associated with this project. By constructing
this project well within the buffers deemed by CPW to be necessary to avoid a majority of eagle
take, the developer is taking serious risks that it will take eagles in violation of federal law.
If approved by the Weld County Planning Department, the project is likely to result in the
unauthorized "stake" of bald eagles in violation of BGEPA, placing this project in legal jeopardy.
Thus, at minimum, the Weld County Planning Department should urge the project proponent to
seek a eagle take permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. And, to avoid exposing the
county to liability under BGEPA, the Weld County Planning Department should defer rendering
a final decision on whether to approve this project until and unless the project proponent has
obtained a federal permit allowing it to disturb or otherwise take these federally protected eagles.
CONCLUSION
As the housing and extraction boom expands across the Front Range, clashes between
development and wildlife continue to increase. Here, the serious and significant wildlife issues
facing federally protected bald eagles and their habitat support reconsideration and an
opportunity for members of the public to weigh in on this important matter before any ground -
disturbing activities commence. Again, at minimum, the county should urge the project
proponent to seek (and obtain) a federal permit before any work on this project commences.
Thank you for your attention to this request. Please contact me at (970) 703-6060 if I can
provide any additional information or to discuss this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
William S. Eubanks It
4
From: Georgia Anderson
To: Chris Gathman
Subject: USR19-0023 GS Farms LLC
Date: Monday, May 27, 2019 5:50:10 AM
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.
• a _ _ _. {it
11' 71 tit & 'Safe 111 ILL79
,
am a member and volunteer of Front Range Nesting Bald Eagle Studies, and I call
upon Weld County to uphold their commitment to the protection of Nesting Bald Eagles, and
their traditional night roosts that are now being incurred upon by GS Farms LIX project.
I care very much about this situation with how the project will encroach upon and likely
disturb the nest, and the adult eagle's protective night roost, located about 0.1 miles north of
the proposed project.
Please uphold CPW's recommendations and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act for the
Erie Bald Eagle nest, their night roost, and other eagles in Colorado.
Sincerely,
Georgia
Chris Gathman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject
Aven Brinlee cabrinlee@me.com>
Monday, May 27, 2019 111:25 AM
Chris Gathman
RE:USR19-0023 GS Farms LLC
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 keep this area for the Erie nest and other eagles in Co to rad o gI
Sent from my [Phone
Aven Brinlee
1
EXHIBIT
8
Ihst21q.00,
Chris Gathman
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject
Jineen GMail c jineen 13@gmail,com>
Monday, May 27, 2019 12:15 PM
Chris Gathman
Jineen Callis
USR19-0023 GS Farms L1C
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.
Dear Chris:
I have been made aware of proposed housing/commercial expansion in the area of two active bald eagle nests. I beg you to do everything possible to relocate
or redirect these plans!
I started watching a live stream camera at a bald eagle's nest in NE FL 4 years ago. I have learned so much since I started watching. Not only are they our
national symbol of freedom but they are intelligent and sensitive beings whose habitat is everything to them.
Encroachment and disturbance:
• the proposed CS Farms LLC development will be located less than 0.2 miles from the active 'Erie" Bald eagle nest. The project will be well within Colorado
Parks and Wildlife's (CPW) recommended % mile protective buffer to avoid disturbance around eagle nests.
• The project will also encroach upon and likely disturb the nest, and the adult eagle's protective night roost, located about 0.1 miles north of the proposed
project.
• As the housing and extraction boom expands across the Front Range, clashes between development and wildlife continue to increase, The Erie nesting Bald
Eagles have already lost their original nest to development, and if projects like GS Farms LLC are allowed to continue, this and other nests will only be fading
memory in this area.
PLEASE help safeguard this area for the Erie nest and other eagles in Colorado.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Dineen Caflis
Sent from my iPhone
1
Chris Gathman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject
Ruth Chestnut <ruthchestnut69@gmail.com>
Monday, May 27, 2019 120 PM
Chris Gathman
RE: USRIS-0023 GS Farms LLC
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,
Pease save the "Erie" Bald Eagle nest and hunting area, By constructing this project well within the buffers deemed by CPW to
be necessary to avoid a majority of eagle take, the developer is taking serious risks that it will take eagles in violation of the
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA)I
The proposed GS Farms LLC development will be located less than 0.2 miles from the active "Erie" Bald eagle nest The
project will be well within Colorado Parks and Wildlife's (CPW) recommended lh mile protective buffer to avoid disturbance
around eagle nests.
Besides encroachment and likely disturbance of federally protected eagles, this busy commercial and residential operation is
incompatible with the character and values of those that currently live and farm in this area. The project will also encroach
upon and likely disturb the nest, and the adult eagle's protective night roost, located about 0.1 miles north of the proposed
project.
These eagles have lost 2 nests so far over the past 3 years. Please give them a safe place to lay eggs and raise
their eaglets without human encroachment on their sleeping tree and hunting grounds,
Sincerely,
Ruth Chestnut
7398 Henry Ave
Philadelphia, PA 19128
I
Chris Gattiman
From:
Sent
To:
Subject:
Christine Day < chri ssy_day@hotrnai l.co m >
Monday, May 27120191 :51 PM
Chris Gathman
Bald eagle protection
caution: This entail 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.
I am almost embarrassed to tell people on the eagle sites I follow on line that I am from Colorado. For a state that depends on our reputation for a
wilderness area, we make NO attempt to protect our eagles. Other states fiercely protect eagles. We turn a blind eye to protection of nests,
murder of the beloved and federally protected bird. I will try to spread the word to other eagle sites about our states lacking response to the
laws_ Maybe they can help find resources to pressure our state to follow federal laws.
Christine L. Day
Get Outlook for Android
1
EXHIBIT
Chris Gathman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
PDi:anne Haberle < pdiannehaberle@yahoo,com>
Monday, May 2702D19 2:19 PM
Chris Gathman
Chris Gathman Weld County Planning Services
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,
Dear Sir,
Eagles give all Americans joy. If you could just surround this nest with, 2 acres that are left alone it would serve your town. People love to see eagles and I am sure
people would love observing eagle and visit your town. You could even set up cameras and become as famous as the DCEagle pair. Your stores could sell
memorabilia and tees etc.
Please give it some thought. Eagle fans would even donate to the purchase and costs of the acreage.
Thank you for your time,
Dianne Haberle
334 677 3142
podiannehaberle@yahoo.com
1
1
Chris Gathman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject
elizabeth mccormick <ejmccorrnick811@gmail.com>
Monday, May 27, 2019 2:40 PM
Chris Gathman
RE:1iSR19-0023 GS Farms LLC
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.
Dear Chris Gathman,
I believe Americans should protect and preserve out natural wildlife and keep the environment safe andclean. Too often these days, it appears the main goal is
to make "lots of money" and that's the main consideration in all that mankind does and always appears to win out. I think we can build and still keep the correct
balance if it's done very thoughtfully.
What does that say about us? it said that we don't care enough about the animals that need enough space to survive and thrive for many, many years!
It said that we are greedy and have lost our way!
Please pass on these feelings to those involved and re -consider and revise the new building encroachment plans to allow eagles and other wildlife to survive so
we can all enjoy their beauty for generations to come.
it's important for our well being as humans to be able to connect with nature.
Thank you.
Elizabeth McCormick
I
Chris Gathman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Theresa Pitts c caiiiepit#s yahoo.com >
Monday, May 27, 2019 4:35 PM
Chris Gathman
RE: USR19-0023 GS Farms LLC
Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government Do not dick links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
URGEWI; D(LtVtR w1Twout DELAY tza+
TELEGRAM
EXPRESS MESSAGE.
t
STNIMAS
Di. la Liar Leer
NI"'I'om+L' e. Tees
I • Dana Cait
flu ; r Law
Chris, The eagle was here before us so can we try to protect them.
We almost host them years ago but now they are making a come
back Come on people it is our national bird doesn't that mean
anything. Does it always have to be about money! Theresa Fitts,
Cold Spring, MN
t
Chris Gathman
From:
Sent
To:
Subject:
Brent Blackrnore <brentb1971@gmail.com>
Monday, May 27, 2019 5:58 PM
Chris Gathman
Bald Eagies
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.
You must protect them at all costs!! I am a member of AEF. Do your job to protect the Bald Eagle!!
1
Chris Gathman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Heather Simons <heathersimonsl I i @gmail.com>
Monday, May 27 2019 6:34 PM
Chris Gathman
A CALL TO ACTION TO PROTECT THE ERIE NEST FROM ENCROACHMENT
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.
Dear Chris, I recently learned about your new purposed development in Weld county, that is next to 2 active eagles nest.
"Land use projections indicate that the majority (70%) of the 9 square kilometer territory that the Erie Bald Eagles
now hunt and depend upon will be lost to development in the near future."
• The proposed GS Farms LLC development will be located less than 0.2 miles from the active "Erie" Bald eagle nest. The
project will be well within Colorado Parks and Wildlife's , recommended 1/21 mile protective buffer to avoid disturbance
around eagle nests.
• The project will also encroach upon and likely disturb the nest, and the adult eagle's protective night roost, located about
0.1 miles north of the proposed project.
• Besides encroachment and likely disturbance of federally protected eagles, this busy commercial and residential
operation is incompatible with the character and values of those that currently live and farm in this area.
• Please reconsider this project and start thinking about protecting some of your land and resources for the future
generations.
• American bald eagles are still protected by law and each person in charge of making these decisions need to be
aware of the danger this will be to your eagle population as well as your wildlife
population. Thank you for taking time to consider
the many bird and animal activists in your area and in North America, who have been informed of your project. We all
want a happy resolution. Thank
you, Heather Simons
1
Chris Gathman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Alyssa Karnitz < alyssakarnitz@gmait corn >
Tuesday, May 28, 2019 4:37 AM
Chris Gatti ma n
Erie Nest
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,
Hello Chris Gathar ,
It's come to my attention that there is develpment in your jurisdiction that may be incompatible with the wishes of the citizens
who might live and work there. If I'd learned the following about my new home having these conditions, it would give me
pause.
The proposed GS Farms LLC development will be located less than 0.2 miles from the active "Erie" Bald eagle nest. The
Project will be well within Colorado Parks and Wildlife's s (CPW) recommended ' mile protective buffer to avoid
disturbance around eagle nests.
• The project will also encroach upon and likely disturb the nest, and the adult eagle's protective night roost, located about
0.1 miles north of the proposed project.
• The Erie nesting Bald Eagles have already lost their original nest to development, and if projects like GS Farms LLC are
allowed to continue, this and other nests will only be fading memory in this area.
Thank you for your consideration.
Alyssa Karnitz
1
EXHIBIT
/7
Lse,4 -oar
Chris Gathman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject
Diane Kristoff c dianeoutwest@grnail.corn >
Monday/ May 27, 2019 8:11 PM
Chris Gathrnan
Chris Gathmarn, Weld County Planning Services
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.
Dear Mr. Gatham,,
I am Diane Kristoff, board member and field biologist for Front Range Bald Eagles Nest Studies, a non-profit group that is dedicated to protecting bald eagles and
their habitat across the front range. I have been observing and collecting data since March 2018 on the "Erie" bald eagles that have a nest on CR 5, just north of
Hwy. 52 During my 2 hour, twice a week observation sessions, I have encountered many neighbors(of the Erie nest), friends and relatives of these neighbors,
and people driving by. Of all of these people, all are very happy to have the eagle nest near their home and always ask me how the birds are faring. They all want
the birds to stay and breed successfully.
However, if the proposed GS Farms LLC development will be allowed to be built at their site, the bald eagles will be disrupted and may not be able to breed or
stay at their present nest site. GS Farms LLC would be less than 0.2 miles from the nest and 0.1 miles from the night roost. This is not in accordance with
CPW's recommendation of a 0.50 mile buffer zone around active bald eagle nests. They also recommend no surface occupancy with a 0.25 buffer zone around
active nests, and seasonal restrictions on human encroachment from October 31 to July 31. Also the current vacant 5 acre pasture would be transformed to light
commercial usage including at least 32 parking spaces and two businesses. This does not fit into the agricultural setting of the area and would not follow
both CPW and federal protection. The bald eagles are protected by the Federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act which states, in part, that a take permit
would have to be obtained because the eagles might be " killed, molested, or disturbed" .Otherwise, Weld County would be in legal jeopardy. Feel free to
contact me about the CPW or federal protection details. I have tried to be brief.
The business plan GS Farms LLC should not be approved by the Weld County Planning Services. Thank you for your kind consideration.
Diane Kristoff Board member FRBENS
N.S
Loveland, Colorado
1
Chris Gathman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Janis Boutin < bouti n i ndenton@yahoo.com >
Tuesday, May 28, 2019 6:44 PM
Chris Gathman
Eagles
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.
To whim this may concern,
The plight of these eagles are in your hands. Please consider the irreversible damage you may cause them. The loss of their home and feeding grounds will drive
them away or cause them to perish.
Please consider them and their way of life. How sad of a world we live in if all we think about is profit and we do not give these eagles a chance.
Please think about your actions before it's too late!
Sincerely,
Janis Boutin
Sent from my iPhone
1.
EXHIBIT
t
LASEici-c()fl
Chris Gathman
From:
Sent
To:
Subject
David Cumber <davidsumber@yahoo.corn>
Wednesday, May 29, 2019 9:50 AM
Chris Gathman
Eagles nest
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.
Sir,
Please wait as long as possible before encroaching on this nest. They did this in Virginia Beach a few years ago to throw up some 55 and up condos. Eagles are
very territorial and normally return to their nests annually for raising their young. Make the area like a Central Park, build around it. Please help us protect these
beautiful animals.
Regards,
Dave Cumber
Sent from my iPhone
1
EXHIBIT
ar
ULS 1q fiiL�3
Chris Gathman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Lisa Reich <purpletortoise7@grr ail.com>
Thursday, May 3Q 2019 9:31 AM
Chris Gathman
Eagle nesting areas
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.
Hi, I am writing you to urge you to please NOT make any developments to the area where the Erie bald eagles live and hunt. They have been disturbed by human
development enough and deserve our distance and peace. Humans are not the only ones on this planet, it is not ours for the taking.
You have the power to make a huge difference in the lives of these innocent majestic precious souls. Please set an example of compassion and kindness for a l l
creatures and leave their area alone from developing.
Thank you for your time, sincerely, Lisa Reich
1
Chris Gathman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
L I Sunrise < I i l .sunrise@g rna i i tcom >
Thursday, May 30, 2019 11:32 AM
Chris Gathman
RE: USR19-0023 GS Farms LLC
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.
The Erie Bald Eagle's nest needs to be protected! Please have developers find another place to build.
It was a sad state of affair, that Property owner Section 4 Investors paid $100,000 to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to cut down a
cottonwood tree with a bald eagle's nest near the intersection of Weld County Road south of Cot 52 in Erie,
We need to help these eagles who can't fight back!
Thank you,
Lit &i fear
1
I
EXHIBIT
Chris Gathman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Karrie Comatas < ka rrie.co matas@d uke.ed u >
Thursday, May 30, 2019 11:35 AM
Chris Gathman
RE:USR19-OO23 GS Farms LLC
Caution; This email originated from outside of Weld County Government Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe,
Dear Mr. Gathman,
I'm writing to express my concern and opposition over the proposed GS Farms development near an active bald eagle nest.
We all need to be responsible and protective of the planet and the creatures that share it with us. A .% mile buffer, at the very least, should
definitely be maintained to avoid disturbing this nest and the roost. To allow for a project that will very surely result in a violation of the Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) is irresponsible.
i live in Durham, NC and our city has a LIDO (unified development ordinance) that was funded by tax dollars to take into account responsible
growth in our community. Smart, responsible development is imperative to sustainable growth. Do the right thing, Mr. Gathman!
Sincerely,
Karrie Comatas
Karrie Comatas, MS
Research Analyst, Lyerly Lab
Duke University
M$R81 Rm 407
203 Research Dr.
Durham, NC 27710
919-684-8406
karrie@duke.edu
The information in this electronic mail is sensitive+ protected information intended only for the addressee(s). Any other person, ircPuding anyone who believes he/she might have received it due to
an addressing error, is requested to notify the sender immediately by return electronic mail, and to delete it without further reading or retention, The information is riot to be forwarded to or
shared unless in compliance with Duke Health policies on confidentiality and/or with the approval of the sender.
1
EXHIBIT
MIS4k:101 e :fitii3
Chris Gath man
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Marcia Fairchild <Mardra@handy acks.com>
Thursday, May 30, 2019 12:23 PM
Chris Gatlhman
Erie Bald Eagle Nest
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.
Sent from my Pad
I am very concerned about the encroachment developers want to do less than 042 miles from an active Bald Eagle Nest. What is going on that you would even
consider allowing this travesty of justice to happen? These Eagles have already lost their first home to developers, and now you want to allow this to happen
again? These are nationally protected birds! Stop these developers!
1
Chris Gathman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Carolyn Stalcup <caroi nmstaicup@gmaii.com>
Thursday, May 30, 2019 1225 PM
Chris Gathman
RE: U R19-0023 GS Farms LLC Please save the eagles!
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.
Chris Gathman
Weld County Planning Services
1555 N. 17th Ave.
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: USRI 9-0023 GS Farms LLC
Dear Mr. Gathman,
I am a conservationist, a passionate believer in the right for wildlife to exist upon the earth
We nearly lost the Bald Eagle in the lower 48 states. And the Bald Eagle has, in many places, made an amazing comeback - but not in the nearly 1000 square
kilometer area surrounding the Erie nest in Weld County Colorado, where there have been no new successful Bald Eagle nests since 2014. Bald Eagles in the
Front Range are being forced into marginal nesting areas that cannot support them - their hunting grounds are being covered in concrete, and new
"developments" are forcing them into areas that cannot sustain life for the eagles.
In 2016, a developer paid $100,000 to the US fish & wildlife for a permit to lake" the nest tree where 2 eagles had successfully raised their
eaglets. hit s: ww w.thed'enver-channeica m news local -news erieaIot-owner- aid -100000 -to -remove- al -e 1 sanest imagine that. It's beyond unthinkable.
Our National Living Symbol. The eagles built another nest in a tree close by, but the tree was not sturdy like their original home, and it fell, killing 2 eaglets. Now
they are nesting in a 3rd tree - and the proposed GS Farms LLC development comes with in .2 of a mile from this active Erie Bald Eagle nest,
The project will also encroach on the adult eagle's protective night roost - only 1/10 of a mile from the proposed development. Also, It will encroach on their
hunting territory.
Many people in the area do not want this development. it goes against the character and values of the people who live there. They want the eagles —not more
concrete.
I
From the Colorado Hometime Weekly Jan. 2016: "Chris Jones, a Milliken resident who works in the area, said future development seems to come at
the price of the existing wildlife, "They were able to buy a permit to rip down a symbol of America," Jones said
PLEASE fight for the eagles. Please guard this precious national treasure. Please do not allow further encroachment on this nest.
Thank you for considering this request,
Carolyn Stalcup
Car,&a/cup
5012 Regent Drive
Bmn good, TN 37027
cell 615-3374104
2
Chris Gathman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Barbara Walker caudubonbarb@gmail.com>
Thursday, May 30, 2019 7:03 PM
Chris Gathman
Greeley Eagles
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 sale.
Dear Mr. Gathman,
I am writing to you on behalf of the bald eagles in Greeley. I started monitoring bald eagles in Florida prior to delisting. 1 commented on Florida's Bald Eagle
Management Plan as it was introduced and as it was implemented. The plan provided guidelines that seemed to work well for everyone in most cases, most
importantly the birds. Florida was a model on how to do things right. The only problem was it was just guidelines, not rules. Developers do not usually follow
the science derived guidelines, instead they follow the dollar. a have watched those guidelines be ignored and seen projects rubber stamped through, and have
witnessed the impacts on bald eagles. In my county 50% of the eagle population now lives in cell phone towers. They survive here because we are surrounded
by water and are rich in territory resources. The survival comes at a price. Carrying capacity leaves many electrocutions, hit by car, poisoning and territory
battles. The cost burden falls onto non' -profits and volunteers. The bald eagles in Colorado deserve to have the room they need without construction
disturbances for urban sprawl.
We are at a point in history to be very judicious in o u r decision making regarding wildlife. We need to grow but we need to do so responsibly.
I would hate to see Colorado go by way of Florida. I have ancestry from Greeley, Denver, Fort Morgan, Eagle, Glenwood Springs, Woody Creek, Rifle, Grand
Junction and more. I visit regularly and consider moving to Colorado every day as Florida becomes less and less tolerable on a daily basis. The history and the
future of Colorado are extremely important to me, including the bald eagles.
My last visit was January of 2018. I took the train from Denver to Glenwood Springs to attend a family funeral. It was delightful to see the bald eagles and their
nests from the train. There are not very many, and they are difficult to spot. Please set a good example to make it easier to protect all of them. Grow
responsibly. I expect this of Colorado I If not...become like Florida, over crowded and over impacted.
Thank you,
Barbara Walker
Palm Harbor, Florida
1
Chris Gathman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject
Irene Eddy c redyed'dy1@aoi.corn>
Thursday, May 30, 2019 9:15 PM
Chris Gathman
Eagle's Nest
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 reconsider and not allow encroachment to the CO Erie Eagle's Nest.
Red Exwards
rds
Sent from my iPhone
J.
Chris Gathman
From
Sent
To:
Cc
Subject
vmgriebel cvmg riebel@yahoo.com >
Friday, May 31f 2019 3:34 PM
Chris Gathman
Jeremy Griebel
Re: Case #: U R19-0023
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 safeb
Hi Chris,
Could you please confirm whether this case is being discussed in any manner at the June 4th planning meeting?
We just found out that it has been moved to June 18th but it appears to still be on the agenda for June 4th. Can you clarify what "Item to be continued" means
on the agenda?
Being a neighboring property owner of the proposed USR, can you assure us that we will receive all future communications regarding this project and any
schedule changes to the corresponding meetings?
Thank you l
Victoria Griebel
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
----- Original messagean---a-
From: Victoria Griebel <vmgrie be l@ya hoo.com>
Date: 4/18/19 9:43 AM (GMTO7:0O)
To: cgathman@weldgov.com
Cc: Jeremy Griebel c1jt@hotmail.com>
Subject Case #: U R19-0023
Mr. Gathman,
Please find the attached letter in response to Case it: l R 19-0023 by GS Farms LI . We will also be bringing a hard copy of this letter to the Weld County
Planning Department later today.
1
Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.
Thank you for your time!
Victoria & Jeremy Griebel
Chris Gathman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kayla Jackson <kayla@eagles.org>
Saturday, June 01, 2019 9:50 AM
Chris Gathman
USRI9-0O23 GS Farms LLC
Caudoni 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,
Mr. Gathman,
I hope this email finds you well. My name is Kayla Jackson, I am the Assistant Curator of Birds at the American Eagle Foundation located in Pigeon Forge,
Tennessee. it has recently come to the attention of our organization that there is concern over development close to the established Erie nesting bald eagles In
the Colorado Front Range, I am writing to express my knowledge and concerns about this issue.
Although the bald eagle is no longer listed as an endangered species, they remain protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act The proposed GS
Farms LLC development plans will be carried out well within Colorado Parks and Wildlife recommended half mile protective buffer to avoid disturbance around
this active bald eagle nest. This particular pair has already had a nest legally removed, and have since moved several more times within this area. There is no
question that the proposed construction will encroach upon their nesting site, their protective night roost, and dramatically increase the stress levels of these
wild birds which will likely have a devastating impact on their success when it comes to raising eaglets. By continuing this development you are risking forcing
these eagles out of their established territory. This could have devastating consequences to them and other wild eagles as they search for yet another new area
that can provide a safe and sustainable hunting ground.
Listen to the people who live close to this eagle nest. it is my understanding that many people do not support the plans that put these eagles at risk. The Bald
Eagle has been our nation's symbol since 1782, and we are still celebrating their return to our nation's skies,. There are still so many places across the country
that do not get to enjoy the sight of these magnificent predators, as is evident by the number of people that tune in to watch the live webcams that our
organization provides. Since 2016, over 60 million people have tuned in to watch established eagle pairs raise wild eaglets. It is clear that these birds hold a
special place in this country and that people, if given the opportunity, will make an effort to learn about then, and want to protect them. That is our mission
here at the American Eagle Foundation, Conservation via the route of education. People protect what they love, they love what they know, and they know what
they are taught. We are in the midst of a movement where protecting wildlife is making its way back to the forefront, and we are asking you to be a part of it.
Thank you for taking the time to read this email.
All the best,
Kayla Jackson
Assistant Curator of Birds
1
•
American Eagle Foundation
ka eagles o rg
2
Chris Gathman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
l ranaheartaol.com
Sunday, June 02, 2019 5:31 PM
Chris Gathman
Eagle nest and GS Farms LLC
Caution: his 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.
Dear Mr. Gathman,
This letter is in regards to the proposed development at GS Farms. Although I know you are probably not a member of the Audubon Society of birdwatchers, i still
think this is worthy of your attention, as it does involve Federal law. It might not seem like an important matter to save a couple of Eagles' nest to you as a matter
of personal interest but to uphold the laws of our country is very important to the position you hold. It is also important to live a life taking the high road, keeping to
the ideals as best you can. I know that there are always pressures to slip a little bit but you have to set a bar for yourself, I am a nurse and 1 can tell you that in the
medical world, many have let that bar slip, It is up to each of us, in our own private mirror, to be able to say that we did the right thing. In this case, according to the
law, the right thing is not allowing development to disturb this nest of eagles.
I don't know if you if you know the whole story but it is sad and heroic at the same time. Its the kind of story that Disney would make into a movie, as long as there
is a happy ending. These eagles already had to move their nest twice to get away from development Contrary to popular myth, its not easy to be a predator. They
really have to work hard to find enough food, especially when feeding young. They went two years without being able to raise young to adulthood. Vet); sadly, two
almost gmwn young ones died when the tree their nest was in fell down during a storm and they were killed, The next year, 2018, they finally were able to raise
their young to adulthood, This would be great news except that it didn't last long. The next yer (this year) there were two nests in the area. However, one of the
males vanished...leaving a family. Unbelievably, the male of the other nest took over providing both rests) Scientifically, this is incredible! So far, it seems to be
working out.
Just when it seemed they had overcome the huge barriers to success, a new big development gets proposed! Of course, its legally too close, but has that ever
stopped a developer? I don't think so, but I could be wrong. These eagles are special. Not just because they are scientifically important, but because they are
doing something we humans could learn from - helping each other out in times of adversity. They are an example for us to observe and learn from. The Disney
movie could be made, but only if there is a happy ending. That ending depends on you.
You probably already know the gritty legal details but I am including them below my letter. I urge you to find a symbol of hope for our fractured country in these
birds, the very symbol for our country. Don't eagles symbolize the high road? Isn't that what our country started out representing?
Please spare these eagles and do not let this development encroach on their spade.
Very Sincerely,
Liana Patterson
1
1
EXHIBIT
u sk rat -66 7?
Under federal law, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act ("BGEPA") "renders it a federal crime to 'take . , . at any time or in any manner any bald eagle
commonly known as the American eagle or any golden eagle." United States v. Dion, 476 U.B. 7'x+4, 740 (1986) (quoting 16 U.S.C. § 668(a)). In particular, BGEPA
prohibits the "take" of any bald or golden eagle "without being permitted to do so° by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 16 U.S.G. § 668(a); see id. § 668a
(directing that "bald eagles may not be taken for any purpose unless, prior to such taking, a permit to do so is procured from the" Service). "Take" is defined to
include "wound, kill. , , molest, or disturb." Id, § 668c. "Take" includes the incidental taking of, as well as intentional actions directed at, eagles. Id. The Service
may issue permits under BGEPA authorizing the otherwise unlawful take of bald and golden eagles, but only if such take "is compatible with the preservation" of
eagles. Id. § 66ea.
Based on CPW's 2008 studies and recommendations, and detailed research by i= F4NBEB in the northern Colorado Fivnt Range, it is n lghly rely that the GS
Farms L.L.C project will interfere with the normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behaviors at the Erie Bald Eagle nest to a degree that could cause nest
abandonment and or impair other essential biological functions, or potentially result in the death of eagles. In other words, due to the close proximity of this loud,
invasive project to an active eagle nest, it is foreseeable that unauthorized stake" of eagles will occur as a result of the human induced disturbances associated
with this project. By constructing this project well within the buffers deemed by CPW to be necessary to avoid a majc rf r of eagle take, the developer is taking
serious risks that it will take eagles in violation of federal law.
2
Cris Gathman
From:
Sent
To:
Subject:
bires52@aol.com
Sunday, June 02, 2019 6►:55 PM
Chris Gathrrian
Development of property - Protection for Erie Bald Eagles
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,
Hello Mr. Gathnian -
I am vatting to you & your Planning Committee about protecting the habitat of the Bald Eagle from future development in your area. As per a request from the
American Eagle Foundation or AEF, (an organization whose mission since 1985 is to care for and protect the USA s living symbol of freedom, the Bald Eagle, and
other birds of prey through the four pillars of Education, Re -population, Conservation and Rehabilitation), I wanted to offer some remarks & express some personal
concerns about the possible loss of the Erie Bald Eagle nests in Weld County, CO & surrounding areas. I have read that 1) an expansion of a new subdivision has
already received approval, and homes will be constructed within al/4 mile of the nest and 2) notification has been received for a new commercial development
less than 0.2 miles from the nest. Please know that this email is in no way an attempt to tell your Committee what to do or what not to do in your district but to offer
an alternative solution to incorporate the eagles` nests into the landscape without destroying their nests & encroaching on their nesting areas. Here are a few
points about me & what I would like to address if I may:
• I am a proud member of AEF & I also volunteer as a Moderator for one of their Live Eagle Nest Cams in Florida. I am not from your area & i hope that you
will read this email as someone reaching out to you in a professional & caring manner in regards to the protection of Bald Eagles specifically & other birds
of prey in general.
• I live in Orlando, FL & I have been following eagle nests for 02 8 years across the country on the Live eagle cams as well as participating in the FL
Audubon Eagle' atch Volunteer program for the last 5 years in Orange County, Florida. I am one of over 320 volunteers who monitor & enter data for over
600 nests in Florida. We also work hand in hand with State & Federal authorities to save eagle nests from any illegal activity & development. Here is a
condensed version of what I do as a Volunteer I have been monitoring 5 nests in the area where 1 live, in the Dr Phillips/ otha "valt Disney World areas.
These areas have already been developed or have a few areas under development or need county work done. When any county work is to be done in the
areas near the nests, like sewer upgrading, or an EPA study, or installation of street lights or new developments (businesses or homes), I am contacted &
the situation is discussed with the County employees & in some cases with USFWC fas to whether or not the eagles ( if they are in the area or when they
wilt return to the area) will be affected by any work done, close to their nest as per the guidelines under the Eagle Rule & Federal laws. Work may have to
be delayed or paused if the eagles are being disturbed le, nest building, courtship, egg laying, presence of eaglets, etc, We recommend any work to be
done when the nests are inactive, and cooperation between the agencies is an important element of any decision. I apologize for all of that information but
I wanted to explain to you a little of how we operate & perhaps why I am so interested in contacting you regarding this possible loss of important habitat in
your County, So I am wondering if your Planning Committee could take into consideration working with your USFWC & Bald Eagle Conservation group(s)
in restricting development of the land that encroaches right up to the eagle's nests in order to allow them enough area so as not to disrupt their breeding &
nesting seasons. Also another topic of concern is in regards to not allowing any future plans to remove or "take" the eagle's present nest, for reasons i will
explain further,
• Eagles do not stray too far from their original nest - one or more of these eagles were probably born in the area & eagles do return to their natal nest to
raise their families. That is why when the authorities allowed the developers to "take" the original nest tree in 2015 (a tree that contained a nest that
believe had been there for several years), the eagles built another nest close by. From my understanding that nest fell in 2017 & sadly suffered the loss of
1
the 2 eaglets. The eagles subsequently constructed another nest one mile from the original nest site, and the summer of an marked the first successful
fledge season for these eagles since 2014. The development is leaving them with very little room to adapt to their surroundings, and any new development
in their habitat will leave them with even. less. I am sure that you are aware of all of these facts. I would like to offer this suggestion. How wonderful would
it be to make this into a 'Win -Win" for atl involved! Everyone could play a part in 1) allowing enough land to be conserved for the eagles to thrive,
2) allowing the developers to continue with their plans but allowing a proper buffer zone for the eagles to nest, hunt & raise their young, and 3) more
importantly, having your Planning Committee along with the help of USEVIC & Bald Eagle Nesting & Conservation groups, allow & establish a beautiful
park like setting with the eagle nests being protected within this park - for young & old to enjoy & watch our National Symbol, the majestic Bald Eagle. This
would surely become a highlight of your County & the surrounding area. At the same time you will be noticed as a County that protects eagles in
Colorado.
• I understand that we cannot compare Florida to Colorado as we have more than 1500 nesting eagle pairs in Florida compared to @"195 in your State.
Florida is "home to one of the largest nesting populations of Bald Eagles outside of Alaska coupled with the one of the highest rates of development in the
U.S. Less available open space and more people puts significant stress on the species," Our Audubon EagleWatch program collected data on more than
650 nests last year. We attend government meetings, work with USFWC, wildlife refuge biologists & local County officials and advise businesses to reduce
rodenticide use which can be deadly for raptors. Educating others about protecting bald eagles has been very rewarding, and our EagleWatch Program
has become one of the premier community science programs in the United States. Even though the Bald Eagle is off the Endangered list, it is still
Protected and we have to insure that their numbers do not start to go down. Your State will ultimately have more eagles as time goes on, and
Conservation programs are paramount to assure the bald eagles are protected & continue to thrive in their habitat It sounds like your area is up against
the same land development issues in Weld County that we have in Florida. We must make it right now so that everyone can enjoy seeing our majestic
eagles soar in the sky & raise their young it a safe environment with ample habitat for many years to come.
I could certainly go on & on about the threat bald eagles face with the continual loss of their nest trees & surrounding hunting areas. l do hope that all of you can
look at the big picture and allow the Bald Eagle's habitat to be protected as well as their trees & nests. I realize development is a sign of the times but l firmly
believe that everyone can work together to make veld County even more special with more beautiful homes, more thriving businesses and a protected habitat for
the Bald Eagles
Thank you for the opportunity to write my point of view on this very important topic that means a lot to me as well as many others.
Respectfully,
Marsha Gagnon
Orlando, FL
2
Chris Gathman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Stephen Jones < curfewsj@comcastenet>
Monday, June 03, 2019 629 AM
Chris Gathman
bald Eagle nest
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.
Chris Gathman
Weld County Planning Services
1555 N. 17thAve.
Greeley, CO 80631
Dear Chris,
We are concerned about a proposed development (GS farm LLCM within less than aquarter-mile from an active bald eagle
nest and within one -tenth of a mile of an active bald eagle roost in Weld County near Erie. I've, personally, monitored bald
eagle nests professionally for a number of cities and agencies over the years, and we've always found that the Colorado
Parks and Wildlife guidelines for protecting nests from disturbance are just barely adequate, As you probably know, those
guidelines stipulate no new incursions into areas within one-half mile of active nests during the November -August nesting
period and no new incursions within one -quarter mile at other times of the year.
This eagle pair has already been seriously stressed by removal of their active nest tree a few years ago by developers in
direct violation of the federal Bald Eagle Protection Act. We believe that by proposing construction within 02 miles of this
active nest, the developer is essentially proposing to carry out an unauthorized "take," of this nesting territory.
While nesting bald eagles have increased in number along the northern Front Range during the last several decades, most
current nesting sites along riparian corridors are threatened by urban expansion and recreational activities. Nesting
populations throughout the lower 48 states are still only a fraction of historic numbers. We absolutely owe it to these
magnificent creatures to provide them every protection possible, and the Colorado Parks and Wildlife guidelines have proved
to be reasonable and effective in our and region, where any construction activities on the planes are visible to nesting eagles.
1
Sincerely,
Stephen Jones
Boulder Rights of Nature and Boulder County Audubon
303-494-2468; curiewsj@comcast.net
a
Chris Gathman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Joanne rasher <jtasher@escondida.org>
Monday, June 03, 2019 2:30 PM
Chris Gathman
RE: USR19-0023 -0023 GS Farms LLC
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.
Chris,
I am voicing my strong opposition to the future commercial and residential development planned for Weld County, CO.
Here are a few of the facts that 1 find greatly important and profoundly disturbing. By allowing this development to continue, it is not only wrong to destroy the
eagles habit, it lessens the beauty of Colorado itself and shows the greed of the County and the Developers.
• The propose! GS Farms LLC development will be located less than 0,2 miles from the active "Erie" Bald eagle nest.
The project will be well within Colorado Parks and Wildlife's (CPW) recommended 'Jz mile protective buffer to avoid
disturbance around eagle nests.
• The project will also encroach upon and likely disturb the nest, and the adult eagle's protective night roost, located
about 0.1 miles north of the proposed project.
• Besides encroachment and likely disturbance of federally protected eagles, this busy commercial and residential
operation is incompatible with the character and values of those that currently live and farm in this area.
• Due to the close proximity of this loud, invasive project to an active eagle nest and night roost, it is foreseeable that
unauthorized "take" of eagles will occur as a result of the human -induced disturbances associated with this project. By
constructing this project well within the buffers deemed by CPW to be necessary to avoid a majority of eagle take, the
developer is taking serious risks that it will take eagles in violation of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA).
• As the housing and extraction boom expands across the Front Range, clashes between development and wildlife
continue to increase. The Erie nesting Bald Eagles have already lost their original nest to development, and if
projects like GS Farms LLC are allowed to continue, this and other nests will only be fading memory in this area.
Most Sincerely,
Joanne Tasher
1
EXHIBIT
eAstleiti-,-661r
Chris Gathnian
From:
Sent
To:
Subject:
BILL ANN COLPITTS <ABCO LPITTS@ms n.co m >
Tuesday, June 04, 2019 10:42 AM
Chris Gathman
RE: USR19-0023GS FarmsLLC
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.
Dear Chris Gathman,
I am writing to you because I have recently (January 2019) become a volunteer for Front Range Nesting Bald Eagle Studies and during my weekly visits to a nest
near Longmont, 1 have come to better understand eagle habitat and to better appreciate eagles and their large group of human supporters. The male and
female eagles that I observe hunt, perch, roost and gather nest materials over a large area, even greater than the 1/2 mile protective buffer established by
Colorado CPW.
Eagles are majestic birds and several people will stop and watch the eagles in each weekly brief two-hour period that I am present recording their behavior, an
indicator of their fascination with the birds. Watching, appreciating and conserving wildlife is what make Colorado a special place to live. It's one of the reasons
that our relatives and friends come to visit us from other states.
The May/June issue of "Colorado Outdoors" published by CPW states in an article on chickadees (page 13) that "Here in Colorado, human development
profoundly influences black -capped chickadee abundance. One study found that black -capped chickadee numbers declined steadily the closer they lived to
housing developments." Developments not only affect eagles but many other animals in the food chain.
Because of the affect that developments have on eagles, their large habitat needs, their appreciation by humans, and how they represent the health of other
animals in the food chain, I ask that Weld County limit encroachment of the current eagles' nest in Erie to the 1/2 mile barrier established by CPW to reduce
human -induced disturbances and to protect the eagles and their prey.
With kindest regards,
Ann Cotpitts
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
EXHIBIT
1
Chris Lathnan
r
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Janet Adams <b IdeaglesnataralHy@gmail com>
Wednesday, June 05, 2019 11:39 AM
Chris Gathmari
RE:USR19-0023 U R 19-0023 S Farms LLC
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.
I am writing as a concerned citizen and lover of bald eagles. As I am sure you are aware, even though bald eagles have been removed from the endangered
species list, they are still protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. This law, originally passed in 1940, provides for the
protection of the bald eagle and the golden eagle (as amended in 1962) by prohibiting the take, possession, sale, purchase, barter, offer
to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, of any bald or golden eagle, alive or dead, including any part, nest, or egg, unless
allowed by permit(16 J.S.C. 668(a); 50 CFR 22). "Take" includes pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison,
wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb (16 U.S.C. 668c; 50 CFR 22.3).
"Disturb" is the operative word here.
• Due to the close proximity of this loud, invasive project to an active eagle nest and night
roost it is likely that the unauthorized "take" of eagles will occur as a result of the human -
induced disturbances associated with this project. By constructing this project well within
the buffers deemed by CPW to be necessary to avoid a majority of eagle take, the
developer is taking serious risks that it will take eagles in violation of the Bald and Golden
Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). As the housing and extraction boom expands across the
Front Range, clashes between development and wildlife continue to increase. The Erie
nesting Bald Eagles have already lost their original nest to development, and if projects
like GS Farms LLC are allowed to continue, this and other nests will only be fading
memory in this area.
A "fading memory"...what a tragic phrase. I certainly understand the desire of developers
to build, build, build. That is how they make money. But what is the ultimate price to be
paid of nesting bald eagles?
I urge you to reconsider this project. Let's do something memorable and right. Thank you
for allowing public comments,
1
Sincerely,
Janetkdar risor Bald Eagle N !atoll) f
2
Chris Gathman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Elaine Burritt <elaineburritt@gmaitcom
Wednesday, June 05, 2019 1 ≥54 PM
Chris Gathman
RE:U S R 19-0023 GS Farms LIC
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.
1 am writing to you with deep concern about the fate of the Erie bald eagle nest. This pair of nesting eagles has faced numerous devastating
hardships over the last four years, including the removal of their original nest tree in 2015, This necessitated relocation to other trees not only once,
but twice. Some might think, well, the bald eagles can just find another tree. Well, it's not that easy since they are driven to nest in familiar territory,
and they are having difficulty finding suitable trees for nesting that offer a sustainable environment.
In 2018, this bonded bald eagle pair had the first successful fledge of eaglets after 4 years of failure. They will continue to face difficult situations
that are human -caused which will definitely affect their ability to raise their young successfully. The proposed GS Farms LLC development will be
located less than 0.2 miles from the active Erie Bald Eagle Nest, bringing traffic, noise and other disturbances. Also, a new subdivision will be
expanded with construction of additional homes within % mile of the nest.
These residential and commercial development projects will bring encroachment and likely disturbance of federally protected eagles. While overall,
bald eagles have made a good recovery nationwide, that is not the case in Colorado. There have been no new successful bald eagle nests since
2014 in the approximately 1000 square kilometer area surrounding the Erie Bald Eagle Nest, and all across Colorado, bald eagles are facing
struggles for survivals
Weld County is among the fastest human growth areas in the rapidly growing state of Colorado. I urge the Planning Department and other Weld
county officials to consider bald eagles and other wildlife in your future planning decisions.
Sincerely,
Elaine Burritt
7931 Bayside Drive
Fort Collins/ CO 80528
9704.690-4756
56
elaineburritt@gmailicom
EXHIBIT
1 341
"Humans must clearly understand and resolve that they are not the only ones worthy and important enough to inhabit Planet Earth." Al Cecere, Founder, American Eagle Foundation
1
Chris Gath man
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Linda Martin <lamartin@greelenet.com>
Thursday, June 06, 2019 4:09 PM
Chris Gathman
REUSR19-0023 GS Farms LLC
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.
I am writing about the proposed GS Farms LLC development. I'm concerned that it will be located so close (less than 0.2 miles) to the
active Bald Eagle nest in Erie. It would be within Colorado Parks and Wildlife's (C1'W) recommended mile protective buffer to
avoid disturbance around eagle nests.
I believe the project will intrude upon and likely disturb the nest, as well as the adult eagle's protective night roost, located about 0.1
miles north of the proposed project.
With the close proximity of this noisy, disruptive project to an active eagle nest and night roost, it is predictable that unauthorized
"take" of eagles will occur as a result of the human -induced disturbances associated withthis project. By constructing this project well
within the buffers deemed by CPW to be necessary to avoid a majority of eagle take, the developer is taking serious risks that it will
take eagles in violation of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
As the housing and extraction boom expands across the Front Range, clashes between development and wildlife continue to increase.
The Erie nesting Bald Eagles have already lost their original nest to development, and if projects like GS Farms LLC are allowed to
continue, this and other nests will only be fading memory in this area.
I'm hoping that if this project must proceed, at least the buffer zone between it and the nest can be increased to offer some protection to
the eagles. Thank you for your consideration.
Linda Martin
1916 Glenrnere Blvd.
Greeley, CO 80831
1
EXHIBIT
I .84
ikSkicf-Ct
Dana Bove
1935 Tincup Court
Boulder, Colorado, 80305
danajbove@gmail.com
June 8, 2019
Chris Gathman
Weld County Planning Services
1555 N. 17th Ave.
' reel fir, col R0611
cgathmangweldgou . corn
RE: Comments for GS Farms LLC Project (USR19eOO23)
Dear Mr. Gathman:
Over the past 10 years, I have spent much of my time studying eagles and other raptors in
western Weld County. These efforts are to support Front Range Nesting Bald Eagle Studies
(FRNBES), a group that is dedicated to providing scientific studies and data that supports the
protection of Bald Eagle populations and specifically their nesting habitat in the northern
Colorado Front Range. During the course of my studies in this area, I have come to understand
how tenuous the remaining Bald Eagle nests are in areas of the Front Range like Weld County, in
a landscape where human growth and development is removing wildlife habitat at a blistering
pace. Based on U.S. Census Bureau data from 2010 to 2017, Colorado is the 5th fastest growing
state with respect to human development, and Weld County was second fasted growing county in
the state with population growth at 20.5%.
Studies by FRNBES demonstrate that there have been no new successful Bald Eagle nests in
western Weld and ad' acent counties since 2014. Because nesting Bald Eagle territories (the area
that the eagles defend) in the northern Front Range are so large averaging 2 to 3km2 in area
(nearly 700 football fields) —it is likely that many of these nests, and the habitat they depend
upon will be lost forever due to burgeoning human development.
The Erie Bald Eagle nest, perhaps one of themost emblematic examples of these struggles, is
located less than o.2 miles from the proposed GS Farms LLC development. These Bald Eagles
are no strangers to the pressures of growth and development, as their original nest and tree were
removed in 2015 in order to build 2,200 homes. Not only will this lien -commercial and
residential project likely disturb the eagles at the nearby nest, but it will undoubtedly encroach
upon the adult eagles' protective night roost, just 0.1 miles to the east of the proposed project
These types of protected tree stands, such as the stand of trees at the current roost site, are
exceptionally rare in this area. Encroachment upon the nest and night roost by the proposed
development will certainly impact these eagles' essential requirements for sheltering, feeding,
and defending their nest all being necessary biological functions.
EXHIBIT
1
I
1/2gg
U, C ( { is 6, 1-3
The proposed project will be well within Colorado Parks and Wildlife's . recommended
�mife protective buffer to avoid disturbance around eagle nests(Fig. l . PW has. i � issued highly
pertinent guidance establishing science -based recommendations to avoid activities that wilt ha
rm
bald eagles or their habitat. See CPW, Recommended Buffer Zones and Seasonal Restrictions for
Colorado Raptors (2008), available at
https ://cpw. state. co. us/Documents/' ildli fe Species/Livin Withwi ldli fe/Rap torBu ff
�� eruldelines
���.
P f. Specifically, fically, CPW recommends the following measures to avoid adverse impacts to
bald eagle nest sites:
Bald Eagle Nest: (i) no surface occupancy within all -24 -mile "buffer zone" around
active bald eagle nests, and (ii) seasonal restrictions to human encroachment within
a Ot smile "buffer zone" around active nests from October 31 to July 31 each year.
For the purpose ofthese recommendations, is P ecommendations, "surface occupancy" is defined by the
Colorado Division of VA Ilife as "[ably physical object that is intended to remain
on the landscape permanently or for a significant amount of time. E:xalinPlfs
include houses, oil and gas wells, tanks, wind turbines, roads, tracks etc!'
a
CPW concluded that the only way to avoid a majority of eagle "take" in Colorado is by adopting
ga �Pting
the buffers specified in the 2008 recommendations. As is the practice in other counties `
Colorado, it in
is imperative that that Weld County adhere withoutquestion to CPw's 2008 eagle
restrictions.
2
A. Juvenile Perch Usage, June to August 2018
eff—Erie Nest
ami 3i Mlle Nest Buffer (CPW)1
• Perches
Frederick Development
St Planned Development
el Potential Development
I' Proposed Re -zoning
Parcel Boundaries
• Observation Points
a GS Farms LLC
Total Hours of Observation:
79.6 hours
Tim. Period:
6/11/18 - 8/10/18
0 025 05 llets
t ti 1 I impiremespeseesi . a
Figure 1.
As shown in Figure 1, development is encroaching from all sides upon the critical use area of the
Erie Bald Eagle nest. Please be aware that the perch locations in the figure ONLY include 3
months of time AND do not include the adult nesting eagle use area, which is much more
extensive.
'neon Fruity of GS Farms LLC Development Plan with the Erie Bald Eagle Nest
Surrounding Land Ownership and Zoning
Development plans indicate that the currently vacant 5 -acre pasture, which now conforms to the
zoned rural/agricultural setting of land in the surrounding area, will be transformed into light -
commercial usage that will include: an office building for a plumbing business; two residences;
an equipment maintenance building; at least 32 planned parking spaces; and a horse boarding
and poultry boarding business.
Besides encroachment and likely disturbance of federally protected eagles, this busy commercial
and residential operation is incompatible with the character and values of those that currently live
3
and farm in this area. In the many years that I have studied lagl *es in this area, I have developed
close friendships with many of the landowners near this proposed development.
- �' � p nt. Like me, they
recognize the value of the agricultural nature of this area, and the incredible beauty of its
open spaces, all of which provide ,41t� � - vast
pr ide cal habitat for wildlife, and in particular provide habitat for
nesting Bald Eagles.
Although it is well establishecthE it private property
rights are one of the foundational onal values of
field County, , this thinly. disguised, light -commercial development (with space forparking
spaces) flies in the face of those - �'
p' values, and that of the majority of the rural/agricultural � � 1 property
owners nearby, who adamantlyoppose this project.
Of specific concern regarding the proposed light -commercial development. Weld �ounCode
Section23-3-10 provides:
p'
kgr iculture in the County is considered a valuable resource which
must be protected from adverse impacts resulting from uncontrolled
and undirected business, industrial and residential land uses. ... The
A (Agricultural) Zone District is intended to provide areas for the
conduct of agricultural activities and activities related to agriculture
and agricultural production without the interference of other,
incompatible land uses.
It is well known that GS Farms LLC plans to include a purely commercialplumbing operation.
Whereas the initial USR applicati on mentions only a "family's plumbing service business",
reality is that this is another business for Planet Plumbing and Drain, whichprovides industrial,
in.dust.�al,
commercial, and residential services not only in Weld and Boulder Counties, but in Denver,
Broomfield, Adams, Arapahoe, Douglas and Jefferson counties. It has a fleet of at least sixteen
vehicles, and seeks to include a 4,400 square -foot office for its "dispatch" operations, and another
p �
4,000 square -foot vehicle maintenance facility. In addition, the JT R seeks approvalof
pp an
additional 1,864 square feet of storage outbuildings (an equipment stora a building and � a d three
permanent storage containers) . Nearly 10,000 square feet of buildings dedicated to a commercial
use that is unrelated to and incompatible with the agricultural use.
Weld County publicly emphasizes the importance of the preservation of agricultural land d. and
rights of those that live upon these lands. In addition, Weld County underscores the importance
of wildlife preservation because it draws visitors from around the world for birding. This is
clearly stated at the Discover Weld County 1� ff
• Vi14l1LV
1
http://www.discoverweld.com/features/a bounty of birds �i the following: "Perhaps one of the
. L _ _ . a ;j - i _) f situ '"s from (wound the world for
birding. You see, we're home to hundreds of species of birds making it a great place for bird
watching. Travelers from across the country, and even across the ocean, travel here to spot
Burrowing Owls, Great Blue Herons, f , Mountain Plover, and even the America
White Pelican."
Legal Im r:selll: ��ion s with Regard to E a Ies
4
If approved by the Weld County Planning Department, the project is likely to result in the
unauthorized "take" of bald eagles in violation of federal law under the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (BGEPA), placing this project in legal jeopardy. BGEPA "renders it a federal
crime to 'take , . , at any time or in any manner any bald eagle commonly known as the
American eagle or any golden eagle." United States v. Dion, 476 U.S. 734, 740 (1986) (quoting
16 U.S.C. § 668(a)). In particular, BGEPA prohibits the "take" of any bald or golden eagle
"without being permitted to do so" by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW). 16 T.S.C.
668(a); see id. 668a (directing that "bald eagles may not be taken for any purpose unless, prior
to such taking, a permit to do so is procured from the" Service). "Take" is defined to include
"wound, kill ... molest, or disturb.' Id. § 668c. "Take" includes the incidental taking of, as well
as intentional actions directed at eagles.
Based on CP'A's 2008 studies and recommendations, and detailed research by FRNBES in the
northern Colorado Front Range, the GS Farms LLC project will likely interfere with the normal
breeding, feeding, or sheltering behaviors at the Erie Bald Eagle nest to a degree that could cause
nest abandonment and or impair other essential biological functions, or potentially result in the
death of eagles.
Conclusion
The Erie nesting Bald Eagles tell the story of the housing and extraction boom in the Colorado
Front Range, as serious pressure from development upon wildlife continues to increase.
FRNBES studies, as shown in Figure 1, clearly depict that development is encroaching from all
sides upon the important use area of the Erie eagles.
Please deny this thinly -disguised, light commercial operation submitted by GS Farms LLC, as it
seriously threatens these federally protected eagles and is wholly incompatible with the values of
Weld County as stated above, and the surrounding "private property" owners.
Sincerely,
Dana Bove
1935 Tincup Court
Boulder, CO 80305
5
June 10, 2019
Chris Gathman
Weld County Planning Services
1555 N. 17th ,Ave
Greely, CO 80631
cgathrnan@weldgov.com
Dear Mr. Gathman:
In 2016, 34% of Americans 16 and older, watched or photographed wildlife
according to a US Fish and Wildlife Report published that year(1). Significantly
fewer hunted or fished — 4% and 14% respectively. For many, the chance to see
wildlife, especially birds, is a motivating factor to spend time in nature which
correlates directly with improved health, happiness and creativity(2) .
For people to watch or photograph wildlife there must be wildlife to watch. That
means wildlife must be able to reproduce without human interference or else
wildlife that cannot live in suburbs and cities will continue to disappear.
Specifically, I am very concerned that the GS Farms EEC development that is
proposed near Erie, is too close to an existing Bald Eagle nest. Bald Eagles need
space and food in order to reproduce. If so much of the nearby land is converted
to hard surface, then nesting will likely fail and Bald Eagles will disappear from
that area.
Eagles, especially, are awe-inspiring and are many people's first connection with
nature. Their presence indicates that other birds and small animals can live in
that area. Eagles are large enough to reduce some of the mid -size predators such
as raccoons that prey upon smaller bird nests and can carry rabies and other
diseases. Small nuisance mammal populations have grown excessively near
EXHIBIT
suburbs but if Eagles remain in the area, they could perform
a valuable service by
keelg rabbits, rodents and yoC'g raccoons in check.
Please deny the permit that GS Farms LI proposes and i'
p p rmttany future
construction to outside a 0.5 mile buffer zone from the current nest site.
Thank you and Best Regards,
Irene Fortune
Loveland, Colorado
Although I speak for myself only, I serve as President for Fo
othills Audubon flub
with almost 50 members in the Loveland — to region Longmont � � on and many
members are concerned for the security of this nest and the eagles ,g es that rely upon
it.
(1) 2016 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and v i ldlr fe_, :f ate lecrej •
ss �r � � tron,
US Fish & Wildlife Service
htts: wsfr roe rarns.fws, : ov sub . a - es nationalsurve nat surve 2016. • di
"the Nature Fix, Why Nature Makes Us Ha ier Healthi r "
(1)*
Happier, e and ire Creative"
Florence Williams @2017 W. W. Norton and Company
p'
Chris Gath man
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Barbara O'Brien <bobriensan@hotmail.com>
Tuesday, June 11, 2019 2:06 PM
Chris Gathman
Erie Eagle Nest
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.
Dear Ms Gathman,
Please protect the Erie Bald Eagle nest and night roost by maintaining a one half mile buffer distance, which would be encroached upon by the GS Farms LLC
development.
Best,
Barbara O'Brien
Sent from my iPhone
1
Chris Gathman
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject.
Guy Grigsby <hopsfence@gmail.com>
Wednesday, June 12, 2019 1:22 PM
Chris Gathman
Amy Fieling
USR 19-0023 (GS Farms)
Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not dick links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
June 12, 2019
To: Weld County Planning ommissioners,
In our previous letter to Chris Gathman regarding the application for USR 19-0023 we made note of several specific instances in the Weld County land use
codes where the proposed development conflicts with the purpose and intent of the code. Please refer to our previous letter. We also mentioned that we had
spoken with the applicant, GS Farms, and that they had indicated a willingness to amend their proposal in order to soften the impact and to address the intent of
the code. While the applicant did submit a revised landscape plan we fee) that several other aspects of the proposal remain out of compliance with the land use
code. Therefor we must express our opposition to this proposal. We are the owners of the property immediately north of the proposed development.
Land use is specific, specific to the area in which it occurs and specific to the parcel of land on which it occurs. This is a consideration that is addressed in the
code. While a particular use may be appropriate in one area, it may not be in another. There is a trend in this specific area. Residential housing is becoming the
dominant use where agriculture was previously dominant. This idea that similar use should be grouped together is valid. The idea that residents of the area
should have reasonable expectations about what kind of development is happening around them is valid and important. in this specific area farms have been
divided into small lots and homes have been built. The agriculture that we knew in the past no longer exists. This area is mostly estate lots and subdivisions
now.
The real argument here is whether commercial development fits in with the trend in land development in this specific neighborhood. The proposal is very
much a commercial development. In our conversation with the applicants we learned that the owner of the plumbing company does not intend to make his
home on the property and that the proposed houses will both be occupied by employees of the plumbing business. It is true that one of the property owners is
also an employee of the plumbing business. It's easy to see where the emphasis will be placed on this property.
1
This messes with our appreciation of the aesthetics of our environment. The established uses have preserved the open green landscape, the relative quiet
of the neighborhood and the spectacular views of the front range, It's not a neighborhood of business activities, not a neighborhood of commercial truck traffic,
not aneighborhood of lit up compounds.
The question of compatible uses asks why one would want to impose nonconforming use on an area where people live? This is were people spend their
time when they're not at work. They leave business and commercial zones and they come back to the green, quiet, uncluttered peace of their homes and
landscape.
Our desire is to keep it this way.
Guy Grigsby and Amy Fiel ing
6870 CR 5, Erie, CO 80516
2
Chris Gathman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
kbeyer@fioptics.com
Thursday, June 13, 2019 5:58 AM
Chris Gathman
Protecting Bald Eagle nests
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.
Dear Sir,
I am composing this email to show my support for protecting the Erie nest and others in Colorado. I have been studying Bald Eagles since 2012 and
surely understand how much human interference can destroy these beautiful birds nesting habits and suxesses.
Fortunately Colorado is not in a major flyway, so these birds don't have to deal with competitions and nest takeovers very xmuch. It's a very important
breeding area for them. They just need to be left alone so their numbers can increase. I am asking that you do all you can to protect them.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Keith Beyer
1105 Westview Ave.
Hamilton OH 45013
i
EXHIBIT
1 4 -9 --
UST bD93
Chris Gathman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
AL BACKLUND cabacklund@outlook.com>
Saturday, June 15, 2019 11:45 AM
Chris Gathman
front range eagles
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.
There are a number of Bald Eagles in the Colorado Front Range that are competing with housing and commercial development for their existence. These eagles
need consideration in spite of the population growth in the area.
After WWII, CDT was found to be very effective at controlling unwanted insects such as mosquitoes, the beetles that cause Dutch elm disease, etc There were
large spraying programs in an effort to control these insects until the effect on the environment and ensuing effect on birds was discovered in the late 1950s.
The effect on bald eagles was to cause their egg shells to become thin and break during incubation. There also was some belief that eagles were taking small
farm animals such as lambs as prey, although there is little evidence that this is true, and therefore some were being shot.
By 1963, there were only 487 observed nesting pairs of bald eagles remaining ant there was great concern that our national symbol would become extinct. The
use of DDT was banned and the eagles were included on the threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act. This has allowed the
population to increase and once again start repopulating several of the states where it was originally found. Eagles are still protected by the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act which prohibits killing, selling, or otherwise harming their nests or eggs,
We have the opportunity to observe a few mating pairs in the Colorado front range area. Specifically, my wife and I are volunteers with the Front Range Nesting
Bald Eagle Studies (FRNBES) and are assigned to observe a nest near County Rd 5 in Weld County. The nest that we are observing has two eaglets that are nearly
fledged and ready to leave the nest. It has been a wonderful experience observing this pair lay their eggs, the eaglets hatching and now become feathered to a
point that they will soon leave the nest and learn how to forage on their own.
Although some references state that fish are the primary food for eagles the nest that we are observing seems to be living on prairie dogs, We have seen the
adults return to the nest with prairie dogs that they have captured in the area around the nest. Eagles eat as much as two pounds a day and the eaglets are quite
large so they also probably require nearly the same amount of food. Foraging for food requires quite a large area and therefore any type of human development
that infringes on their space creates problems.
Having the opportunity to observe these magnificent birds starting with laying and incubating their eggs and now resulting in the two current eaglets which are
nearly fledged and will soon leave the nest has been a great experience. The proposed commercial development will significantly encroach on the nesting,
roosting and foraging area for the adult and juvenile birds associated with this nest.
1
We are opposed to the proposed location of the commercial development because of the possible negative effect it will have on the eagles and their young.
There must be some consideration given to protecting arid expanding the population of these magnificent birds.
Ai Backlund
2332 Rimrock Cir
Lafayette, CO 80026
Rod and Elizabeth Gracey
6508 CR 5
Erie, co 80516
RE U R 19-0023 opposition
Mr. Gathman,
My husband and I own property just to the east of the property applying for U R19-0023. We
are writing in opposition of the proposed changes that GS Farms LLC are asking for in the USR
application.
Our major objection to the application questionnaire that we reviewed was how inconsistent it is
with the surrounding single family homes and the agricultural zoning . Unlike many
neighborhoods in towns, we here on CR 5 know our neighbors. As I am sure you have seen by
the many letters opposing this application, we are a tight knit group. We keep an eye on each
other. I have asked my neighbors to watch my property while [ am out of town and have done
the same for many of them. In other words this is a family community, not a business park or a
commercial area.
There should be no issue with the agricultural aspects of horses and chickens that GS Farms is
proposing, we have 15 head of personally owned horses on our property most of the time+ We
also have over 30 acres to do so, instead of 5 acres covered in 7 buildings and pavement. As a
horse owner myself I am concerned about how they propose to handle all the waste that the
200 chickens and the 15 horses produce?
The intended use of this property seems to be more the running of a commercial plumbing
business with a side of agricultural to get a second residence. As I looked up the plumbing
business, I saw they are open 7 days a week, from 7am-9pm. They have 2 locations now and
serve 8 surrounding counties including Weld and the cities of Denver and Boulder. This is a
large commercial business that they state on the website is growing, not a small, family based
business. This is not congruent at all with the surrounding property uses and zoning.
County Rd 8 is currently an under maintained road that is graded by the town of Frederick when
enough people complain about the condition. There is no consistent scheduled maintenance. In
the winter this road has no snow removal from Frederick and doesn't have a good gravel base,
it becomes a mud bog. In the summer it gets little to no attention and the dust adds to our brown
cloud and makes its way into homes that reside along the road. With the proposed combined
80 trips of the plumbing and ag business, as well as the owners coming and going, it is
unrealistic to assume there would not be marked impact on the road itself, and in turn all the
other property owners who use it and live beside it. The signage, lighting, large parking area
and increased traffic in no way fit into our rural neighborhood.
The second residence for agricultural workers seems large at 3712sf and a permanent
structure. This is not a large commercial agriculture business that needs many employees, we
have 15 horses and easily do all the work ourselves with no employees. How do you inforce the
fact that only ag workers live there, and that it is not just a house for other family members to
reside on the premises? How is this checked over time? What happens if the property sells, or
the agricultural businesses are no longer in operation, does it continue to be only a house for ag
workers? I would think a less permanent home such as a mobile home would be more suited for
the use? I do not support this request.
Directly to the east of what would be the proposed large maintenance shop, is the 2+ acre lot
that we just received a recorded exemption for. We are planning on selling this lot for a single
family residence. To say the least if this USR is approved, with all the buildings, lights,
pavement and annoyances that go along with living next to a commercial business operation, it
will make it very hard if not impossible to sell our lot. It will markedly reduce the value. People
who move here want to live in the country, not next to a busy, noisy, overlighted business. The
Weld County Comprehensive plan article ll sec 22-2-10 describes small agricultural operations
and home business, this is not that. We ask that the USR be denied and allow only the
agricultural aspects that "Respect and encourage the continuation of agricultural land uses and
agricultural operations for the purpose which enhances the economic health and sustainability
of agriculture."
When this property was purchased by GS Farms LL, they saw the makeup of the area homes
and true small family ag business, and had to know that this USR request was not compatible to
the surrounding neighbors. I do not feel it is appropriate or responsible to make all the existing
residents who have abided by the zoning have to suffer the hardship of decreased property
value and lose of their rural lifestyle.
Thank you,
Rod and Elizabeth Gracey
Jon Raese
905 Morgan Drs
Boulder, CO 80303
June 10, 2019
Chris Gathman
Weld County Planning Services
1555 N. 17th Ave.
Greeley, CO 80631
Dear Mr. Gathrnan,
I appreciate the opportunity to make the case for protecting the Erie Eagle nest from
encroachment.
In an anthropomorphic sense, I can identify with our National Bird and its requirement
for undisturbed habitat to sustain the species. But just as important, let's also consider the
needs of nearby residents in Weld County.
Residential development tends to be high density to make efficient use of the land. The
residents who buy into these communities have their own set of values that often require
getting away from the urban and suburban crowds. They want to hike, bike, or drive to a
trailhead and discover the plants and animals found in the natural world. The need to get
away from daily routines is fundamental.
Preserving habitat is not just for wild animals and native plants. It's for people, as well,
because we all enjoy the serenity of escaping and discovering the living things that inhabit
w► ild places. The presence of presented open space is not simply a gift to residents in
surrounding communities —wit's an educational classroom for our children.
Please forego the development of land at GS Farms LLC and instead designate the
property as Weld County Open Space. The resident Bald Eagles then can go about their
business of raising families without worrying about the encroachment of new
subdivisions. Build a bike path and wildlife viewing station for County residents to enjoy
the solace of the !natural world. We are all part of the creatures great and small
thriving in a world that suddenly seems quite small and fragile and requires a mindful
caretaker to preserve its values. Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
4 -aryl
It9.1.aese
RECE1VHE)
JUN 17 20i9
Weld County Planning Department
GREELEY OFFICE
Ruth Tranpe
7350 Weld County Road 5
Erie, CO 80516
PH: 303-426-5322
F: 303428- 125
rnlh e l tr oph .com
Weld County Planning Services
1555 North Pir Avenue
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Attn: Mr. Chris Gathman
Re: USR1 - 0023
Dear Mr. Gathman:
I am writing to you regarding a proposed business on property referred to in the
above noted document. I have some concerns that I would like to bring to your
attention.
I understand that the property owner, GS Farms, llc purchased 5 acres and is
planning on improving the property with several different businesses at the said
location. My understanding is that they will be adding the following:
An office
A dispatch center
A repair shop
A plumbing business
A horse barn and stable
A chicken farm
Two residences
All of these businesses will be on the said 5 acres of property, My concern is for
the quantity of buildings and nature of the use of the property. This location is
zoned for agricultural use and is in an area that has not been improved with any
traffic considerations or infrastructure to accommodate the congestion this
"busy" of a location will be. I feel that this use of the property will be detrimental
to the neighborhoods around it as the properties - and land owners - are very
much jealous for the rural setting in which they live.
I know that there is a Special Use Review regarding this location, and I want to
have my concerns noted that these factors will be considered. I very much
appreciate your attention to these concerns so that I can feel I have been heard
and my concerns are being taken seriously.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions or observations aid I will be
very happy to give a more detailed explanation of my view should you need
clarification.
Thank you very much for your attention,
Respectfully,
Ruth Traupe
7350 Weld County Road 5
Erie, CO 80516
PH: 303e426-5322
F: 303-428-2125
ruth@altrophy.com
Mr. Gathman,
We are writing to join our neighbors in opposition to USR19-0023 proposed by GS
Farms [IC. We are the owners of the property bordering the subject property on the south.
Although we appreciate the inclusion of a large vegetation barrier along our property line, we
are opposed to significant portions of the proposal. We believe the chicken breading and horse
boarding portions in the proposal are completely in line with the agricultural zoning and
character of the existing neighborhood. We have absolutely no opposition to those portions of
the proposed development.
We are strongly opposed to the portions of the proposal that would create a
business/maintenance development at this location. The scale of the proposed operation in a
rural agricultural location is inconsistent with the "small agricultural operations and home
businesses" described in the Weld County Comprehensive plan Article II, section 22-2-10(e). The
proposal includes substantial paving for parking, an office building, maintenance shop to service
16 vans, building for equipment storage, 3- 40 foot storage containers and 2 residences. These
proposals are in addition to the previously mentioned chicken breading and horse boarding
structures. The proposal would place I buildings on a property under 5 acres to facilitate a
considerable business operation at the location.
The proposal indicates minimal traffic trips (far below 60 trips per day). We have
concerns that based on the equipment and parts storage capacity proposed, traffic would be
significantly greater than represented with the 16 plumbing vans regularly visiting the location
to obtain supplies and equipment.
The proposal contains too much development that is inconsistent with the essential
character of the neighborhood, A development of this size and type is certain to have a
significant negative impact on the value of our property as well as our neighbors.
The proposal is inconsistent with the Weld County goal to "Respect and encourage the
continuation of agricultural land uses and agricultural operations for purposes which enhance
the economic health and sustainability of agriculture." Article II, section 22-2-20. We respectfully
request Weld County limit proposal USR 19-0023 to development and use consistent with the
existing agricultural neighborhood.
Kenneth E. Kupfner
Sandie Jones
6594 County Road 5
Erie, Colorado 80516
(720)-220-8817
Chris Gath man
From:
Sent
To:
dresrehab@sbcglobal.net
Thursday, June 06, 2019 1:31 PM
Chris Gathman
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.
Good Afternoon:
1 do not leave in Weld County and you may think the destruction of the habitat for bald eagles in your county is not my concern. Human
encroachment and the destruction of natural resources and habitats should be everyone's concern. If we don't stop destroying wildlife and their
habitats - we will be the next in line for destruction. Please allow these majestic birds to live in peace and in the home they have spent years
building. Thank your consideration.
Sincerely,
Deborah Raphael
Sent from Windows Mail
ii
Chris Gathman
From:
Sent
To:
Subject:
Mary Geiger <geigermellen@gmail,com>
Thursday, June 06, 2019 1:39 PM
Chris Gathman
Erie Bald Eagles
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.
lama recent advocate of bald eagle preservation, watching ETSU Eagle Cams for the first time last year.
Observing eagle pairs bond, lay eggs, tend to the eaglets & care for them as they fledge is an awe-inspiring privilege. We adults & the school classrooms who
participate in Eagle Chat Rooms receive a wonderful education via the experts who share their wealth of knowledge.
Our national symbol is Nature at its best. Please be an advocate for the preservation of YOUR eagles by honoring their territory.
Meg Geiger
Bristol TN
Sent from my iPhone
1
Chris Gathman
From:
Sent
To•
Subject:
Theresa Pitts <calliepitts@yahoo.com>
Friday, June 07, 2019 7:20 AM
Chris Gathrnan
Eagles
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.
I think it is so easy for people and companies to forget that the eagle is our national bird! I am old enough to remember because of man the were almost gone
but as a nation we came together and decided this bird was worth saving. Now it seems we have greed I am not sure what the reason but once again there are
people who do not think of the eagle with the respect they shou[d. Theresa Pitts, Cold Spring, MN calliepittsyahoo.com
Sent from my iPhone
i
Chris Gathman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jake M <jake.musson@gmail,com>
Friday, June 07, 2019 1:44 PM
Chris Gathman
Weld County Eagle Nest
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.
Hi Chris,
As a property owner in old town Erie and Colorado native, its hard for me to see how a development that diminishes the quality of life for residents (i.e.
interfacing with nature, one of the big reasons people move here) makes sense in that area, Especially a development that would endanger the multiple bald
eagle nesting sites in the area. As they are the symbol of America and freedom, we should be working to protect their freedom by not putting them at risk for
continued overbuilding of Weld county.
I firmly believe, that in the long run, these wild animals create far more value to what your constituents hold dear than a commercial development. It may not
contribute to tax payer revenue but it provides a sense of place and sanctuary within Weld county.
Have a nice Friday and thanks for taking the time to read this.
Regards,
__
Jake Musson
1
Chris Gathman
From:
Sent:
To:
Shelly bay < m i the l le bay52@g r a i l ,co m>
Saturday, June 08, 2019 4:19 PM
Chris Gathman
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,
Dear Mr. Gathman:
I am writing to ask you to reconsider your plans to encroach upon the bald eagle nesting site. I am a supporter of progress and development. I also know that
we are capable of protecting our important wildlife at the same time. Our American Bald Eagle is protected under federal laws and has been able to come back
from near extinction because of the hard work of people just like you. I believe in you and I believe you will respect these beautiful eagles space.
Sincerely yours,
Shelly Bay
ii
Chris Gathman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Pad Mannos <greelccolo@gmail,com>
Monday, June 10, 2019 813 PM
Chris Gathman
Bald Eagles
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.
I am a Colorado native. My Grandparents bought a farm in Boulder County in 1920. They moved from Weld County. We had a pair of Bald Eagles that wintered
in our large cottonwoods. There are a few Bald Eagle nests ii n Boulder County. The citizens in Boulder County are supportive for the most part. However as
land prices increase and the farmers who are looking to retirement sell their land these situations with developers happen.
I hope that the counties and cities will work with the State and developers to maintain areas for the Bald Eagles and protect both the Eagles and the large
healthy cottonwood trees. It is extremely important to protect both.
i inherited the farm in Boulder County and sold it in 2010. We moved to Larimer County west of Berthoud. There are two active Bald Eagle nests close to my
new home. One is in the Berthoud City Limits. The developer and neighbors of the property have worked to have the nest and other trees protected. They
have created the area called the Colorado Division of Wildlife Bald Eagle Buffers. You can look it up at Longs Peak Farms.Com. The eaglets have fledged from
this nest in the past week. The eaglets at the other nest are ready to fledge. XCEL has a camera on the nest at the Fort Saint Vrain Station, Weld County,
Platteville, Co. This nest had 2 eaglets being raised by one adult. It is an old nest and very large. I think one eaglet has fledged and the 2nd one is ready to go.
watch this nest a lot. There were originally 2 adults but the last time I saw the second adult was April 21. Having a camera on a nest is a great way to involve
people.
Pm hopeful thaf these 2 nests in Erie, CO, Weld County can both be protected for a long time. It is important for school children to learn to protect wildlife in
this expanding population too. It would be nice to see everyone work together to save the Bald Eagles and their trees.
Patricia Mannos
3207 So. County Road 29
Loveland Co 80537
303-776-4287
1
EXHIBIT
53
5(t- 0oZ3
Chris Gathman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Charlotte Bujol <charlotte.bujol@gmail.com>
Thursday, June 13, 2019 1:14 PM
Chris Gathman
GS Farms LLC Project
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.
Dear Mr Gathman,
it is my understanding that a light-commercial/residential project is being proposed in a largely agricultural area and way too close to a bald eagle roost and
nest.
The Erie bald eagle nest in question has had their original nest torn down due to development, and then two eaglets and a nest lost in a storm due to an inferior
tree. They are on their third nest since their nest was removed in late 2015. They almost always seek new nesting opportunities within a close proximity to their
original nest site and continued development is using up the land they rely on for nesting, feeding and roosting,
Enough is enough.
These eagles are federally protected and disturbing their habitat is illegal. Approval of this project plainly puts the landowner and the town of Erie in jeopardy of
legal action by the federal government. In addition, the guidelines CPW has in place relative to activity in proximity to eagles' nests and roosts should be
followed.
Please give these incredible birds a fighting chance this time and adhere to federal protections and CPW guidelines in their nesting area.
Thank you very much,
Charlotte Bujol
1
Chris Gathman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Steven Kloepfer <alpvet@aol.corn>
Friday, April 19, 2019 12:32 PM
Chris Gathman
GS Farms LLC
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.
Good morning.My wife and I reside about one half mile from this proposed project. I have recently read a portion of this application.the area is significantly rural
with single family homes on generally large par Is, Th is intense operation certainly does not fit the character of the surrounding landscape and almost borders on
industrial in its density.The applications responses do not adress business growth and avoids the use of the term "warehouse" for parts and supplies to operate 19
plumbing trucks.Having construction experience in my back9round,l am aware of the need for the constant "chasing" of parts in the plumbing busin ss,it seems
this would generate many more trips and activity than has been presented.A commercial location for this type of operation would certainly be a better fit. ► business
park resides two miles from this location and would be an ideal situation to run a s uccessfu 1, likely expanding operation such as this. Thank y{o u .
1
EXHIBIT
LYONS GA
June 17, 2019
VIA EMAIL
cgathman@weldqov.com
Weld County Planning Services
Attn: Chris Gathman
15555 N. 17th Ave.
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: Comments for GS Farms LLC Application (USR 19-0023)
Dear Mr. Gathman:
fcrea6Z3
Timothy J. O'Neill
toneill@lyonsgaddis.com
303-776-9900
I represent a group of landowners who neighbor applicant GS Farms LL 's ("GS Farms") property
(Parcel Number: 131333200062-R6780052) and who are concerned about the size and
substance of GS Farms' proposed development of that property. The five landowners, Herbert
Douglass and Sandra Cavanaugh Douglass (6886 CR 5), John and Syndi Pritchard (6789 CR 5),
Rod and Elizabeth Gracey (6508 CR 5), Ken Kupfner and Sandie Jones (6594 CR 5), and Jeremy
and Victoria Griebel (6858 CR 5) (collectively, "Neighbors"), all purchased their properties in the
area due to the agricultural nature of the area, the vastness of the open agricultural space, and
the natural beauty of the area. Upon review of the materials submitted by GS Farms, these
Neighbors are concerned about GS Farms plans to develop its five -acre parcel and the effect
approval by the Planning Commission of the GS Farms' USR application will have on the area
immediately surrounding the subject property, and the community at large.
Currently, GS Farms' property, legally described as Lot A Rec Exempt RE -5065, Pad NW4
Section 33, T2N, R6BW of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado, is a vacant five -acre pasture, well
in line with the zoned rural, agricultural setting in which it sits. The proposed development of the
site is multifold: Farms seeks to build a 7,000 square foot primary residence on the property;
a secondary residence of 3,712 square feet for agricultural workers; two 1,600 square -foot
outbuildings for animals (i.e., a horse barn and a separate poultry breeding facility); a 4,400
square foot office building for its plumbing business; a 4,000 square foot equipment maintenance
facility; and a 1,544 square foot equipment storage building. In addition, the application proposes
the installation of three additional 320 square -foot shipping containers as additional permanent
storage, and at least 32 planned parking spaces.
While the neighbors acknowledge that some of the proposed use may be consistent with the
Agricultural (A) Zoning that applies to the property, they have significant concerns regarding the
proposed development, which they see as transforming the area into non-agricultural, heavy -
LYONS CADDIS KAHN HALL JEFFERS DWORAK & GRANT, PC
515 Kirrrbark Street 2nd Floor PO Box 978 Longmont, CO 80502-0978
363 Centennial Parkway Suite 110 Louisville CO 50027
Longmont Office 303 776 9900 I Fax Number 303 776 9100 I Loukville Office 720 726 3670 1 www.Iyonsgaddls.com
W., LYONS GADDIS
sts,
ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS COUNSELORS
Weld County Planning Services
June 17, 2019
Page
commercial usage that will be incompatible with the character of the area, and incompatible with
the character and values of the landowners surrounding the property.
Of specific concern to the Neighbors is the requested commercial development. Weld County
Code Section 23-3-10 provides:
Agriculture in the County is considered a valuable resource which
must be protected from adverse impacts resulting from uncontrolled
and undirected business, industrial and residential land uses...
The A (Agricultural) Zone District is intended to provide areas for
the conduct of agricultural activities and activities related to
agriculture and agricultural production without the interference of
other, incompatible land uses.
GS Farms seeks to include in its development the purely commercial land use concerning its
plumbing operation, despite the fact that the inclusion of such use is wholly unrelated to agriculture
or agricultural production and incompatible with the permitted land uses in the A Zone.
While the initial USR application materials and GS Farms' Responses to USR Questionnaire
mention only that the plumbing business is "the family's plumbing service business," the business
is Planet Plumbing and Drain, which provides industrial, commercial, and residential services not
only in Weld and Boulder Counties, but in Denver, Broomfield, Adams, Arapahoe, Douglas and
Jefferson counties. It has a fleet of at least sixteen vehicles, and seeks to include a 4,400 square -
foot office for its "dispatch" operations, and another 4,000 square -foot vehicle maintenance
facility. In addition, the USR seeks approval of an additional 1,864 square feet of storage
outbuildings (an equipment storage building and three permanent storage containers). In all,
nearly 10,000 square feet of buildings will be dedicated to a commercial use that is unrelated to
and incompatible with the agricultural use of the parcel.
Weld County Code defines an accessory building or use as any building or use that is: subordinate
in purpose, area, or intensity to the principal building or use served; is normally associated with
the principal building or use; contributes to the needs of the occupants, business enterprise or
industrial operation within the principal building or use served; and is located on the same lot as
the principal building or use served.'
In the present instance, the proposed commercial development concerning the plumbing
enterprise falls well outside the definition of an accessory building or use. The proposed
development of buildings in relation to the plumbing enterprise (nearly 10,000 square feet, total)
is not subordinate in purpose, area or intensity to the principal building (the 7,000 square foot
primary residence), or the 6,912 square feet of ostensibly agriculture -related outbuilding
proposed.2 Nor can an industrial, commercial and residential plumbing business be considered
the type of accessory building or use normally associated with either the residence or the
t Weld County Code Section 23-1-90.
2 The agricultural buildings themselves are only subordinate in area of the primary residence by less than
100 square feet.
Lia.N N E
LYONS GA
Weld County Planning Services
June 17, 2019
Page
agriculture uses proposed. The U S R seeks to develop a commercial use more in line with a light -
commercial or industrial zone than the A Zone District in which the property lies.
If the USR is approved, the impact on the parcel area will be significant and deleterious. There
are no similar commercial or industrial uses among the neighboring parcels. To the contrary, the
properties surrounding GS Farms property are consistent not only with the A Zone District
requirements, but with the broader goal stated in the Code to preserve the general nature of
agricultural land in the County by limiting building and use to such "agricultural activities and
activities related to agriculture and agricultural production '}
The Neighbors are very concerned about the effect approval of GS Farms' application will have
on their properties, as well as on the area generally and the community at large. In addition to the
additional traffic impacts and lighting and noise issues arising from the proposed commercial use,
there is a significant concern about the environmental impact of the proposed development. There
is currently a bald eagle nest located within one quarter mile of the GS Farms property, and any
construction proposed over the next several years will occur in the direct line of sight of that nest.
Under existing Colorado Parks and Wildlife guidelines, the proposal in this instance fails to comply
with the recommended 0.25 -mile buffer zone around bald eagle nest sites. CPW's guidelines3
recommend "no surface occupancy," within such buffer zone around active nests. CPW defines
"surface use" as "[a]ny physical object that is intended to remain on the landscape permanently
or for a significant amount of time," which would include the proposed house, secondary house,
office building, and maintenance building, as well as the storage containers and the roads or
paved parking areas in the proposal. In this case, the bald eagle nest is active, with the nesting
bald eagles having fledged three eaglets just last year.4 The Neighbors note that the nesting bald
eagles speak to the overall rural and agricultural nature of the land, which is what they are
determined to preserve.
The Planning Commission and its staff are charged with considering not only those factors related
to the individual parcel of land at issue, but how the use of the land will affect the surrounding
area and the community as a whole. 5 The proposed development of the GS Farms property, from
a vacant five -acre pasture to a mixed -use residential, agricultural and commercial property with
over 24,000 square feet of buildings, nearly half of which will be dedicated to commercial use in
connection with a large plumbing operation, is the type of "uncontrolled and undirected business,
industrial and residential" use the County Code professes to protect agricultural land from. § 23-
3-10. GS Farms' proposal, particularly with respect to its inclusion of the non -accessory
commercial use, is incompatible with the rural character of the area, is contrary to the CPW
guidelines with respect to the preservation of bald eagle nesting habitat, and should not be
3 See, "Recommended Buffer Zones and Seasonal Restrictions for Colorado Raptors," Colorado Division
of Wildlife, p. 2, available at
https://cpw.state.co.us/DocumentsANildlifeSpeciesiLivinciWithWildlifeiRaptorBufferGuidelines2008.pdf.
4 An active nest is defined by CPW as "[a]ny nest frequented or occupied by a raptor during the breeding
season, or which has been active in any of the five previous breeding seasons. ... [A] nest may be active
even lilt is not occupied in a given year? lc/. at p. 5.
5 Weld County Code § 22-2-20(l) (5); see also Planning Commission,
https://www.weldgovacomidepartments/planninci and zoning/advisory boards/planning commission.
LYONS GADD1S
s‘is Anot:„.4,,yss
Weld County Planning arvices
June 17, 2019
Page 4
approved as proposed. In light of the foregoing, the Neighbors would ask the Planning
Commission to deny the lJ R application of GS Farms.
If you have any questions, or would like further information, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Sincerely,
Timothy . 'Neill
cc: Herbert Douglass and Sandra Cavanaugh Douglass
John and Syndi Pritchard
Rod and Elizabeth Gracey
Ken Kupfner andSandie Jones
Jeremy and Victoria Griebel
Petition to Prevent Proposed Development USRI9-0023
I oppose, and urge Weld County to disapprove, all the commercial business aspects of the proposed development (USR19s0023).
printed
Name 4,1 nature Address
E-mail
Phone
Date
ISI
*
uCti te 1'1'k/
ia\cbe. I entinilli
”u
KU C fez 5
toe
41, -, 4443?
6 /2
';‘
li
li tki g 4?
g0
'la-
2
\I
he,.
(Si
; Ely./
5i
fv,
;is siori 03
to it
,,ticrijkloss.
307,(851-
alric;25
Ca
c-57Prircmte
0
jizir-P5
4
5R ,T
701, if cd 0
r
rAi ttI ityelo ,
esco� �
in I.
jj�
Ioq80S1L0h`caittm
_
'
S �r
te,.
I
•�
e
a
eliP
°IV
A„.. .fr
a iii)
a
s
f +
�
re-
„
.
.... ,e2
.
a
.f
7;2
0
e_..,
ii
.
_„.4,44
1
1
10
D
�'
c
.
11
r 1 247
t_
t
9
Ly
j`[
l
�,� it
, i jats
1) fil..
a
4
IF# F '
J5.021
it
1
lb
t
Le;rva.
1
CO Creg;#G ges ;it gr-696
I cep /2.
10
Air ..died
.
'&10%9
Alt
IIII
.
44.
i
_::
Stew)
eawo
ff
115C, inflai 3"
�.�y � y
,'j y�
a a 3 zay,
. t-
.
.dor.
`'
Y
'
. /
T
x17/y( I
artall *Lag
st
itsi
Lel°
-.
)
A
ik
ol
eisik
,
#
*R4
16
16
Ell Li
la
Ce CO
•
�
g
ragar°
y,
-
(sob
CR.
.
L
Ettiv1/4"41/444
(
17
0.
Ga4
Q -PA
S7c::*
?kb iaNtnicig,Viecttfuta.
iii3a3F
Vto
\
CAR*5— 5PewAtc
18
r
L.
.amegia-s,
asiocisp
4
191
t
wz
Fri4.4:4
,14let
;
a-
20
LE
EXHIBIT
45t
1
L iidettii
—6O
Petition to Prevent Proposed Development USRI 9- 023
I oppose, and urge Weld County to disapprove, all the commercial business aspects of the proposed development (USRI 4423).
Sit
nature
Phone
. bite ____
Printed Name
d
r
E-mail
he i'`y
�It.A...
�i +L f
4
aim
.
�-
6'2,e,
}#
�
?. ,. 1
l
a i.+�
s
, r
�
! '
.
61&
.ate
,
♦ J If �. .f'.. �R
•
•
,, ,1 �,� rr! -I .� 1� •
1 - rd+��7! ,�' - �•���e
;r^
•j ..
't
3 AS 4 :pp
' +.
, r
33 1 L
rr
�
F
'—_
•
s'7�.r-.fis
�rr h �.
.�
i:r
.�*+� •� - F .. I
e� f. t1
T
f
/r hJ
ie CIOex..
rJ(j/ rrrr��
it..
4
6
1,
_ }■jj/I�' y`..if)
•/
.. -
? e.,
Ls,firs.
0
I
.57-
6 a I
/
/rehia4/zd
c 'IA
..,.
' $ jjl �`{q • rr
'
} {}10{,l I .
h
, a1 �`
i4
' 4 'c{ 1
�•I(iY
p
6" V . .,.( }.' Y'f,,r
r`Y,.
` 8 1
Y'
1+
' J '� t �
1 G.,if4.i
tom' . / y •+; (
- 14^ /�
'4!1
�'� . tie
t_ rl
'J L y . �i 1■j y�
/;Pd si•os
ca q �, I 4
L'LI+b/ }pT� �r ���:M'+•YlYt4�tie'•
T
.-.. l le_rY
7
8
nil
10
_._
_
all
II
I
I -
1
17
11
II
s
Petition to Ptevent Proposed Development USRI 94033
I oppose, end urge Weld County to disapprove, all the commercial business aspects of the proposed development (U5Ri9aOO2
I
a
Petition to Prevent Proposed Development USR194X123
I oppose, and urge Weld County to disapprove, all the commercial business aspects of the proposed development (USR
_ Printed
Nana...
naMdress
-
Phona
OaN
.ty,��
a
E -mall
;II-
)1)50 i ilit TOCK1/4
a pa
• cir5s- Cr le
.
4
r ire
z
l�'lic�i
laze
£Bi c (
•
li'u;
eao�
c,�.�eC.v.-�—,�.rs7�+aGII�
Ea
Pli
isfY4^�r'��
I
A i
aill
Aikt
I lib
m
x 1 ..
..,
NM
morn
_
. -
um
iiiiii
- . ..
usillill
•
- - -
- -
um
ii.
14
15
il
78
—,• •mmo.mbei marrt-IYY II.
•
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIHIIINII
17
.1.1111111
19
20
We're very emotIonal ..►out this prop
we love nvalue our homes and
But we b&i7ie\.e out op:postton is o
Who W
Neighbors
All directly a j
e'nt to, or within 1/4 mile of subject property
Speaking for over 30 citizens who oppose. this
r sal
We're not professionals. Just conc•ernei c
bec s use
hborhood
Jective1 reasoned, and
O we wes able to contact supports this USR
I acrea! ,e estci te horns, p o.stLreL crop l.a n d
NOT some commercialized, industrial area
County
D!rs*ppr
i Commercial pkmbtn UE3 and all associate
Nurnbfrtg Business dispatch office Building
Piunbing Business Equipment & Maintenance Shop
Plumbing Bush ess Permanent Storage Containers
i0“ Plumbing Business Parking Sauces (20 spaces)
i Pluming Business SignoTC: • 8; Lighting
2N° reskerice for 'agricultural workers'
cifitb�s
iiIii-r Significant Red Ffrigs within developer's US:. cuestEonncirs
i Answers are extremely misleading and confusing
iiis. Seem to purposefully ccr!flats the pJum sing (corn mercil I) and
agricultural uses I-. be obU to' answer questionsin the best
i h t
iiis Serveicil answers contradict each other
v Once approved, there is noway to hold developer to
account
iii• LG. Traffic what if there are far more trips than stated in the pro poiI?
vicicters. Corn prehensive Plan
Non-arfculturaI,.. commercial business c5rt1c5nsst agricultural & es6a4e
residential
IjD, Inconsistent wifih "small agricultural operaiionfi +PYs home businesses"
(Reticle II, Section 22-2-1Q�e)
Violates Intent of Zoned District
Commercial plumbing business is NOT agricultural
Completely Incompatible with Surrounding Area
9.6% lot density is 61 times the b.16% densIty in the surrounding ¼ mile arec
► Developer knew this; when hepurchased the ldnd
incompofibis with County's growth plans for the area
is;- County has specified arew for commercial usage
► Ref, Town of Frederick Referral Letter. "..level of cevelopment for the
business far exceeds the identified land use.,,"
vo. SYroulldn't invandote all thit effort and preco ent
County has commercial zones for this prpose
Iiiit Keep non-agricultural commercial in cornmecckM zones
Pic* De.eioper acknowledges the importan e �l
preserving the "historiCoU 'gricuiturc.i use" and of the
County's plans
But Developer is requesting they be completely waived for
his benefit
Traffic
Developer's counts are very rmskmding
Says ".s. goes not require its plumbers: fo use this de:stinatton
as their base of operation..." (#1)
But then sttfes '. oturnbing tech nicTons checkIng unto the
officeQ daily (#8)'
OD Traffic Is ALWAYS underestimated by devel -verso
r‘, Even with this unde:restimc:tion, this rE?oresreflfs •t
LEAST 1,850% increase in tr.iffic
it Primary access to site is fr m Hwy 52 which i�
OfrE?Cidy .ro bier atic
Excessive noise and light oollution
► Inconsistent with surrounding area is es
oI,irkk.I.jurer
DetrTrn'*nts Ii hi cct
Lvelcper'S: stated pvery suspect
iii! should be o the County
-'w :-: e OM t _ uire a hose full'
of workers
Iiiii Completely inconsistent with:
pi:. Cornorehensive Pkrn
00. Respectfully reouest the County disallow Commercial Plum
Business OP. III associated facilities
Violates c:lomr:r hensive Plan
Violates Intent of County's Zoned District
► Completely Incompatible with stiff aunding dfla:
completely Incompatible with Future Growth PL. -
In additien, it's just not right.
►g Developer knew the nature and use of this neighborhood v
aw' trying to obtain massive waivers from W�d County
County has plenty of iocot�m purposely planned for commercial use
r County should feel no obligation to accommdate these drastic waiver requests for
one citizen
Hello