The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20191066.tiffINVENTORY OF ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Applicant Bar Nine, LLC (Greg Johnson) Case Number USR18-0120 Submitted or Prepared Prior to Hearing At Hearing PC Exhibits 1 Letter from Thomas Morrow received 12/10/2018 X 2 Response Letter from Greg Johnson dated 2/6/2019 X 3 Letter from Federal Aviation Administration to Mr. Morrow dated 11/1/2018 X 4 Letter from Dill Dill Carr Stonbraker and Hutchings on behalf of Bob Easton X 5 Letter from Bob Easton dated 2/25/2019 X 6 Letter from Joseph Folchert dated 2/28/2019 X 7 Letter from David Hubbs X I hereby certify that the 7 items identified herein was submitted to the Department of Planning Services at or prior to the scheduled Planning Commissioners hearing. r/ s j Chris Gathman — Planner We strongly object to the airport proposed by bar nine LLC, c/o Greg Johnson Bigfoot turf - case U RI S-0120. My name is Thomas Morrow and I'm the owner of Rocky Mountain skydive. This started last year, We leased an aircraft from Drew Weaver. Drew offered Bob Easton ( the airport owner) more money to move into my hangar and kick me out, so I told Drew to take his aircraft and leave. Greg Johnson needing some attention since his baseball fields closed, invited Drew to come jump on his property. Since then they have created nothing but a harassing danger for Rocky Mountain Skydive, Bob Easton and the aviators that use this airport. I have filed three complaints with the FAA about them dropping people directly on top of us, creating a serious Danger. I have had many dangerous encounters with them from free falling right past there aircraft to parachutes opening up directly under me. ThEs is an arrogant game that we do not want to play. Greg Johnson and Drew Weaver have threatened me directly and indirectly about how they are going to do whatever it takes to shut my business down. Allowing them to open a Skydive Center next to Easton Valley View airport is in very bad idea and will result in someone's death. Easton Valley view airport has been a part of Weld County for over 50 years, its an established airport with the FAA, there's not an airport in the world that close to each other for many reasons. Please, We hope you reconsider this proposal. Thank you Thomas Morrow EXHIBIT 1 FAA Hotline c firisaa'faa , gov' Dear Mr Morrow: The FAA's Denver Flight Standards District Office ce has completed their investigation of your fe ty allegations in case S201807210064 The investigation did not substantiate a violation of an Order, regulation or standard of the FAA related to alleged jump operations that are both unsafe and contrary to Federal Aviation Regulations. In reviewing Alt Radar files, it is clear that the pilot did not allow a parachutist to exit N2713G over 11V_ This complies with 14 CFR Part 105423(b). The second claim that the parachutist maneuvered approximately 1 00over Runway 08 to land at Big Turf Farms is substantiated, however the responsibility of compliance is on the parachutist. Thank you for twinging this matter to our attention Sincerely, El, La. Barnet Manager, Reporting and Data Analysis Branth Federal Aviation Administration fOffice of Audit and Evaluation $00 independence Avenue SW1 Room 911 IWashinaton ' G BIGFOOT � TURFil Sod Farms Sports turf Contractors 22455 WCR 49 LaSalle, Co 80645 970-284-6000 is 800-632-7473 www.bigfootturi.com • bigfoot@bi To: weld County Planning Department Date: February 6, 2019 Re: U RI -0120 Purpose: Response to Tom Morrow Letter Received by Weld County December 12, 2018 There are numerous false statements and misrepresentations contained in the Tom Morrow (TM) letter: 1. Letters of referral are supposed to be from landowners. Tom Morrow is not a landowner of any land in Weld County. 2. TM states falsely that our baseball field is closed. It isn't. 3. TM states that he has filed 3 complaints with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). There are 5 complaints on file with the FAA from Tarn and all of which have been rejected by the FA& stating "The investigation did not substantiate a violation of an order, regulation or standard of the FAA related to alleged jump operations that are both unsafe and contrary to Federal Aviation Regulations." (see attachment) 4. I have never threatened TM in any way. I have done nothing but try to help him and his business. In 2017, I mowed his leased landing area multiple times. It ws probably 4 acres and took many hours of my time. I picked up skydivers that accidentally landed on our property and transported them back to his hanger. I referred many clients to him including our mechanic and his brother and another one of our employee's nephew. I twice allowed Tom to land on our property with couples that proposed marriage and were photographed on our grass right by our private residence. Respectfully. Greg Johnson Bigfoot Turf gr gbiVt�■i_L 970-284-6000 office 970-534-0466 cell EXHIBIT DILL DILL CARR TO BRA ER AND HUT `W GS ATTORNEYS A'.4 LAW February 28, 2019 Via Mail and Email Weld County Planning Commission 1555 N l .7th Ave. Greeley, CO 80631 Re: U R 1 S-0120 Dear Commission Members: EXHIBiT 4 Benjamin C. Whitney b hitnev(d?dillanddiii.com (303) 282-4144 I represent Bob Easton. Mr. Easton is the owner and operator of the Easton Valley View Airfield which has been in operation in Weld County for 54 years. Valley View is used as the takeoff location for planes doing aerial application for crops all over Weld County, from Platteville down to Brighton and everywhere in between. Valley View is a public airfield and is also used as the takeoff location for skydiving trips and as a takeoff and landing site for other airplane and helicopter traffic in the area. Mr. Easton's neighbor, Greg Johnson of Bigfoot Turf Farm, has completed a use by special review application asking Weld County for permission to construct an airstrip on Mr. Johnson's property. Mr. Easton has grave concerns that allowing this plan to proceed will create a situation where it is not a matter of if, but when an accident will happen, and Mr. Easton therefore respectfully asks the Commission to deny Mr. Johnson's application. Valley View Airfield has two runways, an east -west oriented runway and a north -south oriented runway. The airstrip proposed by Mr. Johnson would be located only 660 feet away from the Valley View runways at its closest point CIVIL LITIGATION <« CRIMINAL LAW LIQUOR LICENSING; PROBATE TAX 303 377.3737 ; } 303, 77.3223 (y 45S SHE11AXN ST. SUITE 3OO, DENVEP. Co 6O1O3 .µ{'`t, ) D[LLANDD[LL.COM February 28, 2019 Page and. the Valley View north -south runway points directly at the proposed airstrip. This means that airplanes taking off towards the south from Valley View fly directly over where this new proposed airstrip will be. Furthermore, the proposed airstrip is not aligned directly parallel to the Valley View east -west runway, but is instead aligned at an angle to that runway. The result is that the flight paths of the proposed airstrip and the Valley View east -west runway cross over each other after only a short distance. The proposed placement of this new airstrip directly conflicts with the existing air traffic patterns of the Valley View Airfield. This new airstrip would create a dangerous situation for air traffic flying into or out of either location. Of additional concern is that the proposed airstrip will be used for skydiving trips. The problem with this is that skydivers may be dropped in such a way as to cross down over the flight pattern. at Valley View. This is not merely a hypothetical concern either. In July of last year, Mr. Easton was coming in for a landing at Valley View when a parachuter drifted down across the Valley View east -west runway before landing on Bigfoot Turf Farm property. Mr. Easton was forced to adjust his flight path to avoid the parachuter. Federal Aviation Regulation §105.23(b) limits parachute operation over an airport. That regulation expressly prohibits parachute operations over an airport that does not have a control tower (such as Valley View) unless prior approval has been obtained from the management of the airport. Mr. Easton has not given permission to Mr. Johnson or the skydiving group landing at Bigfoot Turf Farm to operate over Valley View. Permitting an airstrip to be built to allow more skydivers to utilize Bigfoot Turf Farm multiplies the danger already present and implicitly sanctions continued violation of Federal Aviation Regulations. It must be pointed out that Mr. Johnson states in his application that part of his reason for wanting to build this airstrip is to "allow us the freedom from cumbersome regulations." This of course begs the question ofwhat regulations Mr. Johnson is hoping to avoid. At least in the context of intersecting flight paths, possible midair collisions, and skydivers drifting across active runways, safety regulations would seem to be things to embrace, not avoid. Mr. Easton believes in and embraces the principle found in the Weld County Code that in general a person should be allowed to own and utilize their own property. However, Mr* Johnson's proposed airstrip does not just impact him and his land and runs afoul of several provisions of the Weld County Code. Section 22-1-6120(A) of the Code states that private property rights are not unlimited, and instead are "rights balanced with the responsibility of protecting community health, safety and welfare." A new airstrip built so close to an existing airfield directly endangers the safety and welfare of people flying in the area. Paragraph B of that same section emphasizes respect for Weld County's agricultural tradition, and notes that " .. * it is important that the established '' CIVIL LITItATION' "'Psi CflIMtN.AL LAW it LIQUOR LIt;EMSING rah, (PROBATE 4 TAX '54,,, 303.77'737'37 4;:4r303.777.3823 ce31 4SS S H ERMAN sr. SUITE 3OO, DENVER, CO 11O2O3 ca, DILLANDDILL.COM February 28, 2019 Page 3 agricultural businesses and associated infrastructures s are allowed to continue to operate without adding excessive constraints." Valley View Airfield has been the launching point of aerial crop protection for more than 50 years, and this proposed airstrip would place a burden on that operation. Section 23-2-220(A)(1) requires that Mr. Johnson's proposal be consistent with Chapter 22 of the Code, and for the reasons described above it is not. Additionally, the proposed airstrip is not compatible with the existing air traffic pattern at Valley View, which is a requirement of Section 23-2-220(A)(4). Finally, eation 23-2-220(A)(7) requires that there be adequate provision for the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and the county, and for the reasons described above, the proposed airstrip cannot meet this requirement either. Mr. Easton respectfully submits that Mr. Johnson's proposal cannot meet at least three of the seven conditions required for the Planning Commission to approve his request, As I stated above, Mr. Easton strongly believes in the general principle that a person should be allowed to use their own land as they see fit. But the impact of the proposal put forth by Mr. Johnson is not limited to Mr. Johnson and his land. Instead his plan negatively impacts Mr. Easton and Valley View Airfield, including the long time agricultural related operations run out of that airfield. Most importantly, the proposed airstrip creates an unsafe situation for the people who would be flying into and out of either location. Mr. Easton wants to be a good neighbor and has not taken lightly the decision whether to wade into this matter. But given the serious and dangerous situation this proposal would create, Mr. Easton feels compelled to ask. the Planning Commission to deny Mr. Johnson's application. Mr. Easton and. I will plan on attending the upcoming Planning Commission meeting to address you directly and to answer any questions you might have of us. I thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, B n jam.in C. Whitney cc: Bob Easton CIVIL LITIGATION J1114 CfCM1N.AL LAW t LIQUOR LICENSING r PPOBA'T"E :-TAX ;S, 303.777.3737 j 301,777.3923 01 4S3 SH ERMAN ST. SUITE 3OO, DEWV!D, CO aO2O3 DILLANDDILLICOM Nary 25, 2019 4 To Whom It May Concern: 'l . ndoperator ofValley View Airfield lI' , As 1 have said before, this airport has been here for 54 years it1�. a My name is Bob Easton, owner a, 1�0 re ardin a new successful safety record. I amwriting this letter concerning case 4# US g1- o • � i runway proposal. .. Pit 4 We are having a serious problem with Northern Colorado Skydive Club flying over our active runways under 2,000 feet and landing into the traffic patterns as established here. According to the FAR 105123(b), "For airports without an operating control tier, prior approval va�l has been obtained from the management of the airport to conduct parachute ro� .parachutist is at : least 2.000 feet above that airport's traffic oattern1 and avoids operations over or on that airport. � creating �� ern Colorado Skydive Club does NOT a hazard to air traffic or to persons and property on the ground, Northern - --- have approval to opera te over Easton Vailey View airport. They have been told to stop and they continue to jump and land in the runway traffic patterns. r ' protection applications will begin soon and we cannot have This hazard over this airport. Our agricultural season for crop pp i wed the Weld County website on the application for this project The location of this new runway have rev e proposal is a very serious safety concern. The directions and angles intercept the final approach of Runway 8/26 on the course Y4 mile off the west end of the east -west runway. The north -south runway crosses west end, a direct collision 4 - right over the middle and the end of the proposed project. 4 commercial or evenprivate operators with pa ra11ei1 runways at a 660 feet distance l have never seen or heard of two apart and an intersecting h of FAR 91.111 crosswind runway that intersects the center of the project runway. Paragraph �� aircraft so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard?' One of the states, �o person may operate anboth road traffic and air traffic, om onents of Weld County Planning and Zoning should insure public safety, principal components Any ' final decisions made by the Weld County Zoning Commission should result in air traffic safety1 • involved on thisproposed project and have received no response. I have I have drafted letter after letter to everyone � approach. If there is a Skydive Club drop parachutes directly ewer this airport when i was on final app had Northern Colorado .. �d farml<rric�h� drifts them have to drop much further north, almost on Road 48 to land on the s good north wind, they through airport traffic patterns, - ,. I have been flying myself years and I know the difference between right and To be honest, this . �s a great concern. I for 45 achute and wrong. I pray this propo sal will not be allowed to happen. If this dreaded day comes about with a par two planes, it will be in the hands of the surviving family members of the ai rpla ner. a r a mid-air collis•or� between � deceased people. Not if, but when a serious accident happens, a ensr who will bt responsible for this action when that time unfortunately comes?? Please see attached maps regarding this issue. Sincerely, Ila {yr ' Bo " stun, Owner/Operator of Easton/Valley View Airport 1lv CC: Weld County Planning Department Weld County Commissioners Colorado Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration, Luke Collision, Safety Team Federal Aviation Administration, Brian Richardson, Safety Team n F 2/8/2019 Go g! Maps Imagery ©2019 Goole, Map data ©2019 Google 1000 ft Google Maps Lil.. .. tr.. n■n•a ,.na n' ' f fOf)'? Afit A af1fefef dn4 Awn h.J..i.,—Ir,'} of 14 ,raw -f.zt, a- . i1 { 6c.♦ S _ 1".. M. i + ^ ter• 4"n+ • N r T c i[..l a' _ . s3ti�≥shww. I a f 'M s n.. .-ice. 7 _'►T' N/ o tii � •�N• -f r —4T . c ate'± Aircraft Cylinders & Engines Inc. February 28th, 2019 To Whom It May Concern: I was talking with Bob Easton/ of Valley View Airfield, about the excess "jumpers" that I have noticed around his airfield. I knew that he has jumpers contracted with hin s, but noticed lately while landing at his field that there have been parachutes traveling across his field, specifically Valley View ,airfield traffic pattern, and landing in the Sod Farm that is the next field South, When talking with Bob/ he informed me that the owner of the Sod Farm was going to put in a Runway to accommodate the "other" jumpers. Is this not a conflict} , according to FAR 105.23 (b)? As a local pilot, business owner and a user of Valley View Airport, I am concerned that Bob a n d the businesses that use his airport will run the risk of interference and possibly impacting aircraft and jumpers using the field to the South of his Airfield. This is clearly a safety issue having two airports, one with multiple runways, next to each other having conflicting traffic patterns. In my opinion, this cannot be safe for the people using Valley View Airfield and creates nothing more than 'an accident waiting to happen" scenario A's aprivate pilot, safety is the number one concern, and when it comes to having to watch for added obstacles in the sky that close to each other, does not make any sense. Thank you ! toseph Folchert ACE, Inc, elefi 625 Buss Avenue • Greeley, CO 80631 • (970) 350-0540 • acecylinders@rnsn.00rri 'Concerning proposed landing strip on Big I4cot Sod Farm I fly out of Valley View airport and 1' am really concerned about the proposed air strip as its location would be extremely close to the existing landing strips at Valley view airport. If you look at proposed landing strip and existing landing strips the traffic patterns merge at the west ends, Two different airports operating within 800 feet of each other increasing the risk of an accident. r Also of concern is the existing sky diving operation occurring on Big Foot sod farm, in order for the sky divers to make their drop zone with a wind from the north they have to drift over existing east west run way (below 2000 ft.) on valley View airport. On one occasion last summer l had to abort a landing when a sky diver was coming down right in front of my flight path. When this happened kwas about 300 feet above the ground. If you look at FAA statistics most of air plane accidents happen during take offs and landings as it is at this time when you are closest to stall speed. Having to throw the power to the air plane and make a sharp turn to avoid a midair accident increases the risk of a stall. Also of concern is the lack of radio communications from planes performing sky diving operations on the Big Foot Sod Farm. Air planes operating in this area need to know there is sky diving operations under way so they can remain out of the drop zone until divers are on the ground. if the above operations were to be performed by one company operating two different landing strips and two or three airplanes dropping sky divers in same location it would take a lot of planning and coordination to ensure safety of sky divers and pilots. With two separate sky diving operations being performed by two different companies and no set coordination or safety plans the proposed runway and sky diving operation increases the risk of an accident and puts the public safety at risk. Sincerely David Hubbs EXHI BIT kiSR t3 --Of 2.-0 Hello