HomeMy WebLinkAbout760026.tiff FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION
RE: AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY APPLICATION FOR REZONING I TO A,
HEARD OCTOBER 25, 1976.
The Board of County Commissioners , Weld County, Colorado, from
the evidence presented at a hearing before it on October 25 ,
1976 of a petition by Amoco Production Company, Security Life
Building, Denver, Colorado, for rezoning of a tract of 5 . 007
acres located in the NE/4 NW/4 of Section 12 , Township 1 North,
Range 68 West, 6th Principal Meridian, Weld County, Colorado,
being more particularly described as follows , to-wit :
Commencing at the North quarter corner of
Section 12 , thence Westerly along the North
line of the NE/4 NW/4 of Section 12 a distance
of 203 feet to a point, thence South parallel
to the East line of the NE/4 NW/4 of Section 12
a distance of 203 feet to the point of begin-
ning. Thence South parallel to the East line
of the NE/4 NW/4, a distance of 467 feet, thence
West parallel to the South line of the NE/4 NW/4
a distance of 467 feet, thence North parallel to
the West line of the NE/4 NW/4 a distance of
467 feet, thence East parallel to the North
line of the NE/4 NW/4 a distance of 467 feet
to the point of beginning,
from I to A, makes the following findings of fact in support of
its denial of the requested rezoning:
1 . The applicant has not demonstrated that rezoning of the
land is essential, for the following reasons :
(a) A feasible alternative method of recovery of
minerals is available in directional drilling.
(b) The subject tract of land is bordered on all
sides by lands already zoned "A" , agricultural, on
which oil and gas production is a use by right, and
from which agriculturally zoned lands the applicant
could directionally drill to recover its minerals .
2 . The applicant has not demonstrated that the original
zoning was faulty, in that the land is currently zoned "I" ,
industrial , and is currently being used for industrial purposes .
3. The applicant has not shown that changing conditions in
the area justify a new zoning classification of the subject
property, in that the surface use of the subject property and
surrounding properties has not changed. The demonstrated
increase in oil and gas production activities in the area does
t,
, 760026
not in itself justify rezoning, since no change of zone is
required to drill in "A" zones, and the subject property is
surrounded by lands zoned "A" from which the applicant could
recover its minerals.
A. The proposed rezoning would create an undesirable
precedent for lands similarly situated throughout the County,
resulting in small tracts of land zoned "A" but too small to be
-actually used for agricultural purposes, which were rezoned
simply for the convenience of the mineral owner or lessee with-
out consideration of the goals of the Weld County Comprehensive
Plan and of the impacts on the general public health, safety
and welfare.
5. The proposed activity presents the possibility of sub-
stantial harm to the surface use of the area.
6. The proposed rezoning would require the building
of a road to the proposed "A" zone and would thus deprive
the surface owner of approximately five (5) acres of land
now being used for industrial purposes.
7. The proposed rezoning would create danger to those
entering upon and driving through the industrial zone to the
proposed "A" zone due to the dangerous nature of the activities
now being practiced by the surface owner in testing pyrotechnic
devices .
8. The Weld County -Planning Commission has recommended
denial of the proposed rezoning and the reasons given by the
Weld County planning -Commission for its recommendation of
denial are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set
forth at this point.
9 . That each of the preceding findings in and of them-
selves and independent of each other, constitute a separate
and individual ground for denial of the request for change of
zone from "I" to "A" .
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County,
Colorado, has heard the application of Amoco Production Company,
-2 -
3100 Security Life Building, Denver, Colorado, 80202, for re-
zoning of a tract of 5. 007 acres located in the NE/4 1NW/4 of
Section 12, Township 1 North, Range 68 West, 6th P.M. , Weld
County, Colorado, being more particularly described as follows,
to-wit:
commencing at the North quarter corner of
Section 12 , thence Westerly along the North
line of the NE/4 NW/4 of Section 12 a distance
of 203 feet to -a point, thence South parallel
to the East line of the NE/4 NW/4 of Section 12
a distance of 203 feet to the point of begin-
ning. Thence South parallel to the East line
of the NE/-4 NW/4, -a distance of 467 feet, -thence
We-st parallel to the South line of the NE/4 NW/4
a distance of 46-7 feet, thence North parallel to
the West line of the NE/A NW/4 a distance of
467 feet, thenc-e East parallel to the North
line of the NE/4 NW/4 a distance of 46-7 feet
to the point of beginning,
from I to A.
WHEREAS , the -Said Board has made its findings upon the
evidence, testimony, and petitions submitted to it, which
findings precede this Resolution -and by r-eference, are
incorporated herein and made a part hereof, and
WHEREAS, -the Board has carefully considere-j the applica-
tion, evidence, testimony and petitions , and the recommendations
of the Weld County Planning Commission, and has given the _same
such weight as it, in its discretion, deemed proper, and being
fully advised in the pr-emi-se-s;
NOW, THEREFORE, -BE IT RESOLVED, that the application of
Amoco Production Company, Security Life Building, Denver,
Colorado, for -the change of zone from "I" Industrial to "A"
Agricultural on the aforedescribed premises be, and hereby is,
denied upon each of the grounds set forth in the Board 's
findings therein.
The above and foregoing Findings and Resolution was, on
motion duly made and seconded, -adopted by the following vote
on the 8th day of November, A.D. , 1976 .
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ATTEST: r,/ 4_ • WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Weld County Clerk and Recorder
and Clerk to the and
1.
-•Deputy my Cl-erk `
APPROVED AS FORM:
7,7- / �/
ASSISTpli3T County Attorney
-3'
_ r
173C0 Amoco Production Company
17$
Security Life Building
Denver.Colorado 80202
303-820-4040
David E.Brody
Attorney
October 27, 1976
Mr. _Glenn K. Billings , Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
Weld County Centennial Center
915 Tenth Street
Greeley , Colorado 80631
Re : Amoco Production Company Re-zoning Application;
Case No . 1-272 :78 : 3
Dear Mr. Billings :
Pursuant to your request at the hearing on October
25 , 1976, enclosed herewith are the following items :
1. Reasibility study made by Amoco Production
Company Engineers concerning directional drilling;
2 . Copy of letter _from the undersigned to eleven
mineral iwners (all received the same letter) ;
3. Letter From the undersigned to Mr. Billy
Gaunt , Regional Director, United -States Department
of The -Treasury;
4 . Letter from the undersigned to Mr. Marvin
Clark, -United _States Department of Defense.
Also enclosed is a plat indicating area located 1070
feet from all "public highways , " as defined by the protestants.
Please note that , as diagramed on the attached plat , if one
applies Mr. Stonebraker '- awn figure of 11070 feet and measures
that distance fram any "public highway , " as he defines it ,
namely, the county _roads to the north and to the west of the
industrially zoned property , the access road to the east and
the well site to the south, then the only place he would be
able to store unbarricaded explosives would be in that little
red triangular—shaped area on the plat .
Mr. Glenn K. Billings
Page 2
October 27 , 1 '76
If one uses the quantity-distance of 1170 feet from
these "public highways, " as Mr. Stonebraker defines it ,
that is, the distance carresponding to 15, 000 pounds of
net explosives, -then there would be virtually no location
on the entire 111 acres where he would presently be per-
mitted to store unbarricaded explosives .
Further, if the testing quantity-distance standards
are the same as the storage standards, which they seem to
be according to erection 401 on page 4-1 of Exhibit "U" in
Amoco' s exhibits , then Mr . Stonebraker is presently unable
to perform any testing.
Thus , by using Mr . Stonebraker ' s awn definition of
"public highway , " although we believe this definition is
applicable only -to the county roads to the north and west
of his property, he is presently unable to conduct any
operations in compliance with Department of Defense regu-
lations . More importantly , he is presently precluded from
using the area where we propose to drill.
I am hand delivering copies of this material to Ms .
Kay McKever on this date for each of the County Commissioners ,
as well as copies for the Planning Staff and the County
Attorney . Also, I have transmitted a copy to Mr. James
Wilbur, by special delivery , and would be interested in any
comments thdL the protestants may have.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
David ET-Brod
DEB/dw
encs .
cc : County Commissioners
Mr. James F. Wilbur
United Bank Building
Longmont , Colorado 80501
FIRECRACKER UNIT B NO. 1
SPINDLE FIELD - WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
BOTTOM HOLE LOCATION: 520' FNL and 2120' FWL of Spr. 12, T1N, R68W.
SURFACE LOCATION: Minimum 700' from above -bottom hole location.
NORMAL DEVIATED
ITEM WELL HOLE INCREASE
Location $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ -
Rig Cost 12,000 30,000 18,000
Move in, rig up, rig down,
move out 5,000 5,000 -
Water 2,500 6,000 3,500
Mud 4,000 12,000 8,000
Bits 2 ,000 5,000 3,000
Fuel 750 1 ,800 1 ,050
Rentals 1 ,000 10,000 9,000
Cement 9,000 12,000 3,000
Logging 4,0100 5,000 1 ,000
Directional Surveys - 2,000 2,000
Dynadrill (2 runs) - 5,000 5,000
Supervision 1 ,000 2,500 1 ,50D
Casing, tubing & wellhead 50,725 50,725 -
Stimulation 30,000 30,000 -
Hauling 3,000 3,000 -
$130,975 $186,025 $55,050
Contingencies (10%) 13,100 18,600 5,500
TOTAL $144,075 $204,625 $60,550 (See note below)
NOTE: A substantial additional cost for directional drilling, not included
above, will be the cost of acquisition of a surface lease for xirillsite, if the
well will not be located on the present lease, assuming that such surface lease
can be acquired. Additional pipeline and right-of-way costs which will be
incurred are not included in the above figures.
( a :,, �1 l )�- t-
Dan A. Bee
Staff Drilling Engineer
Amoco Production Company
_ _ _
September 20, 1976
Ms. Elizabeth W. Graham
3 Princeton Circle
Longmont, CO 80501
Dear Ms. Graham:
According to our records, you have an undivided 1/3 interest
in the oil and gas underlying all or a portion of the NW/4
of Section 12, T1N, R6.8W, Weld County, Colorado, which was
leased on May 20 , 1972 (recorded in Book 672, Reception
No. 1593883) .
Amoco Production Company has been assigned this lease and
would now like to drill a well in the NE/4 NW/4 of that
Section . However, in 1968, Mr. Austin P. Stonebraker and
Mr. William N. Stonebraker, who have no interest in any
of the oil and gas but do own the surface, obtained a rezoning
of 111 acres of that area from "Agricultural District" to
"Industrial" so that they could build _and operate a pyrotechnics
plant there. Under the Weld County Zoning Regulations,
a well cannot be drilled on an industrial-zoned district,
but may be drilled on a agricultural—zoned district. Therefore,
Amoco is now seeking a temporary rezoning of only five acre-s
of these 111 acres back to "Agricultural," which five acres
is located over 600 feet from the nearest building, in order
to commence the drilling of a well on that five acres.
The Stonebrakers , however, are vigorously opposing Amoco's
rezoning application and have managed to convince some
government officials in Weld County that a well at this
location would be dangerous and would adversely affect their
business. We believe that a well drilled 600 feet away
from the nearest building could not possibly pose a danger
to that building, and that the operation of this one well
on a twenty-foot by twenty-foot area could not possibly
adversely affect the Stonebrakers' pyrotechnics business . ,
September 20 f 11.976
Page Two
In addition, the Stonebrakers have stated to the government
officials that the mineral owners' failed to resist the
Stonebrakers' own rezoni-ng application in 1968 and have
also stated that your failure to appear at a recent zoning
hearing that Amoco had on its present rezoning application
indicates that you do not support Amoco's application.
Therefore, we would very much appreciate your signing and
returning (in the self-addressed, stamped envelope) the
enclosed letter so we can present it to the Weld County
Commissioners at our up-coming hearing on October 18 , 1976
in Greeley- (Please fill in the date when you sign the
enclosed letter.) If the Iorm of the letter does not meet
with your approval, please furnish ns a statement in your
own words that we can present at the hearing . Also, if
you have any questions, please feel free to consult your
attorney or to call the undersigned collect prior to the
signing the enclosed letter . Thank you.
Sincerely,
David E. Brody
DEB:mw
mw
Enclosures
nimi_ I.
l
AmocoAmoco Production Company
;;;;"
Security Life,Building
Denver,Colorado EYJ202
303-820-4040
David E.Brody
Attorney
Special Delivery
October 5, 1976
Mr. Billy Gaunt, Regional Director,
United States Department of the Treasury
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
1200 Main Street , Third Floor
Dallas, Texas 75202
Re : Austin P. Stonebraker, William N. Stonebraker,
and Stoneco, Inc .
Dear Mr, Gaunt :
Earlier today I had a conversation with Mr. Dan Coleman
of your office, to whom I was referred by Mr. Dick Lang-
ford, from your field office here in Denver, As I ex-
plained' to Mr. Coleman, Amoco Production Company is the
owner of oil and gas leases concerning an area in Weld
County, Colorado, and has made application to the Board
of County Commissioners of Weld County for the rezoning
of a five-acre tract of land in this area in order to drill
a well thereon. The owners of the surface of this tract of
land are William N. Stonebraker and Austin P. Stonebraker,
who operate a pyrotechnics plant (Stoneco , Inc . ) on a
111—acre area that includes the subject five acres .
At a recent Weld County Planning Commission hearing on
Amoco ' s application to rezone the five acres, the Stone—
brakers (through Austin P. Stonebraker and their attorney,
James Wilbur) appeared for the purpose of opposing our
application. Their grounds for such opposition were the
following :
1. The Stonebrakers ' primary contention at the
hearing was that the "American table of distances
for storage of explosive materials" in the Treasury
and Defense Department regulations should be inter—
preted to mean that the proposed Amoco well and its
II 1111111111111 J -1.
AID
Mr.. Billy Gaunt
Page 2
October 5, 1976
related underground pipelines are "public high-
ways" within the meaning of that table and that
this, therefore, would have the effect of restrict-
ing the useable area for testing activities on the
111 acres. .
2. The Stonebrakers also allege that their contract
with the United States Department of Defense re-
quires that the Stonebrakers utili-ze the full 111
acres that are presently zoned "Industrial" for
"testing" purposes and that a well would interfere
with this testing to such a great extent that 'the
Department would immediately cancel its contract
and the Stonebrakers, therefore, would go out of
business,
With respect to the first contention, namely the definition
of "public highways" , we have ample legal authority indicat-
ing that there is absolutely no possibility that Amoco ' s
facilities could be defined as "public" in any respect .
These will be privately owned facilities, drilling for
privately owned minerals. Apart from any legal interpre-
tation, common sense indicates that the distance table
was not intended to apply to this type of situation .
Nevertheless, the Stonebrakers were able to convince the
Planning Commission that our proposed operations would
have a detrimental effect on their business and that the
Defense Department would terminate the contract with
them if Amoco drills the well on the land near the plant .
So, Amoco ' s application for rezoning was denied by the
Planning Commission on September 7, 1976. However, this
was only an interim hearing. The final decision is to be
made by the Board of County Commissioners - (which has con—
trol over the Planning Commission) at a hearing on October
25, 1976.
•
Although we are presenting very convincing evidence at the
up—coming hearing that the Stonebrakers' business will not
be adversely affected by our proposed well , we would also
very much appreciate a statement directly from the United
States Department of the Treasury indicating that , .insofar
•
Mr. Billy Gaunt
Page 3
October 5, 1976
as you are concerned, since the Defense Department has its
own safety and distance regulations convering their rela—
tionship with the Stonebrakers , you do not consider this
matter to be within your jurisdiction or scope of interest ,
and that you do not normally inspect these facilities
under these circumstances .
However, if you do have an interest and jurisdiction in
this matter concerning the distance between the Stone—
brakers ' explosives and our proposed well site operations,
we would very much appreciate your opinion as to whether
Amoco ' s proposed well will have any effect on your en—
forcement of the explosives regulations as they relate to
the Stonebrake.rs' operations . Further, we will be very
glad to accommodate you in any respect in order for you
to provide . us with such opinion.
If your Bureau does have the responsibility of seeing
whether the Stonebrakers are complying with the explo-
sives regulations, and if you do provide us with a response
to this inquiry, please indicate the following for the
purpose of our presentation to the Board of County Com-
missioners :
•
1. That you have the responsibility and authority
of making any determination as to ' whether the Stone-
brakers are complying with the regulations .
2. That you have examined the enclosed plat which
indicates the proposed location of Amoco ' s well,
and that you are familiar with the applicable dis-
tances involved in this matter.
3. That you have determined that the drilling and
operation of an oil or gas well at the location -
proposed by Amoco will not be viewed by the Depart-
ment of the Treasury as violating any regulations .
I am enclosing a plat of our proposed well site and re-
quest: that you contact the undersigned , Lou Gaskins , or
Harry Hickman, of this office if you have any questions .
Also, we .will be glad to meet with you at your convenience
to discuss this matter. However, if you believe a meeting
Mr. Billy Gaunt
Page 4
October 5, 1976
in Dallas is necessary, please let us know as soon as
possible, since we would like to be prepared for the
hearing by _October 15, 1976, so that we may provide
certain information to the Commissioner ' staff in ad-
vance of the hearing.
Please understand that the drilling operations will in no
way involve explosives used by Amoco. In addition, when
the well is completed, it will take up an area only twenty
feet by twenty feet , and will be located over 600 feet
from the nearest building on the Stonebrakers ' property,
as indicated on the enclosed plat .
We have made a similar request in this matter to the
Department of Defense, and have been discussing this with
Mr. Marvin Clark in Denver (tele : 837-2507) and Mr. Richard
Pier in St. Louis (tele : 26£3-6237) , and have absolutely
no objection to your contacting them. Also, we have no
objection to your contacting the Stonebrakers or providing
them with the same information that you give to us .
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
David E . Broy
DEB/dw
enc .
cc w/enc :
Mr. Dan Coleman
United States Department of the Treasury
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
1200 Main Street , Third Floor
Dallas, Texas 75202
!4I!1AMOCO
�I
Amoco Production Company
Security Life Building
Denver,Colorado 80202
203-820-4040
David E.Brody
Attorney
September 27, 1976
Mr. Marvin Clark
DCASMA - Denver
701 W. Hampden Avenue
Englewood, Colorado 80110
Re: Austin P. Stonebraker, William N. Stonebraker, Stoneco, Ince
Dear Mr. Clark:
As I stated to you in our telephone conversation of September
20, 1976, Amoco is the owner of oil and gas leases concerning
an area in Weld County, Colorado, and has made applicationto the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County for
the rezoning of a five-acre tract of land in this area in
order to drill a well thereon. The owners of the surface
of this tract of land are William Ne Stonebraker and Austin
P. Stonebraker who operate a pyrotechnics plant (Stoneco,
Inc.) on a 111-acre area that includes the subject five
acres. You have informed me that the Stonebrakers currently
have two contracts with the Department of Defense and that
you are the contract agent or representative of the Department
in charge of dealing with the Stonebrakers on these, contracts.
At a recent Weld County Planning Commission hearing on Amoco' s ,
application to rezone the five acres, the Stonebrakers (through
Austin P. Stonebraker and their attorney, James Wilbur)
appeared to vigorously oppose our application on the following
grounds:
1. The Stonebrakers' primary contention -at the hearing
was that the "American table of distances for storage
of explosive materials" in the Defense Department and
Treasury Department regulations should be interpreted
to mean that the proposed Amoco well and its related
underground pipelines are "public highways" within
the meaning of that table and that this would, there-
fore, have the effect of restricting the usable area
for testing activities on the 111 acres .
•
•
10 1 Ill�UIII[il�illl� i rm.
Mr . Marvin Cla,,
Page 2
September 27, 1976
2. The Stonebrakers also alleged that their contracts
with the Department of Defense expressly require that
the Stonebrakers utilize the full 111 acres that are
presently zoned "Industrial" for "testing" purposes
and that a well would interfere with this testing to
such a great extent that the Department would immedi-
ately cancel those contracts and the Stonebrakers
would, therefore, go out of business.
On the first contention, namely the definition of "public
highways, " we have ample legal authority proving that there
is absolutely no possibility that Amoco' s facilities could
be defined as "public" in any respect. These will be privately
owned facilities, drilling for privately owned minerals .
Apart from any legal interpretation, common sense indicates
that the distance table was not intended to apply to this
type of situation.
Nevertheless, the Stonebrakers were able to convince the
Planning Commission that our proposed operations would
affect his business and that the Defense Department would
terminate the contracts if we drilled our well on the land
near the plant. So Amoco' s application for rezoning was
-denied by the Planning Commission on September 7 , 1976 .
-However, this was only an interim hearing. The final decision'
is to be made by the Board of County Commissioners (they
-have control over the Planning Commission) at a hearing
on October 25, 1976.
Although we will present very convincing evidence at the
upcominii hearing that the Stonebrakers' business will not
be affected by our proposed well, we would also very much
appreciate a statement directly from the Department of
Defense Contracts Division (or other appropriate division)
indicating the following:
1. That you are the person in charge of dealing with
the Stonebrakers on the contracts, and that you are
_familiar with the contracts.
2. That you have the responsibility and authority
of making any determinations as to whether the Stonebrakers
are complying with the contracts.
Mr . Marvin Clark
Page 3
September 27 , 1976
3. That you have examined the plat indicating the
proposed location of Amoco' s well, and that you are
familiar with the location of the facilities at Stoneco,
Inc. and all applicable distances involved in this
matter . .
4 . That specifically as to safety matters the person
you referred to in St. Louis has reviewed this matter ,
including the location and nature of Amoco' s proposed
well—site (you may want him to join in signing the
letter from you) .
5. That you and the other people in the Department
have found that: •
a. The definition of "public highways" -and "public"
as used in the "American table of distances" has
no application to the pump, underground pipelines
or other facilities to be installed by Amoco;
and,
b. The drilling and operation of an oil or gas
well at the location proposed by Amoco will not be
viewed by the Department of Defense as adversely
affecting the Department's relationship with the
Stonebrakers in any respect, and that it will
not pose a danger to the plant operations .
Also, if available to the public, I would like copies of
the two contracts that the Department has with Stoneco.
I am enclosing a plat of our proposed well-site and request
that you contact the undersigned, Lou Gaskins or Harry Hickman
of this office if you have any questions. Also, we would
be glad to meet with you at your convenience to discuss
this matter .
I realize that you are somewhat reluctant to become involved
in a matter that is of no great interest to you. However ,
the Stonebrakers have placed great emphasis on their relationship
with the Defense Department, and are relying heavily on
this to prevent Amoco from -exercising its right to obtain
Mr . Marvin Clark
Page 4
September 22, 1976
the minerals underlying the Stone-brskers' property. Thus,
we are forced to seek your assistance in disproving the
Stonebrakers' assertions.
Please respond at your -earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
rarei.
David E. Brody
•
DEB:do
Enclosure
+ oil0 ' 1) T SIR t_ Yu 'h 9
- irecracker No . B-1
R68W
2 J •
COSSLETT�
•3A
U
\ .
sr
.�` o DACONO
J2
COSSc E rT \;TCHENS
i•2-41 \PROPOSED
\\\A -UD
i 'Ida J. Cosslett et al Esfate \
T Robt. A. Houtchens 8 Lorna G. Houtchens
7
■
RD 12
GRANT . F/RECRACKER ❑
N Oa/-// \ moo; •
oe-/
W/NG�
UN!
NION RCA L. -
• `,
\ustin Ston ebrr�o her 8,,,c/V/
Wm. Stone bre• er / a
•'
F/RECR.C/fERA� • '`/'M
/ \ 1070' ''• / I.
r
■
II 12
7 R
0 M
2 O
re
\V-
iUST FOREMA •
• •2 U I
VICINITY MAP I'
r
SCALE: I° = 1000' j A IMPROVED ROADS
N UNIMPROVED ROADS
k -
R. R TRACKS
POWER LINES r
BUILDINGS r
• WELL HEAD AND BATTERY
O PROPOSED DRILLING LOCATION
I\\\y AGRICULTURAL ZONE
r /z INDUSTRIAL 7/1h1F ^-
1
October 25, 1976
I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated September 22, 1976
duly published September 24, 1976 and October 15, 1976 in the Greeley .
Booster, a public hearing was held on the request of Amoco Production
Company for a Change of Zone, I to A. After hearing testimony Commissioner
Steinmark made the motion to continue the hearing on November 1, 1976.
Commissioner Jacobucci seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.
e ( � �� . ,
CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
4. WELD COUNTY COLORADO
ATTEST:71 (2rn.4 -1'2 4, " 4/1?tml
__COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER
AND�LERK TO THE BOARD
K BY: .(2' -zit,(..4,& k,-' etiou
----. Deputy County Clerk
/
Tapia #76-173 & 174
A T T E N D A J C 1 it E C O ..:., . n
Applicant : Amoco Production Co. lime ; 2 : 00 P.M.
Dc"-Ygt3�
Date : Request ;
October 25, 1976 COZ, I to A
Nhrir,
-7 ADDRESS
/? ...r.,...O,_ e., ` ..---;—C4
-'C;
_ •
_ Cu..-f- .1 i .- I r
.I�t . ��,LC- • ail( -Cc �,d••t`ek� C� ;'� ,ti V. .
s1,
4-Zei_... /•:
_,4:-/ /122 2, )(42.14, 3 ...731--,Afri-e-›-%---
d" • 7?
L` 4,:_,.___4_.. ..,_... f,,=� 7 �-•e: e..<•'-4-<.ctc-• r c'%r.c.-
'l
•NoTxcE
Puraunt to the zoning laws of the. State. of Colors a puhlic
,hearing will be h}lg a tbw
Chamibera•of the of t)euaty
Cotioniseloners -. �.'oenty,
Colorado Weld Cojt�j Omp lea,
'91'5-•'tdtii+''Street,'' , �sCblora-'i -
do, at the-time sp .. All per-
•
• soons'in -any manner- Interested in
the following proposed Chang of
Zone are 'requested -to attend Dand
may be.-hears; ,
PE ;T- ALSO XNQWN that.,the
text ad., tape so:certified by:time
Weld Count Planning Commis-,
sign ma b in the
. Off icC.'of the':Clerk V..
of the Cd6ti BoardTo-
c'o't�n, , • 'ro
gated.:in the. WA W„
• •. plea, 915.abt)i ,8', tt. Fj
Greeley..'Corers:de: ''-"t!-.`.--.`
• ;DOCKET No, 78-38 -..
Amoco "Prod'C160bn _taiiiitietiY. -• 'i
Security thipoln,g•
`• p�.v4i forado saZO • i
• •D431'50: .October.25, 1975-
T ME:;2:00 P.M. .
Request:'Change;Of Zone -1 . er::
. ;dustrial)•;to A: (4galqu4tu }).
A 'tract of•:•6:'Od7;-acreb tecated c
in the 1sTE. N.W ii of. Section 12,
Township. North, Range 68
• West. ' .8th Print al, Meridian:
• Weld Cot�yy
More ntt
-partl:cularlY ee.cribed ss
sp
fellows. -to-wit: •.'
Commencing:.• at .,- the:-North
quarter.:eer�tnoer:•xef•• ..Section 1Z,.North•• of_Section . 2.;athence- ,d scan o•e Ni54 f 6. .
fest :to:a•-Pein't heit e..South •
parallel : to the Sake.'lilie. of
the NE'3(j NW it .of Sectidn 12.
a distance Of 'EGB. feet'it tts•
point ..pf: . .beginning: •Tbenoa'_ '
South•parallel to,. Ake.,• !
'line-of:5Ehe••N•E tt..NW4 alias.-
tance of 467 :feet thence'West.
parallel.to the outh line of :
th 9.NE',i .NW.3il-a.:dletance•of
467 .feet. Thence North •par.
elle! to the Weat. line of the
NE'/a .N•WItt .a.distance of .487.'
feet,' thepee -East pars!!@1' to_ •
the. North line .,of the .N il4,: '
NW • a.. ,distance of 467• feet
to;the.point.of'begirinina. :: . : ,
•Dated:-•Sep't4ber '-12,` 1'97t•.
--...THE'120A.KlE' OW
COUNTY;COMlItINSIOIUEJgg•' •
WELD COUNTY.,•.COff..OLtlO.
--- ----- -- — • By: Mary Ann :.'Feheretei t
County Clerk .and Recorder.
. -.and...Cterk to the-:T•3(4rd'
By: Jeanne Lou Heimbuck)
Deputy
Published September 2n1l79
--------- --- and October 15; I976- 'iii The
Greeley.•136oster. .
SHELL CRACKER
PHONES
Dons,Coto. (3031 634-3346 Tt*Sr". "8
D•teno.Colo. (3031 R33-2376 44•1;11.4404; q4� -
,;:y o ` ::,, MANUFACTURING
t ENGINEERING
Stoneco,
Inc1 a
•
A Manufacturing and Engineering Daw/opmont Corporation
BOX 167 DACONO,COLORADO 80614 '' _
AERIAL DISPLAYS
FIRED ELECTRICALLY
•
i
4so'
Roc ke t F -- y6C >
Pred Lee A0K oPhir
Test ll Rrcrn Mfe' L /y . /inry
t G
;� iin6 Area gaca -:
b
C
NfC
t J . _ J/
I I
I Atylol 'r w )
I ! Test 90o x
i ' 4 Hera,
_ 1 — • t.,
h -
I gtnoro f,
4\ l
\ /J
tA C Z / TY UT/ter '1 i/j/'✓
r
Bird&Animal Control Devices Rocketry Pyrotechnic Engineering
SHELL CRACKER ,€
PHONES '" '^"`• -•-
w
Denver,Cob- 1909) 634-3M6 '
4.
Oscan,Cabo- (3031 833-237° -* �„
; •` MANUFACTURING
of ENGINEERING
Stoneco, Inca .
Ili
A Manufacturing and Engineering Darabpnwnt Corporation
8OX 187 DACONO,COLORADO 80514 ..
Re
AERIAL DISMAYS
FIRED ELECTRICALLY
KI
en3!•S r
1.F— 7G$ 6So ' + 121 Y
II
if,'
t IlitJil et NeuraF'f PrGdeee froK
S kera9.
^r.1 i Area 4.O,/'h
NE
CI slid' U
" - I
Al 1
1 I Amoco I I I >7
I s
' 0
At I 9q� '
i*F °
i
I I
�:- 1 !
- "Pa'--j is 1
Core..f Road /2,
I
I _ Plpfiac'T/o A✓ _.APS_E4 j
1 - IQ EL 4 77Y TO
Ii AMOCO _r2, N/Ar'a
i
I
Bird&Animal Control Devices Rocketry Pyrotechnic Engineering
c
I
& 4'51 r .R.•.
L-1 e'0,"„
240. Pier mally limited to a minimum consistant with
A wharf build into the stream or fairway, safe. efficient production.
perpendicular or oblique to the shore. 248. Ship or Barge Units
241. Prohibited Area Thy line inclosing the ship or barge being
A specifically designated area, at the ends of loaded. the space on the pier for spotting of
each runway, in which all ammunition awl ex-
plosives freight cars and trucks, and the space in the
plosives facilities are prohibited. water for barges which may be working the
ship or barge.
242. Public Highway
Any public street, alley, road, or navigable 249. Substantial Dividing Wall •y
stream. Navigable streams shall be considered An interior wall designed to prevent, control
as only those parts of streams susceptible of or delay propagation of explosions between
being used in their ordinary condition as high- quantities of explosives on opposite sides of the
ways of commerce over which trade and travel wall.
are or may be conducted in the customary 250. Suspect Car and Truck Site
modes, but shall not include streams which are
not capable of extensive navigation by barges, A designated location for placing trucks and
tugboats, and other jarge--vessehr.- -._ rail cars containing ammunition, explosives,
and or related dangerous materials in which
243. Quantity Distance the contents are suspected to be in a hazard-
The quantity of explosives material and dis- LUS condition.
tance separation relationships which provide
defined types of protection. These relationships 251. Taxiway/Taxilane
• are based on levels of risk considered accepta- A taxiway taxilane is any surface, desig-
ble for the stipulated exposures and are tabu- stated as such in the basic airfield clearance cri-
lated in the appropriate quantity-distance ta- teria specified by DoD Component publications
bles. Separation distances are not absolute safe find Federal Aviation Regulation, as published
• distances but are relative protective or safe ht I !CFR77.
distances. GREATER DISTANCES TITAN I
252. Test Pad
THOSE. SHOWN IN THE TABLES SHOULD
BE USED WHEREVER PRACTICABLE. / Locations on which liquid propellant engines
or solid propellant motors are tested in place.
244. �' ucy
A marginal wharf of solid fill. 253. TNT Equivalent
It is that quantity of material which, if in-
245. Restricted Area volved in a detonation or explosion produces
Any area, normally fenced, from which per- damage equivalent to that produced by a given
sonnel, aircraft, or vehicles, other than those quantity of TNT under similar conditions. The
required for operations, are excluded for rea- common parameter for comparison is peak ov-
sons of safety and security. erpressure.
246. Runway 254. Toxic Area
a. Any surface on and designated for air- An area in which the hazard is primarily a
craft take-off and landing operations. direct hazard to health.
b. A designated lane of water for take-off
and landing operations of seaplanes. 255. Waivers and Exemptions
These are written authorizations which per-
247. Service Magazine mit deviations from mandatory safety require-
An auxiliary building of an operating line mmnts for specific periods of time. Waivers are
used for the intermediate storage of explosives granted for a one year period or less. Exemp-
materials. The amount of explosives is nor- lions lie granted for an indefinite period.
2-4
TABLE 7E.Inhabited Building, Passenger Railroad — — — -- -- --
Net Pounds of
and Public Highway Distances Explosives distance in Feet From Explosive aatsd
'cc Inhabited To Fasten.e m
Net Pounds of Buildings Railroads .I
Explosives l)stain e in Feet From Explosive Ha-nor I Piddle H p ,ray,
To Inhabited as 'f I en I H t r' Bar nhn,
Over Not carer Buildings RPublic 1 I> __- - _-_. -_
High, -I
(2) • 131 (9) t 1
Bar ^ Unbar Bar Unbar - +
125,000 150,000 I 2350 3800 1110 2: J
(I) (2) (3) III 1 t.-,1 O) 1511,00(1 175,000 i 25115 3930 1540 2 10
175,000 i 200,000 E 2770 4060 1660 1 35
0 1 40 80 25 50 cn0.)100 225,000 2965 4190 1780 15
1 2 50 100 30 60 225,000 250,000 r 81511 4310 1890 .085 ,
2 5 70 140 40 85 250,000 275,1100 4430 4431) 2660 2661644`1•
I
5 10 90 180 55 110 275,000 300,000 4550 4550 2730 2730
10 20 110 ! 220 65 130 300,000 325,000 4670 4670 2800 2800
20 30 125 250 75 150 325,000 35)1,000 4780 4780 2870 2870
30 40 140 280 85 170 350,000 375,000 4890 4890 2935 2935
40 "50 150 300 90 180 375,000 400,000 5000 5000 3000 3000
C. 50 100 190 380 1 115 230 400,000 425,000 5110 5110 3065 3065
--- 0 235 CO .. 14U..._�_:9.4 425,000 450,000 6210 5210 312E 3125
200 300 270 540 160 320 450,000 475,000 15310 5310 3185 3185
300 400 295 590 175 350 475,000 I 500,000 15410 5410 3245 3245
400 500 320 640 190 380 _ L are
d500 600 340 680 205 410 Igloo or special type magazines .with a door barricade
,. C0113 lea barricaded in all darechl Witho t a door barricade
area
600 _7Qa_ ,_ 3651_ _...lat... _.211. -490_ - they are considered barricaded in all directions except for the area
700 800 375 750 225 - 450 b.t,.,.en lines drawn from the center of the door and inclined 30
800 900 j 390 780 235 470 degrees from a perpendicular to the door of the magazine.
•
900 1,000 400 800 240 480 •sot explosion sites other than igloo or special type magazine
1,000 1,500 460 920 i 275 5511 use the explanation of terms in part 2 d, determine if barricaded.
• 1,500 2,000 505 11)10 305 6111 "The distances for Ito to lbs. may he used only when structures
2.0011 3,000 580 1160 35(1 700 or blast mats can completely confine fragments and debris. Lesser
distances in specific eases may only lie approved if both blast and
3,600 4,000 635 1270 380 760 fragments a can he completely confined as in certain test-firing
4,000 5.000 685 1370 410 820 barricades.
5,000 6,000 730 1160 440 880 i Further study it required that .will lead to reduction of the
6,000 7,000 770 1540 460 920 safety distance factor for barricaded explosive storage in excess of
7,000 8,000 800 1600 480 960 '-10.000 lbs. should situations arise where such quantities if ex-
plosives are involved, reduction of the safety distance factor .will be
8,000 9,000 835 1670 500 1000
reappraised.
9,000 10,000 865 1780 520 1040
A 10,000 15,000 { 990 1780 595 1070
15,000 20,000 1090 I 1950 655 1170 710. Class 8 (CB Agents)
20,000 25,000 1170 2110 700 1265
25,000 30,000 - 1245 2260 745 1355 a. The munitions and agent components
30,000 35,000 1310 2410 1 785 1445 thereof comprise a group which requires con-
35,000 46,000 1370 2550 820 1530 sideration not only of the blast or fragment
ao,000 45,000 1425 zsao 855 1610 hazard but of the effect of release of the agent.
45,000 50,000 1470 2800 880 1(180
50,000 55,000 1520 2920 916 1750 Depending upon the type of agent, its persis-
55,000 60,000 1570 3030 940 1820 tency, volatility, toxicity, or other special fea-
60,000 1 65,000 1610 3130 965 1880 tore, the paramount consideration may have to
65,000 70.000 1650 3220 990 1930 be directed to the area of agent dispersal
70,000 75,000 1690 3310 1015 1985
rather than blast or fragment distance.
75,000 80,000 1725 3390 1035 2035
86,000 85,000 1760 3460 1055 2075 b. Pending development of more definitive
85,600 90,0011 1790 I 3520 ) 1075 2110
90,000 96,000 1825 :3580 1095 2150 criteria, each situation involving CB agents
95,000 100,006 1855 31130 1115 2180 n)llst be evaluated upon its separate condition
100,000 125,000 2115 3670 1270 2200 and characteristics.
7-10
Fro»-.• Dot) Am4iart/irio,v AND POD s-/SS!4S
Change 1 Er PioS/vets March. 1976
SAFETY STA.trDARQ5
impact, to the impulse of an initiating agent, or to plosive; or in the loading, assembly, modification,
the effect of a considerable discharge of energy and maintenance of ammunition.
from without. Such an explosion normally will cause
severe structural damage to adjacent objects. Ex- 2-47. Operational Shield
plosion propagation may occur immediately to other A barrier constructed at a particular location or
items of ammunition and explosives stored suffi- around a particular machine or operating station to
ciently close to and not adequately protected from protect personnel, material, or equipment from the
the initially exploding pile with a time interval effects of a possible localized fire or explosion.
short enough so that two or more quantities must
be considered as one for quantity-distance pur- 2-48. Passenger Railroad
poses. Any steam, diesel, electric, or other railroad
2-40. Navigable Streams which carries passengers for hire.
Those parts of streams, channels, or canals capa- 2-49. Pier
ble of being used in their ordinary or maintained A landing place or platform built into the water,
condition as highways of commerce over which perpendicular or oblique to the shore, for the berth-
trade and travel are or may be conducted in the ing of vessels.
customary modes, not including streams which are
not capable of navigation by barges, tugboats, and 2-50. Prohibited Area
other large vessels unless they are extensively and A specifically designated area at airfields, sea-
regularly used for the operation of pleasure boats. dromes, or heliports in which all ammunition and
4 2-41. NEQ explosives facilities are prohibited.
Net explosive quantity as expressed in kilo- 2_51. Public Highway
grams.
lar Any street, road, or highway not under DoD
2-42. NEW custody used by the general public for any type of�
vehicular travel.
Net explosive weight as expressed in pounds.
.o, 2-43. Nitrogen Padding (or Blanket) 2— u is ro �c Route
To fill the void or ullage of a closed container with
Any public street, road, highway, navigable
nitrogen gas to prevent oxidation of the chemical stream or passenger railroad.
contained therein and to avoid formation of a 2-53. Quantity-Distance
flammable mixture, or to maintain a nitrogen at- The quantity of explosives material and distance
mosphere in or around an operation, piece of
equipment, etc. separation relationships which provide defined
types of protection. These relationships are based
< 2-44. Non-DoD Components on levels of risk considered acceptable for the stipu-
lated entity (Government, exposures and are tabulated in the appro-
Any private, or corporate) priate quantity-distance tables. Separation dis-
which is not a part of the Department of Defense.
tances are not absolute safe distances but are rela-
2-45. Operating Building tive protective or safe distances. Greater distances
than those shown in the tables should be used
Any structure, except a magazine,in which oper- wherever practicable.
ations pertaining to manufacturing, processing,
handling, loading, or assembling of ammunition and 2-54. Quay
explosives are performed.
A marginal wharf of solid fill.
2-46. Operating Line
A group of buildings, facilities, or related work 2-55. Runway
stations so arranged as to permit performance of Any surface on land designated for aircraft
the consecutive steps in the manufacture of an ex- takeoff and landing operations—or a designated
2-4
r ,
'rw. ui
' UNION
Ii\ UNION RURAL ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC.
P.O. Box 359 (303) 659-0551
Si e) Brighton, Colorado 80601 ENTERPRISE 222
March 10, 1975
Mr. Austin P. Stonebraker
Stoneco, Inc.
5403 Federal Blvd.
Denver, CO 80221
Dear Mr. Stonebraker:
In accordance with our conversation of Friday, February 28, 1975,
Union Rural Electric Association, Inc. hereby agrees not to enter
upon Stoneco property located in the N; of Section 12, Township 1
North, Range 68 West, of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado with-
out first notifying Stoneco or its representative on said property.
Very truly yours,
UNION RURAL ELECTRIC ASSN. , INC.
/. --. .
Donald Farmer
Mgr. of Engineering Services
DF:gp
"A Consumer-Owned 'Jtilily Serving Five Front Range Colorado Counties"
z _ . r
,i ?„-,-1:12±- � ._— _� J � ,/mil (, _.r c �� � l G.� _ Xi
i t
t::I � C -r .1 the 1.
._. , al-1(1 1.1_t1 . . P . c t )1 Bx:T .1 _c- i}iE
� ._
C,i-
n L: .t L nr;
c V
n 75' ( � A -
i . /
•
L� '1 rho 1 .. ,_,.i
1 Z-
2: t
C. y y I _
intent. the Zoning{n ;1 ,
_ , . ..na L b�, � .�� by the _� � .,_ -
ti on , l.",' Lfle unique cend1 -01„ of the land involved and by the
Cce.s.er dile need t _ . .. dov 'lopsbnt
The Zo In' itasolutlon states t11at in it . P.1 the public
ti0 - _tv and welfare are pro—bed through zoning. Sp _ f-
1.C?.i.d. i idle Resolntidn lists several ways fh d-t zoningS prC[.(h:')t-t ;.
-hen: . H . e ) leby and ..e ' -_' r gang which _ _ :
1 . Property ;_ue a -_- protected since used which
_ will 1O-, r, oral festioany , the entire oporatien
O c_ tract for { •_Li z1 pdriipge will be, severely ijeep-
erdefed by the rezoning ,r , i E i
r. ,,
; a� � i _.. -f� 7 _= a' '"-f3 have designed a. _dt� i_ -_
. i �
t. etlilie tde space allowed on tbe111. acre l Use G F
sus -eoferial being manufactured. and, ._sled on. the premised . i__.
n of and ell i-it or gag well and subsedsent storage
'
(1 _ ' C
— t .. _. ._1.1 ty v.`_ i ,�` - to _J'. . - ,. t . ,'c . _. and the
2 P . ( 1 a -_ ,no_? �d. r
• • „ r ( , 951)
,u, con . o = ,r;-r'>� -_ni t ,,, ;,-,. an
f or,=rhv values , cc. ,“>--. t.o
r i ; on ;
2 . C _, :;1 , ...ion r-oro
u , tt c:1 .. Pcr: i .�- mot. rar_.,
-. s
ofoln. r,Andieiian61L_. = bo iaahnalrLe end , Or the ptC,.__ i , .il ,f
'Jan! na.011.0wei ar0 . :. _ ' le , Fii<?.I )1 , 261 0 . 20. .^99 , l22 Colo .
21 .3 3) The to 1 G ` _] 1 . 1_ "T` II : gz_ 7nF^_. couhtlea ih.. ad--
L C'.Ci` _Va to zone ( 1973 C.P. S . 39-jo LJ3) and. rococo ( 197.3i. C ,_,_S .
h_ _ . is) _ -..Tn4s ciol - i ` LO:). cp au; hn . 1L' },y the s _.*, :-I
isla-
v.-,
�' L',' �.1 - the r, _.,_ 01. securing Ohs C� _i general public in safety
344 Col.o. , ( t5 3) .o _;a , and (been irt ._ _ ,ul ,ti .,: it I.
at = .
S-., I,' C -J.ro of C _`%' _ pae3eslh.v tea of cola:; u._ion-
1 L V (l . r .. .1 _
In Call cal at 1 ""' - '-_.3 3 _atila oil ti _ i . , aa...E.-:,; l ,_€.,
,-• ----- ,t.,J. , the floafts boorn 6.oteld the right of cities to
reg-
ula 1 , oRtrict and 1r coo 'a1. to prohibit •fireilling . r ic_
` T I _l i. i _ __ .
F,2 ' 1e2 (SD Cal. 1229 ) arta, %.7 7 , 2a 523 (CCA 9 ) „.: v .
is.-. ,.o inc. C . , ,79 . . 2d 93 , '.310 Cap hojp d. 335 ( 195`5 ) .
Another C i nLa r _ ._.a Lon held that. a county had the
1SCH 33
Sl ,
� . ' .o H;J7 , . . _
EXHIBITS TO PRESENTATION
BY AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY
-- HEARING BEFORE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
OCTOBER 25, 1976
Mr. Jacobucci
/
AMOCO4113 iltir Amoco Production Company
Security Life Building
Denver.Colorado 80202
303-820-4040
David E.Brody
Atlorney
October 19, 1976
Mr. Glen Billings, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
Weld County Centennial Center
915 Tenth Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Re: Amoco Production Company, Re-zoning Application
Case No. Z-272 : 76 : 3
Dear Mr. Billings :
Attached hereto, for each of the County Commissioners,
are five sets of Exhibits to Presentation of Amoco Pro-
duction Company in connection with the above matter,
scheduled for hearing on October 25 , 1976 .
Reference will be made to these exhibits through-
out the presentation of our case . We have also distribu-
ted copies of these exhibits to the County Attorney, and
the Planning Staff.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
c2 c 0
David E. Brody
DEB/dw
encs .
EXHIBITS
A. _Recommendation of Weld County Planning Commission
to County Commissioners
B. Department of the Treasury "American table of dis-
tances for storage of explosive materials"
C. Department of Defense letter to Amoco Production
Company
T1. Department of Treasury letter to Amoco Production
Company
E. Colorado Statute -defining "private road"
T. Map showing change of conditions
Exhibits Concerning Title Information
G. Patent from United States to Bucknum (1890)
-H. Deed from Woolfenden to Bucknum (1911) , reserving
2/3 mineral interest
I . Deed from Mueller and Bucknum to Roth (1927) ,
conveying 1/6 mineral interest
J. Deed from Mueller and Bucknum to Heffelbower
(1927) , conveying 1/6 mineral interest
K. Deed from Smith to Thomas (1949) , conveying
surface only
L. Deed from Thomas to Corlett (1951) , conveying
surface only
M. Death Certificate of John H. Corlett (1951)
N. Deed from Corlett to Corlett (1951) , conveying
surface only
D. Deed from Corlett to Stonebraker (1966) , conveying
surface only
(end of title information)
P. Letters from eleven mineral owners to Mr . Billings
Q. Re-zoning Application of Austin P . Stonebraker and
William N. Stonebraker (1967 )
R. Re-zoning Application of Amoco Production Company
(1976)
S. Transcript of proceedings before Weld County Planning
Commission, September 7 , 1976
J
di
BEFO-RE TH-E WELD DOUNTY , COLDRADO PLANNING DOMMISSI0N , y ytfs ' 6 A, `
R-ESOLUTIDN OF R-ECOMMENDATION TO/THE BOARD DF CDUNTY CDMMI≥,SIO } R�} S� y '
Cast No . Z-272:76:3 Date September h' it
APPLICATION OF Amoco Production Company
ADDRESS Security Life building, Denver, CO 80202 , ;
' ' , ;
Roved by Mrs Carlson that the following resolution be
introduced for passage by the W-e1d :County Planning -Commission :
Be it Resolved by the Weld County' Planning Commission that the
application for rezoning from I ( Industrial District ) to h
, A ( Agricultural District) covering the following described ,
property in Weld County , Colorado , to-wit :
A tract of 5. 007 acres located in the NE/4
o,_ NW/4 of Section 12, Township 1 North, Range
kr 68 West, 6th Principal Meridian, Weld County,
t , 1; Colorado, being more particularly described
\ as follows, to-wit: -
`'� \\\"J' \ Commencing at the North quarter corner of •,
\, NA 'c Section 12 , thence Westerly along the North
{ line of the NE/4 NW/A of Section 12 a -distance
N� a of 203 feet to a point, thence South. parallel
\ to the East line of the NE/A NW/4 of Section 12 '
�' a distance of 203 feet to the point of begin-
ning. Thence South parallel to the East line
of the NE/4 NW/4 a distance of 467 feet, thence -
• West parallel to the South lime of the NE/4 NW/4
a distance of 467 feet, thence North parallel to t ".
the West line of the NE/4 NW/4 a distance of
467 feet, thence East parallel to the North S
line of the NE/4 NW/4 a distance of 467 feet se
to the point of beginning. ;urn
be recommended Xgya( N7t xX x (unfavorably) to ;the Board o-f '.County
_Commissioners for the Tollowirrg reasons : '
1-. The request to rezone the subject--5.007, acre parcel is not compatible with the
existing land use on the NW4 of Sac. 12, T1N, R68W:which is owned by: Austin P. -„
and William N.. Stonebraker. The existing land use -is the manufacture and storage
of scatter gun shells and other pyrotechnic devices: `The` propased rezoning is not
compatible with this existing land use. for the following reasons: (a) The Depart-
ment of Treasury -and the Department of Defense regulations require that facilities
such as the existing use be located certain distances from other activities. These
distance regulations (known as "quantity and distance storage_ requirements") in turn
govern the amount of storage space allowed in a facility.` `There are also requirements
spacing between storage areas in a facility ("interline distance" requirements.) (b)
Testing facilities are located throughout the property. Due to sound and safety
requirements the testing areas would require relocation if the proposed use is allowec
(c) The proposed use would creates a fir-e hazard if located near the existing use.
Motion . seconded -by . Ms, Kount7
Vote : For Passages liix Against Passage . Mr. Ashley
•
Mr. Carl-son
it Heitman
It. Koontz '
-The Chairman -declared the Resolution passed and ordered that a
certified copy be forwarded with the file of this case to the Board
of County Commissioners for further Troceedings .`
t. ; '
•
•
• Amoco Production Company
2-272:76:3 •
September 7, 1976 -
2. As stated in Section 8.3 of the Weld County Zoning Resolution, "There must `t _r;
be definite proof that the area request for change has unique characteristic's•"
which distinguish it from surrounding lands and thus -make its rezoning essential ."
It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that this rezoning request is not
essential since an alternative method of -extracting -the resource is available`•
to Amoco Production Company according to the Color-ado Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission. The available alternative method of extracting the resource from
the NEB NWa of Sec. 12, TIN, Rb-8W is to locate the oil well rig on an adjacent
parcel of land and directional drill under the subject parcel of land.
3. Section 8.3 of the Weld tounty Zoning Resolution states: "Recent findings and
oral statements by the petitioners should show very clearly that either the
original zoning was faulty or that changing conditions in the area now justify
a new -classification. Without such supporting documentation, the County Planning
Commission should not recommend a change of zone."
It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that Amoco has not shown that the
original zoning was faulty or that changing conditions in the area now justify
a new _classification.
. 4. The Town of Dacono Planning Commission has indicated the Town of Dacono is
opposed to the zone change request.•
-
•
•
•
•
•
•
r
a.
C s
a
removed from storage facilities under re- § 181.199 Tahle of a:at:owes for storage .when the ammonium-aerate amaror westing agent is pair shall either be placed in other star- of low explosives. not barricaded,the distances shown in the Table shun
age facilities appropriate for the storage be multiplied by six These distances allow for the
of such materials under this subpart or ossibility of high velocity metaletal structures,mixers. !
Inhabited public rail- hoppers, truck bodies, sheet metal osethees, metal l ii
placed a safe distance from the facilities pounds Pounds building road and ground containers,and the like hich may enclose the"donor.
Where storage Is in bullet-resistant bullet-resistant magazines Merlin- 1
under repair where they shall be properly (over) (not over) distance highway magazine mended for explosives or where the storage is protected '
guarded and protected until the repairs (feet) distance (feet) by a bullet-resistant wall,distances and barricade thick- -
have been completed. 1 (feet) messes In excess of those prescribed in the AmericanTable ,
() (2) (3) (4) (5) of Distances are not required.
§ 181.197 -Lighting. distances in the Table apply to ammonium
nitrate that passes the Insensitivity test prescribed in
No lighting shall be placed or used in a 1,Or%I 5,0000 175 115 50 the definition of ammonium nitrate fertilizer promul- l
gated by the National Plant Food Institute; and
storage facility of type 1, 2, 3, or 4 5,WO 10,000 150 150 100 ammonium nitrate failing to pass said test shall be stored
y1O OOO 20,000 190 190 125 at separation distances determined by competent per-
except battery-activated safety lights or 20,000 30,000 215 215 145 cons and approved d by the authority having jurisdiction.
battery-activated safety3O,000 40,000 235 235 155 r These tanees apply to a insensitivity
testes and
lanterns. 40,000 50,000 250 250 165 blasting agents which pass the insensitivity test pre-
50,000 60,000 200 260 175 scribed in the 17.3. Department of Transportation
§ 181.198 American table of distances 60,000 70,090 270 270 185 (DOT)regulations.
for storage of explosive materials. 70,000 80,000 280 280 190 I Earth,or sand dikes, or enclosures filled with the '
80,000 90,000 295 295 105 prescribed minimum thickness of earth or sand are
90,000 100,000 361 300 200 acceptable artificial barricades.Natural barricades,sitoh
Explosives Distances In feet 100,000 200,000 375 375 280 as bills or timber of which relent density that the sur-
rounding storageSs barricaded 200,000 300,WO 450 450 300 rounding exposures require are
protection cannot be
seen from the"donor"when the trees ar bare of leaves
are also acceptable.
In-
Pounds Pounds bablted Pas- Public ration s-
(Reprinted from Recommended Separation i
over not build- senger high-. of (A portion of Table-5-4.1, as published in Distances of Amrnonium Nitrate and-Blasting 1
over logs railways ways usage- Agents from Explosives or Blasting Agents.
zips Department of Defense 4145.27 M, "DOD NFPA No. 492-1969 Edition, as approved by
Ammunition and Mxploslves Safety Stand- the Institute of Makers of Explosives.) u
2 5 70 30 30 6 tads",March 1969.)
5 10 90 35 35 8
10 20 110 45 45 10
20 30 125 50 50 11
30 40 140 e5 5555 12 § 181.200 fable oT recommended pep.
50 75 170 70 70 15 nation distances of_ammonium ni-
75 300 190 75 75 16 trate and blasting agents front
100 125 200 80 80 18 explosives or blasting-agents.
125 150 215 85 85 19
160 200 235 95 95 21
200 250 255 105 105 23 Minimum se
250 300 270 110 110 24 Donor weight distance of receptor thickness
300 400 295 120 120 7 when barricaded I(It) of
400 500 320 130 130 29 Pounds Pounds artificial
500 600 340 135 135 31 over not over Ammonium Blasting bard-
6OO 700 355 145 145 32 nitrate r e
e
700 800 375 350 150 33 agent r cedes'(in.)
800 900 390 155 155 35 - /'� I
900 1000 400 160 160 36 100 3 11 12 V
1,000 1,200 42.5 170 185 39 100 300 4 14 12
1,200 1,400 450 180 170 41 300 600 5 18 12
1,400 1,600 470 100, 175 .t 43 600 1,000 6 22 12
1,600 1,800 490 195 180 44 1,000 1,600 7 25 12
1,800 2,000 605 205 135 45 1,600 2,000 8 29 12
2,000 2,500 645 220 190 49 2,000 3,WO 0 32 15
2,500 3,000 540 235 195 52 3,000 4,000 10 36 15
3,WO 4,000 635 255 210 58 4,000 6,000 11 40 15
4,000 5,000 665 275 225 61 6,000 8,000 12 43 20
5,000 6,000 730 295 235 65 8,000 10,000 13 47 20
6,000 7,000 770 330 245 68 10,000 12,000 14 50 20
7,000 8,000 800 320 250 72 12,000 16,000 15 64 25
8,000 9,000 835 335 255 75 16,000 29,000 16 58 25
9,000 10,000 865 245 250 78 27,000 25 000 18 65 25
10,000 12,000 875 370 270 82 25,000 30,000 19 68 IC
12,000 14,000 865 380 275 87 30,000 33,000 20 72 30
14,000 16,000 900 405 280 90 35,000 40,000 21 76 30
16,000 18,000 940 420 285 94 40,000 45,000 22 79 35
18,000 20,000 975 235 290 98 45,000 50,000 23 83 35
20,000 25,WO 1,055 470 315 105 50,000 55,000 24 86 35
26,000 30,000 1,130 500 340 112 55000 60 000 26 90 35 i
30,000 35,OW 1,205 525 360 119 60,000 70,000 26 94 40
35,000 40,000 1,275 550 350 124 70 000 80,000 28 101 40
40,000 45.000 1,340 570 400 129 80,000 90,000 30 108 40
45,000 50,tw00 1,400 590 420 135 90,000 100000 32 116 40
50,000 55,000 1,460 610 440 140 100,000 120,010 34 122 60
55,000 60000 1,515 630 455 145 120,000 140,000 37 133 50
60,000 65,000 1,565 645 470 150 140,000 160,000 40 144 50 1-
65,000 70,000 1,610 660 485 155 160,000 180,000 44 158 50 ��
70,000 75,000 1,655 675 500 160 180,000 200 000 48 173 50
75,000 80,000 1,695 690 510 165 yO,000 220 000 52 187 60
80,000 85,000 1,730 705 520 170 220,000 250,000 56 202 60
65,000 90,000 1,760 720 530 175 250,000 75,00 60 216 60 it
90,000 95,000 1,790 730 640 180 76,000 300,000 64 230 60
95,000 100,0(0 1,815 745 645 185
100,000 110,0110 1,835 770 550 195 l'
110.000 1221,000 1,855 790 555 205 '{
120000 130,000 1,875 819 5e1O 215
120,000 140,000 1,890 835 665 225
140,000 150,000 1,900 850 370 235 Note:
1!.0(20 160,00 1,935 870 630 245
160,OW 170,000 1,965 890 590 255
170,000 180,000 1,900 005 600 265 Recommended separation distances to prevent ex-
18O,OW 100,000 2,010 90 605 275 plosion of ammonium nitrate and ammonium nitrate-
19O,000 200,000 2,030 935 610 235 based blasting agents by propagation from nearby stores
200,010 210,000 2,055 955 620 295 of high explosives or blasting agents referred to in the
210,000 230,000 2,WO 980 635 315 Table as the"donor."Ammonium nitrate,by itself, 1s
230,000 250,0,0 2,155 1,010 650 335 not considered to be a donor when applying this Table.
250,000 275,000 2,215 1,040 670 360 Ammonium nitrate,ammonium nitrate-fuel oil or corn-
275,000 300,00 2,275 1,075 690 385 binatlons thereof are soc2ptots.If stores of ammonium
nitrate are located within the syntpathetle detonation
See footnotes at end of document, distance of explosives or blasting agents, one-half the (
mass of the ammonium nitrate should be included in the
mass of the donor.
These—distances apply to the separation of stores only.
(American Table of Distances for Storage of Fxplo- Tho Ann rican TO le of Distances shall be used in
elves, as Revised and A pproved by The Institute of determining separation distances from inhabited build-
Makers of Explosives,lone 5, 1964) Inge,passenger rail ways and public highways.
- 16 -
OP",
't^ ;; - O
DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY
��tip. .�
r` 2 DEFENSE CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION SERVICES DISTRICT, DENVER
Q in iN SUITE E3210
/
��''�4"4)�� 701 WEST E E-321N AVENUE
i
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO 80110
'RAT S J/
IN REPLY
REFER To DCRS-GDCC 19 October 1976
Mr. David E. Brody R5CEtVED
AMOCO Production Company
Security Life Building OCT 1 9 1975
Denver, Colorado 80202 LAVI DPtt
Amoco Production G
LDFNVER, GOLORAC,LI
Dear Mr. Brody:Reference is made to your AMOCO letter, 27 September 1976, oil and gas
lease rezoning of the property owned by Austin E. Stonebraker,
W. N. Stonebraker and Stonco, Incorporated.
A _review has been made of your inquiry and topographic map furnished
showing your proposed operations. Please be advised that the Government
considers it is not involved in the settlement of the rezoning problem
between AMOCO and the owner of Stonco, Incorporated, Review of the
existing government contract reveals that insofar as the Government
is concerned, there is only one area that could affect the Government
and that is the general provisions of the contract involving safety
precautions for ammunition and explosives. The guidelines for this
provision are contained in DoD manual 4145.26m. It is suggested that
a possible solution to the problem would be for the parties involved
to obtain a copy of this manual, review its requirements in comparison
with the amount of explosives that could be on hand at Stonco at any
one time, to determine if there is a safety problem. The Government
does not have privy to all information concerning Stonco since Stonco
is doing both government and commercial work. The Government is not
in a position to respond to paragraph 5a of the referenced letter.
Response to paragraph 5b will not be responded to without reviewing
the current condition existing at Stonco. The next annual safety
inspection is tentatively scheduled for July 1977.
Sincerely,
4 C c--/-;
MARVIN D. CLARK
Administrative Contracting Officer
4'ot-UTIo r e
U
a m
y 2
t„. ^y.
�OHH frl 4= `' DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
3 a-c . BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS
� Room 345, Main Tower Building
OFFICE OF THE 1200 Main Street
REGIONAL DIRECTOR Dallas, Texas 75202
REFER TO
October 8, 1976 SW:RE:T:F:DHC
Mr. David E. Brody, Attorney
Amoco Production Company
Security Life Building �� ) 1 _> 157O 1
Denver, Colorado 80202
Dear Mr. Brody:
This is written in response to your letter of October 5, 1976,
wherein you made inquiry as to certain Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
and Firearms regulations and statutory responsibilities.
Under 18 U.S.C. Chapter 40, Section 845 (a)(6) a military
department would be responsible for activities as therein stated.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,and Firearms would have no statutory
authority in those areas.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms is charged with
the responsibility and corresponding authority of administering
the provisions of 18 U.S.C. Chapters 40 and 44, and 26 U.S.C.
Chapter 53 by delegation of the Secretary of the Treasury. Under
those statutes Stoneco, Inc. holds licenses as a -manufacturer of
ammunition for firearms other than destructive devices, and
manufacturer of low explosives. Stonebreaker - Rocky Mountain
Fireworks Company holds a license as an importer of low explosives.
The plat which you enclosed with your letter has been examined and
distances depicted thereon do not appear to be in conflict with
27 CFR 181.186, 181.198, 181.199 and 181.200.
From information furnished by you, it does not appear that the
drilling of an oil or gas well at the location proposed by you
would cause any of the above laws or regulations issued thereunder
to be violated.
- 2 -
Mr. David E. Brody
If I may be of further help, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely yours,VSLU Z t -74+1'"A".----
A.Billy LGaunt
Regional irector
Enclosures: ATF P 5300.5
ATF P 5400.7
Amoco Letter
dated 10/5/76
Plat
I I
42-1-102
Vehicles and Traffic 188
(54) "Pedestrian" means any-person afoot.
(55) "Person" means every natural person, firm, copartnership, associa •
-
tion, or corporation.
(56) "Pneumatic tires" means all tires inflated with compressed air.
(57) "Pole", "pipe trailer", or "dolly" means every vehicle of the trahcr
type having one or more axles not more than forty-eight inches apart and
two or more wheels used in connection with a motor vehicle solely for the
purpose of transporting poles or pipes and connected with the towing vehicle
both by chain, rope, or cable and by the load without any part of the weight
of said dolly resting upon the towing vehicle. All the registration provisions
of articles I to 4 of this title shall apply to every pole, pipe trailer,or dolly.
(58) "Police officer" means every officer authorized to direct or regulate
traffic or to make arrests for violations of traffic regulations.
O9 "Private road" or "driveway" means every road or driveway not
open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel,.
(60) "Provisional driver's license" means the license issued to a person
who is at least eighteen years of age but who has not yet attained the age
of twenty-one years. •
(61) "Railroad sign or signal" means any sign, signal, or device erected
by authority of a public body or official or by a railroad and intended to
give notice of the presence of railroad tracks or the approach of a railroad
train
.
(62) "Reconstructed vehicle" means any vehicle which has been assem-
bled or constructed largely by means of essential parts, new or used, derived
from other vehicles or makes of vehicles of various names, models, and types
or which, if originally otherwise constructed, has been materially altered by
the removal of essential parts or by the addition or substitution of essential
parts, new or used, derived from other vehicles or makes of vehicles.
(63) "Residence district" means the territory contiguous to a highway not
comprising a business district when the frontage on such highway for a dis-
tance of three hundred feet or more is mainly occupied by dwellings or by
dwellings and buildings in use for business.
(64) "Resident" means any person who owns or operates any business
in this state or any person who has resided within this state continuously
for a period of ninety days or has obtained gainful employment within this
state, whichever shall occur first.
(65) "Right-of-way" means the privilege of the immediate use of the
highway.
(66) "Road tractor" means every motor vehicle designed and used for
drawing other vehicles and not so constructed as to carry any load thereon
independently or any part of the weight of a vehicle or load so drawn.
(67) "Roadway" means that portion of a highway improved, designed,
or ordinarily used for vehicular travel.
(68) "Safety zone" means the area or space officially set aside within
a highway for the exclusive use of pedestrians and which is so plainly marked
or indicated by proper signs as to be plainly visible at all times while set
apart as a safety zone.
(69) "School bus" means every motor vehicle which is owned by a public
or governmental agency and operated for the transportation of children to
or from school or which is privately owned and operated for compensation,
but it does not include informal or intermittent arrangements, such as sharing
1
DEFINITIONS sit? "PUBLIC" AND "PRIVA'TE" -.:DADS ...ID HIGHWAYS
39AC.J.S. HIGHWAYS 1(1) (a)
"The term 'highway' means a way open to all the people without distinction for
passage and repassage at their pleasure or, as stated succinctly, a public way or
road."
"In any event, the term 'highway' is a generic term frequently used in a very
broad sense with the result that no fixed rule with respect to its meaning can be
given, and its construction depends on the intent with which it is used, as
determined by the context."
394C.J.S. HIGHWAYS 1(l)(c)
" The term 'public highway' , in its broadest sense, includes public ways of
every description which the public has a right to use for travel, either conditionally
or unconditionally. It has been held broad enough to include alleys, . . . navigable
rivers, enclosed or unenclosed pent roads, public wharves, railroads, rural roads,
seawalls, where used as a public thoroughfare, section-line highways, . . . , existing
highways open to the use of the traveling public, streets, a tunnel under a river,
and turnpikes and toll roads."
"The term has been held synonymous with 'public road and street' . It has been
distinguished from, or held not synonymous with, 'private road' , 'private highway, '
'public road' , and 'public square' .
Cited under 'private road' , 39 A C.J.S. HIGHWAYS 1(1) (c) , at page 670:
"Distinction between 'public highway' and 'private road or driveway' is not
based on ownership of fee or nature of controlling authority, but upon whether
road or highway or driveway in question is open to use of public for purpose of
vehicular traffic." (emphasis supplied)
State v. O'Connor, 184 A. 2d 83, 85; 76 N.J. Super. 246.
Cited under "Road not 'public road' at 39A C.J.S. 676:
• "Lane formed on common boundary of section line by fences built 30 feet inside
section line in accordance with local custom which 1-ed to open rage and used by persons
living along lane only as a convenience in moving from one part of land to another did
not have characteristic of a public road."
Lopeman v. Hansen, 208 P.2d 130; 34 Wash. 2d 291.
DEFINITIONS 2 "PUBLIC" AND "PRIVATE" ROADS D HIGHWAYS
33 A WORDS AND PHRASES 470 et seq:
"A road of necessity may be established at expense of parties who request it,
but such roads are strictly 'private roads' ."
Nixon v. Edwards, 264 P.2d 287, 294; 72 Wyo. 274.
"The test in determining whether a road is a 'private road' depends on
right of public generally to use way for vehicular traffic rather than the
amount of travel or used made thereof."
Merritt v. Staue, 9 N.W. 2d 329, 333; 215 Minn. 44.
"Whether a road is a 'private road' is determined by extent of rights to use
it, and not by extent to which the right is exercised."
Hillsborough County v. Highway Engineering & Construction Co. , 199 So. 499, 503;
145 Fla. 83.
"Road not open to public use as matter of right was 'private road' ."
Sills v. Forbes, 91 P. 2d 246, 248; 33 C.A. 2d 219.
"A private road is one the soil of which belongs to the owner of the
field, and is burdened with a right of way."
Morgan v. Livingston, La. , 6 Mart. 0.S. 19, 231.
MAP SHOWING CHANGE OF CONDITIONS
LOCATION OF OIL & GAS WELLS AT
TIME OF ZONING CHANGE IN 1967
2 - -- ---- 1
T
1
N
11 12
AGM/
LOCATION OF OIL & GAS WELLS AT
PRESENT TIME
GEN
COSSLETT
• 2 •8-1 • Cl • e-1
COSSIETT
• 1
DACONA INV. LEPPLA COSSLE TT PELTIER
• 1 • A2 •Al •C-1
2 1
HALEY
• B 4 • B 1 • 3 • A 3
LEPPLA HOUTCHENS
B-2 • 8'3 • 1 • A-2 • 1
T
1
CHAMPLIN PROPOSED
UPRR 43 GRANT LOCATION WINGO
O 1 17 • 16 • 31 11 • 41 11 • 1
FIRECRACKER 'S" 1
• HALLER FIRECRACKER GRAHAM
O D • 1 •2 • 1 02
11 12 -
UPRR 43 JUST
O 121 0 1 7 O 1.11 • 14 • 1 • 2
GRAHAM FOREMAN
O I 22 0123 0124 OL 12 Si • 1
R68W
LEGEND
1 EXISTING SPINDLE OIL WELL
O SPINDLE LOCATIONS TO BE DRILLED
PRIOR TO 1-1-77
-
446 • Ai6-0 333 p 419.4_
PR1?-ll PTIDN GHD CASII L`@SY PATENT-`1 t l6•f i t_y •i[?.t r'::••• .+r!,•4-
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. . j?
Certificate No._.7/O2 _.
To all to Whom these Presents shall come, GREETING:
h y _ � � /I p
Whereas, X.ziatat .�.//,c.-ly pz.-fn-rev/ Of /.<C�.l� � o-ri�-t.f.,,
o
ha//..S�L.deposited in. the General land Office of the belted States a Certificate of the Cr_%is(er of the Laud Office at
t:`'J,.:P,yi,-2^P/vy_ 4e2sedo. _ q 0 whereby it appears Mat fill loom ent has heel, made by the said
- G:�JEZ O✓tit" /d.c��i{��-t-..�,a,i ------------ ----- ------
arem•dit, lu the prorisicns of the Set of Congress of the 2'(1, of.-Ipril; IS70, entitled ".I' .La making further pro-
' vision for the sale of the Public Lands," and the acts sapplemolal thereto,fur....
P2dv Jr-c nt/ ant" - -
//0441 J- evv_i_ej %4-- P //-?qd at e- C c/Gi.C U-^cs-vu� >J✓ .s/LP/:tLr.�-vt/.
-7Jo-W2nc'Jv , �C�vs .i�,�z-.%wq� nu/ 7-r,r-i-vt.GCZei / avr-v!' -A-'�G��f" -!G._C/r�/1/
!/J G•
•
•
a ccordim, to the Official Plat of the Sonde,• of the said lands, returned to the General I%tial Olilae by the Surveyor
General, which said Tract tat A/been.purchased by the said - -. . ::. _ " .. _ :- ..
as
NOW KNOW YE That the Fl tied States of.dnuuica, dii ea1Sidenttion of the 'I/O, sus.anti II ronformily with
the several .Icts of(or ress• uzsuch case made and prorided, hare given and •%ranted. true( by these presents do
gi;e and pant p unto the said _. Gv'il7--- �cJ-ocG; -,ti,-�ti __.
• and to 4.24.1 heirs, the add Tract-.rlore described: TO P14 'E J.1•L 10 HOLD the same, together zcith all
the rig.;.s pr irileges, ine••Ittnt tiesp and appurtenances, of "hut sort ci nature, (hereunto beleagin,r. unto the said
--_ - p . .. d(e_e-af-eit�(/ �'� /d.u.-!'/JpirL+-,�n-c/ -- - --
cu,d to „heirs and a silos foxever: suL/vet to any rested and (termed water rights for mining, agri-
cultural, manufacturing or other pery,O"es, and rinds to flitches and reservoir.:- used in connection with such z
water rights, US nuq/ he it C i,nized (Ind acknowledged by the local ru--,tonts, laic,, rued riecr•iorn• of Courts. and
also .srrlji•ct to the Piglet of the proprietor of a rein or lode to ':miner and Penton' his Ore therefrom, should the
•
carne he found to per,t`h•ate or i:derseet tine premises herein/ grunted, as provider? bd lair, a ' ' 'es^ice
frenrthe Ittnrrhi-hn-iba panted n r11zht--01=way-therwnr for.-tlitrhe -07-cvnzals-COWS!PH by the authority-of the-
-United StvArs.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I. e i,..e 1/t-nvv•yz_ - 26 aiticr,4ait-' . President of the
United States of alai erica twee tit card /he se let/firs to be- made patent, and the Seal of the Graen d Land Office to •
be I,eir,,No affixed. •
under zaip /wild, at t/,e City of IT'rrsafu_%(ou, the icyr f«,-.2trtt- day
th rl oC-C" in The year of our lord flue Thon•'nnd
!e/l' hundred cned 72t.rt t __-.and of the Independence of the United ted States /.
th lrr r .the One Iltn,dred and..
G C/ U
III III E PI/ESJILVI' t<,fl (7�tuaztC-0,2,
p pIf Cp9 its-Ay 4aet, 4--; G 1.^,/, Jeretay.
• 1. fl 7� a > /:.surder v.('ihe.Gu rrnl Land O//lee.
0 / • 13, z !/,i )
t
Filed for /twin,! /'a. :(t7 . day of. (I,�YI/'� :1. I). /�/•../f._[. a! :� 30
i
O,r pp t', iJ rllrrk.t Il r l,-r.
�'. °J a'7 a a.e •♦ -nna:.w
✓\%.. Deputy.
t ,
I.+,.,
;
:
• WARRANTY DEFDI
-THIS DEED, Made this 26th day of May in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred I
and eleven between Joshua Hoyle Woolfenden of the City and County of Denver, State of Colorado,
and Arville B. Wood of the County of Weld and State of Colorado, of the first part, and Harriet '(
K. Buckram of the City and County of Denver and State of Colorado, of the second part;
WITNESSETH , That the said parties of the first part, -for and in consideration of the sun of
One Hundred Dollars , and- other good and valuable considerations to the said parties of the
first part in hand paid by the said party of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby - , ' It
confessed and acknowledged, have granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents do grant, •bargain, sell, convey and confirm, unto the said party of the second part her heirs and
assigns forever, all the following described lots or parcels of land, situate, lying and being
in the County of Weld and State of Colorado, towit: . • 4 • , ;
The undivided two-thirds interest of the nettle,' of the first part in and to that ne rt of the
"lest one-half ( W1f) of Section twelve (12), Township one (1) North, range sixty eight (68) West of 7/
the Sixth P.M., described as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of said Section twelve (12); - -'- -�
thence -East- 2640 feet along the North line of said Section to the North.quarter corner of said
Section; thence South 1812.4 feet along the east line of the Northwest quarter ( NW,-;:) of said ' ��
Section; thence West Y640 feet parallel to the North line of said Section to the West line of said
Section; thence North 1812.4 feet, more or less, along the West line of said Section to the place of . i
beginning. The said tract of land containing 109.82 acres, more or less. Also the undivided two-
-thirds interest of the parties of the first part in and to that part of the Southeast quarter •
(SE e) of said Section twelve (12) described as follows: Beginning on the east line of said Section
twelve (12) at a point whence the Southeast corner of said Section bears South 822.4 feet; thence
West 2325 feet on a line parallel to the South line of said Section to the east boundary of the
right of way of the Union Pacific Railroad as now constructed; thence Northeasterly 875 feet
along said east boundary of said right of way; thence East 2241 feet on a line parallel to the -
South line of said Section to the East line of said Section; thence South 890 feet, more or less,
along the East line of said Section to the place of beginning. The said tract last mentioned
containing 47.11 acres, more or less. - - -
Together with all water rights appurtenant to all lands hereby conveyed.
Excepting out of this conveyance and always reserving unto the said graters, their heirs and
assigns, their undivided two thirds interest in all minerals lying and being within or under the
said lands hereby conveyed, together with full and free liberty for the said grantors, their .
heirs and assigns and their lessees, agents and workmen to enter upon said lands and dig, develop, .
mine, and occupy with necessary structures and buildin:s for mining purposes said lands, and to
remove all minerals and to use a right of way over the said lands where necessary for transporting
"
-said minerals to market. The amount of the surface of said lands necessary for mining purposes
to.be determined by three disinterested persons, one to he chosen by the parties of the first part
their heirs or assigns, one to be chosen by the party of the second part, her heirs or assigns, -
and one to be chosen by the two appraisers so previously chosen, and said appraisers shall also
determine the amount of compensation to be allowed to the owner of the surface of said lands
as damages for the use of the surface of said lands for mining purposes. -
TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging, - -
or in arywise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, - 2
issues and profits thereof; and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whet— .
s never, of the said parties of the first part, either in law or equity, of, in and to the above
bargained premises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances. '
• TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described, with the appurtenances "
unto Harriet K. Bucknum the said party of the second part, her heirs and assigns forever. 1
And the said Joshua Hoyle -Woolfenden and Arvilla B. Wood parties of the first part, for
themselves, their heirs, executors and administrators, do covenant, grant, bargain and agree to
and with the said party of the second part, her heirs and assigns, that at the time of the
ensealing and delivery of these presents they are well seized of the premises above :onveyed, as of
good, sure, perfect, absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance in law, in fee si:ple, and ha--
good right, full power and lawful authority to grant, bargain, sell and convey the sane in
:tanner and form aforesaid, and that the sane are free and clear from all former and other grants,
bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assessments and incumbrances of whatever kind or nature soever
save and except the exception above set forth . and the above bargained premises in the quiet
and peaceable possession of the said party of the second pert, her heirs and assigns, against all
and every person or persons lawfully claiming or to claim the whole er any part thereor, the said
parties of the first part shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND, save and except the exception
above set forth .
_IN WITNESS Ve!EPEOF, The said parties of the first part have hereunto set their hands and . .
seals the day and year first above written .
Signed, Sealed and Delivered in presence o: Joshua Boyle Wcolfendem (SEAL)
. Arvilla B. Wood (.`'c..',) z ,�
STATE OF COLORADO ) - - ' '
DT^'Y e COUNT'( OF DENVER ) - - - - ' :
I -J, Adeline E. Norton, a Notary Public in and for said Cit ' end
County, _in the State aforesaid, do hereby certify that Joshua Boyle Woolfenden and arei'.la B. Wood z
Tao are personally known tome to be the persons whose manes are subscribed to the fore oir2; Deeds I
-a-,eared before me this lay in parson, and ecenowled,red that they signed, sealed and del-.vered the - ii
said instrument of writing as their free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and put ores --
c.
i $1-714 L •
..
wirmi a n_a 5500r0,f.e.r.rrwky ask iWt a V:.
Ili . :ei 510725__ DJ
No 510726 ______ _ Iti)is eeb, Made this eth ` day of ' April.......
t
P WARRANTY DEED in the year of our Loral one thousand nine}marred and t.ntynnevoa between [:
FROM EATFMShE..BULL.iG;S.L"�*`Za.1C..L:.R'i'RULZ.ZL ;u•. .. . . .(formar_.g
o gATIT._.RI\E BtICFC7.nr lu Imo: a_ Cn- GERTRUDE BUC,-TU r_dl and foerly G=TRUD£ BLC 'U1: ACORS
lforr_er ly _ -
C:3i4kUD LE ;ey a-3 � -c y-
.or-'rlCam-
aR _ . _._.:
O.
m- _. — .. .. .fianssa of the �f�.
k 1311.q L ..ACCpSJ ___ _ F
_ _ -_ ------ -County of.- Leavencortb. _ and State of t±o'---tbr,cf the
TO first part,and._.__.JAC03..EOia_aud EATEdBIIlAR]TB._ '
JAC^3 ROTE and-------------------------- 4J4- ?•:A -riwiH .':
------------------- --- County of___..Boulder . ,and State of Colorado,of the second
P*''• F—` ,Thatthe said_ WITNFSSETH
..... ..___ -_._..__._____-._-_._.__ partiet.,of the5ret part,for and in consideration of the sum of " - f.
STATE OF WLORADg1 Ten Dollars (4410.00j and other g , 71-
_good and valuable cone i derations +t�+tq
Cornett or WELD. I
to the said partlea_ the av par
...of the first part in hand paid by id ties...of the second part,the
This Warranty Deed was filed for recordIi:
l0:EC o'clock A\I-,S.R.24. li^7_ receipt whereof is hereby confessed and acknowledged,have._granted,bargained,sold and conveyed, Z
E.-C. treble and by these presents do----grant,bargain,sell,convey and confirm unto the said part.ies....of
-Record= the second part, their __heirs and assigns forever,all the following described Iota..-.or parcels. I
Thput;._ of land, situate, lying and being in the
-------- County of Weld - t[
FEE:11.30 - and State of Colorado,to-wit: 4
The north 1849.E feet of' the northwest quarter of section 12, Tp. 1 N. R. 68 W., - 0,' of the 6th P. , and An undivided one-sixth (1/6) interest in all ccal, oil and 7�
other c_rerals-__cerlyinr the West half (G}) of Section Twelve (12j, Township-One
North (T 1 S), :an e-e Slxt 1ght West (T 68 31 of the Sixth (6th) Principal Meri-
diem, and also the rights to remove the sere heretofore conveyed to the grantors - .
herein b; git-clair deed of record in Book 772, page 96, Weld County records, to - -
-which referen_e is hereby rade. .
•
•
TOGETHER with all and singularsingularthe hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging,or in anywise appertaining,and the reversion d r-S r ,A
1
1 f and reversions,remainder and reins fers,rents,issues and profits thereof;and all the estate,right,title,interest,claim and demand whatsoever of - !'
fthe said parties—of the first part,either in law or equity,of,in and to the above bargained premises,with the hereditaments and appurtenances. Yi1. .:
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the Slid__premises above bargained and described,-with the appurtenances,unto o m 7 anx n
_ 9S^A_P m0Nq
the said art es_- of the second --- "- yaµWRmk HI
P Pte,__:their }sire and assigns to-ever. And the said — — - 0 47. Ts rT 9 t
5+'t+G'c P 'gr.
parties..-_ofihefirst fop,0 'm.0 to oea p.
_part,for se'_ves,e`'-eiteirs,executors and administrators,do--- covenant, I rati a a•
grant,bargain and agree to and with the said parties-._of the tiring o-.I,
Isecond part,_ their _be3._end a_ss:gav,that at the time of the ensealing and delivery of these presents they.ere well seized of t�' P::m o r n
She premises above cons c mO'l M
i eyed,as of gad,;are,perfect,absolute and iudefeam3le estate of inheritance,in law,in fee simple,and hasE...good right, ,-, 5_
c,-�P s
full power and lawful authority to goat bargain,sell and convey the same in manner and form aforesaid,and that the same are free and clear from all c'o m� toys
former and other ants, .ergeine,sales,tiers,taxes,assessments and incumbrnnces of whatever kind__or___..... nature aoever - Moo co cr
I ' ---- - --_ "'^_`..^Cush anCes.now.of.reoerd.. - _ __ _ 43°1 . 07< -aa.�m
1 and the above bat arced premises,in thequiet andw0.o m h t•. .1 i
g peaceable possession of the said parties of the second part, their heirs and assigns, O Pr -ate toTib_
1 egeiast all and every person or persons lawfully claiming or to claim the whole or any part thereof,the said parties of the first port shall and will 1 ygrves r0i ra H .l
WARRANT A AND-FOREVER DEFT-D.sere as to said N.1849.5 feet as to which only.quit clef:. onl f.•CP Od's� [r1
S/ }soli mG 'y
I IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The odd parses of the first part ha_e..hereunto set_their..__hands.and seals_the day and year first kyp':'coo .4 I.:
•
e p co
1 above written. -OPT a 1-
ace my r+Mo
Signed,Sealed and Delivered infPreseace of --?"stherine_3v.cknua.L5re71er P��C of% }
[SEAL] cuPmP 8tps :r
I Edward. 17Jones _.__C.ertrlde.-Bucknura - sed ;a ans Kcso-m
(SEAL) I 0. v 7 K o
•---- ���??????anPi P55em
[SEAL) o0.H7 .-s-to .
:Effie_Lesson ---- ) Efts) o,�,V7 II
STATE OF• "ice _,�.._. I,._.._. ._ Earl B_.7ov.on •
(SEAL) ',Vs'
e ge�f5;..ii-'u J3, j • JI retrerr or'LS"-0� T C mO 0.m
s Notary Public in and for _.. .and_.Lee9efeorth.........._County,in the State aforesaid,do hereby certify that.__ t2''Z0.O id
are w..._.__> 3ti0i 'U.:L'U'LL ................. who�pcasonally known (}�� m m0C r�
Ito me to be the persoarrwhcre Larne" is . ....subscribed to the foregoing - Deed,appeared before me this day m0-0.m r' f 1 '
in person and M:am p-fx p i
I acknowledged that......She.._."_._sEgnel,si::!ed and delivered the said instrument of writing as her free and voluntary act n m rim p-M,.. 1,''
r
for the uses and purposes therein set forth --and-deed..... x���...���0.,.0.,,,0 m o tl
--- x .. awn
o c'PRAm m m F
S a c-*t�m is '
�a •.f - .
Q m
(vY ...sac'
Notary fGr5'cca..vshon expires d._.vAff3 �l,.�IDfh'19281th" y of Aril -. , .D.192 s:i-o 7 C0-0'r r1 '�'
C7.4177 Pud day o .". A 7_.
�,, P ug p,� o wt' w :'
tt IEar1.9 Wooten n n
., [„' Notary Public.
•
— ,
•
' wln3.lTfT DIM)P^D2D.—Tae n C.P.Si MA Heel&Ulla Ca.Denver.Cr!.. wrro "
t 50961^ .
ec— Nee ��t8�" 2�f Lfede this -8th day of_._ April _ •= '
_oil
WARRANTY DEED in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty.-raven. ._._: ..__,between
IFROMKATIWI INS BUCLyu.i lyglaLKR and G^wiTRfDE DUC 1 (formerly C1ItTRUDi'-
NATI-MINE-Bic IL't 1'UTLER and BUClttulard formerly C-TTRUDE BUCIUIUM ACORS) _,-._
I formerly..Gras RIIDS.BUCKNIalan&Xor """"."-------- nfisis; of the
ly GE?TRUIDS.BUCEIRD2 ACORS) — County of Leavenworth end State of.Gelma!le,of the
TG first part,and WILLIAM E.flg'F17.B071E3
WILLIAM E. SfcFFST.B0'.7E ___._ _ — of the
"" ,and State of Colorado,of the sewn'part: _
__ WITNE�SETH,That the said partite_,of the first part,{orand in consideration of the r.im of
STATE OF COLORADO,t -Ten Dollars (010.00)and other good-and valuable considerations Hoes - .
Coup-Tr or WELD. }St
to the said-parties...a o£the first-part in hand paid by the said part....y of the second part,the -
( This-Warranty Deed was filed for record
'9.45 A A?B 19 7 receipt whereof is hereby confessed and acknowledged,line.-granted,bargained,sold and conveyed, -
st o'docL_.M., .192"- and b•these presents do — grant,bs
". 11.A.C.Crable y rgsin,sell,convey and confirm unto the eaidltsrt.y of
Recorder the second part,_._his_ heirs and assigns forever,all the following described lots._.or parcel
B3, C R Buckingham
Deputy.
of land,situate,lying and beiop,in the — County of Weld
E'EE' .15 and State ofColorado,to-wit:
The North half of the Southeast quarter (Nis_ of Section Two (2), Township One North 5 (T 1 N),Rarge Sixty-• •
ei,t West (3 68 7) of the Sixth (€th) Principal Meridian, containing eighty (60) acres, more or•less,and -
including all-coal, oil and other minerals underlying the same; TCCI..r'I 1 'JITRany and all water rights,
water, ditches, reservoirs end water-easements and profits thereunto belonging or in any wise appertaining - -
which are now or hereafter ray-be used en said-premises, and together with all shares_of stock or shares
of water in any_ditch, reservoir or SrrigatIan association or company which_in any manner-entitles said
( parties of the first part, their heirs-or assi€ps, or-said lands-hereinabove described to water for irriga-
Itier. or domestic purposes on said-premises, and inclad Lug-the following, to-avit; All water and water rights to •
which-said lands or-said first parties, their heirs-or ass i_ns, maybe entitled dry reason-of the inclusion of
t said lands in the Denver-St Irrigation District, together with all-water rights which said
land or said first earties may be entitled.to or acquire upon a dissolution of said irrigation District, - -
whether evidenced by shares-of stock in The Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company or-ctherai se; Also Pull
( Payment Certificate No. 48 issued by the Bondholders' -Co.^ittee of the7)enver-St.Yrain L5]nicipal Irrigation • -
) District-protecting the lands Sore-described from the bonded burden of said District, principal and_interest,
to final aaturity of the outstanding bonds of said alistrict; Together with one and-sixty hundredths (1.60) j
shares of the Class "A" Capital Stock of The Farmers-Reservoir and irrigation Company. ALSO an uni+vid---1.—g- jI_..�,,.��
1 sixth 'll.f into s a and r the West half (4)3,1 Section Twelve (12),0'-po H
Township Cne forth (T 1 N), Range Sixty-eight West (R 63 7) of the IZixth £th Principal Meridian, and tp��
t the riahtw to remove the some-heretofore conveyed -to-the grantors herein by quitclaim_deed of record in �.h' r'T]t'
•
Book 772-pege 96g Weld County Records, -to which-reference is hereby made. fa p.m ' ea
aa .�; f
0 0
[ TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging,or in anywise appertainingrsnd the reversion p''' "r t n
msot779
and reversions,remainder and remainders,rents,issues andprofits thereofRiwa a ova.
1 ,and all the estate,right,title,interest,claim-and demand whatsoever of o -�
1 the said rt..iea._of the firstpart,either in law orthe 9
i Ta equity,of,in and to above bargained premises,with the hereditaments andaPp'r'tepances. p`rin I�..tn o
7r 0 ea 0 7 rt
s TO HAYEAND TO HOLD thesaid.__premiers above bargained and described,with the appurtenances,unto P m PC y
I - —__ WILLIAM E.REFFf'J.BOWER - - 0 Cry
the saidsar 'r of the second part, hia ._-beirs and assigns forever. And the said — o-0 00 -
1 6ATS T 3 'CIU1G:SrMUELLER and C TL`DE-TOE !fcraetly G,LdTBI DE.BDCI2IU and parties....of the first-C) ip p 0 e
I; wformerly C RTPUDE 3CC1a,IPel ACORSS) m, c.7
part,for-her-selves,theiheirs,executors and administrators,do — covenant,grant,margain and agree to and-with the said part y---"--of the p m-0 n 7.
t second _ his heirsand assigns,that at the time of the eosalin
(. part,_.- g g andllelivcry of these resents they are well seized of _t 00 l 44 'it
lWt ea
l the premises above conveyed,as of good,sure,-perfect,absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance,in law,in fee simple,and ha"-ve.good right, ec.c ?le -
full powerand lawf•'authority to grant,bargain,-sell and convey the same in mannerand form aforesaid,and that the same are free and clear from all EsPp eb-0 V is -
na 0 tittl IS
i former and other gr-nts,bargains,sales,liens,taxes,assessments and incumbrances of whatever kind or nature sneers: o 0 o b
i n.CEr 111-That certain_deed of-trust dated August 23,1925, -ecceded Sept ember_4,1925,.in.Book 62,pe.Ge veldomt3Gci- g
` County records, by which Cert ride Punknum and Katherine Buckram Mueller conveyed said property-to the Public rep m m?JP
( "Trustee-to secure the payment of Three TousandFdvetared11"ollara (ya'3500.00) to Ben Safley,which the y''.^+-
tee herein.assu,es.and.avrees.-to pose: ,p•t a' to C
" my a p i o
V ,2 i e generel tales of 1926,payable 3n 1927; - p7,�y 7 n0'
i l3)-}:-ealstirs;-farulease-expirins'-Tan:mry--1, 1928x-..--____— col-cotsKdts
+ and the above bargainedpremises,in the_quiet and peaceableoo,7 o 0 C 7
! g -0 p possession of the said part.-.y of the second part, 1115 heirs and assign"' HO 7 a Y, •
1 against all and every person or personalawfully claiming or to claim the whole or any part thereof,the said part les of the first part shall and wilbm NP 9 le•o
'tcm+;y`� o a o i WARP.?NT AND_i'OREYF,P.DEFEND. - y'tc,�hig1m 111::::00
i IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The said part ies of the first part ha Vie_.-hereunto set.rthe.lr bands.and seal tt.the day-and year firsbo,4 p'o at, 0
{ above written. - '.,.4j h��0 0 o 0
` `6'1 .- Katherine Bucknum Mueller SEA 7
Signed,Sealed and Delivered in-Presence of — ( yp 7 0
IEdward 'A Jones Gertrude iucknum (SEAL;•r'1+.�+•'o a<< m?
( -- — (SEAT 0 0v 0
Effie Larsen - c 1<+Rq-sl.oy
tz
f STATE OFCO #ef. , j - ykgCa a
1}®.
-- caveat or LT TES�NORTFe 1, Farl-B-7otter
- `tp'seaCO mUn
j a Notary Public in and for said..Leavenworth..._ County,in the State aforrsaid,do hereby certify that -- gatymx'x,o C
I . FATE17311:27BUCiaglatl L;I rJ"[..LE3 ,whois personally known-P- 0 cs m-0 y .- ..
Ito me to be the tenon. .whose name 1a -subscribed to the...foregoing Decd,appeared before me this day in person and'+�y"ap a a
1 acknowlcd .;d that she 'e,.ar'f N
( g- signed,sealed and dchvzrpl the said instrument of writing as her free and voluntary act and deed, 'ea.'p y o hr
7
for themes and pur{oeca therein set forth• — b''.. 'es y
gN -"Li.,
I (417"-jiLiven under my hand andrlotarial_..seal,this }1th day of April A D 1927 w-';* c . '. :
+{t Mycommiesion expires_..-... Leg...27,..A.D• 19Rfi << �1 Farb tl K71 .. . r
ooter o .t-
INotary Public. rr •F. 7
.omr�tr n a..
f_;.--7;it st3 H f
9
e, (l J e a
Eaeordad at. ---Seoek 0:It• .._.._.___.._.—��-ati', Z. ..'� - . ... �+" 414.95651
nLc.?...v., x�_i. 6(11.1 A.P_.._....._aii rtht—V��1r�._ __Recorder.
• t
Know Au.L3r:A DT Tngsz Passzrrrs, That ao,
CLAIR D. SMITE and FZOICE E. SUITE
of the • • - County of Boulder- ,and suit.c1 Colorado.
for the consideration of • 0112 at= Donors.
in hand paid,hereby canna convey to A. 11. TIIOS and ELVA F. Tfl0:3AS
^�C of the. _ County of Weld .,and State of Colorado,
rr'!ll the folbvinn read property situate in the County of Weld -and State State of Colorado,to-wit: .
That part of the northwest quarter (tilt) of section
twelve
et 2(12) ,
,
township one (1) north of range sixty-eight (68) west of the
described as follows: Beginning at the t;r7 corner of said section,
thenoa South along the West ling -of said section 1849.5 feet;
thence East -2631.3 feet, more or loss, along the Fast and 'Nest fence
as now constructed to the North and South half section line of said
section; thence North along said half section line 1831.3 feat to the:
North quarter corner -of said section; thence West along the north
line of said section 2631.5 feet to the point of beginning, contain-
ing 11.1.17 acres, more or less; together with all ditch and :rater
rights in any way connected with Dr appertaining to said land, in-
eluding 10.94 shares of the capital stock of The Farmers -Reservoir - 1 5
and Irrigation Company.
This conveyance covers onl the surface of' the above described
property. Grantors reserve aTI coa underlying said premises and the
1 right to remove the same, and as part of the consideration -for this
sale, the -second parties waive all rights to subjacent support and
all damage which may result to the surface of said land by reason of
the undermining of the same and the removal of coal therefrom, and
-
sub_3ect to reservations as contained in deed recorded in Book 1177
at Page 561 of the Weld County records.
t =
f r' t fi 4�t .rk_t4 <
5
with all itaappurtenanres,and warrant the title to the same,subject to deed of trust recorded in - _
BOOM 1177, at page 562 ofthe Weld County records, -which the grantees
-assume.
The premises herein described are hereby expressly declared to
pass not in tenancy in common but in joint tenancy. -
Signed and delivered this 18th day of - Jan y, (, •A.,1)-19 49
in the The of [SEAL) I
J��//i �. �-( V ^`^� ,, run Y'if::-. A EAL]
I
—_ ` [SEAL] 1
STATE OF COLORADO 1 i
t rs . iv i
4 { A
q rs'44/1 l'Ofi. County_Ad Boulder, • i
i ei %S�t ebS Lestrtmetrt tray tPnawledaed before me this 19th day of January,
in 11=17'1,,z v-rAt t D. c'"._13f aril F LT RM.IGi B. `tCIITB. I.
L rat -,
i a...e� --p`7, ...31 tad "ic'-al �' %ia ,-,:QC's:-c.-.�—.. .-
s r; A� ^� -��., April 29th, 1930. fuc-u.u�� / 1
3 . .
t
SCOS to moimarstatl'm or atrutsl- nsacwr or Pa
rt b,,,„.LI-,tr=- .tee+7r.>mr aara..rttbrt :trtoty,c.-e by
4:::.......•`"
.y-:-7 Y- +ice,try: =•E¢--=a et yttryanor s r_xc•pa a pray•..1 or t.s c.'--r e_�f ay.4 e- n !en za.ayo.rsterIf- rtah.....J
._-� ..-a:_ r 1-21. ,say or o.Cara e+t�,era++=: +or c.�<.. s or axe c+-,wr+t)°^._ __—._ +J}
7 2Rt^••'a DS Ca.o....-. na.a...;�.s imam Dias. Cores.
e"a C'''t"__..` T��-C""".^•Z�.-+sue,i' ¢s
........-- I
k�{i s.-� n d♦r'.1�1 n b i i ' • !':: I
,
CI--b `r.,/2-)b- ^...i t.. l� t°3 • ".".-J - r April. / ,../ ,
y..uat oar i=dcat",-----A c=t, ...-.."--.4•�dfifty 0'ne-.. rt.- • •.. •
A. H. Thomas and Elva P. Thomas . r , . (;.
cf City and irra- '�--7 of : Denver ' ,:cam b c2
Cc:.--ado,c2 tya tat fi t,cs3 ' • r •' s s r i r i
X •JOi/II M. Corlett and Sttsie .Co>.1ett •
hir
efts, 'Cit.:- a 1 }- ti -*jcat ` - Denver t w +ci
C_crude,cfe t excl.")pas tt: oat t
Fla,T. 1-,.s.,i3,Cut toc ' ztieofto"W-a 'y :SSee.,aa ._ca =a .;
Ten Dollars and other good and valaubleconsiderations > "'IS
. to the ashl part '-Of tha that r,st is l d 77 t`a r_.:13 -7,_m at tS cxrxd part,the rattd7,1 a...aro 2 b arab; '
c:a23ssed and ae}aewi „^ord,ha Are to ,-b.-.W ard, c:23 and c.......,gr.8,and by tars prt-emta d, -grant, -
b-.raia,sell,convey and ci...fi...a cat0 t`a r.'d tart:- a: -3 '., Litat:3=✓ fn ; acs at ca hint
-s-cy,the emrir�e2 t-�.era.char r-^"r n t 4 t'_a 1.,---.t re e^d ""are a c...a{.....I..., font, ell t.t force:
ascribed lot ct yszrel of Lod,o:`...-tar L71�i b-c—o`-•c' t,a - - County of -
:veld cal reaaC,k—'aatoteat: That part of the .1cit of
Section 12, Totwns:nip 1 2Tortn of itanse 68. West of the Ct:i r.. ic. . des -
cribed as fcllowS: BesInninr at the.,}ifC2,tA:•IeS &or,(ner of bal.s..bact c n
I thence South glen the hest line of ;5dia` a�ectior 1•,5'+ 5 fo t 4
East 2,631.3 feet, mere or less, along the East. and % o.;c fence as u.:
constructed to tt19 North anC::A`StYtaalf Section line of salt Section;
thence ;dort alone said half Section line 1,631.3..feet to the North
Quarter Corner of said Section; thence West along the North line cf sA7d
Section 2,:".:31.5 feet is the point of' bez.-,innin ;; containin;; 111:17 acr-
i m^re or less; tocet :er with all ditch and water rights In any 7i a;" con
rooted with r r a1;,erta'nin,r to '.:t land; inclur i:1; if 34 .'.hare^: .
t.,e capital steer' ,_f the s'\n'rcra iteuervo.ir and lrri at.on �.o .r::{Tn '
Tf Cn- 2 with 0A and Order tSe bers,L"_- .eat and app .eo:en Laporte+te baloney, or in anywise ..
cyp y,,nnlibe raver4cn and rnenslornt,r•—•=1-Aar and reztasbeno,rat, foes and prCts thazaaf; and
all the est:ta14 a,title,Inbre at,clat:a and c'--n"d whatsoever of t e raid part i:iwf the ilrst part, either In LI
• L-w cr ecrdty,-a,in and to t`_)above bar td probate,wit]to benadl•,--c.•:ts and ay»,,uY-*+^^^9
TO&t1.73 MID TO Ib ID to said ,--sr--,nave bartalted and d ceri ed,with the apptaaaaneea,unto the
said parades of the rcand past,the&a.s.I,wit of that,.teir a:.'dgas,and t'..1' Labs and a tress of such ourrivor,for-
co. twits:D tdpartie=ate frA rm. ert::empal • t1lei7.t±ra,axatcrs,and ctzhitt:utore - • I
ea covnant,t.^ant,barfaln and agree to and with the said parties of the second part,the I...intror of them,
t`.eir asei na tad to baba and asai„^na of such mavtaor,that at the t rn. of the unsealing and delivery of these 1
' presents,C.i.e;;- .:.re -well seised of the preanses above conveyed,as of goad,Rare,perfect,absolute and indefeas-
. • able estate bf inheritance,in law,in fee a v umple,and ha e goad right,full pawn and lawful authority to grant,bar- i
Fa.n' ,tall and ttnr j the cos be mtaaaer and form efor ".d,and that the ea=art tee and clear Setae alt former
r and ether y...da,In' twr cats,N-*-,,tray assessmnats and incambra en of whatever b rA or nature Roarer, - I
except oil and diner l e e_ . _ n o:1s . f Rocord
•
antI-the abate her_shied premises in the quiet and peaceable posse:elan of t e;a.cd gartles of She second p-vrt,the
curasata es t.. ,,their r•,-4.7.1 nth the hobs and assigns of soh au..I,or,aa^,s'z*alll and ovary peons or persona
lar.'.7 fa,' ,' .g er to data ta'stab a aa:,part those.to sad part ie.s of the tint part e`..n and will
r1 Fyn:L, 3 v.l:.:_c2 the raid part ies of the first;_st be vve -hsr onto eat ::c-2r band G. and
rays .tyadxjaad8szstabovaarlttn - - _ .'.`�
f *eel V��rrR?.A. ee
f.^.:.'�-3 ca C-'-:rd'u- t.a lit. -n.e a I^n ]
Inc] O J/fr ...2 r '� Ir7..a1] •
;, .....,..-..,,,-..23- _ sth ,.e a `.aril t ,•
rye Ta10 =:, .a L1 '1 r'...t2h^M,..aS - . '. f r '4 ‘
/, f ' I 4 ..i4 , f,..„.."
• • •`ti •y pro :' :;-:1 v't'''L. r.•••''' :-.--;.;...•••• ',y, r;':.
ti x>;t. \ �' a'4 '�' :. 'x•_z gas --:'�:%�''•-'it �,-
•��r+l.�Jr.,,!-L: .rrl':l�cti' -:•+,{ ii-, •....•L'r.. :.��••( „.h.;a�,.•ar., •,R-Gc'C• :-;Y '�lS�i..sw„'..
i •. �.�-:T.. ,•f tiT,-._:�7.�i.... %w`i't ti- -.wr ?7. '..rri:�, •.L. .:.•V`:si.!'j•.�,Y„ F'2.. .S.Y'}..:�. •l�•3`�.:.�r-f'2�'y: • ' / .i yT':-_rr�.�:.
%,,,;,F�.4-t',y3,..1.st.z • .Yry ci,ci__i.,..•. :is,;r} •r' .i r� ..;:^4.,n;• 5 , . ' r. . -cr:. .1,..1:1:,,... -1,1,,....,;%. ' v,
' _ `x .rw rf :y _�, r+c ss} •�t'i �r n ii=� Y �K r.Y' -'� ;� r 1 ,,
L7'.4',t0-411-',",-' a 1'R.L �'.�. ,•a-.» t�� ��� '~ }'f;1:t,rs j•y�s L ,� `r�. ri,. .{,�:M:"El!:,'.". .. } '=L � �i.
ad 1''.d G } , t„•a.��',.'a+ \,r,w ;r .•ar Fr I:' ` .. ...: ,+ ;a
s +4 L !.. ..•. f =I':Y:`,�-ti +i,•a.�,'- i:`"r _. .rs'+i.. r- ._r.• a�•cSk, R i i. `s� •�Y
. k,�w..� i.�, ,y,'t, rl1 yih��7.�.� -•r+:• ••,. P:=::'r:. � ' .er.:�:.i 5 tt .'.S?..'i^ c. il.)•a.�.<- r••7:4J,«-.wFi,. _ , .r. :a•C:C■.!t �i.:¢ .�,
: „ c.1t,i�67--.;.$ �' "'Si �t '•:1 e.`=1,t j411.;.,4' y ,}.:I',. 'tix }.-;i c !. .7�h�lt- i-4,,..'s 1:i
�+• • t:' ahh;t .} �:�cc � �`r'..ir• .'�i•�• c. �' ,...�. .•i: � '•'YC,. �a�r. S. t:�.. y
..0:.?,... ..-.-#.1.,,,I.9 3/Cr'..r e'�. .•N: `r''J.('xSy,:tt :e+'} ,}:,.-r l,,✓.7ti ,•.:}sR `•r .3. Kr'i• � •' i-'•-^.4%,.,t;Y•;f:I
� .l. �7ai'l�A. lL Yr4 •R��S.trsY' i'��ia a rr�''v i s•.� C••:: :�.:�ia; �.L 'r•_ may,,^.....-wM• X 1,ry;::r=it'.::::ti- s:..,�.. -
_'-'-' ).1'1,t;:;,:1%.1%.•'.'1;:�� ; + 7.7 �.?, c� -S6,..F �' �• :f.c:_'��; _Y' •�.:itJzf/.a.� 5.• tiy:. +• .. �.::
ii ,y. .-it;(�. tyl•Vat •1 ,, �.,►1tI;6{'•a:. ,--;,::.17,;:,-$1.54.-s:C .. .:" r -x. .t.;P,, µr 3:1 i1.:,,.,
.i7 ll'► i t:"#'. •... .ti'�.S..7 '9 3 4r.,..v u. .; r:i`-:�5 _�: r '��.rtfrl•+_�::�r;�:���•...•.,�`�•.•.:3:_�...", FS. 1 s,.:'t--s`:;•''•:
;l�+:�a. t • r r •,1'!:-_u"vr.••' �• r•4:' ,,71 's . t .=:-;- :/ -I`""y�•.',r".:i5".,r•
�' •d . . �, sy�`Ft�'`t '' �nx •,.r 5. �., --,.�+�•. Jy't�":� i3� + 'I.•Y�'':._�'•• �>.�• •',�ti ,r?�f :r?�;....r, r .,,y tr.o,:.'.,r�. �':
-� a y T' y C. .T- � ei' r,:I''; ..rf: 'a:: , : '-i-:.•• ;■rte'' ` •. % rry, 1". '
'..LI•;'ORR..,S•' , -y�iCt$ O.. ik i �_ ,r",,. i�g'7rrr•i;•''�1.%4S.,� °'r�-F& 1.. ti•�?: �.•'3� �.=xr ,= n i f a
�+ / Li
f {.w s. — ( • 4ti +i%a•� St., $,`.t • f.r �' ^�`X�-:•Rt),'':
"I ,4�,{ Li i9 j 't -N;i-. '�,'3.b r • ..'.••i ,!•4•'tt5;:l' te.—: il• i `^ t r tr •ra•"yi .{. •'•¢_ ,„ ; ,.� I• r
tr � ••p'•' li R •... _ �r►t•,a rA+.J+''.c...4.3 f:r:t titi..;.:4,„,,ctf...,a.t„i:•Yir:i tiCn�., ..`AGy.t, ;.r..t.�'•... -.. .tl.....:r.►� ,r.. _ __ .t.t.AA.. ::,'.*-_s•
r. _ .y,. sir ••••','•:,..s.,:,••••-: :.r;. " f.r�-,.ir;•- ?��� '•-•. +d:..ti:S•,tiii
' i s�1 •'3 ',+�•.•rh;,w" c �:' ..J As'•i r..- '=,i!s JS r- •'•
t.ii •i'-:...si% ` 1.i'$0*•• •i-;;■...:it,• - (:y:"A`' ': r s` ''' . . :'a'•t :,:4 '+asr''-' r-'-• 'r,:•xv ?: �3::-,�' cZ;..-•= •^�T..•
.•*.?� • 't-• +•a •..• „.i':.�.:• -• ,t,'i.,j"�'••,'•�:' •�: ..•4:; 'rE y - .r^:•.'f .•. " r.• ?, •i F S'{ +�.;�,. :_.•`pia `Y- .t`�.'1ir rIw,t 't t, - + STATE
o COLORADO
�� •'''^'i•`.• Sifte 41.1..6,..".. -°•.-..... a...._ strigi,�,C J • F•:
. k,..,t;a�:1.� �•+T}t t/,�./'T �' •: �7A�l.t. V�'VOL�AiIlYO - .?�'- • y:.•• ° *6' Jti i.„.•,-,,i
sSECU ITT AGENCY �,i.!�`�r , .�•a '.n f•,-t,::. .:'i' ey:-• r•k d' rrl 'NA, ..
��t� :a :r;•f.•y,;.,a7,X �. � Ci i�C.l� �i DI:A►TB p tr�trfNO.._.� r•+; r`
'mut Ittaith:Secvri •., .t:;: C$ii ' :r%•'.
p iotrl•0.N0.IR. . -,i`.!,_. }•.` t'•r:r l "C ., a - 9� i:• 1sK
;? 1.�p) ACEpi+D:.AYH. •i ,•c •'' 2.USUAL.13>rSIDENCE (wstat•'.t..a•,altv...stf.•t.art:.wr.., .»s.at,r? : k.r4,':",-,-.•:•;•;;;;•1:•
'V i►e1e`COU$EDenver. , i:'', A.STATE :r.
o.1 o r ad o . P.COUNTY I,�el at,, r w•.y...a,fin.i s` f:� �.,_'
e.tunl a R A'w CITY . M4 tus r --;,
'°. t'c .CITY on4S0r. t..M U t. OtwtwW.00ry.r t•Ikwtu. dtW• :•r.'.i.,'; ':� t;?:• •}=�.( .rtt„" a, `.
=r,. :to rrry.tA a l¢N47H of
ON t • - `r--•:t•s"'' Mi ,;+;,.,,:. :(1•-.:.
• STA (M:Ile.
yfae+tTOWN ''i"' /,: . S. S ��,..�y'cs'aT' i• ,tom• /' - . . ,tT;Y 1 iii.➢Ui LNAM OF'plaor1iD.aptlalur!n►ulrtimV$I' ra•.!«terse .utrri} tt.STP EE T ':r ■: S.•::i•,i, t,(U t.'+*1.31r!fstr•1 4' Syr }J:y`'rR. i' 'r
ADDRESS ri'i s. 's .As, �.^i. �_t t.. ;
i, HOSPITAL OR t .Jose h' Hoc Pt ' - ' • �' '
-• -,.• i...INSTITUTION' "S �� .=' � � f'� +``*�.
,�Ni C3 '::.r.(r-irist).- :eb :7•,•11•{MfdtIIr$ a{[.ra{ s.of 6 en ::� �'tI' )..; ,''•" �fi ,:
" rye EASED _r,r: :,� . _..�j: . .;'�.::I95 ,,' �,��,w•At.
•'(Typ...l'r,INi) C�ft� ,;- �,U. `•:•�. Co`Corl'ett• -DEATH •: 6 ,•'s .:.•: •
Gt GO RACE 7.HARRIED. NEVER HARRIED1 0.DATE OF BIRTH 9.NGE tsr.Teat. It ua,f..s Y.s•}tr{..a►rae N.►i►L.'�;t f;;''r'' '
SFX• , ;,ems::; 's 4i:-
.7,
.-- _.fie, ;::' r WIDOWED.DIVORCED t ret►M i 1..111rU.=•YI�1r•+•M. D.+n i ls•+ma�;rssx. "Li)! :;
'-1aze'i l• - °White • • Marr1,e ' 7—I3�I6A0 60 •.•0!.,..-,---,;•44,,,..,•,,, ,:,,,i,-.,•!•,.a
10a;USUALOCCUPATIONOW*WMot+orf 10r•1II1:1D. 9F. QUSIHLSS OR Tlt•lt It.DIRTHPLACE 1rst,t ,1e.ryro«,toeryt ;., ° - Sz.CIYt2Eti OY LY$T . s irs,'•-.;"'r
•,:i.-, f��t m.o.W.rork4.t LW,work It r►t:aaal .�..Nrr .. DYSTRYI Rawl i.i s T•J j v-f 4;`_`r': U __4h .�, 'Y�=.s.':
••1'Urri7ei .'''.. . • ' r i p��ilrtY/7 (��p, ht ,
1S.9�ATHER'SHAIITL.'. ';a„�:' t .t.• 11.MOTHER'S MAIDEN NAME ..• s..••••••,--'::t::� :Ii:'rf :e,;l.:t,i,�yf . �.r 3J•=.i$tTi;„1.
•/: ' - Vii;.' ;'.-f :i:t .y. -v.' 1--' -,',..1-k'..-•-e,-;';:---2.-:�y?.; @' .,y..[1t'+hti:.
A R: t '1••• _ .• -..•, _:1'rle...,-.-Z,f.'•:4':•::,• y Yy_
'Jo}�nz'H • C0.rlett' Ecdttn'_Coirle_u . . T a:. . . �... {. _ .Y:.
' 4 1S;=7rA3 DECEASCD EVER 1M U.S.ARMED FORCbbt 10..SOCIAL;SECURITY 17.INFORMAN`1r•t - : •: �.v`a,•et•; ., i,i•;," a�� f �?
.t' t•.tYa.+s) It1 +M:Tao*
•1 r.Tr!v) ... .- NO. '•..1 -....r...-.::•-•,-.--.-j ` _s O-'':.f.,.,= c!'.a r. e J 1.-
5 '�" W. ] • 'id ,..,n; Susie Coriett,r`t1�tf e :t "; ., ,.: :..;. '
L r_ •'� � �• � mix:, _
••':r: ' t MEDICAL ;:{ 1m-nraLPb7n2�h W ...4v„.!:,.,„
; '
it1, 18:'CAUSEt Of DEATH •t .. + • <:� .l s,- von 0AaMTTI'� \' � .
r.' .s r. - ir• if s- --- ''
Estar otAlyoaaeaaa► ,t DI5EASSOR CONornot/ ..: 1.- i . .:,.....--•• +' 1 / yt -• .. /•lt �::.Lri•l; ..... • -'
,7 yer Ilse far(w)r(b) -,DIRECTLY LEADING TO DEATH* (A3 •-•:.:t:- +• T ., ie i • '
•:�:re -n...�.w.....•+++• `i :y ::A,.t't!:;.: .� ',^ r:'• .. :£:f;-F}v?, .�,.•.:�- ::SI> .fir•. cif.
,�AH71iCEDENTCAUSES: '_ct':�:�,:'3t, ,,• 'a!• :i' � �A .;.i '.1....!::'S.-..'� t e =+' :x�.!':z`•�t +,.
•TAti dna.not moan , F i• "%. :. :e ,-...-'•:;('--. r: �;/ :+• „ ... .: . i`-r••S
r; • ;?l it .,-,
,? tA+•s•ott. t•I dyl„O �:�• `•• " -' •'' •DUK YO'��)• _ - • • + `4 �=r:�^;:
'__ I•I•.t►•as hrart,:fail. -•;,lMo►brd eoturitiottr,U at+TA pi�lttp }, '•:-!...-:',‘‘...%••••••• �,f :t:• _ .t i-. '- • ' _= r' •
•1,-;• tar. ".aethattia,•,:tot.• ea . • a tin - 4 + :'. !IV' ••./••'�+ : ..!...r r'4.-7')••;,.:,T ,r,
•: .al..t.2. baree s. ( 3ata O ;s _.. 4 . . ` t: ..;e' '• r L< ;:�r :, ~�,h. 1.. s .. .2? It-.' r•:t1L.:=dia• 1'IJawsdarlyi*peo*,--,— +, : i;. :t.• 1 r:•.:?{�a. a ;J r•, S rr_ ,�
':r''rk. atfiiy,:i■.hiryt ofr.eotff• DUE•T0 (e) • •yyam,.,K ,. 4'
i'‘,„„,48441..,.°6,";,:',,,377.7.,rA OTHERSiGNIFICANTCONDi7rONS '• r • : ". (t :>;'''1' -n.--I : r�::l; ri��'- }` 1;,,-;*;
$,50..,„ :J I. 4. j.lr :'f:•r;`.,i. .. :.i:: •• -.:i-:r _.t,ro - -.-.:.•••",,,r.,_ .&7•
•"'' u .tt:;x: '( Condi:iona contrasting to thy death bit!not '...).:'''''...:"4..;•-i.'"1:'-••••-••••;:'2'.....1.;•.'''''•
:,i'�a ....••.7...T.• 't•• 4:1•••••
1a .:f+ -.{;,y;1`it..',= -i .
•`.:- 'z.•h:;.,•••••,,•'-'•'%‘-‘••. .+.i y4.2:ed to that die!OM o►eo.+Iitiow esuai,tp dsOlt., • •• r '• '''.:**‘'•:.
�: • a* • i. •
O OPERATION /_:,i,. ., •l. ..r. - .J 1••:.,...,....,-...•••....-. ...,.1.,..,-f-,....„;:,..,-....,•:......-..„:„ ;.•20,10.norrir-.'mot x-:...,...<r;
• >.,:7 1s,.•:� ,Yg orf *PER. •121.MAJOR FINDINGSr P .y. 4,.......,,,.•,../.....,•:.':7 .:r. r ,'n.e;''•r .-," :S: '•'
.:. . ,_ . �14"•.e.'-.17.' sr J/ , �: v 1 '{ "tits fta sue'';=' ::: •'
; ..a f,.. . .,- tre's%rer �rtyre._ t r':s.� 4- .u. ^.�J';..,• :1' -'..�: . . .� •1i'. :,r.+ :-,
t.•<,. 21 D.FLACE or NCI to r.aywt 2#•(CITY,TOWN•OA TOWNSHI!9 .' •'(COUH7Y). ;!' F'*tS7A 3X.'•≥•:Tom.:'
•ACCItrENT:i h/ia•tb1- •. ! ;.r ,•�.1•
+•-i:,�hSL •••:!-•% - 5 I b9-1" I•ae'•rer-etr•at.Ot/!W L.e r .r':•,• .r:s •.• 15: C`rw-�, •.,
st_I4OMIDL l rr•+*Y s • '.sr r . . ;.a *wtiL{�t(4.. 4
^g ...."Rt:H01tICtDk`:F': `L�•• • •
n.'.•f 02:,.i.k :_
ir;" INJURY OCCURRED z r.NOW,D30 WWII OG URI ..-:\;•,:,',..I./ !'. '•'-.:•:•:i:'v Nr,,:...."•-••••,7,;':,,i, ;;r:
•• E"i
• �.�» '�11<e 1 J t tN t�Y !i t' : •�•" '-^f:y ke.' ef.• t. • -
:r Tl,tff.'' Ot■*Iat' (Y•aq~�:,.'. .. . .ii.`i.' t:y.v;..�, � �•'•••tr-T.O>< •-•;;;.`jt`.? t:...y,•: �• WHILit ATi�- NOT yINIL><(•'� t4: 1. fY ., SrJ� i��2,f+7},�'
't'=` _ IhJURY," / • M • WORK I-•+AT WOMI. L..J�' , ±; :r, ,
•,`• • • mil`ai?{1-`
*;;'•' `2;2;,:.riffieb)t+es fj s�.s.f1 Innedrd the...deemed. !�-�•:':::•-•••;.-',.:.t�,�,,�t 'r .10 x'' t' ,19--'•—•''..-".1-11;i,11,wt_ss3ti�'t.�i.�rrc ttn3•.' 4 i ;f r
:4,--i" " r:• -j. 292•.:_21,`and that drub oresirred ar _.iO$1n. irofri':Iv cavrrr raid on the der.Jiar.rl abort:-'' r_i'='.,.+•,;s_ 'Lr ''te
...
'''. z3+�.5)GNAT,j t'rv%: ..r."
-.,-...• ' . '' D 1CNfc;'5�.`, ,�
r,/t }/� m.st7trrtttq:. t;r ADD?;;,,r- - •. ..r-,.. 1...I.\......'y::: Sh ;t.• x.• ;
<.'_: 1, yj�Y `• ,•'j r•/ t -•"'", r v ? ,,r-.. i!f- . ,//..,•./ . . -'vii '/r1.` / ,.;:,-,P5--;,-4,..,
4I-'t w IC`,..t.,,•'•/..
��:'•`� .'�;';i'.'�"'•�'!'YLGx••�i7±:'c�3f�li► f✓•S"/11 ,�•� >�, i t �i /`/' =y t7 '`s� �i
• 5r:3 rROA.:DUR1At..t:RE11A. 24r:DAIS 24e.NAME 0r cEI ETERY OR CREMATOAY , : 2aa•LOCATION' (CSO'.town..c.eainty) �.,:X.:{.(ataX, r t„ `'+L•,-
is A . . :nQtan
+• '='t'1''- ;�';b '��:��;�•�:
r or.tirr.It» rr t.u' ..A I .�._�
-' a'ii.rtz D. :. . •4/Zf5.114,1 ( Grntr.n. ]l ti •rt.r�rtrn-I_ ' jfifer_gcr _ • '•�t ,,
: r1� r4 <•..t: ;�,•;. 2s.FUNERAL :. :,-_'' ':`;;r .;,;t��DR 3$r 'y;:w• ;�:� `� t.s_<.: .
DATt(REC'OItYtOCAt' Rl�Ct'JTRAA6NA ORE -e M o•,
., / RED. jT ^ /�..ta-s`;d �2DiltlLrC)r i�:O7"�IltL7 )1 • ; '•f °nen �'r, 4 � 4 ' � `�'5t,
.1r •'•r ("" a ;;74 .,:`••• r: L•'•r" ,.�e,.r�y-t,t� p, w ...i �.aa-••• 'a"+,,:..,,: JFL,%•-4.•,.•+ter
', Y+-Y •.� � ,bi -:� +r �N•=�L�Iti��ht+'kw�ail. ' + �ri.',':,••7�A*cl�i5VliJt•���� q'�Cyia ••�' s` it^7
itrl .'n a• `-7'll a W;e3 a ,s •' s„ t`.`_'rkroy,.-a;+; 4. � "` •,-.'i y• •nyyr/
7,.. >. tx �>.1 i s-i,(„`• ,�I u.t+ t`• t:—tt.,„, ,:f .r.^,.'ti z,.y.i r .Y.$�,F.,^)' `'}s 'tZ r'�•a �r >�r� }J;�f�., .. : ay'":ir�' 'm^n
.t' . --Ii.'`.. .---‘''-
i e''+ .',r, r?eti•'••.'a t1t�, S�i4C'• i•=a�:'•sq.' -v1.0 � ,F S. 12 1 Q: 41, 'ay7•j{'r r< y£., 3yW l. .7 • ''4
pn r) �.,f(-§. tra."i C'-y.;• .>•_,+y• ,■ti t74G..s• -T L 7e is '�'Ja '� 4'ri, 't y K ;r� =rh ,�.rS �a:.K.s Z•l r,•• , 7r .r?
,fir`l. .1 *, �,+'n�i -": c_rG'+:'-►e.' S\• •M--��• ti%• 1:."'3t_."at. t.,t4A1''' A•1/4?` .h'l'y\,I _ �c,lJ, t '`•3+ L+ 4.{y, p • ') i
• :t ��y.-Iii.�-{r,1.. } >:,r niitV\;�.Z.., 3a... 14_ ",,sF .?.:.'•. •'.. 3 yam. •'i`)..i\'n„' -tg. =A1v roe ,+;s-T';{. _ •S. �T;C. w.0,_.-.,t'� •d „ .,,.,
`'; f�`,• .'°!`.i 5 : �$k
•7%is-L\h+•�' "'r..1.1;'�•i''w:4_,..° it{ ;..., d„%.,,T.._at •'�-.. . '..„r�. 1(: ; e •r..',i4, {',a s a. ,i":'2 'e 'i.,,a, t•=
,..
._,, 'Ili jj• V ,+:.' b-r , 1.� s�-+ w.+ ' ..='hT- - rA 4 .y •....t., 2 r- ..x
,tea,, 'wG R" y .,t � .'V. +•S �' r•• �^•,�t-. K�r �•`
4 .. „.„4-4.......;• .at sc '�4,'.'-y ^e• ,...,.,..r:.. ..::,.,,,,,..:.,,„:2„•, ,,..0...,1... ) ^!• \•'� ti°. t� -'.,.,.� �,'a•t a••. r-ek
:,: .rJ•t '•- s •,• K.s r h , r . ez. r; ! , i+4 !r
�,+�.,•`" x A„ •� firt +� zar'*ct �as)�r � •�'-: rr �w,':'�a•5f..-•=st:.�:,J.•�. i!,_',sc,i/' +Js�c•41;
.`Y' t< �r{ #r�;`ytr�4'l* ~A r c;.c t�??t �S t'�•yls. {3x" ( Y f'' ' at'z= ., 2 r, r J t, 'rr i � irr-` r-.
•' ..w_.,....1.. .,,....-X4. •.,,.s�i-c • ,„ :�4 t men.•. :�t4m1.--r-sq :s••- ", t. '.a'- 'Ili• ''. '4..,•..1P-'-! .a 1,...,1-n...*:•_-.1 _ ,• q 4'..�•-.Y r•,•;‘,..•.:'[f ,I 41,ZA1.,;„.....,......„?..,,,::r .
r.. xT- e.'•t zr 7-.d,r.1 s..1;_> ti•- -4. '•''*!s : T a l+. 7r- vn"7:�. S=/ ..Y .-r.S } t; r'•., ' v.=.
ib�s. < -i^I'!A�• r t.T iy�q j��'SA ..� al,,. r ,..s�.Sr+•, ar'wla .i�'�;;L�• :•-.. .ri-.. L �I 7� w}T'•`Y.;fi•:t.C. w �. -' c
„Lr_ %....f.t:r 4-,roe
. , ' F C'w .rl ��,.•r:r�r''i. i. a i•7' s �.;t'^�, 3-.s r• .1. �..- 2f1'` - _ ••'=4'•
..��}�T;�a�t�.a�. ,..;T �z�T,'.{ N l •"Y�," '^.,.+1�:7 ay .kx�L"'sX: t }„ • � ��- r,�r3 t•'� .fii,..�?:`'= 5,-��'t'_, '7•"gi`'k•;J i•,.,�'��`•
e.
:1y. ...T.--'?.e ai3t-tc.e • 7.s:s `ir..e...4-1)s :F .Z� T , r..t.i_a fj . r� ".'r4 y .',.4. f�tA• .`'ity0; `~•j'j l..,.:: 1i.+6st�y)•'i':i .r ti
tw c, a _ . 3= ( qtr �'t
�,,y�w 't.i:3»> aiIj .f. A .r..t F i 1? , 2 o f�r i li r; ,sr Lr-_ '.4 J r- ?l` �•^= / .. ,<+:'s. 't'_ t'�' • _7� v 2
• '`a .aiv'3.Y�)�,r ` al;. `S" S �J.`/ �', ,^y.`S 1..L+{ yYR l iYf •,,-'r,•�' tf'LL:•.fw •"f' `'.. V fc� .,. a- J'. J� L '
!11J� •„Iy3�,,,i "r"4C'• W c;Tom_ '!� s .t'•,,�3 a`+t, .. ,it ,.--v:. fi r;;'l.�ac:.r 'f i e„Y'a...t.' ,J `fr- t i
`a- ;ik: :•:e.i .' --) •``, a.,: �$,};-r•; •7,r,-;k1• rilr{�•:44-,,r t s"'Y:*1 J ..d:",,'}7-41,4. Sr e:.•.: •- 'x v7 s s} iw•S)'s ,• a t�-s•y,. w r:r'••i it ,.
-_t: ••' ' ;?t, , , `$? '•.,t;:;,•, _:iir- .,3 ' �i0 s• :t'./._E.+R. 'i:t t. �,S3 't ti"'-,.Zy5,4/.. •t r2:-?- yri,' •i``.4:r•4�7_..' r+:ti �•"'y y,: ,
� f� ��,,!!•• '1�� .Yi. �+r,...' •�r+rY �,yy'�M.. •}t.ST y, J ;14:1
- .( 3fL; •C,.,[•� � y, �y:{ r�'0--P-7;t:-..'''f4.;',4:'!%.,--7 •i 1,i�?„'
r i'�.7a•4�v.'z ,•.r:5 AiFZ••''!"I' 7:i h d.t r ry� ._ • 1:,'S. 54. rf t •.Vii' =,41,,:.::+c$1. L.,;�, ,.eL [ b
"yrG'rte' 'Y•' r� i t.t �_' y.S• * y'�.? 1•�•t.t�. �'-'� ,.e� '�' s" ft�!.tr+t'°;t.r r ..+���� ,yy\
t.:,•:.. ,3';2:x`!, rr ,. a?fs J..3„,......f.1.33. 5� i„.43. xY' I . s� a. „L �i'a• •--IV:�Ix ,. .J.t= yJ '-'-:,,f5;,..
'.J "y;A" #''''sty
•.1 fa �a�1,{40,...)?
Y . .:s ,a rr ,� • y:Y t.ff �i
•,:i�... �' y �a,1 . - _ {1' •i.4 sy9!►'k„+ _'by "!. �T�„r �t.a.r..s:�i n\.,;,:,,,,,-.0
�' +,.'• ^�„', .. t .r ��.J "~,
.'.ir.�r'- -..;*,-„,.--,2..g,,--,•.: • t ' �• �r.t'� a• ,t' -.4'...1:1;'i-0.%4,1M t. `i !` �' _ 't n, .,,. :l••.
"e ,y .ac w "i: , rt ):,�a o i� r,t• 7r e: r `'qtrt. .,.„?,:� ,, t4ri '•.. 1 a ;•:r +•,,i•S _{.,-w S,yA •r,,!.f r'`j f ',, . T - i.•+i � *Alt.'s?... �e••,. �.y t �e}sh_ e •�r I�•'�' :v-•� 2�;."^'r ^';�':r�_^ I!;;.y2,'. •+ i.
K . rr., t7 4;. ,�, ri Y ,. .•.s;�, X'.,. i!i •≥ ;t r �e4a1'i r ?' -1,12,4ti r�i5- a_. r• •? '
a v- *. t .it .a S'�1 r ..S�;tq'.-f,t-t"!t' Sa; ..''s.•_ ,e. i..4" -tr••}'r-s..::ti-2;i •J. t :. }(�i� e- t�,tt o.1 ,, y yaJ.
trr 1• • ,,pr ,a ai is s•,, 4 •xa-�. 1r .'C 0.+Y • •+ c r•Yl.
:�. °L yb.` r h,. s. f,a3'_> 9' e; :t,S'. .y -r ar'I i e•,):•14 Fi r,!r,I-.s.. s t 4„ ? i ,4_.�1:
y oxr, ♦ it+.'.:• r r r• ■■' .:` j■ 1 a• •, ' z3`.t? C.•2.
'a ..t�".,�, ! +rei t' tr,{'f f' �� iy ?• ,,t:,r;: .t: t)-{t'• r t/i 1 T r: - 1r' � �, ti •''.
7t•' •*^r.s r' + x7L r. r. • 1 t r •r i .. • f9 u d sS.d. 4 7tH erg M3 s�}a'. a�r,y�°Ml ..1.:.,;.—•,c,.....,►S r... r- S e u . "r`"
• t . 1 q 5•4741 ,r 1. r '' .•'•i•••14-1.10-•,-0.4.;!k-4.1.c3 , �.:r••l•,ty' t,-,r:'•...p. ,rC":..*.ti, � ,..... yrx{ •i � -t 1 •'-:,t
+w� �y vr'�;� �H � w -,A .� . y ryi � Yr,.sue P s r '1•rar;i r \ + '
�t,. f7 x�-.� t3: t -':l: �Jrt i t/ E ' . or t r .t� r< • s . 4• 1- 't ,� ,t•-, Y•;.,t'i.
.�.�:,+••.�4Yi�tS",',�.rF ""� ?.'+• y A���`.y�� M`a''r'''S �'�g:r> pxate. :ifl ,{��' * %��t ..�� �S•t•�.c ?ss• , tom..S:."••'••'. y FrfM�wty;.!^t�
'''• '�t YJ 1]. •�'�r'f.� . ', s`'��' . '}rt '•.;- 3", 5 tr4,/p t/ "t ,.-, J;,:;t`•.i.. •�, ,,..i :,- r r .w ,;:
;r ar.. 3: ilr•let.i.4..-,,,,,,„_._,,,„;.....1,.•,,,✓., c•ti^••\. 4.•.••4.1%.0...-'11,.....-e, r� .� ,•"'1311 ,' a'-.: Tr Yi' -: ., r s,it
;-:;,.....:1,:t. l.'1.•• , •*`,7--- ??, rw'r `ir•Ai 5l(;.. . i"r r_s i . - .r'_ l-7 t1 �l r �.. r�' .r t �.r� rrwr•.* lit L '' as y■,,• *, (ti +` a =*'.Nl' yfyt�•r ? e l/k`'y '•' s ( YCr'.:nr.. t:�•yo f r3P .. e• "� vn- �•,fi). • 1L./'� '•„.)..% ' . . ►'�v ,-..-1-Ae-i`:,—Ya,,.I++:t..t•••..+t :+ + . i i t' ,,3,... r 4 y,-, + l ,3, 4,1 • •.s• ci.•.a ,k .•ewIt .''•. 4",:1• h,. / '.31,4-i '+^p' a ii,•-/+�Y•, -4`k'?- - ' "':-. ,U
—e Q i.'q ,,Alte' 4•. ,:V.-' +""'h:-.• _., .Sr III �� tr • -.-- - Ar • 1`�,`r3. •c rswi:�" ' •'{�M,.x?'it'�I�a "'-'��,;�Mt-•' •'t''v �. � ,fit •►r)'P'•�tts��48t' ' t N J t' 'i J�'}�7' � e" r ••�E.14:,..'t ��*.-.i..4!",. ,:---14.
�"'Y a�. ti a,. �w �" -
• 't J'E„i.p.,wa,•0* 't,• 1 i :s11 �• '�. t L 'i 1;• -•..- .. 1cr, .. .+i ,s.:5-16..... �,''"'�rs' 3'i 'ti �x�.�',� �f'• v tt+,,•� � r: � ?� ( •a�-•+r•:. a a .r _.r..;�•.14;'!*,�rl >••'i
� 7. > ,4,. 41.1114'it z! T•�� \ 1,'I+'t elltt%.. rf..if S t 7.1. t` L/'5- •. ,r_. a S",. z sr•'. - 1 . yry ..,_i:,...> ,. ,
.R b r 'f', tY'x '!4itr-+ xh +y �F1_ti rt,,,-w, . y"S •�.r r .'t •'rr�a /f�{' 'k 1 -11J 2'� i- -iri
`,�1-.•%:.:.....,,i;;.,-4...4.44-tZ,, ?.btr ;,,c.•x�tx.A'... ' :+t,,r r'.tit$ .� ' K•{ye"N-,,..3I.,-.,,v'L � ..lfW:,,.. •.,9,�r f.y ts''=y+•,f; p.,...,.-;•.,,...,,..‘rt-tt � ,. zn. "c . '' �.a
,..17.A.,O,,,*--.,, •ftiTlla,}-r•`•',r "s?:.A4. t '_' '- }`r-r;•'.'' „r••- ^> ,+,,� !: Nt•!- -c:r::vi.03
,wt: ti. r,e•R•% Z, + t i r•� a'Y ,.+ r1 te.-n•�./ i .,.A... a•■
,'/{',-#.',7•40,..V1-\ ,d��'Y'>��-1nL S' �� � � wr''rx'�`'•� Y��` . J•.x....,,,,-;„<„..,,..,..,.,„...y. �,�..1.!•r.1''�'�•"• `•{ i , 1r.. -jt., •...1'j r,:,L
•'.4t te _-4, y y,-"-�E�{.I�r�a.' .i1'.. '?L U.�t rCJt.��_r ..w-•. .- .£clot ..,.v,.,p.. ..4.:-...-:.:11.7.4.,rr'`'1" 3,'.7j1'0:
yr„�.�. 1 j�,•p' •ws ti r'�� •Y•M". !ti- 4 ','t..i'l tl c^'JY ; :le-. :i 7' ,t'•i,a') .1',:: '� Ya ,!t.ti ,i a�,t t.' ty� -L«�t. 1t��10 1`��
!i tWt yi•4'''••... y 4p,40.;• • -I.• a'({:• tr4 "' "K.M" As..-•ii Y1.«.-- ;'.T�•��""F,w rS.}`'+fit' _,f �i+g'r. :•;.,r.Li,... t, •'y.j} t. .:a i C,.>- •{ {+
•`'k�i�*t A.4*Jir..,..1.114,•'brA� "',/' tter k•��, 7 'ar'' r.N�4..�,'0.4 •S .:T2e,,.,, .M1 Va..;4.c.'h."1•3r,.a hti''.,TeJ_;.;,..t: -..;.,.it: �:..er - 111;:••
•. �e. tt244.... sl4. a;,, 1•lat. ,:•%.:11;44CA.r..� .;•Yr •�5;7...-. �' et•e7 y i4,., ''-Lt. •J.1 4W.'-i4:,•-.i.+''y i r,.•:.,..!!--,..
r''r 'f�� .:h, -.
I.`.L i'f 't iirrrc.4••` i��r.`r-` 'C:Txa"T,-.,h -' :i..,.:;rL'tiw_ -k,'-t .,"-` K•zrOf§.:rv ,2... y f Ky4.� + ,tr"t L t`• .1 L.v. ye s `'•. 1k':•-.l ,yrj,
:4`�`�j� t' �,�S"'.i,,�y •�' �'�.7� , "• �f3 7�'�":•' i •1•�•. ..f.r .. �, {�, y. T,a j��'� .r.�.s.�..•r:: *.-f �..+. ,kwsa-,ty•Y• L�•!K��{
�`\• t 7•` v� ��LeM•'c''�:��' ° ;t4 �"� ,Cyw,•'kf.•J4t� 9 �`w�- 'l�i ��r`3.5%`S�'�+`Tx��.��,i «=t s"• s+.='^..1• .wy - �,".ia�
• •-Aii -T 'te i".y'�4'.1l. � .( .e`I�.••'�..}. Y. '1L,w Clir.t ��'r.1+w•-7 1y •;{{ �.. " .''.• A •-?.. • r} -r .., ..ri'_',•� rr'.0
�� �( ra a: � 6�i"� . ,� � .� .�•l.� ".t .y C; A. .'ti[. r, I +'' f.�S..s'�"i�'�'^•• p..i5•y :-I S:f:: :!�•'• p• +--{'^
i i,:.r,. '�:G .�_�T ��fy j'.tv41. .>z2suF-;r -*tv'o,: K{� "}• .�f> :t•. •,y..��'y -.•�--. '' r"t.r�'fit' +a :y:: '�:t� •r -'•2.
i* G + r'• n ::,:.:1 -•µ•r.
;G�K` et• i!, �J „='Zit i�-=ta�'r,•=.•r,� _sr"',r,../,:^w3.�.r. . '...t,�r.�' -;,y.+-. �� `L.��r'-i.:,l; t•'�r-.,y',''_-.: 3_��''^ �Ia�.. � 4s va•k
_ .'5:t' , ,� �1-�-� ,.,.. �.•..: •�r:.�+'-r' +?+ ''L�� r .ti c• s`.i F,.;£w'. .:, �. -t.r:
1 1/t i'•:-•-'i� -.F•' , i•i--•- vtr-.•'_,.• _'-•Lr• _1'.n;;Y„ 1 v ._. :t x ,..,.srs `AH. • x t ^�r1. i,..,..-4-7.7.-.-..;;•;:� r1T:',4::::.;1.',.,' • •k-.
�•'i ff'r.„,-..,..,.k.•:-..,31} nl ' Tr',I4r C.r\e`er• y .:1-4•:.S... +:`!.r .UL .i •. Jea 'r S p + _- ri irr _'Lr .:, .. •:.:- n t Y
x ,+ ,-;;;;;.•:..:;5;•4;.C...-it.:-,:t
/ „t'•: r .:t.:!• 1..;..-.;...:1'2:',/:',-= t.t , .: 11'• :i''r` '�ft! i .�.i
;rs„� ' .Fi .�F��. V�n•••:.; 7.��r'.�r:Ti•� �,,rra:: v:4. r' ..h ,r,lrJ•a,h':•: 1 ��{r=:r 1 i. �Y. f -Kt -�. �r..--:4.,-4'.4,....--k'.'`
�;;y,�•�t "y
Z ,}i t:1.14 y r it r. r i S:. 1.:'!•It•Y� ,• r ' .'try- rT,'W...₹,s'.fr,.r • n....:ar.' ..t•t : r'w a-,i-'A :tf ,•�'F+;- I.- -`
;.k•s. •:;r VS• tiJ •� r?.;.v.it.^.,;. t�.ti,;.;, nY ;,sr 9e.' -a._ nt••-1;:-•-.1-!-%'••i:,:-...-7-2•:7'!'1:-?,f _ _ ..1 Lam '•s ;!'.'cy-- F -
: iI. .x ''t'�^•yul.rF -t,,t• ...•:,Al •j•.. f..5... i - .1 S ,• .'1/41;,"'.':.1..tga++eT^ ��1 +.•r3it-s-r v_i i c :: <7-...°,!!'-;...:...: ";;:k ,' 1Ott'
,:lri l i. V::.4 4..4:t,_ h; .V.' i �'�1f':,:F t'''.••••--•;,..'"•'-',..f:.(.1;'),.- .:•,.1h3 4 stiA---)•:. (x*¢•:... •.^•••Tyr y.• .. -r +v :rr .• •t"f.p4R:r.
a'� 4 '.1 t•iSta 'l 'I Yon • 't ,( may=.. *-4e•' :,,, r.•• a..- 1:.+S ,i r. ,*.z .r -s:.,1.....;.--••-••tr !•A. w,tt,,, /-:l
t }.:r,p .--;. -•'-'1..._ � •;%-'41-•' ! ,.a t•�' Vire• :�yF• „'Ii.,',:.1'.t �s vw•k•S' •1 ti f'!t t•' r. +'-i •e �'r•
�t . �avv.�• ":t'r-•, ,4 ,r. in.b' •v3 ,. < :d..1-•'-:'•:"-:1'. ii t;t J' . v r Y� . �
• :t � •Z: :>'y vs✓ - bj� �. :a4 ♦,. `! t.:,= '"':= _rti�.' ?_A-�;. S• C_ .yt:.,..�.r-•�r..;i�.-,
+ I1.;'*�� - s�•L`.r:.•i try.��.,. :'-'.•t': •�_:-' ,r•t:`�~•::-r._�,r��;,t-# _ �' f:•,..jy �.:�_ i:tk :,- -:r•.. =.+,
isPj^ 'i�'. s:;. •.• .wR• ■ ,•x:., >ft_+l t + .1=_•a.C '1.1'•P�t'y.-..t,r';�' r + .°,:: 13ti i�_ ?r •:':-:'•'•';'77.--'i..,:•:.:4'''':.r•: ;
r rL-.,-,•. ..c ., ......-1,: '..."‘....`"ry , eS .y.' 3`_, ,• c.p,rt . r'!: . ':,. ,. . rSr r•t•
1� ..'i•`C.-,• r'.-'a 1r: , •:!‘` '�rt..'.:.,;.w i._ '1 .•.',::•+aw• w '�. 'v;:. .:f) ^.'lY�'•:
:• .. . - \ti.7._•i_.. . •T4'' ;a:1'i'_'i��':•y_.'t r�•..r.h r ..
"rj 1 ;e -1 • ' .:•'..• ',..:..,• r„_., •r.! , ,5 ..• .
1 ..1.ter►•• 1 '; (• 1 1• ;1•• l_..rut1. •.� ••!'.6--!1`-'
'.6r_.1a_.. - `"-•••••./v •<••t•'•'r
4 `t , • • _t'_n/1 '•' •' _"`")c l :-.!".r-----!- -"-------••.-- ---.---- :ise.".;:: .t . -
-1 . -----.•• -�+/` •� . .•�, .`.w.r. _1. . 1 . 1..•• .•1 �f�••' j.: .�
/ .. ` �. .�.�... —J----:--........=...-...--,....::•.NM•:M..rr.wtil , ....................z.-.-.:;_:..:..:::....---;--.•. .'. •.t 1•. -•_
r~ -,-..--..!••••-•-.2 C..a'i A za''•:.w�. • Ill:
1' : •rj'r..:ti.',..r:. s t' .'l• i•' .-s:..' } f ... -
.• ,,w.i�-4..: .i.+.. i�.`._`�.1•.i.1...'V✓•'T V. '.iS'.1 •+", ..n'Jei::/'iwwr•�+ i,-L., :' •k 5 - '-r,-..
Cer 1.~10 +'y1.^a• •y• • .L' •7'. - •j:. rvt1:'.. .,-{v ::-. -
.i,. ..'.a1i •'f :• ,q•' ��.fS r3 ••••',...:-.
C QI.L�.(:�• t. . ., �. .1. c � y,.� •t • •1i(
:fir r" ....'.,-• :,_;:-.',,L .. r • d, . Weld • •'• •' •ice:,.;,,;:.-- l 4.+N.•.w.0 ci:r 1 '
. ,. Cu ie Co.ti1ctt• and nary E. Corlett.*.* 'In joint Tanhncy -
- e .s • '• • %• C. ,,rc3 :, l"Jelct`r . • ,r.^9 w cf.. : .
Cam•_^ rZ°t? "3 .3 • • ! T'
•�,• �•._•._...• -i.f._:t-:21 :t t61:3 m-t -,".=a LIP••. ,-7:nct a
ion uo'11aza• a~fd other good and valued considerations yci3" �^3,
• b t y t2 t.' L`-- "�:t tz h..� 1...--.2.2 Cj La ,. 1 :a c: r-2.--1,t. r.. ? c7:.: .,c1
t b''-..-7--: r c..---z- 2 a:.--,r.-.2---Z..„----13,ta n ' t,...-".;-5.-3, ....-=-.."------1, =al -.1 a-'-;mot, e.:-.3 Li s --'-
I Ca O3 ir-� ,,.�,c::],c...'%:,J►rte.) e_..^'.2 �.•-c^3 c 1] -'.;.-:.= c2 C a c .7.---t1 =„t fa �=.=7 is t
c-__..-1*,.2 S f,-•-s '--^-7.Ca r!z el 1:.' ,ter ^�=I: 3�.-•a=4 ems..al 1=r1>wnhoz Z....,..,/,..r, E
CI ...— .r._"_..cl:.� cz 9 c3 -L=3,r. ,a. —• tw3 4.1 tie
C.- c2 Weld > 1z --.. acam.—.t . • .
That part of the N.31 of Section' 1?,'io:-rn hip 1 North of Range 68
' --'•g. •.:_-t•7 yt.of the 6th P. N. , d_ncribed ns follows: Beginning at, the North-
* ''%. rest corner of said Section thence South along the test line of said
Section 1, 849.5, feet, thence East 2,631.3 feet, more or less, along
that and West fence as now constructed to the North and South
half Eacticn line of said Section; thence North along said half Sec-
tion lie 1,831.3 root• to the North quarter corner of said Section; -
thence Hest along the North line of said Section 2,631.5 feet to the
point of beginning; containing 111.17 acres more or less; together
- ulth all ditch mid water rights in any pray connected with or apper-
tainirig to said land, including 10.94 shares of the capital stock of
the Far=ier Reservoir and lrr at t on Company.
,a - - •. ?c:5 r',.1 c y t.- -- zi t;.,-..-_-------2 i_•••.• . ;•, ••••-'1%';!--e• Cr Pl :,,,'
C.4 +•ww., ,:.7.:,.'..-...,:'—`---4—.—:`,.-:-.-1:—. ..=:.-.7� 4 _e‘------1::::—:..—.....s N c. ►.. 4v.W '��••T y c_t... $ t...c:Z.- la
rz7=yy}�.: ,r.^..�: .1 ft:$t._s r,♦����^�",,.___1 r.-----. -4 t-:N t Yom-_-_:F�.`��--'$•�«9,�^�,,.."."'""' , p�
rY.,, r._1.7 ter+/I'D—i.M✓4..a r-'11.,_ -' sc.1-.1,7..a t...._,--...-2...•_:-----3=1'..+�..�v'�,w._...].. ..- �---=I=It,
=:-.3;".%-----.-- Q.2,. 1---" =;.: c?',.»- ,t: -t -7. "...!.....$:_...'� 1......:__.1c2 c-- -.':_•_es,^ -
c`.s.I_•.:.1 C. :=...-%1r;=12:1 c2 C12 c-.t L_.:a,c .-..or car P her t"-±-3, ----.- r. .'--''''3a..•,-
• 3 r ,;= •"— .' '3r-L3eSp c ?t1,:_...-1. .=.2,w.. =•-7-=-7=ci
:a≥:.-�_. 47....
_s `_s_.g 4.i-�, ...... 1 ,1...-+.y."!,'.J a s,c.�u...rr•---^-•t.r r` 'i es al Lr_a
f.- 4-'sv ses.•.,, t� �
r fi 1,tzl ,„»7 "---"1,e.:_-3 3 c=3 ,.,:...,`-4'. —i..:. .'r'`.....ti'.-`.. ,
c=fic.tt...: -.]c ,.---........ 1..•x•-3 C.t+`�» L I.... .1- - it - -�' 1�1 f.a���w►.'."3 r."`..l C3 L�"y' s-..'4 L-hillV •
V . U cr.-1. -1.1 clear e�tse,-.i 011 and x.►f•-•er cal Reservations Hof Record.
- ." 1 ti__---3�'^'<4...J°`...�' c: !c=1 °-"S•, __..d Cl ns.^.�' v:.:�.::J ci t?:•.'^^4 `Q. `�
c,,,_:-.6 a^ '-= •--t-7.%--_,:-3-- ',1----'--3+�..'- =...___.1,---- c+G---3.......--:::=7.4,...--.4......--,:� e-�L --f es u---`s
P—"•-""j c.1-.....as.,-;== ^y=` ^t"--'s= -.;7'E=2 CI.- --..-7--'-...t.. =i i c2 fry C=2;;r.:3' .::'..�v.
•
...-7--------?f-`.)a.•......•-.»..:r--..i..:. .
Q.ra..�.,..._-J,1.. ! a :s c3 C ' 3,:-.':3 s�.v s tL h e. c J -
' �4.m r+a�._g a•as ^- 1,e/
'..!?�'.�-a �, �1 !7,—�e3
I I.
r'r.:�? I
J.
.------- ,_..-.........., p I:
•
/I./7f .. !,,
•
•
.-r._
/ ^•... y.:i.:,..,..;. ...,;/...„;;•.,,,.......•.....f...........-..›..,,,.....,.........-.•....h.N
•
. l's*" f ..../.. •. �'. _.---_..._...-....__-�_._.._..__ors_•_- '--�•— r * �.�.^.._ ✓�,
5iJt��J 1;^L'01't!'d 4� K ��CC•s•—d=:---Li LIAR
/� 1,T-75
�^[[.•�' ♦ _r
p� ' t__: 2 jv L(J '' ; il 2: No ANN� ^ L d T1313 D .D, Made elle 7th day of beta-tea SusieCorlett and Jary�"7nA b, formttrCh 'IDerl .'�`�, x -
. . ).ary E. Corlett, •et e.t Ca_mt of AtiPPei
' coiorxo, of the first part,and •
eta��'�c3 '
I
William N. Shone braAr and Austin .
P.
Stonsbraher •
E
of theComity of AdIIIe8
` of Colorado,c3 the recaad part: I; '
a?"3,that the raid p.r• -of the Earn per;for rrd is em er .
t c Y Ly nem el
•
I. Ten and no/100
and other ...�_,...�.._. t
Lid end calnable co=idmsticr�tot a raid --••"�•• the o d �"33.♦
ts1 eecond;itrt,the receipt bl cowhereof is Pastry^-4 t�;tarn re..et is F�+�zm'�by mk7 a=--r'.'-s c3
and b7 t*�e p: --nt9 does and e T+sw�-3,L�#�s-_ � _
:..3 cod and ttee p o f is do S c � +n,cell, ceme y end c r*z-m tr?o the rod elr ]e stl
t� "- !in C".�..et racer-1' 1 ��er
parcel of r ..
of Colorado,to.wit:
a:' I �e"'3� in et
.'1 ^3�' t T73r3 c 5 `e
t cy w .nomcr:Tzt cl rote-C'3 "J,:z,s C^-"",?•'I♦... 1 ri♦'� ')d u„': oS}'wt r
ti" .—;, c z. C Cw41J.r.',.-t-y-4....4.... t`--� •C � s2 £`r '•-e71-, C C y F� :w
x ..1 Cam'f. , A,E'i33.`3 con, {��.�e ^°` t, `^ f-4J a ''3 ^ �v � K *'" •. i
$�. ��3e�.t L`ST�1M 2 2�, p. en i+S.MC^"S`� fcA'! -••••"......h �:,�j :',' ?:
S .,-7,1,.,u :ir. : �eIY v'_a q 8.t-e 3,gZ.s fee.; y.-.' ; 0.21.'3*— Lw°-e 1.12. L'-9 :.� - .
.4. yy feet Mat the Lam^,.] E�^g cCt 1s�sl i..'.."•!_-3-4•Z y3 r-;►i '; c"_,..; 2::
` -^, less?to t,_ va',J -^ . ; ontz► titz?:t iz.ae3'7 _ �G . ; ::-•_:,:s t,--7, f.::
:���;7: .,i,, %•' , 1039 t r '.t�l d'.ILcr1 rc4 trAtzc;• -•2...'1,,3 n L:""�C'.1� ^`1.yf..,tf:_ .'yr' i
a .i "s IttuA.�� - f3 L'!M 7r f�, r-� "l L?y- C a. `..Y.::',-:11:::'::0:;%2.;::::.::'
•_, ..•s ,--:.... ..ii:':,
031 1 C')? tom* b�3 c"ti 3 'Jp`^F'�a�3,�3 C1 e3 f� ; `" ;_- = '
iti • c.r eta mil I:?.;rr-'t];A+v,rr...nta. P•7,-,v, t<; `',,_:' ,.t.:.....7-•11_1.,_.-•r rt.�Se . ' • {
,.;
I all t estate,:felt,tae,in to eaS and Gtr_ cost _ =• t T»s t fe. .7; m• ;•T.'
equity, f,in and b the mbar"2Yt1"'sit_•d . `•_'�I -'`tJ t�s..'-'3S 1''.,t:L•�'ct 1'1 T '' is . .
I TO�17ii APiO O EO];D es saa1-py sn with the��e ��^^ ss^�t]�•*_•Y .Y•� • • '•t;'.
E! asld pO 12A of the eecoaeJchore bsr�'3ired and� cribed,with to
1 • ,.
part,their LYirs and ,.as furs Add Ha a 'r`�*x°�'zeta the
! t4m,csee•�sorc,ted > n °*are, d^ra w Y'sr`ti7 c1 t`x+T.S 1"�',fcs ',..-...z10_.1,E�
I t,L^�b kar„s_�t r r„�z-e b t cr'3 t
I nd part,Lb-4r r: nth ramie,that at the time oft e P•w.•.7is._ L. �l Fm 's c2 the _
e Premix,above eon,t,c,as of geed,core,re--feet,,r.-bee2'nee -rJ le t. i'r. ..hm-te,Le.in Ic .r,
fee simple,and t�s coed rL:b2,tall and i_ .�� es�'a cf iri+ i, ?
Deem.and Z]rfj au�^t in grow%,Yea-.,i,a 'L"3 -a L.1 L] r. '.:.,;::,
cad fora afore-ad,rod that the name�free cod e�••T f en fer- el c41:-• �' r.^•-' z-_-;_z_.—n•
s
tcjes,s.. .tmeaM and tbrcr-c,.S' oft ars I er rmtaeo "� `z e _.1-..,-....-.. ,=lee,j.-.�. ..
year I6 Payable in 167 • ` except uses fat- t';')
' •>_ wY • •-..'• rJ .---,:.:;',---,7----,i, G-t-',';'''',"-
+.•• -•„,..-;:, ,,,,`...,:',-.A; -::..••••r.'77•:••.9�*7. r• 't{•- ;31-'r\..vs,. r �r. rf {.... ti....;ai<'�
••a•4Ji+�.».sa ,.!?_t;'.4',• L��•L ,.1.. ;tom•- ,; y -r' r. .4i
end t t>2Jf,'re�++L'iir.1!d P�„t.'.y'"r3 Cl t'!�" t^'..tfued ,e..,..2,•, s-ii•'� .'r e -•�..,t,,. , r _:.,rte - .,Sq^:'fit
L nd the ofabler,
these,their i!._+w�+„!end et):L•`S3 E`� '"-.--• es to tS� .�`]of tS' i..,•,-,�cart,t - •:'::•'.:•••1-,E.3;':,-.
'
AND FOILVTM b.417.1tThidt3ziL.s or to claim L�erti..o's er rmy 1 L f,t.S mid z tl t --a'! n c" :m-j L"-rrt es Ir_r`c
a"' .•'u?� -_ I s~ rrJ m3 C7� IY • F...1.'.%-:'
r .•. -
C�der}r.'n2I be cP.,1��to all ' �' C'a ,t_y fir,]ta ^'-�z,r_ t t4s c2'rmy
1 :. !►'
L`I '=T9 '''O?the eaad i
•
fiat 17 7i t/::»�. rtJ cf ne fleet p.'•S bee L_ / :�'..
•
—ar2b z c-_It��pdTM_s - j•-
�sti^^d.`,i' -d end D--1i7 i3 Ole t 1.%€;:"',,_..Z.
1 • , -
a of � �
•
N�L e�k.::<r p,�) ILIUM.5 I !
Cr•-..t...-7 of /J-T •
orlett
,...:2;,"-V:.•°'",•-..,),„=',...,_', s cr ce . nary C .19 69
;API �.,-• 'Y �r' l� 7 .Wile.:.17 ray ha.^d r.._ afrzr212 5.."12. _
3 -=��- -____ j
ti 7y. Q ..-\.1
'' C�� l Y1 rr, iti • f
•' T i tit��t~' f i
^�S ,,: tir r> —fib ;raeS,_ — y'.,
•S!M rr!�ea! P..obt ,r,;♦. .C: •j 1=st3:set fi`-�-t*t++ne.;C:?..rs _ -
e!:OR:to• .,y_I1•.. i tI_•-,'-,.,or D`:-+•,, 11 x1writ'f 7.7,..:11t*?.,, j _:1 cr•-;r^-•re r-:t♦-- h 1+rir.r•,,,.yt2-"a
•i 1y 1�.•a 1- r-a;-•>et r:
c1 o f nt or 4-!.."•e-,--, •�.7•;►•_y-•t cr o••.-e�-.ef:y or es o:It or;;c r.er or
• _4:4--•-:,-.1.1‹,"-r4,-4.1.R::. 2.-,x•1 Cc:o'aro T;---e-1 Lr•,c, ''�ra �tC?Ct' eY et-v.71 1,1.7n:It by c•,.� �c
I .+J. rr-J Ccrrcr1.-.4 a:M:.'3 IL—.,.a.x� S.
• .a
i •••• ;=.• R•,
r -.11.,......,._
September30 , 1976
Mr. Glen Billings, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
Weld County Centennial center
915 10th Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Re: Amoco Production Company
Re-Zoning Application
Dear Mr. Billings:
I am an undivided 1/12 of net income mineral interest -owner
in the NW/4 of Section 12, T1N, R68W, Weld County, Colorado. I
leased this mineral interest to a private party on June 27, 1-972
(recorded in Book 673, 'Reception No. 1595011 , Weld County Records).
It has been brought to my attention by the present owner of the
lease, Amoco Production Company, that Amoco has applied for rezoning
of a five-acre tract of land in the NE/4 NW/A of the above section,
in order to permit the drilling of a well thereon. Z have further
been -informed that their application has been opposed by the owners
of the surface of that tract, -Austin P. Stonebraker, William N.
Stonebraker, and Stoneco, Inc.
I would like to inform you that I fully support all _efforts
of -Amoco to obtain a change of the zoning in order to permit the
mineral development on the tract of land in which I have a mineral
int-erest. My failure to appear at the hearing on Amoco's -applica-
tion does not indicate my opposition or indifference to that
application. On the contrary, being a mineral owner, I seek the
development of such minerals, and under the lease I have given on
this property, the mineral lessee or his assignee, Amoco has the
exclusive right to represent my interest at the nearing and to
apply for the rezoning of the five-acre tract.
In addition, if I had known in 1968 that the Stonebrakers
were going to obtain a rezoning that prevents oil and gas develop-
ment, and were going to attempt to permanently obstruct such
development and effectively condemn my property, then I would
have opposed the Stonebrakers' rezoning application at -that time.
However, I never received any notice of the Stonebrakers ' appli-
cation for rezoning.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
4W21 Davis
October AV, 1976
OCT 2 1 1916
Mr . Glen Billings, Chairman tfr rent'
Board of County Commissioners c .
Weld County Centennial Center
915 10th Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Amoco Production Company
Re-Zoning Application
Dear Mr . Billings :
I am an undivided 1/192 mineral interest owner in the NW/4
of Section 12, T1N, R68W, Weld County, Colorado. I leased
this mineral interest to a private party on June 27 , 1972
(recorded in Book 677 , Reception No.1599007 , Weld County
Records) . It has been brought to my attention by the present
owner of the lease, Amoco Production Company, that Amoco
has applied for rezoning of a five-acre tract of land in
the NE/4 NW/4 of the above section, in order to permit the
drilling of a well thereon. I have further teen informed
that their application has been opposed by the owners of
the surface of that tract, Austin P. Stonebraker , William
N. Stonebraker , and Stoneco, Inc.
I would like to inform you that I fully support all efforts
of Amoco to obtain a change of the zoning in order to permit
the mineral development on the tract of land in which I
have a mineral interest. My failure to appear at the hearing
on Amoco' s application does not indicate my opposition or
indifference to that application. On the contrary, being
a mineral owner , I seek the development of such minerals,
and under the lease I have given on this property, the mineral
lessee or his assignee, Amoco has the exclusive right to
represent my interest at the hearing and to apply for the
rezoning of the five-acre tract .
In addition, if I had known in 1968 that the Stonebrakers
were going to obtain a rezoning that prevents oil and gas
development, and were going to attempt to permanently obstruct
such development and effectively condemn my property, then
I would have opposed the Stonebrakers ' rezoning application
at that time. However , I never received any notice of the
Stonebrakers ' application for rezoning .
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Elaine A. Tunstall
September a7,7, 1976
Mr. Glen Billings, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
Weld County Centennial Center
915 10th Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Re: Amoco Production Company
Re-Zoning Application
Dear Mr. Billings:
I am an undivided 1/192 mineral interest owner in the NW/4
of Section 12, T1N, R68W, Weld County, Colorado. I leased this
mineral interest to a private party on June 27, 1972 (recorded in
Book 672, Reception No. 1593884, Weld County Records). It has
been brought to my attention by the present owner of the lease,
Amoco Production Company, that Amoco has applied for rezoning of
a five-acre tract of land in the NE/4 NW/4 of the above section,
in order to permit the drilling of a well thereon. I have further
been informed that their application has been opposed by the
owners of the surface of that tract, Austin P. Stonebraker,
William N. Stonebraker, and Stoneco, Inc.
I would like to inform you that I fully support all efforts
of Amoco to obtain a change of the zoning in order to permit the
mineral development on the tract of land in which I have a mineral
interest. My failure to appear at the hearing on Amoco's applica-
tion does not indicate my opposition or indifference to that
application. On the contrary, being a mineral owner, I seek the
development of such minerals, and under the lease I have given on
this property, the mineral lessee or his assignee, Amoco has the
exclusive right to represent my interest at the hearing and to
apply for the rezoning of the five-acre tract.
In addition, if I had known in 1968 that the Stonebrakers
were going to obtain a rezoning that prevents oil and gas develop-
ment, and were going to attempt to permanently obstruct such
development and effectively condemn my property, then I would
have opposed the Stonebrakers' rezoning application at that time.
However, I never received any notice of the Stonebrakers ' appli-
cation for rezoning.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
,e ms61
Alma I. Davis
September ar7, 1976
Mr. Glen Billings, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
Weld County Centennial Center
915 10th Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Re: Amoco Production Company
Re-Zoning Application
Dear Mr. Billings:
I am an undivided 1/192 mineral interest owner in the NW/4
of Section 12, T1N, R68W, Weld County, Colorado. I leased this
mineral interest to a private party on June 27, 1972 (recorded in
Book 672, Reception No. 1593884, Weld County Records) . It has
been brought to my attention by the present owner of the lease,
Amoco Production Company, that Amoco has applied for rezoning of
a five-acre tract of land in the NE/4 NW/4 of the above section,
in order to permit the drilling of a well thereon. I have further
been informed that their application has been opposed by the
owners of the surface of that tract, Austin P. Stonebraker, William
N. Stonebraker, and Stoneco, Inc.
I would like to inform you that I fully support all efforts
of Amoco to obtain a change of the zoning in order to permit the
mineral development on the tract of land in which I have a mineral
interest. My failure to appear at the hearing on Amoco's applica-
tion does not indicate my opposition or indifference to that
application. On the contrary, being a mineral owner, I seek the
development of such minerals, and under the lease I have given on
this property, the mineral lessee or his assignee, Amoco has the
exclusive right to represent my interest at the hearing and to
apply for the rezoning of the five-acre tract.
In addition, if I had known in 1968 that the Stonebrakers
were going to obtain a rezoning that prevents oil and gas develop-
ment, and were going to attempt to permanently obstruct such
development and effectively condemn my property, then I would
have opposed the Stonebrakers' rezoning application at that time.
However, I never received any notice of the Stonebrakers ' appli-
cation for rezoning.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
./1 kJ; ti
Erma E. D ilkes
September,29, 1976
Mr. Glen Billings, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
Weld County Centennial Center
915 10th Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Re: Amoco Production Company
Re-Zoning Application
Dear Mr. Billings:
I am an undivided 1/96 mineral interest owner in the NW/4
of Section 12, T1N, R68W, Weld County, Colorado. I leased this
mineral interest to a private party on June 27, 1972 (recorded in
Book 672, Reception No. 1593867, Weld County Records). It has
been brought to my attention by the present owner of the lease,
Amoco Production Company, that Amoco has applied for rezoning of
a five-acre tract of land in the NE/4 NW/4 of the above section, in
order to permit the drilling of a well thereon. I have further
been informed that their application has been opposed by the owners
of the surface of that tract, Austin P. Stonebraker, William N.
Stonebraker, and Stoneco, Inc.
I would like to inform you that I fully support all efforts
of Amoco to obtain a change of the zoning in order to permit the
mineral development on the tract of land in which I have a mineral
interest. My failure to appear at the hearing on Amoco's applica-
tion does not indicate my opposition or indifference to that
application. On the contrary, being a mineral owner, I seek the
development of such minerals, and under the lease I have given on
this property, the mineral lessee or his assignee, Amoco has the
exclusive right to represent my interest at the hearing and to
apply for the rezoning of the five-acre tract.
In addition, if I had known in 1968 that the Stonebrakers
were going to obtain a rezoning that prevents oil and gas develop-
ment, and were going to attempt to permanently obstruct such
development and effectively condemn my property, then I would
have opposed the Stonebrakers' rezoning application at that time.
However, I never received any notice of the Stonebrakers' appli-
cation for rezoning.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Faye E. Brown
September 1i/, 1976
SEP 2 71976
IAw n=or
Mr. Glen Billings, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners u�ravtr:, coi_4���,r�o
Weld County Centennial Center _
915 10th Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Re: Amoco Production Company
Re-Zoning Application
Dear Mr. Billings:
I am an undivided 1/6 mineral interest owner in the NW/4
of Section 12, T1N, R68W, Weld County, Colorado. I leased this
mineral interest to a private party on May 10, 1972 (recorded in
Book 672, Reception No. 1593876, Weld County Records) . It has
been brought to my attention by the present owner of the lease,
Amoco Production Company, that Amoco has applied for rezoning of a
five-acre tract of land in the NE/4 NW/4 of the above section, in
order to permit the drilling of a well thereon. I have further
been informed that their application has been opposed by the
owners of the surface of that tract, Austin P. Stonebraker,
William N. Stonebraker, and Stoneco, Inc.
I would like to inform you that I fully support all efforts
of Amoco to obtain a change of the zoning in order to permit the
mineral development on the tract of land in whixh I have a mineral
interest. My failure to appear at the hearing on Amoco's applica-
tion does not indicate my opposition or indifference to that
application. On the contrary, being a mineral owner, I seek the
development of such minerals, and under the lease I have given on
this property, the mineral lessee or his assignee, Amoco has the
exclusive right to represent my interest at the hearing and to
apply for the rezoning of the five-acre tract.
In addition, if I had known in 1968 that the Stonebrakers
were going to obtain a rezoning that prevents oil and gas develop-
ment, and were going to attempt to permanently obstruct such
development and effectively condemn my property, then I would
have opposed the Stonebrakers ' rezoning application at that time.
However, I never received any notice of the Stonebrakers ' appli-
cation for rezoning.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Stella McFadden
September jb 1976
ruC`
Mr. Glen Billings, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners SEP2 7_ ) 1
Weld County Centennial Center LAW n.-, ,
915 10th Street -
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Re: Amoco Production Company
Re-Zoning Application
Dear Mr. Billings:
I am an undivided 1/3 mineral interest owner in the NW/4
of Section 12, TIN, R68W, Weld County, Colorado. I leased this
mineral interest to a private party on May 25, 1972 (recorded in
Book 673, Reception No. 1595015, Weld County Records) . It has
been brought to my attention by the present owner of the lease,
Amoco Production Company, that Amoco has applied for rezoning of
a five-acre tract of land in the NE/4 NW/4 of the above section,
in order to permit the drilling of a well thereon. I have further
been informed that their application has been opposed by the owners
of the surface of that tract, Austin P. Stonebraker, William N.
Stonebraker, and Stoneco, Inc.
I would like to inform you that I fully support all efforts
of Amoco to obtain a change of the zoning in order to permit the
mineral development on the tract of land in which I have a mineral
interest. My failure to appear at the hearing on Amoco's applica-
tion does not indicate my opposition or indifference to that
application. On the contrary, being a mineral owner, I seek the
development of such minerals, and under the lease I have given on
this property, the mineral lessee or his assignee, Amoco has the
exclusive right to represent my interest at the hearing and to
apply for the rezoning of the five acre tract.
In addition, if I had known in 1968 that the Stonebrakers
were going to obtain a rezoning that prevents oil and gas develop-
ment, and were going to attempt to permanently obstruct such
development and effectively condemn my property, then I would
have opposed the Stonebrakers' rezoning application at that time.
However, I never received any notice of the Stonebrakers ' appli-
cation for rezoning.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
i4 t- ,t Lc /
Natalie Steitz
September 23, 1976
r-----Titperf'/r
Mr. Glen Billings, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners SEP 2 71976
Weld County Centennial Center
915 10th Street t.:'>s Dr-rt.
Greeley, Colorado 80631
uPiVe P cOL0Ra.i;0
Re: Amoco Production Company
Re-Zoning Application
Dear Mr. Billings:
I am an undivided 1/96 mineral interest owner in the NW/4
of Section 12, T1N, R68W, Weld County, Colorado. I leased this
mineral interest to a private party on June 27, 1972 (recorded in
Book 672, Reception No. 1593867, Weld County Records). It has
been brought to my attention by the present owner of the lease,
Amoco Production Company, that Amoco has applied for rezoning of
a five-acre tract of land in the NE/4 NW/4 of the above section,
in order to permit the drilling of a well thereon. I have further
been informed that their application has been opposed by the
owners of the surface of that tract, Austin P. Stonebraker,
William N. Stonebraker, and Stoneco, Inc.
I would like to inform you that I fully support all efforts
of Amoco to obtain a change of the zoning in order to permit the
mineral development on the tract of land in which I have a mineral
interest. My failure to appear at the hearing on Amoco's applica-
tion does not indicate my opposition or indifference to that
application. On the contrary, being a mineral owner, I seek the
development of such minerals, and under the lease I have given on
this property, the mineral lessee or his assignee, Amoco has the
exclusive right to represent my interest at the hearing and to
apply for the rezoning of the five-acre tract.
In addition, if I had known in 1968 that the Stonebrakers
were going to obtain a rezoning that prevents oil and gas develop-
ment, and were going to attempt to permanently obstruct such
development and effectively condemn my property, then I would
have opposed the Stonebrakers ' rezoning application at that time.
However, I never received any notice of the Stonebrakers ' appli-
cation for rezoning.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
ce
Ada L. Gibson
September 2), 1976
Mr. Glen Billings, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
Weld County Centennial Center
915 10th Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Re: Amoco Production Company
Re-Zoning Application
Dear Mr. Billings:
I am an undivided 1/24 mineral interest owner in the NW/4
of Section 12, TIN, R68W, Weld County, Colorado. I leased this
mineral interest to a private party on May 19, 1972 (recorded in
Book 672, Reception No. 1593878, Weld County Records) . It has
been brought to my attention by the present owner of the lease,
Amoco Production Company, that Amoco has applied for rezoning of
a five-acre tract of land in the NE/4 NW/4 of the above section,
in order to permit the drilling of a well thereon. I have further
been informed that their application has been opposed by the
owners of the surface of that tract, Austin P. Stonebraker, Willianh
N. Stonebraker, and Stoneco, Inc.
I would like to inform you that I fully support all efforts
of Amoco to obtain a change of the zoning in order to permit the
mineral development on the tract of land in which I have a mineral
interest. My failure to appear at the hearing on Amoco's applica-
tion does not indicate my opposition or indifference to that
application. On the contrary, being a mineral owner, I seek the
development of such minerals, and under the lease I have given on
this property, the mineral lessee or his assignee, Amoco has the
exclusive right to represent my interest at the hearing and to
apply for the rezoning of the five-acre tract.
In addition, if I had known in 1-968 that the Stonebrakers
were going to obtain a rezoning that prevents oil and gas develop-
ment, and were going to attempt to permanently obstruct such
development and effectively condemn my property, then I would
have opposed the Stonebrakers' rezoning application at that time.
However, I never received any notice of the Stonebrakers '//
appli-
_�a'ttnctonezon�-�g / / / _..
' r • _
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
6,1
i Nelson R. Davis J u74--
: 'Y .:: 'tir',l r �•
i
September 7 Z; 1976
Mr. Glen Billings, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
Weld County Centennial Center
915 10th Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Re: Amoco Production Company
Re-Zoning Application
Dear Mr. Billings:
I am an undivided 1/3 mineral interest owner in the NW/4
of Section 12, T1N, R68W, Weld County, Colorado. I leased this
mineral interest to a private party on May 20, 1972 (recorded in
Book 672, Reception No. 1593883, Weld County Records) . It has
been brought to my attention by the present owner of the lease,
Amoco Production Company, that Amoco has applied for rezoning of
a five-acre tract of land in the NE/4 NW/4 of the above section,
in order to permit the drilling of a well thereon. I have further
been informed that their application has been opposed by the
owners of the surface of that tract, Austin P. Stonebraker,
William N. Stonebraker, and Stoneco, Inc.
I would like to inform you that I fully support all efforts
of Amoco to obtain a change of the zoning in order to permit the
mineral development on the tract of land in which I have a mineral
interest. My failure to appear at the hearing on Amoco's applica-
tion does not indicate my opposition or indifference to that
application. On the contrary, being a mineral owner, I seek the
development of such minerals, and under the lease I have given on
this property, the mineral lessee or his assignee, Amoco has the
exclusive right to represent my interest at the hearing and to
apply for the rezoning of the five-acre tract.
In addition, if I had known in 1968 that the Stonebrakers
were going to obtain a rezoning that prevents oil and gas develop-
ment, and were going to attempt to permanently obstruct such
development _and effectively condemn my property, then I would
have opposed the Stonebrakers ' rezoning application at that time.
However, I never received any notice of the Stonebrakers ' appli-
cation for rezoning.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely, L(ituElizabeth W. Graham
__ I
, -7--i, ,_,7,_, , , ie.,..,.,.,,,_.:,_ :
otrzyc-77 oii--( .1--ii-2---u
ayVk(/
4/
N
t-\ C-C7 t f21 ler74-9
k 7 t6 t/, CM r7V -9 Ipu-2
71,Vit --/ 1 I
• - c...t7 ,fir, ' ✓r-itef t
cj yo, ,,,,,( K /1-42,i zrA 2---_„„ ,"7„,,o,„,
A/-iwidi/ A7 ,-- c,--_ ,-, Yzary2), a,
� / /4
-fiM., __:,/ 7T,
r3:1 Atu_74_,, c;, ,,,,,, ,,,,
y---,7-2,
iii-ele , '10)
e,,,,,)4 dote( 791 L4C //v Lk't/lam--O( ar:/tiI c
S-12AeL 20Ql dc7
�
//444 4Z%` ced,Ofrivdi e-24frt
ZAAA--e, LF)12
/41 01 '774:*/ ZZ
LAA-40 pAAAA
tiAfruc
tttit-re Ace,CL._
` \ Application No. (7i-
•
Date of filing j0,07
Processing Fee -� YeC.
APPLICATI0!v FOR REZ0Wl!G
field County, Color,::dt,
Application is hereby made to the Board of County Comri.:,;ioners of .;old County, Colorad' to
rezone the following described property now in Agr:icultugning district to Industrial
soning district:
(Description of Property) That part of the Nwy of Sec. 12, Twp 1 North of Range 68
:lest of the 6th P.M., described as follows: Beginning at- the NW corner of said.
Section thence South along the West line of 'said Sections 1849.5 feet, _ hence_East
2631.3 feet, more or less, along the East and West fence as now constructed to the
North anc9 grin HI half Sect-ior 1 jnes_of °rr-t.aan; thence Nar-th—a-long
Section line 1831.3 feet to the North Quarter corner of said Section; thence West
alorry the Nor. Lh line of Sect-on-•-2G-31.5 feet rig;—cbrr-
taining 111.17 acres more or less
•
•
The reasons for requesting such a reclassification•are as follows:
To manufacture and produce scatter gun shells and other pyrotechnic
devices,
On the back of this page is a list of all owners of property located within 500 feet of the
area proposed to be reclassified.
Accompanying this application is a map showing the existing land use of property y,/ithin 500 •
feet of the area proposed to be reclassified.
Also accompanying this application is n petition supporting this proposed rezoning and sign-
ed by owners of percent of the property located within 500 feet of the area plo--
posed to be reclassified.
•
Respectfully submitted this ,%4_ day of October , Igb 7 -
c/o Pehr and Newman �� 1
Mailing Address 3380 West 72nd Ave.
Westmins_ g,r Colorado
Telephone No. __4_29_35.w i--. 40 (9ignature of Applic t)
(over) •
•
PC - Z-001 c'/ ��_
•
•
Charles F. Leppla, Jr. , 4720 Marshall St., Wheatridge, Colorado 80033
•Fern_ Wikstrand, Carl A Miller and Helen Grant, c/o Howard Grant,
Longmont, Colorado 80501
Clifford R. Haller and Vera L Haller, Rte 1, Box 119, Erie, Colorado
Estate of Thos. W. Cosslett, 710 - 5th Ave. , Longmont, Colorado 80501
Orville F. Hagen and Jacquelynn R Hagen, c/o Flanders, McCarty & Wood,
1st National Bank Bldg. , Longmont, Colorado
• Harold E. Heil and Dorothy Heil (Z interest) and Alice M. Heil (2 interest)
1041 Corey St. , Longmont, Colorado.
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS CONCERNING REZONING PETITION OF WILLIAM N. STONEBRAKER
AND AUSTIN P. STONEBRAKER •
1. Is it impractical, impossible, or undesirable to develop the land
according to its current zoning classification?
ANSWER: Yes.
2. Would the proposed rezoning benefit the entire County by allowing
a type of development which is needed and cahoot locate in other
parts of the County?
. ANSWERS: Yes.
3. Would the _proposed rezoning benefit lands adjoining the area
requesting the change?
ANSWERS: Yes.
•
4. What features apply to the property requesting rezoning which
make it logical to rezone this tract and not to rezone in a
similar manner surrounding properties which may have like land
use characteristics.
ANSWER: The proximity of railroads, highways and ease accessibility.
5. Why are other areas in the County already zoned according to the
requested classification, unsuitable for the development which is
proposed.
ANSWER: This land is easily reached by highway and railroad
for shipping and the terrain makes it practical to
build the types of buildings necessary to house the
manufacturing plant, and to properly safeguard the
storage areas and manufacturing area.
6. What proof or evidence is available that the original zoning is
faulty or that changing conditions in the area justify rezoning
at this time?
ANSWER: The entire area is gradually changing from agriculture
to industry and commercial, and said changes are bringing
additional economic wealth into the area and county by
increased tax base and increased employment
Weld County Planning Department Service:, _Building, Greeley, Colo.
FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT USE ONLY CASE NUMBER: _--
PC HEARING DATE: M_
SEC: TWP RANGE: CC HEARING DATE:
LAND CODE:
T: S: 1/4 : KEY:
SUBTIV CODE:
SUB: BLK: LOT: KEY:
REFER TO: REZONING FEE:
1) _ Date: APP. CHECKED BY:
2) Date: _ REC. NO. :
3) Date: LEGAL DESC. APPROVAL:
4) Date:
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROCEDURAL GUIDE REQUIREMENTS:
print or type only, except for neessary signatures.
t I (we) , the undersigned, hereby request a hearing before the Weld County
Planning Commission concerning proposed rezoning of .the following described
unincorporated area of Weld County: LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
A tract of 5. 007 acres located in the NE/4
NW/-4 of Section 12 , Township 1 North, Range
68 West, 6th Principal Meridian, Weld County,
Colorado, being more particularly describ=e'd.
as follows, to-wit:
Commencing at the North quarter corner of
Section 12, thence Westerly along the North
line of the NE/4 NW/4 of Section 12 a distance
of 203 feet to a point, thence. South parallel
to the East line of the NE/4 NW/4 of Section 12
a distance of 203 feet to the point of begin--
ning. Thence South parallel to the East line
of the NE/4 NW/4 a distance of 467 feet, thence
West parallel to the South line of the NE/4 NW/4
a :distance of 467 feet, thence North parallel to
• the -West line of the NE/4 NW/4 a distance of
• 467 feet, thence East parallel to the North
line of the NE/4 NW/4 a distance of 467 feet
. to the point of beginning. .
•
STREET LOCATION: . N/A
PRESENT ZONE Industrial PROPOSED ZONE Agricultural APPROX AREA: 5 acres
PURPOSE: Oil and gas drilling and production operations
IS THIS AREA PLATTED: YES ( ) NO (X) . IF PLATTED, NAME OF PLAT:
IS THIS AREA TO BE PLATTED: YES -( ) NO (X) . IF ANSWER IS YES, HAS PLAT BEE^?,,_,
SUBMITTED: YES ( ). NO ( ) . -
LESSEE OF OIL AND GAS IN AND UNDER AREA PROPOSED FOR REZONING
NAME: Amoco Production Company ADDRESS: Security Life Bldg.TEL:
Denver, Colorado 80202
NAME: ADDRESS: TEL:
NAME: ADDRESS: 1'EL:
I hereby depose and state under the penalties of perjury that all statements,
proposals and/or plans submitted with or contained within this application
are true and correct to the best of my knowle ge.
AMOC ' RODL OMPANY
-STATE OF COLORADO )
CITY AND : ss. • ;
COUNTY OF DENVER ) By _�" �•
is Att - -Fact
Subscribed and sworn to before me this?4, day f , 19X4 .
SEAI. _ •.
NOTARY PUB IC
My cornmi:�sion expires:
•
.. .
. .
J. .
NAMES OF uNNERS OF PRC ERTY WITHIN 5U0 FEET
• NAME • • • MAILING ADDRESS
N/2 NE/4 of Section 12; Sig/if of Section 1, liii, TZ68'd
Estate of Wilda J. Cosslett, Deceased %Fern H;,tha'say - 625 Pearl Stri:et _ -t..
' �3,hta.uii , Col VL acv M:.
. Estate or Effie E.. Tierney, Dece•••sed % Vivian I_ I:cp.:on.- 5t}f cDonald .Avenue ,='
. rleW it 'a i.�ornia 9 r)6u
. . Ines, Californi 9529, .5, ~Hai.•haway. $_
• • ' Gertrude Allen stns t V%�nnor Ant. 17 Sunset :Blvd.'
— _ t. ielens, Ore -on 97
Betty' Jean Cosslett Gilfrinsor. 160!)8 HE 26th Street • - • . h'
.. : 3�? ,e t;,T, 'J ,it.i.i�t;i.urr 138064
. • Richard Thoma€; Co:sl.et:t • 2O39 Howard Avenue, Apt 3
' Billings, 'Montana 391O2 • -•"
. . ... ,
.
•
6%2 MIA (Part), Section 12, TIN, R6N •
•
An' tin Stanebraker and William Stonebraker 5401 Forth Federal Blvd. ; -
Denver, Colorado. 80221 "' •. .
• Sti•1/+ SE/4 of Section 1, T.LU, R6Pti1
Robert A. ltoutchens and Lorna G. Houtchens 3765 South Jersey Street
' •
Denver, Colorado 80237
•
;:
;'fir;
`f•• (. • "•`-''nom`
.' . %
•
r
.
•
f
- r,'• •
•
•
•
1 • .
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
. • !+h,;r
Q. 1 . Is 1, impractical, impossible, or undesirable to
develop the land according to its current Zoning classification.
A. Yes. No oil and gas well drilling operations may be
-conducted in an industrial zone. .
Q. 2 . Would the proposed rezoning benefit the entire county
by allowing a typical development which is needed and cannot
locate in other parts of the county.
A. Yes. Oil and gas production is now taking place in this
area. The entire nation will benefit from the added production;
the county will also benefit from the additional revenue
derived from such activity.
Q. 3. Would the proposed rezoning benefit lands adjoining
the area requesting the change.
A. Yes.
Q. 4 . What features apply to the property requesting
rezoning which make it logical to rezone this tract and not
to rezone in a similar manner surrounding properties which may have like land use characteristics.
A. This tract is presently zoned industrial; no oil and gas
well drilling activity may be conducted. The surrounding
land is zoned agricultural, where such activity may
conducted.
Q. 5. Why are other areas in the county already zoned
according to the requested classification, unsuitable for
the development which is proposed.
A. Oil and gas development is carried on in an orderly
manner; the locations for oil and gas wells is determined by
the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation' Commission.
Q. 6. What proof of evidence is available that the original
rezoning is faulty or that changing conditions in the area
justify rezoning at this time.
A. Industrial zoning does not permit oil and gas well
drilling activity, but such activity is allowed in an agricultural
zone. This tract is included in the productive area for oil
and gas and operations onthis tract will allow the oil and
gas to be developed in accordance with the spacing pattern
developed by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.
Q. 7. -Please Submit Economic or other evidence that the
area covered by the petition needs additional commercial or
business in the area. (To be answered on changes requested
for business or Commercial) .
A. Not applicable.
•
Q. 8. .Give some evidence of the proposed business or
commercial enterprises that are to locate in the requested
area and a tentative time schedule for construction. (To be
answered on changes requested for Business or Commercial . )
A. Not applicable.
AMOCO ODU I N OMPANY
By
t ) t y-in-Fact
FIRECRACKER --
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING
BEFORE WELD COUNTY ZONING
COMMISSION, SEPTEMBER 7, 1976
MR. HEITMAN: Introductory remarks regarding procedure to be
followed through hearing.
DAVID BRODY: My name is David Brody, Attorney for Amoco
Production Company. I am accompanied here by Mr . Lou Gaskins
on my immediate left, also an attorney for Amoco Production
Company, and by an engineer from Amoco, John -Lang , who will
be presenting some expert testimony. Just as general background
information on the nature of our application, the coning
change that we have requested is from the existing industrial
zoning to agricultural, for the purpose of commencing and
drilling an oil or gas well at the proposed location, which
you earlier mentioned. We are only requesting the minimum
change which is available to permit the development of the
minerals in this area , and I might add that this is the
development of minerals that Amoco Production Company is
the record owner of and the ownership of these minerals
is and always has been of public record . Another aspect
of this requested zoning change is that we are not imposing
anything on anyone else in the area , that is, upon the surface
owner or upon any other mineral owners . We are asking for
the minimum change which would allow the drilling of this
well . In addition, this change is a temporary change in
that when the agricultural use is terminated , then the zoning
will revert back to the -current zoning that it has now,
namely the industrial . The agricultural -zoning will be
terminated when the proposed well is no longer producing
and this as a general -guideline occurs after approximately
ten years of production in this type of well.
In connection with this application , we have previously
submitted to Mr . Gary Fortner of your staff , a memorandum
of which I am sure he is still in possession which explains
that the ownership of the minerals and surface estates are
separate and distinct from each other , and that in the state
of Colorado the cases are clear that the mineral estate
is the dominant estate of the two whenever there is any
kind of conflict between the two. The owner of the mineral
rights possesses the right of reasonable use of the surface
for the purpose of performing the obligations that are imposed
on the mineral lessee by the lease.
As mentioned, we understand there may be some opposition
to this application , but rather than anticipate any specific
points , we would just like an opportunity to respond or
rebut anything that is stated in opposition. At this point
I would like to introduce John Lang and have him present
the more technical or engineering testimony regarding the
activity which we are applying for in this zoning application.
-2-
Sperifioally, if you would first just state your employer ,
the nature and duration of your work and your background
and if it is all right with the Commission , John , will you
describe the proposed well site and include any information
regarding distances and other engineering aspects of the
well.
JOHN LANG: If it is permissible J have a blow-up of the
immediate area concerned here where we are planning on
drilling our well and I would like to step up here. You
have an application in front of you that shows this diagram .
This is the same thing that is blown up and it makes it
easier to talk from. -The well that we propose to drill
will be approximately 5,300 ft. in depth to test the Sussex
and Shannon formations . This location of the well will
be as indicated here. This location is within an area which
is designated as Spindle Field , which is a large area --
some 6 or 8 miles north and south and 6 or 8 miles east
and west of a large field which is mostly located in Weld
County--practically all the field is in Weld County. The
north location for this well will be in the center of a
40-acre tract , 560 ft. from the north line of this Section
12 and 660 ft . from the center line--this being the northwest
quarter--660 ft. from here to here . Because of the concern
of other operations on the lease , we have voluntarily gone
to the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission and obtained approval
to move our location from the normal location to the location
shown here, which represents a move of 200 ft. to the north
and the east. Our original location was at this point here.
-3-
This distance to the nearest drilling was 435 ft . Although
we didn' t consider that to be a condition to cause any problems,
we have gone to the Oil and Gas Commission and gotten approval
to get our location here. Our location which is shown here
is 520 ft. from the north line and 520 ft. from the east
line, 200 ft . diagonal from the normal location. This cross-
hatch section shows the 5 acres in which we have asked permission
to use for drilling the well. This 5 acres is the amount
of land that would be utilized during the initial drilling
operations , but once the drilling of the well , and once
the drilling is completed and the well is completed , the
actual area would still be used from day to day operations
which represents just some 20-25 feet square and immediately
around where the pumping unit will be on the well and maybe
would have an area, say 100 by 100, to get room if we needed
it, sometime to get a service unit in there to repair the
tubing or the rods in the well.
To show you that this is an oil and gas area, 1 might
point out some of data. This other well produces about
15, 000 barrels of oil and 31 million cubic ft. of gas .
The well is producing about 65 barrels of oil and 300 cubic
ft. of gas a day. This well here produced 11 ,780 barrels
of oil and 37 million cubic feet of gas and current production
being about 82 barrels of oil a day and 336 MCF of gas .
This well here--all wells are not the same--these happen
to be on an area where the production is better and is immediately
to the east here . This well has production of 34 barrels
of oil and 500 MCF of gas a day. This well here is only
-4-
5 barrels of oil and 275 MCF of gas . This one has 29 barrels
of oil and 1273 MCF of gas . This one is 20 barrels of oil
and 1126 MCF of gas . Back over in this general area over
here , the Firecracker #1 well that produced 14 , almost 15,000
barrels of oil and 30 million cubic ft. of gas and current
producing rate around 39 barrels oil and 209 MCF of gas
a day. So this is in a part of the Spindle Field, and a
prudent operator should try and develop that to satisfy
the mineral owners from whom we have a lease where we propose
to drill .
-This well , our drilling activities at the well would
be the same as we conducted on many wells within Weld County--would
be a period not more than one week required to actually
Brill the well and the drilling rig would move off and then
some time over the next two or three week period we would
move in a frac truck and complete the well . Once it is
completed , it is our plan to take the flow lines from the
well through tubing. Once that gas comes from underground
through that piece of tubing, it will be diverted back into
the ground and burried down underground from the well site
off of the industrial zoned land to the location of tank
batteries which is down here on agriculturally zoned land.
So actually there won' t be the normal tank battery that
you would see during a producing operation.
There would be some tanks there initially when the
well is completed , those tanks being to serve the purpose
that once the well is completed , those batteries will be
there for a matter of a few days and clean the well up,
-5-
and those tanks would be located over in the northeast extremity
of this 5 acre tract within an area of about 1 ,200 ft. from
the edge of the north section line and from about 200 ft.
from this midsection line . Water and sewage and roads ,
the same would apply. We will make part of our development
standard and guaranteed to return any roads in the condition
that they were before we drilled.
On part of the water , the only water requirements would
be that of the drilling that would be hauled in by truck
during drilling operations. We would in fact have the pumping
unit to pump the oil to the surface from underground, but
normally in a lot of locations you would see the tank battery
which may have a vessel and some tanks where the oil normally
comes from the ground and goes to a tank battery. In that
tank battery, there is a treater that provides heat and
separating any oil and water and gas , separating those components,
and putting the oil in tanks so that it can be sold even
through pipeline or trucks that collect the oil . That tank
battery could receive the oil , would not be located on the
industrial area , in effect , keep the oil gas as it was produced
in the well , confined in steel pipes and go underground
all through the industrial area to a tank battery that is
located near the No. 1 well. So we won' t have the normal
tank battery in this area that we would have . The pump
will have a big rod that runs into the ground , pump the
oil and bring it up to the surface and get enough pressure,
about 50 lbs . or so, to fill through the burried line to
the tank battery. The tanks are actually located down here.
-6-
COMMISSION: Are the tank batteries a long way from the
site?
LANG: Yes , sir , it is a long way, but we feel we can do
it here and satisfy the surface owner .
BRODY: That is all we have at this time .
COMMISSION: Now we can give time to the surface owner who
would like to be heard at this time .
JIM WILBUR: Yes-;' Mr . Chairman , and members of the Council ,
my name is Jim Wilbur and I am the attorney for Stoneco,
Inc. who are the lessees of the entire 111 acres that we
are talking about within which the 5 acre tract that Amoco
is seeking to rezone is located . In addition , I represent
Mr . Stonebraker , as an individual , as the owner of the surface
rights of the property. Basically, we are objecting to
the application of Amoco Oil for rezoning. We see the
situation as involving basically 3 questions: (1) First
of all , whether or not the Commission should even hear the
application . I will go into each of these in more depth;
(2) Should the Commission consider the application , should
it be approved to the Council as a positive recommendation;
and (3) Does the Board of County Commissioners have the
authority to regulate and limit and prohibit the drilling
of oil and gas wells in cetain locations .
It is our contention , according to Section 6.6 of the
official Weld County Zoning Resolution which defines "Unit
Developments" that Amoco Oil cannot make an application
-7-
under that provision. That particular provision reads as
follows in part "Unit developments may be permitted in all
zoned districts subject in each instance to being shown
on a plan as defined, processed and approved as follows,"
and I continue to quote, " (1) the unit development shall
be defined as a project which is controlled by one owner ,
corporation, or agency or the subject of an application
filed jointly by the owners of property to be included ,
which is located on at least 5 acres of land including
useful open space for a mutual benefit of the entire tract
and which is planned to provide variety and diversity so
the maximum long-range benefits of the unique site design
can be achieved while still protecting the surrounding. areas. "
It was obvious , and I don' t believe that Amoco is contending
that they are the single owner of the 5-acre tract alluded
to. In fact , Mr . Stonebraker does own the surface rights
and has owned them for some time . It is also significant
that Mr . Stonebraker has not entered into the application
of Amoco Oil -and, therefore, we will contend that the application
is before the Commission today is illegal and that it does
not comply with your own zoning Resolution .
COMMISSION: For the benefit of the Planning Commission,
will you give Amoco an opportunity to answer , and our own
legal counsel could advise us as to whether to continue
on with this application.
BRODY: Yes we do, sir . The original application was for
what is designated as AUD under the Zoning Resolution.
This was done by advice of your staff as far as the format .
-8-
The question subsequently came up whether that would be
the proper form of application and this was discussed several
times with Tom Honn and Lou or John may have also discussed
it with other people on the staff and we were told we could
go ahead , after the original objection when the temporary
restraining order was issued and we went to court on this
matter . After that, we discussed it further and we were
informed that the same application could just be refiled
and new notice given and this new date set . We understand
that the information contained in the application as it
exists now satisfies a simple request for zoning as well
as a request for unit development . We don' t care, particularly,
what format the application is in. We just want it rezoned
to agricultural and we have regarded this as just requesting
that and we have been told that it does satisfy request
for rezoning for agriculture .
However , even if it was an AUD application, which we
don' t regard it as now, the way we read this section, 6.6,
it states that a unit development shall be defined as a
_project which is controlled by one owner and the project
is the drilling of this well and of course , we are the one
owner and that is how we read this section, even if it were
applicable , which we don' t think it is.
LOU GASKINS : Mr . Chairman, also, when the temporary restraining
order was done a-way with , the court stated that Amoco as
mineral owner had standing to come in, because under the
latest case in Colorado that we cited in our memorandum
to the County attorney' s office and to the Planning Commission,
-9-
Frankfort Oil Co. v . Abrams case indicated that there were
two separate and distinct estates , the mineral estate and
the surface estate, and that being that they were separate
and distinct estates , each are treated as an estate, and
the surface owner would have no say as to what the mineral
owner did, and neither would the mineral owner , as far as
the surface is concerned , and the court agreed in dissolving
this temporary restraining order , that Amoco had standing
to apply for a rezoning.
WILBUR: I ' d like to speak to that . While the court did
say that they had standing to apply, they did not speak
to any issues as to what form the application must take .
In other words , the court did not tell them whether it was
an AUD or an A or they did not even consider the type of
application that was being brought . My understanding of
what the court said was that they could not restrain since
my client at that point of time had not suffered damage
and has not shown that he would be damaged , and in addition,
they felt that it was a jurisdictional question which they
could not hear until after the application was brought to
the Planning Commission. in addition , I will point out ,
as is pointed out in our memorandum, that the Colorado
Supreme Court has held that in planned development applications,
the applicant must meet all standards , procedures and conditions
of a planned development ordinance , which is what we are
dealing with here.
-10-
COMMISSION: My question is, if the unit development part
of the application is dropped , you wouldn' t have any argument
about that?
WILBUR: I cannot comment on that because we have not directed
our research toward that particular question. As far as
whether the application was illegal or legal , I think the
rest of our arguments will be applicable to the agricultural
zone as well as the AUD zone.
COMMISSION: We have a county attorney present , I would
like to yield the floor to her .
KAY McKEVER: Mr . Brody, as I understand it, you are withdrawing
the AUD portion of the application.
BRODY: That' s correct . The only reason that westated it
as a unit development was on the advice of Tom and since
the TRO and that whole matter has been ended , we regard
this as simply a request for rezoning to agricultural , and
I was under the assumption that is how the Commission would
regard it also.
McKEVER: I would consider the issue about whether the
Commission has a right to hear someone other than the surface
owner on an application for rezoning property and my research
has determined, that there is nothing to prevent the County
from hearing an application from the mineral owner . I think
that they have a right to be heard in this matter . On unit
-11-
development, I think it is arguable that the Resolution
uses the term "project" as the particular project under
the application. So, I think that the application should
be heard.
WILBUR: For the record, I would like to ask how the official
notice that was published was published as .
McKEVER: We' re checking on that right now.
BRODY: I would like to re-emphasize the point you made
that I agree with, that there is no district unit development .
It can be anything: business, industrial , anything unit
development , so even if the notice were given as a unit
development, I don' t think that would have deprived anybody
of due process as far as the improriety of the notice , because
they would have been informed that it was agricultural.
WILBUR: Then it is your position that there is actually
no difference between the agricultural unit development
application and one for a straight agricultural zone .
McKEVER: The zone is not differ-ent. The unit development
application gives the applicant more flexibility in how
they are going to arrange things , and then it gives the
county more control over how the development is going to
be developed . And, that is why it is generally recommended .
WILBUR: And it is your interpretation of 6.6 that it does
not require all owners to join in the application?
-12-
McKEVER: I think that it is arguable that it does not .
WILBUR: Isn' t the burden then on the applicant to show
beyond a reasonable doubt that there isn' t a question or
the question should be resolved in their favor?
McKEVER: If they were moving for a unit development
application, I would agree with you, but they are withdrawing
the development portion of the application.
WILBUR: I would suggest that has abridged somewhat our
right to be heard and respond to their contentions because
our notice states specifically that it is a zone change
from industrial to agricultural unit development .
BRODY: I would like to make one short further comment before
we conclude this. Even if it were an application for agri-
cultural unit development, though we are saying that it
is not, not only does the section say that a unit develop-
ment shall be defined as a project , which we define as our
project , that wording can be contrasted with wording in
the same sentence in the same section, which says "it will
be defined as a project or" I am looking on the last word
on pg. 45, "a project , or the subject of an application
filed jointly by the owners of the property to be included ."
So, that further shows that the work "project" as distinguished
from "property" , has a different meaning, and we are talking
about one project . If this had said shall be defined as
"property" which is controlled by one owner , I think that
might raise a question. But , it doesn' t--it says , defined
as a "project" controlled by one owner , as opposed to the
-13-
next line which says property, so the intent of the Resolution
is obviously to distinguish between the project like this
and property which you could define as the surface and the
minerals and that is just another point that I wanted to
raise. We think that this is just an application for a
change to agricultural zoning and as I mentioned , even if
the notice said agricultural unit development, that is not
relevent to the question of whether it is and has been regarded
as a request for agricultural zoning, because the only
complaint you could have about a notice is that it is faulty
in the type of notice it gave in that somebody looking at
it would say, well, I haven' t been properly notified of
this hearing, and I have been misled as far as this hearing.
But that isn' t the case. The unit development , as the resolution
will state, is simply the format of the application and
nothing else.
COMMISSION: Well , it is just a matter of simple procedure,
and since the Commission is in only an advisory capacity
to the County Commissioners , there is a later opportunity
for review.
BRODY: That' s correct .
COMMISSION: If there is no objection from the Planning
Commission, I will so rule.
WILBUR: In dealing with the questioning then as to whether
or not the application should receive an unfavorable or
favorable recommendation , I believe that set forth in your
-14-
official zoning resolution , Section 8. 3, the criteria for
changing the zoning on the tract is: (1) that the original
zoning is faulty; or (2) that changing conditions in the
area now justify a new classification. It is our contention
that Amoco Oil has not sustained either of these positions
in the evidence that they have offered in the hearing.
In addition, the zoning resolution goes on to say that such
things as the proposed rezoning would allow the highest
and best use of the land, that the area adjoining is already
zoned in this matter , or you haven ' t given us any reason
for not making this change are invalid as arguments of rezoning.
In addition, 6.6 of the zoning resolution , provides
that in the review procedure, the County Planning Commission
and Board of Commissioners shall be guided by the intent
of the zoning resolution. In the zoning resolution format
and under the purpose of the section, number one states
that property values are protected since uses which would
lessen values are not allowed in areas where conflicts would
occur . Number 6 of the purposes states that increased safety
and consequent lower fire insurance rates results from the
prevention of overcrowding and segregation of hazardous
uses , which implies that the mixing of hazardous uses is
to be avoided .
My client will establish that he will be affected to
a great degree economically if the rezoning application
is granted. And , in addition , I would like to stress that
my client does have an industrial use on the ground, that
-15-
it is a pyrotechnic manufacturing and testing unit which
is explosive, and that a portion or the entire 111 acre
tract is necessary because of federal and state requirements
for testing, storing, etc. of his explosives , and we do
not want to get into a situation where possible leakage
or something of that sort from the oil well is combined
with an explosion on the premises , either through testing
or accidental explosion and cause a holocaust.
I believe that there are state laws that state that
the primary objective of zoning will be defeated if the
rights of those immediately affected are disregarded, and
I would urge that a rezoning in this situation would be
a disregarding of my client' s interest. We are contending
that the rezoning would adversely affect the property values,
that it would create a hazardous situation, that it would
deprive the protestants of their property value after reliance
had been placed on the current zoning. My client obtained
his zoning in 1968 , has developed that piece of property
in reliance on that zoning resolution and has designed the
entire facility in a manner utilizing the space requirements ,
so it is not a haphazard situation where if you were just
to have gone in and built the building where he did for
no logical reason. Placement of buildings have a very significant
effect on the business. Further , we contend that the rezoning
application, if it is allowed , would constitute spot zoning
as defined by the Colorado Supreme Court .
As far as the ability of Weld County to deny zoning
on the basis of its authority or the power to restrict or
-16-
prohibit drilling of oil wells in certain areas , I would
say that I have not found a specific case in Colorado which
has touched on this point, but I believe that a reading
of the statute controlling in this matter would suggest
that the Board of County Commissioners does have that authority.
There is case law that says as long as the zoning provisions
are reasonable and reasonably related to the promotion of
the public health, safety and welfare, that such restrictions
and/or prohibitions are legal and are allowable to the County
Commissioners. There is case law coming out of California
and Oklahoma that would suggest local governmental units
do have the authority to prohibit drilling of wells and
development of gas and oil and other mineral interests so
long as the prohibition is reasonably related to the protection
of the health, safety and welfare of the general public.
With that I will close and I believe Mr . Stonebraker
would like to expand on the xeasons why the buildings are
located where they are and the effect the rezoning application
would have on his business operation .
AUSTIN STONEBRAKER: Mr . Chairman and members of the board,
I am Austin Stonebraker , I am known as Phil Stonebraker .
I would like to go over with you, if I can , with the permission
of Amoco , may I use your chart up there? Since you are
a bigger company than I am, you can afford a bigger chart.
The original zoning that we asked for in 19--either 68 or
67--I am not sure of which year , included the whole 111 .7
acres . At that time we told the Planning Commission specifically
-17-
what we were going to do and that scope of business has
not changed in some 9 to 10 years now. Ce are governed
first, by a federal regulation on explosive acts, which
is covered by the Treasury Department; secondly, the nature
of our business which is majority military explosives , we
are governed by the Department of Defense regulations .
, Now, these regulations call out two things to us . One is
a quantity distance storage requirement from all public
roads and public access . In this case, we consider each
one of these county line roads , 11 and 12 , as our governing
boundary. The other governing boundary is, in fact , the
railroad here. Now, each one of the quantity distance storage
requirements varies by the quantity of -explosives that we
expect to have on the facility. And , again, let me emphasize
that this has not changed in 9 years for Stoneco. We set
the original facility up on a 10 to 15 thousand lb. net
-explosive requirement. And again, that has not changed
in 9 yrs. The now tables , under the Department of Defense,
-require that we set back for 10 to 15 thousand lbs . , 595
ft . from public traffic routes. This is in the Department
of Defense manual . Now, let me, for example, show you that
if we' re set into this corner here, we must then be 595
ft . in here before we can do any activity. We must be 595
ft . in this direction. Now, the point that I would like
to make with you, I have not seen a single representative
from Amoco to discuss these technical problems that we do
have on this facility. And , I did not hear Amoco saying
that their 200 ft. offset exactly where our nearest building
—18-
is here. Our total width is 1381 ft. on this zoning. If
you take some 520 ft. , isn' t that what you say your inset
is? (yes) 520 ft. , plus approx. 600 ft. or 595, and we
then must be set in here an additional amount to protect
ourselves in the future from this property having an ingress/egress
all the way along here, this virtually eliminates a strip
straight across our property. Recent drilling would indicate
that there is room by Colorado for another well over here.
I understand that if we start here then we are cut straight
across in this -direction. And , that in effect would foreshorten
_as to a facility no larger than probably about 700 ft. this
way and our now existing , 600 ft. this way. So, it negates
really everything we have done over the last 9 years to,
in fact , develop Stoneco. Now, Amoco technically is talking
about coming out here, which is new to me, pumping and keeping
it underground over here at Firecracker No. 1. If, in fact ,
C)
they do that, and they request easement in this direction,
understand , again, that would be easement that would have
to be granted for repair and maintenance and everything
' else and would and could be considered again, a public traffic
/
route. So, I would have to set 595 in from that . Now,
t the fact remaining is, that isolates us and with two, or
at least one right now, corridors right across our land. d
1
That has to do with quantity distance storage . t'S.,\
Now, the second problem we have is testing. We have
had our testing from this point forward for some 8 years.
t
We do have some aerial testing that is required by government
0
1
t
-19-
contract and by our commercial contracts . We have used
this 1200 ft. in here as our testing point, and in this
condition, we would have to move it over here. So, testing
would be changed .
The other problem and Mr . Wilbur brought it out , is
compatibility. We have to maintain our fire paths , our
total control here, so that es far as any fire , we could
easily stop it. We've also had the problem, as you may
or may not be aware of , of security on our facility. Less
than 2 years ago we had a major break-in which required
that we request, in Weld County , a permanent security unit
on the facility. That was for our protection and for the
protection of the rest. This, in effect , brings that security
requirements some 600 ft. closer to our facility . Now,
this is an unmanned facility. We are seeing it over here,
here, and here. These ingress and egresses off of 11 and
12 make a beautiful place for beer parties , if you will ,
and fun and games at night , none of which I am against,
by the way--I can remember when I was young, too, but the
net effect is that it does bring it somewhat closer to security.
It does bring the fire hazard compatibility closer to us
here .
Again, I would like to comment that Amoco has not seen
fit to come out and discuss this problem. My attempts to
come at the Weld Planning to get a restraint was for one
simple reason: that we are constantly negotiating contacts
with the military. We are promising and have promised a
facility of 111 acres . We have been approved for safety
-20-
on this. The sign posted out here presents a negotiation
problem to me and at that time we were in negotiation with
the military, and, as a matter of fact , we still are. The
sign does present a problem to me of which I cannot prove
damages right now, but it was my hope at that time , that
we could say that this property basically was zoned industrial.
There is no reason for meto be here for other than your
resolution which says they can' t drill on industrial. It
is a resolution that I didn' t ask for , but I don' t really
need to be here . I think Weld County needs to answer whether ,
in fact , drilling on industrial is going to be allowed or
not. The fact is that this is industrial; we've used it
this way for 9 years . Are there any questions? I 'd be
more than happy to show you these books .
McKEVER: I have a question. Is there a definition in those
regulations of what have been termed public traffic, and
if here is, could you read it to me?
STONEBRAKER: The definition is not in here. As it is defined
to us , that means any place the public may have a capability
of ingress/egress.
McKEVER: At any time?
STONEBRAKER: Yes , at any time .
McKEVER: You said you had to ask for a security move from
the county . What do you mean by that?
21-
STONEBRAKER: We asked for a change to allow us to put a
permanent security. That was based on a fairly significant
break-in that we did have in the winter of 1974, I guess.
COMMISSION: Do you have any interest in the minerals?
STONEBRAKER: The question--I can ' t answer for you. I am
sorry, I cannot. We have asked two attorney firms to look
into this. My abstract says that I have 1/6th of the minerals.
The original leases were tied down, I believe , by a company
called Hill & Hill or J. D. Hill or something of this nature.
At one time they came around and asked us to sign a lease
on the minerals that we had , and we rejected it at that
time , this request. Frankly I have not followed up on it--
I see no reason to. Our concern is really the compatibility
only, and if we are going to pipe that far , I would question
their ability to whipstock or whatever they call it to drill
off of this property here. All we are asking for is that
we don' t have to change our business philosophy that has
been established . The fact that they can obtain the minerals,
whether I own any or not, would be a question, S think,
of me pursuing it after the well is in. But , my abstract
and I think type of policy, at least the abstract shows
a 1/6th unreserved , I guess is the term, of mineral rights .
COMMISSION: Is there any way or is there no way that you
can work out a compatible relationship with Amoco?
-22-
STONEBRAKER: I haven' t really been privy to any of the
information that you just have been right now. I 'm talking
about underground piping. Before I heard that , I was deeply
concerned about some two or three fires that I read about
-down there in repurging systems. Now, I think Amoco has
a must here, of telling me where that pipeline is going
to be . I won' t say that if it is not a possibility, but
it is highly improbable from the sheer fact that we did
set this facility up based upon the 10-15,000 lbs . dead
explosive. And , again Mr . Nix, let me say this, we wouldn' t
be here at this meeting if it was not for Weld County' s
Resolution. The question you are asking, I think, is a
civil matter . The rezoning is the thing that really bothers
me because that says that that piece of property is no longer
a part of my 111 acres of industrial land that I 've sold
a -safe practice on. Now, if your resolution wasn' t here ,
we would still be industrial land, and Amoco and I may be
able to talk no more than 4" diameter hole taking up on
this, with 5 acres and that ' s an additional requirement
of setback for me, frankly, cuts a quarter right across
my land. And I couldn' t sell anybody on the fact that I
now can use it.
COMMISSION: Is this an easement line that you are talking
about?
STONEBRAKER: I don' t know -what that line would be. That' s
in total error , gentlemen .
-23-
COMMISSION: (Question, unintelligible)
STONEBRAKER: No. I am just so I can call the attention
to the Planning Commission. There has been no grant of
any easements of this nature across this property . We
granted a 3-phase line up through here which in turn is
serving this well , but I would be violently opposed to any
such . . .
COMMISSION: In other words , there isn' t a line here either .
STONEBRAKER: No, there is no line here and there is no
line here. I believe I am right on that . This is the
boundary line of the 111 . Now, the three-phase power line
is on this boundary line here, and not right where it is
shown. Our ingress/egress for our power comes off the back
and here and we have a working relationship with REA, an
actual signed contract , that they cannot enter without
notifying us that they are coming on even this ingress/egress
here. Now the reason for that is, unless I have that, this
becomes again a public trafficway in your answer . I have
no control over if they start from here. Any other questions?
COMMISSION: In other words , one point, you are saying that
if there is a well allowed at that point, then your conract
with the government will be null and void .
Cc- STONEBRAKER: No, you did not hear me make that statement.
Not at all . It changes my safety requirements . Now, if
-24-
this is the only one that I got to change my business practices
in order to meet next safety that I have , then that means
switching my facility clear around the other direction.
And again, I have got to change my quantity distances , I
would have to get it out and away from this by 595 ft. from
my storage . On the other side, then , gentlemen, at that
time , I would have too small a land mass left to operate
the business that I have operated for 9 years .
COMMISSION: What would you do?
STONEBRAKER: Well , what we would do in this case and we' re
only talking conjecture, I hope, I would have to take that
quantity that I have here and rotate it around my facility.
It could mean at least two new storage facilities over here
on the west side to reduce my quantity in this area to meet
the distance requirements.
COMMISSION: Can you still be able to store some of that
area but not the amount that you are storing there now?
STONEBRAKER: That' s right .
McKEVER: Mr . Stonebraker , have you discussed this with
the Department of Defense and Treasury people to show these
people that that' s the reason for the regulations?
STONEBRAKER: No mam, I have not . Why should I? I can
tell you this, that I have been dealing with these people
for 9 yrs. now and I should give you my background -- I
-25-
had 12 years in the Aerospace industry prior to starting
Stoneco . We are not talking about an easy discussion in
safety. The problem is that these people came from New
York , Huntsville, and any change that occurs , the burden
is on me to make it justifiable to them . The books are
very clear for me to read . The fact remaining is, if I 'm
that close and I have one pound over , then I am in a cease
and desist at that time until I adjust my facility. It' s
really not a discus-sable point as much as it is a fact of
the explosive business that I would have to commence and
if you did grant this, I have to make the adjustment. There
is no question about it.
COMMISSION: You are testing your detonation of any explosives?
STONEBRAKER: Yes, yes . Now, so that we don' t mislead noise
level or anything else is being bandied around, we have
major noise level at the end of our facility. The business
of noise is what we are into. We have fairly sophisticated
test units down there. We do not exceed from 79 to 86 decibels--
really 89 decibels at the perimeter of the plant . Again
distance is a must in noise. That is part of our testing.
Detonation, yes . Detonation out and away from our facility.
COMMISSION: Ok, did you have another case , Mr . Wilbur?
I think that the procedure that we will use here is to follow
up with the staff ' s comments and recommendations . You had
another point--you had three points. Did you cover all
of them?
-26-
WILBUR: Yes, sir , I believe I did.
BRODY: Do you want the staff to give their recommendation?
COMMISSION: The point is we are talking about granting
or denying the zone , and the staff now has a recommendation
to the Planning Commission to explain its position, and
then everybody has the opportunity to answer .
TOM HONN: These comments are in reference to the case
Z272--request for change of zone from industrial to agriculture
in the name of Amoco Production Company. Property located
approximately 1/2 mile west and a mile south of Dacono,
on part of the NE quarter of the NW quarter of Section 12,
Township 1 North, Range 68 West. The Planning Commission
staff recommends the request be denied for the following
reasons:
1. The request to rezone the subject 5.007 acre parcel
is not compatible with the existing land use on the NW/4
of Section 12, Township 1 North, Range 68 West which is
owned by Austin P. and William N. Stonebraker . The existing
land use is a manufacture and storage of scattergun shells
and other pryotechnic devices. The proposed rezoning is
not compatible with this existing land use for the following
reasons: First, the Department of Treasury and Department
of Defense regulations require such facilities , the facility
such as the existing use, be located certain distances from
other activities . These distance regulations, known as
quantity and distance storage requirements , in turn, govern
-27-
the amount of storage space allowed in the facility. There
are also requirements for spacing between storage areas
in a facility called interlying distance requirements.
Second , testing facilities are located throughout the property.
Due to sound and safety requirements , the testing areas
would require relocation of the proposed uses allowed.
Thirdly, the proposed use would create a fire hazard if
located near the existing use.
2. As stated in Section 8. 3 of the Weld County zoning
resolution, "there must be definite proof that the area
request for zone change has unique characteristics which
distinguish it from surrounding lands and thus make its
rezoning essential . " It is the opinion of the Planning
Commission staff that this rezoning request is not essential
since an alternative method of extracting the resources
is available to Amoco Production Company, according to
Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission. 'The available
alternative method of extracting the resource from the NE
of the NW Section 12-1N-68W is to locate the oil well rig
on an adjacent parcel of land and directional drill under
the subject parcel of land.
3. Section 8. 3 of the Weld County zoning resolution
states "Recent findings in oral statements by the petitioner
should show very clearly that either the original zoning
was faulty or that the changing conditions in the area now
justify a new classification. Without such supporting docu-
mentation, the County Planning Commission should not recom-
-28 -
mend a change of zone. " It is the opinion of the Planning
Commission staff that Amoco has not shown that the original
zoning was faulty or the changing conditions in the area
now justify a new classification.
4. The town of Dacono Planning Commission has indicated
the town of Dacona is opposed to the zone change request,
and that is referenced in attached letter of August 15,
1976 .
MR. HEITMAN: Do you wish to respond?
BRODY: Thank you very much , Mr . Heitman . We have covered
a lot of points here in the last several minutes and I want
to try to go over each one and thoroughly cover each one
and I hope I can. First of all , Mr . Stonebraker mentioned
that we have not come to him to discuss this matter and
I want to say there have been discussions between Amoco
and Mr . Stonebraker . Who initiated them , I don' t know.
Mr . Harry Hickman from our office has spoken and I believe
corresponded with Mr . Stonebraker on this.
(Extensive discussion and portion of hearing not recorded)
By coming into an area where the minerals have been severed
and zoning everything in such a way that no mineral development
would ever be possible , then that would be tantamount to
condemning the minerals and that was the point that Mr .
Gaskins was making earlier .
COMMISSION: That' s not what this man ' s point of view was
when they zoned the place.
-29-
BRODY: When the surface owner , Mr . Stonebraker, came in
and zoned it, I am sure he didn' t intend consciously to
condemn it. But what we are saying is if the application
is not granted, that ' s the effect of the change anyway.
The minerals there could never be developed and therefore
they might as well be condemned and we get no compensation
for the amount of minerals that is there and could be produced .
GARY FORTNER: Then you are saying at that point that directional
drilling is impossible. It is impossible to negotiate a
lease with adjacent property owner to set up directional
drilling facilities .
GASKINS : We are saying, Gary, that management considered
this and it makes drilling, by directionally drilling, so
much more expensive, that it is uneconomic .
McKEVER: In other words , you would not drill. You would
effectively lose your minerals.
GASKINS : John could explain the , I won' t say the dangers,
but why directional drilling is not as good as the drilling
we propose.
LANG: Well , the one point, the drilling point , the actual
drilling cost for the well will be increased by approximately
50%.
MR. HEITMAN: You say it is impossible though . Your attorney
says it is impossible. Now, do you say it is impossible
or not?
—30-
BRODY: Not physically, economically. Not physically, sit .
MR. HEITMAN: You said it was impossible.
BRODY: Not physically is what I meant, economically.
MR. REITMAN: I don' t like evasiveness, as Chairman. If
you are asked a question, please answer .
BRODY: No--I 've never contended that it is physically impossible ,
but of course, everything has a rate of return where it
is going to be impractical or uneconomical . If it costs
too much , you are not going to do it. That is all I am
saying.
LANG: So the management declined to authorize any directional
drilling on the basis that the costs would be prohibitive
and that there was no justification that they could see
for causing the well to be directionally drilled.
FORTNER: Let me ask one more question, since we got into
the question of economics . What kind of tradeout economically
are we talking about in terms of what it will cost Mr. Stonebraker
in terms of using his property as opposed to what it would
cost in terms of drilling directionally?
GASKINS : Mr . Fortner , as of yet , we don' t know of any money
damage to Mr . Stonebraker . We can ' t answer that question.
You are assuming facts not in evidence and they can' t be
until the well is drilled.
-31-
MR. HEITMAN: So, what you are saying is you are not going
to try. He has to prove damages after you cause the damages .
GASKINS : You are assuming, Mr . Heitman , that there are
going to be damages , sir . We don' t know that .
MR. HEITMAN: Well, Mr . Stonebraker presented that in evidence .
GASKINS : No, not in evidence . Mr. Stonebraker madethat
allegation. He gave no evidence to substantiate that point.
All he made was a statement.
MR. HEITMAN: He gave evidence that he would have to move
a building. Now that' s money to me.
GASKINS : Well, he -said he would have to move it. We don' t
know that be would have to because we' re going to end up
using maybe 100 by 100.
LANG: All right , the well will be in excess of 600 ft.
from the nearest building.
MR. HEITMAN: You got 5 acres zoned and that is the point.
If you could only zone that square .
GASKINS : We wouldn' t because this is the minimum that they
would undertake for us to use. But , no damage has been
proved . Now, ask your attorney to comment on the fact of
the severability of estates and the fact that we have this
right and the fact that it is going to end up in condemnation.
Whether Mr . Stonebraker meant to do it or not, the fact
is, there is going to be some mineral owners who reserved
-32-
their minerals to be developed and now they are not going
to have an opportunity.
McKEVER: The 5 acre minimum applies only to unit development .
So if you are only asking for an agricultural zone, it could
be smaller .
MR. HEITMAN: I would like to summarize here pretty quickly.
BRODY: Ok , I just want to make two more statements: (1) With
respect to the statement of Mr . Stonebraker ' s attorney regarding
Section 8. 3. The resolution requires , and we agree, that
you must show either the original zoning was faulty or that
changing conditions justify a new classification. The original
zoning in this case would have to be regarded as the industrial;
that is, I think they mean the existing zoning by original
zoning and the application on its face shows that it' s faulty
in the sense that the mineral development cannot be conducted
under that zoning, or that changing conditions in the area
now justify a new classification. That of course, is that
we now know there is a possibility of oil in this area and
that is a change of condition that we think satisfies this
section .
lastly, unless Mr . Gaskins has anything to add , I would
like to ask Mr . Lang to remark on the safety aspects of this
well. John , if you would state whether there is any possibility
of _a fire or anything like that or even if fire or sparks
were conceivable , is it possible they could travel 600 ft. ?
LANG: It is our opinion that there should not be any abnormal
hazards from the fire standpoint. At the distance our well
-33-
is located, which is in excess of 600 ft. from the nearest
building, and the fact that during the actual drilling operation,
which will consume something less than a week , there will
be people in attendance at all time at our drilling well.
There will be fire-fighting equipment at the drilling well
at the time of the drilling. Then at the end of approximately
one week , the drilling rig will move out . Some time within
approximately two weeks there will be a service unit brought
in, and there will be some tanks brought in. This service
equipment will be the frac-type equipment to stimulate the
well. at is our plan that the frac equipment, the trucks
themselves , will be located a minimum of 150 ft. from the
well in the opposite direction of Mr . Stonebraker ' s operations.
That equipment will occupy some , say, 90 ft. in width.
There will be further distances provided so that any tanks
that are located there temporarily, just for a matter of
days to flow back that well, those tanks would be located
in excess of 300 feet to the NE of the well , so that it
combines the tanks where the oil would be flowed back to
temporarily, it would be approximately 1000 feet from the
nearest building, which is almost 1/4 mile. We feel that
there are no abnormal hazards that would cause any damage
to Mr . Stonebraker ' s operation . Our company has safety
regulations designed to operate in the best manner that
we know possible . The oil well drilling contractors, the
drilling rig people , that come and drill their well , the
action prevention manual and the safety regulations they
-34-
have . We plan to operate this in just as good manner as
we possibly can . We don' t think there could be any abnormal
hazards .
BRODY: Could we _reserve the right to respond to any further
matters that Mr . Stonebraker raises? What's all for now,
thank you very much .
STONEBRAKER: Mr . Chairman, I want to make one quick point .
The allegation was that the 10 to 15,000 lbs. that we speak
of is an extremely dangerous thing. lae are in a business
where we are sensative about this. I would like to refute
that, We have had only one accident in 9 years and that was
strictly a burn accident. When we look at the record of
just within the Firestone area, there has been deaths at
these oil wells. The only reason I bring this up is the
allegation made by the Amoco attorney that 10-15,00D lbs .
was an excessively -dangerous thing to have around. It is
not. We are in total control and I think have a good track
record. Thank you, Mr . Chairman, for allowing that rebuttal.
WILBUR: I would like to make a couple of short points.
Number one, the cases that the applicant has cited ignore
the intervening factor of zoning. Certainly if you have
situation where you have a lease on a piece of property
without zoning, surely the mineral estate is dominant, but
they have left out the intervening zoning factor . Secondly,
their own memorandum states that the mineral estate is subject
to the same police powers that the surface estate is subject
-35-
to. Thirdly, when Mr . Gaskins was going to talk about condemnation,
it is my understanding that Amoco Oil entered into their
lease after the zoning was implemented and, as such, they
knew that they were entering into a lease that was on ground
subject to 2oning regulations of Weld County. And as such ,
it seems to me that is a hardship undertaken by Amoco Oil
Company and there is constitutional law which is cited in
your memorandum, if the hardship is undertaken voluntarily
and self-inflicted, then there is no relief to the applicant.
GASKINS : Yes , Mr . Chairman , what Mr . Wilbur says is true .
We have been before this board many times and well aware
of the zoning authority of the County, but we are also aware
of the provisions that are made in the zoning resolutions
for changes of zoning and for variances. And , it is our
contention that if this is allowed to stay, it is in essence ,
condemnation and it is gyp, we feel, to the Planning Commission,
to the County, to utilize all of the resources of the County
for the benefit of the people of the County and we feel
that our application will do just that.
MR. HEITMAN: Have anything else Mr . Brody?
BRODY: One more thing--I promise it will be my last. I
want to re-emphasize one thing and that is that the decision
not to directionally drill is based on the fact that we
can' t justify the expenses of 50-60-70 thousand dollars,
for something that we don' t think is contrary to the zoning
-36-
-resolution as it exists right now. That is, on the mere
assumption that we are creating a public right or road,
as Mr . Stonebraker said , or that we -are imposing some inhabited
building on him, which are the only two grounds for this
distance requirement that he has brought up, on that assumption,
with which we don' t agree, we are being--well, the -suggestion
has been made , that we should expend this additional sum
of money. That really is the thrust of what Mr . Stonebraker
was saying, that is, this distance requirement will inhibit
his business activities and therefore he will suffer . But
be will only suffer that, if you assume that this is public
right of way or road, or that we are creating some inhabited
building. Otherwise there is no treasury regulation or
contract , at least we haven' t seen any, that would impose
-any kind of burden on his business.
And also, we would take less than 5 acres if that
were granted to us . As stated , the 5 acres was simply the
minimum allowed , we are trying to do the minimum possible,
the minimum interference with anything possible. We will
take less than 5 acres but we, of course , need a sufficient
amount to do the drilling activity, and of course, as I
stated before, the pump jack will take up an area of -about
20 ' x 20 ' and certainly we don' t think that this is an unreasonable
interference or an incompatible use with this 111 acres.
Thank you.
MR. HEITMAN: I have one question for you, Mr . Brody. When
you made application under the oil and gas provision in
Colorado , when you and Mr . Lang, to change the 620 feet
-37- _-
point to 500 , was this a public notice or was notice given
to the surface owner , did he have the right to appear?
LANG: The rules of the Oil and Gas Commission on field
rules for spacing certain areas specify certain latitudes
in moving the well form the normal location, which in this
case would have been 660 and 660 . We moved it the normal
latitude allowed here , which is 200 feet . If you have got
topography or some compelling reason you need to move it,
-so we did move it the 200 feet , which comes out 520 and
520 from the corner instead of the 660.
MR. HEITMAN: My question was not that--my question was
was this of public record . Was this notice given to the
surface owners and so forth and this attempt was going to
be made?
LANG: No, sir , it was not .
BRODY: Whatever the notice requirements of the statute
are, we complied with them and I don' t know whether notice
to the surface owner is included .
LANG: Notice comes when they adopt the field rules , I guess .
FORTNER: Mr . Chairman , I think that there have definitely
been questions raised here today in terms of impacts of
adjacent uses of the proposed operation. I think there
has also been questions raised as to the direct meaning
of the regulation Mr . Stonebraker is referring to. I think
it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to have
—38-
Mr . Stonebraker and his attorney present some type of evidence
to us indicating definitions we are talking about , giving
correct definitions , some verification of them, and giving
an indication as to the actual impact that is going to occur
on his property as a result of this drilling. It might
be appropriate , if the Planning Commission wishes to do
so, to table further action on this matter until we receive
this information.
MR. HEITMAN: But your staff recommendation was for denial .
But now you have asked
FORTNER: That is correct , I think that we were recommending
our denial based on the fact that there were impacts on
that operation that could not be ignored in proving such
a zone change for the drilling operation. I think there
have been questions raised here today as to exactly what
those impacts are and that they might not be as great as
might have first been indicated , and that there might be
something that would alleviate those . I think that we should
have the information to determine whether or not those are
public right-of-ways for one thing and to have that in the
file and of record and then we can make decisions .
COMMISSION: Mr . Chairman , I would like to ask our -attorneys
to get in on this.
McKEVER: I think it might be advisable to discuss the point
that I feel has not been cleared up. Now if it is the Commission' s
-39-
opinion that sufficient evidence has been presented that
Mr . Stonebraker definitely will be damaged; that he will
be forced to move these things , then you should so state.
But if you are not willing to (unintelligible) . Really
I think the issue is --- one of the issues--is whether Mr . Stonebraker
is going to be , if this rezoning were granted , what is going
to be the effect on Mr . Stonebraker .
COMMISSION: In your opinion, his business with government
contracts do they have any bearing at all on the rights
of the mineral owners?
McKEVER: That is determined on a state-by-state basis,
but throughout the United States , in every state , a mineral
owner always has the right of reasonable access to the
surface in order to get minerals out and the question before
you is what is reasonable if you were to deny the rezoning
or deny Amoco access. To grantthe rezoning, are you denying
Mr . Stonebraker reasonable use of his land? And the question
is, are they in conflict which Amoco is asserting they are
not . Stoneco is asserting that they are.
COMMISSION: It seems to me a mistake that was made in the
past is easy to look at now. It' s ok , this type of facility
on a piece of land without attempting or getting the mineral
rights was a mistake .
McKEVER: In this county we have more than once had problems
where mineral rights were severed and it has created a conflict
of interest.
—40-
COMMISSION: You are saying that this is different from
somebody buying a piece of land and going to build something
on it without investigating where your water system is?
McKEVER: Well , they are not mineral rights .
STONEBRAKER: Mr . Chairman , if I might , just to answer
that--first of all , the request is being placed on me and
I want the Board to understand the magnitude of it. We
are talking about , here , having to go to two military facilities
to get an answer for you which is time consuming. I think
all of you realize that we are subservient to many masters
in our business. We' ll have to go to the Treasury Department
to get the answer . Now, this we are willing to do . The
question is time and I would estimate somewhere between
M11 60 and 90 days before we could
Y get any answer back in either
direction. Now, I think it would be extremely fair to put
that requirement on Amoco . If they want to try and obtain
\ this, they should be the ones to pursue it. Now, if I could
finish before you put your hand up; you dominated this thing
pretty heavily.
The point that was made as to my purchase of the
land with minerals or not is my mistake . I question that ,
\also. The minerals in Weld County are severable , and I
am not sure that Amoco, to this point , has proved to you
that they have all the minerals signed , sealed and delivered.
Now, we do, evidently, have a conflict in opinions . I think
there is more than one case in Weld County. Do they have
100% of the minerals and if so, where are the mineral holders?
-41-
And, secondly, I would like to make a point Mr .
Ashley that Amoco has not transmitted to me any letter that
they so stipulate. We have not had a discussion on damages
in any way, shape or form. I have nothing in my files to
indicate that at all. We, through Mr . Honn have had some
discussions prior , that , possibly this could be worked out
and Mr . Honn said that the attorneys from Amoco would be
contacting me and he gave me the names of the attorneys .
So, that is a point that should be clarified. To say that
I made a mistake in 1966 in purchasing the land and then
came before the planning board and asked rezoning and in
no way, shape or form, considered minerals and went ahead
and paid taxes , developed the business , I don' t know where
that would stop in my total requirement. We' ve supplied
our own water , our own sewage , our own facility; we haven' t
asked for anything from Weld County . We paid our taxes .
COMMISSION: At the time that you purchased the land zoned ,
I don' t think that anybody in Weld County was considering
mineral rights worth very much .
STONEBRAKER: As a matter of tact , somebody picked them
up on the tax roles . However , the opinion that we did have
was 1/6th of the minerals.
McKEVER: Mr . Stonebraker is the person who zoned the land ,
that has been mentioned several times . The other thing
is that if we are going to have a delay, you might want
to consider if the application is going to encompass less
than 5 acres , I think that would constitute another application.
—42-
GASKINS :
GA Mr . Chairman , I would like to comment to Mr. Stonebraker .
I was in my office when Mr. Stonebraker was talking to Mr . Hickman.
14r. Honn called me in March or April , and I told him that
we would be only too glad to talk to Mr. Stonebraker. I
gave Mr . Honn Mr . Hickman ' s phone number and said whenever
he wished to call and make an appointment, that we would
be available.
BRODY: We would be more than happy to contact the Treasury
Department and the Department of Defense and go through
this on the condition that if we ask these Departments the
question, if this well development takes place, will you
require Mr. Stonebraker to restrict his area of operations
to the number of feet he maintains it will be restricted
to, and if the answer to that is "no," then we would ask
Mr . Stonebraker that there will be no further opposition
to this. We have been delayed four months already--over
4 months--he says if he were to take the question to the
Department of Defense and Treasury, it would be another
3 months . We would be glad to -go ahead and do that on the
condition that he doesn ' t oppose us any further . Secondly,
we would be glad to furnish the board with evidence of the
• mineral owners and our leases--I have all that with me--
and I could show it to you in five minutes , I could show
you that we have-it ' s also public record. I could give
you the book and page , but it clearly shows who owns the
title in these minerals and that we have leased all the
minerals under the surface there.
—43-
COMMISSION: Mr . Chairman , I move that we table this action
until these points that have just been brought up are cleared
_and brought before our Planning Board again and we know
just exactly where each one of us sits, where these setback
regulations have to be and I would like to see two of you
get toget-her a little better and not use us as a sounding
board and work this thing and try to work this thing out .
We are normal citizens in the county and we have jobs -to
do at home and we hate to sit in here and try to take care
of these wars and battles , but I move that we table this
matter until this stuff is worked out .
COMMISSION: Seconded .
McKEVER: Do you intend to pursue this on the 5.007 acres?
GASKINS : As long as we are not going to be delayed any
longer . If once we get this Department of Defense and Treasury
Department satisfied.
McKEVER: You are not going to reduce the area and will
go under the same application.
GASKINS : We would be willing to, provided we would not
have to go through the whole thing again.
BRODY: The question is assuming Mr . Stonebraker doesn' t
have to move any facilities when its at 5 acres , -then that' s
irrelevant. I don' t see why we should have to change it.
I would just like to ask him then , does it matter to him
-44-
whether it is 5 acres, 1 acre or 2 acres or does he not
agree to any size, assuming that it doesn' t affect it.
STONEBRAKER: What is the question again, I 'm sorry.
BRODY: The question is whether you would also oppose a
1 to 3 acre or less than 5 acre application on the same
grounds .
McKEVER: If you don' t have to move your building, do you
care what size acreage the rezoning is?
STONEBRAKER: Well , yes . Based on the setbacks that I have
in the requirement of the book, and I gave you three specific
areas . Quantity, distance plus the test plus the fire hazard.
Now, if you are asking me if you get plans from the -Treasury
Department and also DOD that I do not have to changemy
safety plan for Stoneco , then , very definitely that the
request that would have to be a part of it is this is forever
and a day or through your ten years and that I am not subserviant
to a change in any time in the Department of Defense or
the Treasury Department and at that time you, Amoco, would
hold me harmless and pay me the damages for a move .
GASKINS : We can' t do that . I can ' t guarantee what the
Department of Defense is going to require 5 years from now.
STONEBRAKER: Well , I can ' t guarantee you. That ' s exactly
my position. You get it from one person and within six
months there is a good possibility that the change would
occur . So, I can ' t agree with you to say that I won' t
-45-
resist it, unless you can hold me harmless from any damage
to my business . And , secondly, are you going to drill another
well on my facility? Would you guarantee me that you won' t
drill another well?
GASKINS : No, we can ' t guarantee that . Unless it gets back
to the fact that position that there are two separate distinct
estates and Amoco recognizes the zoning authority of the
County, but we still feel that it is in the best interest
of the County and everyone concerned that all of the property
be developed to its fullest extent .
COMMISSION: Mr . Stonebraker is, in fact , condemning the
mineral rights by the fact that his zoning has precedent
over extracting the minerals.
BRODY: I think we would leave the application the way it
is.
STONEBRAKER: Let' s understand why, basically, because they
can ' t guarantee me to continue my operation.
GASKINS : We can' t guarantee you any further contracts from
the Department of Defense.
BRODY: We will be glad to get a statement as to their position
now though .
STONEBRAKER: Currently, it would help me. I wish business
was only a one year cycle. I wish they would get all their
oil out in the time it takes them to drill . They would
-46-
have my blessings to pump it just that fast and get off
the property. But they are talking about 10 years. Now,
they want me to hold in line for a one minute discussion
and won' t hold in line for 10 years in holding harmless
or drilling another well that cuts me again in half. I
think what' s fair is fair .
Mr . Chairman , one point if I can . I tried to say that
we are not here---Mr . Carlson, you said we were airing our
problems before you--that was a lot of my restraint, so that
we wouldn' t have to go through this . In an area that I
have not requested , I didn' t ask for the Weld County resolution
precluding drilling on industrial. If it is not a good
resolution, rescind it and Amoco and I can go to battle
in civil court. That' s where we would be.
GASKINS : Or, give us our permit and we can do the same
thing .
STONEBRAKER: You cannot because you rezoned me to agricultural
and that is the point.
GASKINS : If you are damaged then you take us to court and
prove your damages . That is the same thing.
STONEBRAKER: Mr . Chairman , the damage is different under
agricultural than it would be under industrial.
COMMISSION: No further discussion on the table . Vote on
motion to t-able . Mr . Nix--yes , Mr . Carlson--yes , Mr . Heitman--no,
Mr . Ashley--yes , Miss Kountz--no.
-47-
BRODY: _If we get information which shows that, at the present
time at least, the Treasury Department and the Department
of Defense have no objection or would not require Mr . Stonebraker
to limit his activities in a geographical area, and we bring
that evidence to you, then will you be satisfied that at
the present time , and that is all that we can work on now,
that our application will not interfere with his business,
and that therefore it should be granted .
MR. HEITMAN: I wouldn' t be satisfied.
BRODY: Well , for that matter , future changes could occur
anywhere. You know, you have to go on what is going on
now. He is basing his argumenton what they would require
right now and that is all we can go on. If they have a
position now then you think it would be effective for 10
years or indefinitely?
COMMISSION: The position that they take now or if you take
action on that today is from then on, I said 99 and 99/100%
of the time, very, very seldom do you ever have anything
pass through government that becomes retroactive.
BRODY: Well, we agree with that and because of that we
think that if we could show you know that there would be
no problem. . . .
$TONEBRAKER: The problem is that we are not talking about
pubic law. You are right on retrospective legislation .
But what we are talking about is promulgation of regulation.
—48-
The Weld County zoning does change , and changes as you change
your master plans. So does explosive acts , so do oil regulations .
If my contracts were forever , you are absolutely right .
But , my contracts are not. Each time I am under the new
regs when I accept a new contract .
(Discussion regarding voting on a new motion) .
GASKINS : If we can gain our permit and Mr . Stonebraker
feels he has been damaged , then it will be at issue in the
courts, if he wishes to take it there.
COMMISSION: Yes , but that scares me to death. Have you
as individuals ever tried to fight _city hall. Two different
cases here where it might get into court . I think it would
be the opportunity for a suit, not only against Amoco Production
Company but also a suit against the county in terms of rezoning
action .
MR. HEITMAN: I guess the part that concerns me is more
of a moral and ethical problem. Even though the mineral
rights are considered dominant. If an individual had the
foresight to plan an operation to provide all these things
like zoning and all of a sudden somebody drops in. It seems
like half our life is spent defending that which we think
we own outright . That is the disturbing part to me, maybe
moral and ethical , more than legal .
BRODY: You mean the mineral ownership?
-49-
MR. HEITMAN: Well , I think we here in Weld County attempt
to provide zoning the county that protects the citizens ,
and the w=-lfare of the County and zoning is---people get
zoning, it' s an economic thing, and the only reason that
I have agriculture zoning is because I am a farmer . And,
Mr . Stonebraker got industrial zoning because he had a use
for industrial zoning. Now all of a sudden, because of
another standard, somebody drops in out of the sky and he
is having to defend that which is his .
McKEVER: Well , it really is not his.
MR. HEITMAN: The surface is his.
McKEVER: The surface is his. The zoning was determined
by what was thought to be in the best interests of the county.
We have no obligation to ever allow the "highest use. "
COMMISSION: The greatest thing that concerns me is that
the property surface owner is being disturbed of his rights
here by the mineral rights coming in to defend their position
and, perhaps , rightfully so. My concern is I think that
Amoco or whoever it may be should make peace with the property
rights owner , regardless who it is or whatever the circumstances
are and if it takes doll-ars to do this , then Amoco or whoever
it may be ought to do it. They should pay through the nose
if necessary to take the property owner ' s rights .
BRODY: Well , apparently money won' t relieve Mr . Stonebraker ' s
alleged distance regulations . Well , no, if we pay him,
-50-
it' s still--according to Mr . Stonebraker--the Department
of Defense and Department of Treasury are still going to
require certain distances unless we buy Stoneco, and we
certainly don' t want to get into the firecracker business,
even in this Bicentennial year .
GASKINS : Mr . Nix, as your attorney can tell you sir , we
are not taking any of Mr . Stonebraker ' s rights . The only
rights we are trying to exercise are those of the mineral
estate.
BRODY: We will pay surface damage--we always do. For example ,
we go into a corn field and we damage a certain amount of
corn in drilling a well . . .
COMMISSION: I move that we deny this application; seconded.
MR. HEITMAN: I have one other discussion . The interesting
thing to me is the applicant never challenged once the staff ' s
recommendation. They only challenged Mr . Stonebraker .
GASKINS : Mr . Chairman, that is not true . We did challenge
the staff recommendation.
MR. HEITMAN: We' re not open for discussion .
COMMISSION: What reasons can we use to deny the application?
McKEVER: To deny the rezoning? Ok , you have to show, under
section 8. 3 that the zoning resolution, in order to justify
rezoning that either the original zoning was faulty or that
changing conditions in the area now justify reclassification.
—51-
In denying the rezoning you would be making a finding that
the original was not faulty and that there has not been
a change of conditions . And that is basically saying that
the evidence that has been presented by the applicant did
not show this. They did address that issue by saying that
the zoning was faulty in that it does not allow oil and
gas drilling on the site and that change in conditions in
that since it has been zoned industrial oil and gas has
been discovered . Therefore , it is a change in conditions .
That is their contention. So, if you, in denying rezoning,
you are making a finding that this is not sufficient .
COMMISSION: Vote on motion . Mr . Nix-yes . Mr . Carlson-
yes . Mr . Heitman-yes . Mr . Ashley-no. Miss Kountz-yes.
HONN: Today is the 12th of September , is that correct?
It will probably be the 18th or the 20th of October .
GASKINS : Ok, you will notify us . Thank you gentlemen.
-52-
7-104.78 Reserved.
7-104.79 Safety Precautions for Ammunition and Explosives.
(a) The following clause shall be inserted in all contracts which may involve
the development, testing, storage, manufacture, modification, renovation,
demilitarization, packaging, transportation, handling, disposal, inspection, repair
or any other use of ammunition and explosives. The terms "ammunition" and
"explosives"exclude inert components containing no explosives, active chemicals
or pyrotechnics. (See 1-323).
SAFETY PRECAUTIONS FOR AMMUNITION AND EXPLOSIVES(1970 SEP)
(a)As used in this clause:
(i) "ammunition" and "explosives"shall have the meaning set forth in DoD Contrac-
tors' Safety Manual for Ammunition, Explosives, and Related Dangerous Material,
DoD 4145.26M;
(ii) "accident"means an event causing damage or injury involving ammunition or explo-
sives which results in one or more of the following:
(I) one or more fatalities,*
(2) one or more disabling injuries,*
(3) ten or more non-disabling injuries,*
(4) damage to Government property exceeding 310,000,
(5) production interruption exceeding 24 hours.
(b) The Contractor shall comply with the DoD Contractor's Safety Manual for Ammunition
Explosives and Related Dangerous Materials (DoD Manual 4145.26M), in effect on the date of
the solicitation for this contract,as it relates to ammunition and explosives,and any other addi-
tional or more stringent requirements included in the schedule of this contract.** If the Contract •
-
. ing Officer notifies the Contractor of any noncompliance with such Manual, or schedule provi-
sions,the Contractor shall immediately take corrective action. If the Contractor fails or refuses to
take corrective action within the time specified by the Contracting Officer, the Contracting Of-
(jeer may direct the Contractor to cease performance on all or part of this contract, or until t
satisfactory corrective action has been taken. Any notification or direction under this paragraph
should be in writing or confirmed in writing by the Contracting Officer. The Contracting Officer
may at any time remove Government personnel whenever the Contractor is in noncompliance
with the safety requirements of this clause. Either action by the Contracting Officer shall not cull-
tie the Contractor to an adjustment of the contract price or other reimbursement for resulting in-
creased costs, or to an adjustment of the delivery or performance schedule. However, should
direction to cease performance be issued or Government personnel be removed and it is later
determined that the Contractor had, in fact,complied with the Manual, or schedule provisions,
the Contractor shall be entitled to an equitable adjustment in delivery schedule,in contract price,
or both, in accordance with the procedures provided for in the clause of this contract entitled
"Changes."
(c)The Contractor shall immediately notify the Contracting Officer after an accident involving
ammunition or explosives. The Contractor shall also, in accordance with this contract or as
required by the Contracting Officer,conduct an investigation and submit a written report of the
accident to the Contracting Officer.
• (d) Neither the requirements of this clause nor any act or failure to act by the Government in
surveillance or enforcement thereof shall affect or relieve the Contractor of responsibility for the
safety of his personnel and his property and for the safety of the general public in connection with
the performance of this contract, or impose or add to any liability of the Government for such
safety.The Contractor is not entitled to rely on the requirements of this clause or on any Govern-
- ment surveillance or enforcement thereof,or lack thereof,or granting of any waiver or exemption
in accordance with DoD 4145.26M in discharging the Contractor's responsibility.
(e)The Contractor shall insert the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (e),with
appropriate changes in the designation of the parties, in every subcontract hereunder which in-
volves ammunition and explosives as defined in(a)above.
(f) Nothing contained herein shall relieve the Contractor from complying with applicable
federal,state and local laws,codes,ordinances and regulations(including the obtaining of licen-
ses and permits)in connection with the performance of this contract.
(End of clause)
240. Pier mally limited to a minimum consistant with
A wharf build into the stream or fairway, safe. efficient production.
perpendicular or oblique to the shore. 248. Ship or Barge Units •
241. Prohibited Area The line inclosing the ship or barge being
A specifically designated area, at the ends of loaded, the space on the pier for spotting of of
each runway, in which all ammunition and ex- freight cars and trucks, and the space in the
plosives facilities are prohibited. water for barges which may be working the ship or barge.
- 242. Public Highway
249. Substantial Dividing Wall
Any public street, alley, road, or navigable
stream. Navigable streams shall be considered An interior wall designed to prevent, control
as only those parts of streams susceptible of or delay propagation of explosions between
being used in their ordinary condition as high- quantities of explosives on opposite sides of the
ways of commerce over which trade and travel wall.
are or may be conducted in the customary 250. Suspect Car and Truck Site
modes, but shall not include streams which are
not capable of extensive navigation by barges, A designated location for placing trucks and
tugboats, and other large vessels. rail cars containing ammunition, explosives,
and/or related dangerous materials in which
243. Quantity Distance the contents are suspected to be in a hazard-
The quantity of explosives material and dis- ous condition.
tance separation relationships which provide 251. Taxiway/Taxilane
defined types of protection. These relationships
are based on levels of risk considered accepta- A taxiway/taxilane is any surface, desig-
ble for the stipulated exposures and are tabu- nated as such in the basic airfield clearance cri-
lated in the appropiiate quantity-distance ta- teria specified by DoD Component publications
Iles. Separation distances are not absolute safe and Federal Aviation Regulation, as published
distances but are relative protective or safe at 14CFR77.
distances. GREATER DISTANCES THAN
THOSE SHOWN IN THE TABLES SHOULD -252. Test Pad
13E USED WHEREVER PRACTICABLE. Locations on which liquid propellant engines
or solid propellant motors are tested in place.
244. Quay
A marginal wharf of solid fill. 253. TNT Equivalent
It is that quantity of material which, if in-
245. Restricted Area volved in a detonation or explosion produces
Any area, normally fenced, from which per- damage equivalent to that produced by a given
sonnel, aircraft, or vehicles, other than those quantity of TNT under similar conditions. The
required for operations, are excluded for rea- common parameter for comparison is peak ov-
sons of safety and security. - erpressure.
246. Runway 254. Toxic Area
a. Any surface on and designated for air- An area in which the hazard is primarily a
-craft take-off and landing operations. direct hazard to health.
-b. A designated lane of water for take-off
and landing operations of seaplanes. 255. Waivers and Exemptions
These are written authorizations which per-
247. Service Magazine mit deviations from mandatory safety require-
An auxiliary building of an operating line ments for specific periods of time. Waivers are
used for the intermediate storage of explosives •granted for a one year period or less. Exemp-
materials. The amount of explosives is nor- tions are granted for an indefinite period.
2-4
1
PART 4
TESTING STANDARDS
400. General e. Laboratory supplies of explosives, not to
The safety standards of this part supple- regard to the compatibility required
exceed 16 pounds per cubicle, may be stored
ment other standards of this manual and prov-
ide pertinent standards for personnel directly
mg high explosives, primary _explosives, and
by Part 11; however, the principle of separat-
-associated with testing of ammunition and ex-
.plosives material. In general, appropriate con- chemicals shall be observed.
sideration for land, air and sea test area safety 402. Responsibility for Test Programs
standards will require individual evaluation
for danger areas and range/firing tables not A qualified person shall be designated and
_contained herein. Such pertinent safety stan- delegated the responsibility for the safe con-
dards shall be included in the procurement duct of firing programs assigned to them for
package of appropriate contracts. action. This responsibility includes insuring
that proper protection is worn in the case of
-401. Location personnel exposed to high noise levels, inju-
-he-test area shall be adequately separated rious pitch frequencies, objectionable reverber-
mei. isolated from other areas by appropriate ations, or other sound factors which may in-
-auantity-distance standards contained herein jure hearing. These conditions may exist when
to minimize danger of injury and poisoning of firing weapon systems or components thereof
personnel or when detonating explosives.
a. Danger areas shall be established. These 403. Program Requirements
are areas in which tests are conducted and into
which no one is permitted to enter, be within, Technical information regarding the various
or conduct tests within until safety clearance is characteristics of the ammunition items, explo-
obtained. Danger areas shall be posted to res- lives and pertinent weapon system data shall
trict unauthorized entrance to danger areas. be furnished to personnel responsible for test-
ing in order that the required safety measures
b. Danger zones such as points of impact may be engineered into the test plans.
shall be established within danger areas. These
zones vary in size with the type of firing. Dan- 404. Operating Precautions
ger zones shall be posted accordingly.
All ammunition and explosives tests shall be
c. Layout of buildings required for test areas accomplished in conformance with approved
shall be in accordance with quantity-distance standing operating procedures as prescribed in
standards, this manual. paragraph 603a, part 6. A check shall be made
d. Small quantities of explosives may be det- of all safety measures required by the operat-
-onated in cubicles of an operating building, ing procedure, prior to conducting tests, to in-
provided the cubicle is capable of withstanding sure availability during operations. Special
and confining the effects of the explosion and safety precautions not contained elsewhere in
personnel are properly safeguarded. Normally this manual are as follows:
a quantity of explosives larger than one-half a. Protection for percussion elements, Le.,
pound should not be favorably considered. primers, caps, etc., shall be provided in the de-
4-1
1
1
r '
PART 7
QUANTITY-DISTANCE STANDARDS
700. General c. It is not considered practicable to attempt
This part outlines quantity-distance require- to apply separation distances for every situa-
ynents applicable to storage, processing, and tion that may arise when manufacturing, han-
handling of ammunition and explosives. Classi- dling, and storing ammunition and explosives.
fication of items will be assigned in accordance Many conditions must be considered before a
with TB 700-2, NAVORDINST 8020.3, -T.O. decision can be made as to the degree of protec-
11A 1-47, and DSAR 8220.1. tion which should be afforded. For contractor
iDwned contractor operated plants, it is the res-
a. The requirements are designed to: ponsibility of the Procuring Contracting
(1) render inhabitants of nearby corn- Officer to determine the acceptable protection
munities, personnel of the plant, and after considering the hazard involved and the
adjacent property reasonably safe risk that must be assumed. For Government
from injury or destruction from pos- owned contractor operated plants, it is the res-
Lible fires or explosions. ponsibility of the authority having plant own-
. (2) keep to a minimum damage to pro- ership.
perty through a fire or explosion. d. The requirements of these quantity-dis-
b. The grouping of ammunition and explo- tance standards are not intended to apply to
sives into the several classes does not necessar- facilities built under the ground or to facilities
ily mean that different items in a class may be built into hills. Due to the variables involved,
stored together, each problem will require special considera-
tion.
c. Items which may be stored together at one
location are set forth in part 11.
702. Interpretation of Tables
d. The maximum amount of explosives per- a. The items governed by this part are
mitted in any location is specified in quantity- placed in classes based upon the character and
distance tables within this Part, predominance of hazards and potential for
e. Local limits shall be established in causing damage or casualties which they pre-
amounts no greater than those consistent with sent and not upon compatibility groupings or
safe,efficient operation. intended use.
701. Application -b. The list of items for each class contains
examples of the type of product in that class,
a. These quantity-distance standards apply but does not contain, necessarily, all articles
to the separation of facilities within plant which may be included in the classification.
boundaries at which ammunition and explo- Items can appear in more than one class de-
sives are or may be present. pending upon such factors as type of structure
b. These standards also apply to the location in which located,type of packing, storage con-
of ammunition and explosives with respect to figuration, caliber, state of assembly, and at
inhabited buildings, passenger railroads, and times upon amount.
public highways inside and outside plant c. 1t is impracticable to specify quantity-dis-
boundaries. tance separations allowing for flight ranges of
7-1
r
propulsive units containing both -high energy head weight alone and upon propel-
fuel and oxidizer, liquid monopropellants, or lant weight alone, not the total
solid propellants which properly belong in weight of both elements. The greater
Classes 2 through 6 because of their predomi- separation so determined will be the
nant hazards. When in aboveground storage required safety distance.
•
configurations, these units (based on tests or
experience) will be placed in hazard class (2) When a propellant providing some
(classes 2 through 6) which will assure-that contribution to the is involved:upon
most_fragments produced -by incidents involy_ warhead explosion is In
ing the units will fall within the specified in-
equivalency instances the high explosives
habited building distances. Maximum flight equivalency "value" of the propellant
ranges for the units in launch configuration, as will be added to the net weight of the
well as fragment distances in excess of 1800 explosives in the warhead.
feet, will be disregarded. When propulsive
units have been classified as mass-detonating 704. Determination of Quantity of Expio-
explosives, Class 7-tables shall apply.
lives and Measurement of Separation
explosives,
Distances
703. Computing Explosives Contents a. The total quantity of explosives in a mag-
The explosive weights intended for use with azure, operating building or other explosive
the quantity-distance tables shall be computed site shall ob the net weight t the explosives
as follows: therein. However, where the total quantity is
so subdivided that the possibility of detonation
a. Bulk explosives and demolition charges. and/or fire is limited to the quantity in any one
The net weight of the explosive in the bulk of the separate units, the net weight of the ex-
container or charge. plosives contained in the largest unit shall
b. Smokeless Powder (solid propellant). The apply.
net weight of-the propellant in charges, car- b. Where items of different classes are store
tridges, or motors. together in the same building or location, appl-
icable and separated explosives weight for the total -number
c. Fixed, semifixed, separate,
loading ammunition. Net weight -of explosives of items together in each explosives class all)�e explosive
ve
in projectiles exclusive of propelling charge. weight.
Thiso determine l the total dt
weight. total explosives weight and the
d. Bombs, warheads, grenades, mines, deto- -tables -applicable to the most hazardous class
nators, mortar ammunition, boosters, fuzes, (class requiring the greater separation) shall
and other loaded components. The-net weight be used to determine proper safety distances.
of the explosive filler.
c. The quantity of explosives to be permitted
e. Metal powders and pyrotechnics. Total in each of two -or more nearby similar maga-
weight of the-pyrotechnic composition and of zines or operating buildings shall be deter-
the explosives involved in pyrotechnic items; mined by considering each as a potential explo-
net weight of metal powders in containers. sion and/or fire site and limiting the quantity
1. Small-arms ammunition. No explosive of explosives to be permitted in the magazines
s. or operating buildings to the least amount al-
limit is placed on-the storage of then expl
lowed by the appropriate tables for the dis-
g. Missiles; Net weight of explosives in the tances separating-the magazines or operating
warhead or projectile plus the weight of the buildings concerned.
propellant; except:
d. The quantity of explosives permitter) in
(1) When Class 2 propellant not suscepti- each of two or more-nearby-sites for which dif-
ble to detonation upon ignition of the ferent quantity-distance-tables apply, shall be
warhead is involved: In such in- determined as follows: Consider each site, in
stances separate distance calculations turn, as a potential explosion and/or fire site;
will be made upon the basis of war- then, by reference to the table applicable to
7-2
•
F
/ each target, determine the quantity of expio- that the mass detonation may not occur when
( lives permitted for the distance between the the explosives in the railroad cars and motor
explosion and/or fire site and each target. Re- vehicles are added to the appropriate inside
cord the quantity in each instance as that to be unit or units, the separation (Iistanec shall be
permitted in the site. Where more than one measured from the wall nearest the controlling
quantity is thus recorded for any one site, the explosives unit, car or vehicle, as applicable, to
least quantity so obtained shall be the maxi- a target.
mum permitted. lc. In cases where explosives are contained on
e. In determining separation distances for or in an aircraft, distances will be measured to
new facilities, the quantity of explosives shall the explosives.
not exceed the capacity for which the facility
was designed. 705. Degree of'Safety Provided by and Use
f. Separation distances for determining the of Quantity-Distance Tables 7�C
maximum allowable quantity of explosives a. Separation distances are not absolute-safe
shall be measured from the outside of the near- distances but do provide relative protection.
est wall, side or back of a structure, control- GREATER DISTANCES THAN THOSE
ling room or controlling cubicle to the outside SHOWN IN THE TABLES IN THIS MAN-
of the nearest wall, side or back of another UAL SHOUT D BE USED WHEREVER
structure, room or cubicle. PRACTICABLE.
g. The separation distance between two piles b. Inhabited Building Distances are the-min-
or stacks of -explosives shall be the shortest imum permissible distances between aninhab-
distancelrom one pile or stac-k to the other. ited building and an ammunition_or explosives
h. Where the total quantity of explosives in location. Inhabited building distances are also
a magazine _or operating building is so sepa- used for protection of administration areas, ad-
"ated into piles or stacks that the possibility of jacent operating lines, except as noted in Para-
( detonation is limited-to the quantity in any one -graph 705e, and for other exposures within an
of the units, -the separation distance shall be establishment. Except as-otherwise specifically
measured from the outside of the wall nearest Prescribed herein (i.e., part 10), inhabited
the controlling explosives pile or stack to the building distances also shall be provided to-
nearest outside wall of anotherstrueture. tween ammunition and explosives locations and
plant boundaries.
i. Where sites of explosives are not so sepa- (1) Snhabited building distances as set
rated -as to prevent mass detonation, the total forth in this Part protect buildings
quantity in-such-sites shall be considered as a against "substantial"_structural dam-
unit and the separation distance measured age which is defined as follows:
from the nearest outside waif or the nearest (a) -Masonry buildings—serious weak-
explosives location in the unit, as appropriate, ening or displacement of portions
to a target. of -supporting walls (foundations,
j. Where railroad cars and -motor vehicles side walls, or interior supports),
containing ammunition and explosives-are not the breaking of rafters or other_im-
separated from an operating building contain- portant roof or floor supporting
ing-ammunition and explosives in such manner members.
as to prevent their mass detonation, the total (b) Frame buildings serious weaken-
quantity of explosives in the operating build- ing or displacement of_foundations,
ing, cars and motor vehicles shall be consid- breaking of any main -support
ered as a unit and the separation distance mea- within side walls -or interior sup-
silted from the near-est outside wall of the op- porting walls, or breaking of raf-
erating building, car or vehicle, as applicable, ters or other important roof or
to a target. If the explosives in the operating floor supporting members.
building are separated into smaller units so (c) Reinforced concrete structures—
7-3
•
r
displacement of any floor. wall, or types of magazines and also the type and Om
ceiling structural member or the quantity of ammunition or explosives stored
failure of any supporting member. therein. It is expected to prevent propagation
(d) No damage which is readily repair- of explosion from one magazine to another
able should be considered substan- from blast and provides a reasonable degree of
tial damage, protection against propagation of explosion
(2) Inhabited building distances do not due to fragments. It does not, except possibly
provide protection against glass mfor earth-covered magazines, protect the maga-
zines from severe structural damage. Magazine
breakage or injury to personnel from
glass breakage; therefore, greater distance is also used for certain quantity-dis-
tance computations where other than two mag-
distances should be used, if practice-
.
ble. The inhabited building distances azines are involved.
for mass-detonating ammunition and e. /n.tratine Distances are the minimum per-
explosives, class 7, and other classes nutted between any two operating buildings _
stored as class 7, are based on damage and/or sites within an operating line, at least
from blast effects; however, they do one of which contains or is designed to contain
provide a high degree of protection explosives, except that the distance from ser-
from fragments except for small vice magazine for the line to the nearest oper-
quantities where the fragment hazard ating building shall be not less than the intra-
may be more severe than the blast line separation required for the quantity of ex-
hazard. Inhabited building distances plosives contained in the service magazine.
for ammunition and explosives which
are not mass-detonating are based on (1) Intraline distances may be used -to
the most-severe hazard invoiced. separate operating buildings from
\� a Passenger Railroad and Pv,blic Highaeay storage magazines and from other ex-
c.Distances for class 7 explosives are 60 percent plosives operating buildings regard-
of the inhabited building distances established less involved,of whether oo not line de operations,
os
in class 7 are provided the degree of 1
quantity-distance tables. This is hazard of the explosives operations
based on the le er hei hr a n does not exceed those normally asso-
the vehicles exposed to the blast and fragment ciated with surveillance, check-out,
hazards, the greater strength of these vehicles inspection, minor retrofit, limited as-
as compared to-buildings, and while a building sembly and disassembly operations,
is stationary and subject to any risk con- packaging, and shipping
operations.
stantly, the exposure of a
passenger train or
vehicle is only momentary. Vehicles on the (2) Intral
distances may also be used
read should suffer little damage unless they to separate structures housing non-
are hit by a fragment or the blast wave causes explosives operations from explosives
a momentary loss of control by the operator. operating buildings and storage mare
Persons in the open will not be killed or in-
used support
Such structures are
op-
jured directly by blast or shock, however, some used in support of the explosives may be killed or injured by fragments from the eration or area.
source of the explosion and this can be-expected (3) Operating buildings which are not a
to-be serious when the concentration of persons part of an operating line may be sepa-
is high, such as in the case of outdoor amuse- rated from each other by intraline
ment or sports gatherings. For other than class distance, without limiting the -scope
7 materials, the passenger railroad and public of operations conducted therein (-as inhighways distances are identical to inhabited (2) above) provided: Ammunition
building distances. and explosives involved in each oper-
d. Magazine Distance is the minimum per- sting building present similar haz-
mitted between any two storage -magazines. ards.
Distance required is determined-by the type or (4) Some examples of typical structures
7-4
f
f
from the Office of
THEBOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERSGreeley, Colorado
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
September 24 , 1976
Publisher :
Please insert the enclosed noticesin your issue the week of
October 11, 1-916 -- one time only. Regarding payment, complete
the enclosed voucher and forward it to us . When returning the
voucher, please include an affidavit of publication so we may
complete our files.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Docket #76-37 Sincerely,
#76-38 THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
BY : Mary Ann Feuerstein
County Clerk and Recorder
nd Clerk to the, Board
iiY 2a-7Z-2-et- C c rr?hCC7/�
eputy Co nty Clerk
J{q n Ywy��.-'ifiy.Yt1t` tt swr*�7r �Y ?f tyy ,[{+� M. f.aq�tM�M, iR.^(..y 'w ro,
4Q 9!'�fy 4 4 uyyxp r r�•''i 1'11ro�` �.M „ ! I`n` r ! l�"�.f ..,
�M� ,s "'° AM ,✓ � �..h. tS(s �w.'w4'h' -u. Lv' ,.to .. xi^'�'+,'� .4y(6 :'
$ JN^:o"..!Wi. .. .+.,.,x. .4ey....vr.. vwnn ,...i ...,..n_+ , s✓s....aa +rn u, v...... svow..+.:aS! .n,a. rvw.. ✓x+.et�x
nv 3 7
i -
5.
s..1'i , 'gc,:i is w' { -J`
NOTICE
Pursuant to the zoning laws of the State of Colorado, a public hearing
will be held in the Chambers of the Board of County Commissioners of Weld
County, Colorado, Weld County Complex, 915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado,
at the time specified. All persons in any manner interested in the
following proposed Change of Zone are requested to attend and may be heard.
BE IT ALSO KNOWN that the text and maps so certified by the County Planning
(bmmission may be examined in the Office of the Clerk to the Board of the
County Commissioners, located in the Weld County Complex, 915 10th Street,
Third Floor, Greeley, Colorado.
Docket No. 76_38 Amoco Production Company
Security Life Building
Denver, Colorado 80202
Date: October 25, 1976
Time: 2: 00 P.M.
Request: Change of Zone, I (Industrial) to A (Agricultural)
Approximately 3/4 of a mile Southwest of Dacono, Colorado.
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
BY: MARY ANN FEUERSTEIN
COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER
AND CLERK TO THE BOARD
BY: Jeanne Lou Heimbuck, Deputy
Dated: September 22, 1976
r
AFFIDAVk ,F PUBLICATION
STATE OFCOLORADO, )
)ss.
COUNTY DF WELD. ) _AOTiCE
Pursunt to the 39ning laws -of
1 Oran Q 1$Ol i n o ;the State of Cblorado, a public
i hearing will be $eid In the
being duly sworn, deposes and says: ;Chambers of.the—Board of County
1. That he is the Owner and Publisher of The Greeley Booster 1 Commissioners of Wert. County,
Colorado, Weld County Complex,
a weekly newspaper printed and published in the City of Greeley, 913 10th -Street, Greeley, Colors-
_
County of Weld and State of Colorado, which has been admitted do, at the that spealfiW. All ,per-
to the United States Mails as second class matter under Act of eons /n any -manner Interested in
the following proposed -Change of
Congress, of March 3, 1879. [Zone are requested to. attend and
2. That the said The Greeley Booster is printed and published , may be heard.
at regular intervals, one time each week, on Friday, and that it 9E IT ALSO KNOWN that the
text and maps so certified by the
has a general circulation in the County of Weld, and elsewhere. Weld County -Planning Commie-:.
3. That the said The Greeley Booster was established and has ,,slim may be ,slammed in the
beenprinted and :Office o1 the Clerk to the Hoard
published in said county uninterruptedly and :�o; the county- Commissioners, to
continuously during a period of at least fifty-two consecutive weeks i eated in the Weld County. Com-
p[.pier, 915 10th- Street,-Third Floor,
next prior to the first issue thereof containing said-
;__ .. Greeley, Colorado
Notice ;I 'DOCKET No. 16-38
r • Amoco Production Company
I • Security Life Building •
a copy of which is hereunto attached. ; - Denver, Colorado. 80202
4. That the said The Greeley Booster is a weekly newspaper i !TIME:. October 25, 1976
E:i (TIME: 2:P0 P.M.of general circulation, and is printed and published in whole or in i -Request:,Change
of Zone, I.-(In-
i dustrial) to.A (Agricultural).
part in the said County of Weld in which said IA tract of 5.007 acres located
In. the NE% JNWr% of Becton. 12,
Tlnf i ra , Township 1 'North, Range 68
West, 6th Principal ..Meridian,
is required by law to be published, a copy of which is hereto at- I .Weld County, .Colorado, being!
Cached. more -particularly described -asl
follows, to-wit: '1
5. That the said The Greeley Booster is a weekly newspaper Commencing at the North
within the meaning of "An Act Concerning Legal Notices, Adver- i quarter cornar of Section 12,
tsements and Publications and Fees of Printers and Publishers :'thence Westerly , along the'.
Thereof and to Repeal all Acts and Parts of Acts in Conflict with North line of the 'NE% NW%
'of Section 12 a -distance of LOS
the Provisions of this Act," being Chapter 139 of the Session Laws f 'feet to a _point, thence South
of Colorado of 1923 as amended by Chapter 113 of the Session y parallel to the Zest line of
Laws of Colorado of 1931, and later amended by Chapters 155 to and s ant NW:>k of Section 12
I a is of of 203 Peet to ice
156 of the session Laws of Colorado of 1935. tl, 'point ar eragfmn}ng. Thence'.
'Smith parallel to the East• '
6. That the said annexed Notice 'tattoo
of the NE?& NW% a s
0t1Ce ta of 467 est, thence Weeft.
parallel -to the' .a dint line of
the Nfeet% NW a par-
, waspublished in the regular and entire-edition of The Greeley all seer. Thence t North' par-
,
g : f
467 to the West line of the
Booster, a duly qualified weekly newspaper for that purpose,with- •NE% NW% a distance of 467
in the terms and meanings of the above named Acts. feet, thence East parallel to.'
the North line of the Ne
NA;VI4 a distance of 467. -feet
7. That the said annexed -- to i the
q, Notice Dated:-point b r beginning.
THE 'BOARD OF
is a full, true, and correct copy of the original which was regularly COUNTY GOMMISSIONEHS
published in each of the regular and entire issues of said news- �t'By: aryNAn, GoeoRADo.
paper, a legally qualified paper for that purpose, once each week, By: Mary Ann- Recorder
County Clerk and Recorder
on the same day of each week, for successive weeks and.Clerk to the Board
by TWO insertions and that the first publication thereof By: Jeanne Lou HeiDepputy was Published September 24, 1976
and in the issue dated Septa 24 .1976and October 15, 1976 in The
9 Greeley Booster.
that the 1 Pet• r,
��bllieati lv ethh led i97� .
Subscribed syy�� rn to before, ee his r 02 # day
Of �Z4�� , 19-i&- Aleth iii x+6 .7: A c.,44a,
NOTICE
Pursuant to the zoning laws of the State of Colorado, a public hearing
will be held in the Chambers of the Board of County Commissioners of Weld
County, Colorado, Weld County Complex, 915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado,
at the time specified. All persons in any manner interested in the
following proposed Change of Zone are requested to attend and may be heard.
BE IT ALSO KNOWN that the text and maps so certified by the County Planning
(bmmission may be examined in the Office of the Clerk to the Board of the
County Commissioners, located in the Weld County Complex, 915 10th Street,
Third Floor, Greeley, Colorado.
Docket No. 76-38 Amoco Production Company
Security Life Building
Denver, Colorado 80202
Date: October 25, 1976
Time: 2: 00 P.M.
Request: Change of Zone, I (Industrial) to A (Agricultural)
A tract of -5. 007 acres located in the NE4 NW4 of Section 12,
Township 1 North, Range 68 West, 6th Principal Meridian, Weld
County, Colorado, being more particularly described as follows,
to-wit:
Commencing at the North quarter corner of Section 12, thence
Westerly along the North line of the NEa NWa of Section 12 a
distance of 203 feet to a point, thence South parallel to the
the East line of the NE4 NW4 of Section 12 a distance of 203 feet
to the point of beginning. Thence South parallel to the East line
of the NE4 NW4 a distance of 467 feet , thance West pa_'lle1 to
the South line of the NEa NW4 a distance of 467 feet. Thence
North parallel to the West line of the NE4 NW4 a distance of 467 feet,
thence East parallel to the North line of the NE4 NW4 a distance
of 467 feet to the point of beginning.
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
BY: MARY ANN FEUERSTEIN
COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER
AND CLERK TO THE BOARD
BY: Jeanne Lou Heimbuck, Deputy
Dated: September 22, 1976
Jublished: September 24, 1976 and October 15, 1976 in the
Greeley Booster
•
NOTICE
Pursuant to the zoning laws of the State of Colorado, a public hearing
will be held in the Chambers of the Board of County Commissioners of Weld
County, Colorado, Weld County Complex, 915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado,
at the time specified. All persons in any manner interested in the
following proposed Change of Zone are requested to attend and may be heard.
BE IT ALSO KNOWN that the text and maps so certified by the County Planning
(bmmission may be examined in the Office of the Clerk to the Board of the
County Commissioners, located in the Weld County Complex, 915 10th Street,
Third Floor, Greeley, Colorado.
Docket No. 76-38 Amoco Production Company
Security Life Building
Denver, Colorado 80202
Date: October 23, 1976
Time: 2 : 00 P.M.
-Request: Change of Zone, I (Industrial) to A (Agricultural)
A tract of 5. 007 acres located in the NEa NWa of Section 12 ,
Township 1 North, Range 68 West, 6th Principal Meridian, Weld
County, Colorado, being more particularly described as _follows ,
to-wit:
Commencing at the North quarter corner of Section 12 , thence
Westerly along the North line of the NEa NWa of Section 12 a
distance of 203 feet to a point, thence South parallel to the
the East line of the NEa NWa of Section 12 a distance of 203 feet
to the point of beginning . Thence South parallel to the East line
of the NEa NWa a distance of 4-67 feet, thance West pa:. -11e1 to
the South line of the NEa NWa a distance of -467 _feet. Thence
North parallel to the West line of the NEa NWa a distance of 467 feet,
thence East parallel to the North line of the NEa NWa a -distance
of 467 feet to the point of beginning.
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
BY: MARY ANN FEUERSTEIN
COUNTY CLERK AND _RECORDE-R
AND I;LERK TO THE BOARD
BY: Jeanne Lou Heimbuck, Deputy
Dated: September 22, 1976
Published: September 24, 1976 and October 15, 1976 in the
Greeley Booster
Of `.--7§6-H---‘
NOTICE
Pursunt to -p.S zoning laws of
I the State of Colorado, a public
Ihearing will be held in the
'Chamlbers of the- Board of County
Commissioners fd Weld County,
Colorado, Weld County Comhlex,
915 10th ^Street, Greeley, Colora-
do, at the time specified. All-per-
sons in any manner interested in
the following proposied Change of
Zone are requested to attend and
may be heard.
BE IT. ALSO KNOWN that the
text and maps so certified by the
Weld County Planning Commis-
sion may be examined in the
Office of the Clerk to the Board.
Iof the.County Commissioners, lo-
cated in'the Weld County Com
F plex, 915 10th Street, Third Floor,
I Greeley, Colorado.
DOCKET No. 76=38.
Amoco Production Company
Security Life Building
Denver, Colorado 80202
MATE: October 25, 1976
'-TIME: Z:00 P.M.
72equest: Change of Zone, I (In-
dustrial) to.A (Agricultural)
A'- tract of 6.007 acres located
in the NEyy NW yy. of.Section 12,
Township -1 North, .Range 68
.West, 6th Principal Meridian.I
Weld County, Colorado. being
'more particularly - described as'
'follows; to-wit:
Commencing' at- the North
quarter corner of Section 12,
thence Westerly along the
North line of the NE% NW%
of Section 12 a distance of 203-
feet to a point, thence South
parallel - to the-East line of
the NE%-NW%%' of- Section 12
' a distance -of 203. feet to the
point of beginning. Thence
South parallel' to the
line of the NE% NWyy.a 9•
Lance of 407 feet, thence West
parallel to 'the South line of
the NE#' NW?/4, a distance of
46,7 feet.- Thence- North par-
allel to -the West line of the
NE% NW'g a distance. of -467 -
feet, thence East parallel to
the North line of the NE%
NWy%,' a distance of 467 feet
to the point of beginning.
Dated: Septeber..22, 1076
- THE BOARD Dr '
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
-VELD COUNTY, COLORADO
73y: Mary Ann Feuerstein,
County Clerkand Recorder
and Clerk to the Board
By: Jeanne Lou Heimbuck,
Deputy
Published September 24, 1976
Land October. 15, 1976 in The
Greeley Booster.
pAIL'E : Sept-ember 20, 19/0
•
TO : Th,) i3or:rd of County Commissio'i:_rs
weld County , Colorado
FROM: Clerk to the board Office
Commissioners :
If you have no objections , we have tentatively set the
following hearing for the 25th of October, 2:00 P.M. , .
TOA American Gas Products, SUP, Expansion of gas processing facility
Amoco Production Company, Security Life Building, Denver, COZ, I to A .
•
•
OFF- E OF Ti E CLERK TO TEE BOARD
vBY , fluty
The above mentioned hearing date and hearing time may be scheduled
on the agenda as stated above :
hfARD Or COUNTY C0M>1 : SSI0NERS
;9ELD COUNTY , COLORADO
(
-rt.-c.(/,',7,
L.G. Gaskins
Attorney
Ai
(Ina
Amoco Production Company
_Or Security Life Building
Denver,Colorado 80202
303-820-4040
Sept-ember TO, 1976
Zoning Case No. Z-272:76:3
Board of _County Commissioners
Weld County, Colorado
Centennial Center
Greeley, Colorado -8O631
Gentlemen:
This will verify that -Amoco Production Company will pay all costs of
publication in the abovE entitled action in order to be placed on the
County Commissioners agenda for the month of October, 1976.
If you require advance payment, please _contact the undersigned at
Amoco Production Company, Security life Building, 1616 Glenarm Place, Denver,
Colorado 8O2O2, telephone No. 82O-4683, and we will promptly remit the same.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. )))))
Very truly yg4irs,
1f,.G. Gaskins
Attorney
LGG:bmd
BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY , COLOR-ADO PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD _OF COUNTY £OMMISSIONERS
C-ase N o . 1-272:7_6:3 Date -S-eptember 7. 1976
APPLICATION DE Amoco Production Company
ADDRESS Security Life Building, Denver, CO 80202
Moved by Mr. Carlson that th-e following resolution be
introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning Commission :
Be it Resolved by the Weld County -Planning Commission that the
application for rezoning from I ( Industrial District ) to
A ( -Agricultural District ) covering the following -described
property in Weld County , Colorado , to-wit :
STATE F-COLORADO ss.
See Attached CC 'UNTY-OF WELD
FIiGJ with the Clerk of the Board
of County Commissioners
1 S EP 1 '; 976
C year un amneo cq
< Deputy_
be recommended X G3cK XX4QXXIQiX ( unfavorably) to the Board of _Co_unty
Commissioners -for the -following reasons :
le The request to rezone the subject 5.007 -acre parcel is mot compatible with the
existing land use _onthe NWa of Sec. 12, T1N, Rb8W which is owned by Austin T.
and William N. Stonebraker. The existing land use is the manufacture and storage
of scatter -gun shells and -other pyrotechnic devices. The proposed rezoning is not
compatible with this existing land use for the following reasons: (a) The -Depart-
ment of Treasury and the -Department of Defense regulations require that facilities
such as the existing use be located c-ertain distances from other activities. These
distance regulations (known as "quantity and distance storage requirements") in turn
govern the amount of storage spate allowed in e facility. There are-also requirements for
spacing between storage areas in a facility ("interline distance" requirements.) (b)
Testing -facilities are located throughout the property. Due to sound and safety
requirements the testing areas would require relocation if the proposed use is allowed;
(c) The -proposed use would create a fire hazard if located near the -existing lase.
Motion seconded by Ms. Kountz__
Vote : For Passage Mr. Nix Against Passage Mr. Ashley
Mr. tarl son__---_----
Mr Heitman_
Ms. Kountz—__ —
The Ch-airman declare-d the -Resolution pissed and ordered that -a
certified copy be forwarded with the file of this case to the Board
of County Commissioners for further proceedings .
A tract of 5 . 007 acres located in the NE/4
NW/4 of Section 12 , Township 1 North, Range
68 West, 6th Trincipal Meridian , Weld County ,
Colorado , being more particularly described
H \
as follows , to-wit:
\ \ ` % Commencing at the North quarter corner of
y 'c Section 12 , thence Westerly along the North
line of the NE/4 NW/4 of Section 12 a distance
of 203 feet to a point, thence South parallel
�.` to the East line of the NE/4 NW/4 of Section 12
a distance of 203 feet to the point of begin-
ni_ng . Thence South parallel to the East lino
of the NE/4 NW/4 a distance of 467 feet , thence
West parallel to the South line of the NE/4 NW/4
a distance of 467 feet, thence North parallel to
the West line of the NE/4 NW/4 a di-stance of
467 feet, thence East parallel to the North
line of the NE/4 NW/4 a distance of 467 feet
to the point of beginning.
Amoco Production Company
2-272:76:3
September 7, 1976
2, As stated in Section 8.3 of the Weld County Zoning Resolution, "There must
be definite proof that the area request for change has unique characteristics
which distinguish it from surrounding lands and thus make its rezoning essential ."
It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that this rezoning request is not
_essential since an alternative method of extracting the resource is available
to Amoco Production Company according to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission. The available alternative method of extracting the resource from
the NEa NWa of Sec. 12, T1N, R68W is to locate the oil well rig on an adjacent
parcel of land and directional drill under the subject parcel of land.
3. Section 8.3 of the Weld County Zoning Resolution states: "Recent findings and
oral statements by the petitioners should show very clearly that either the
original zoning was faulty or that changing conditions in the area now justify
a new classification. Without such supporting documentation, the County Planning
Commission should not recommend a change of zone."
It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that Amoco has not shown that the
original zoning was faulty or that changing conditions in the area now justify
a new classification.
4. The Town of Dacono Planning Commission has indicated the Town of Dacono is
opposed to the zone change request.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I, Pat Rymer , Recording Secretary of Weld County Planning
Commission, do hereby certify that th-e -above and foregoing Resolution is a true
copy of Resolution of Planning Commission of Weld County, Colorado, adopted on
September 7, 1976 , and recorded in Book No. 5 , Page No. , of the
proceedings of said Planning Commission.
Dated this 15 day of September , 19 76
r
Recording -Secretary, Weld Coun Planning Commission
pC-Z-006
TOWN OF DACON-
512 Cherry P O Box 186 Local 833-2317
Daconr , Colorado 80514 Metro 825-1256
It
August 13, 1976
Weld _County Colorado Planning Commission
1516 Hospital Road
Greeley Colorado
Dear _Sirs,
On August 10, 1976, the Dacono Planning Commission met and
discussed the application from Amoco _Production Company for
a zone change _from I to A-UD.
They are against this change because as it will distract from
the tax base for Dacono and it will interfer with future annexation
to the Town of Dacono. There is a planned growth or a period
of years for our Sown and we feel that this would be determental
to this growth.
Sincerely
p-
)4.-tom. — ,a,(_,6
Donnie F Pasco
Town Clerk
V
✓ ro
August D1 , 1976
Telephone with Doug Rogers - Director, _Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
- Directional (slant) drillings has occured in the past usually due to
topography (lake for example) or existing development on the surface
(a residential subdivision for example)
- A general rule of thumb for the additional costs of directional drilling
as opposed to straight drilling is as follows:
1 . Drilling cost - increased by 2
2. Casing costs - increased clue to the increased length of the hole
3. Drilling time - increased by i
4. Agreement with the surface owner - increased by the amount of the
cost of such an agreement.
- Procedure - if directional drilling is required, then the applicant
has to show a survey of where the bottom of the hole will be -on the
application for a permit to drill a well (obtained through the Colorado
Oil and Gas Conservation Commission)
l �/ '
/
3
' IN THE DISTRICT COURT
/
4
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WELD
'•N / STATE OF COLORADO
6 Civil Action No. . ) � /TU.;
7 Division
N
AUSTIN P . STONEBRAKER, )
9 WILLIAM N . STONEBRAKER, and )
STONECO, INCORPORATED , )
to )
Plaintiffs , )
It )
12 vs . )
)
RONALD HEITMAN , JOHN WEIGAND , J. )
13 BEN NIX, MARGE YOST , HARRY ASHLEY , ) TEMPORARY RESTRAINING. ORDER
BILL ELLIOTT, CHUCK CARLSON , INDI- )
tl VIDUALLY AND ACTING AS THE WELD )
13 COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION; GLENN )
BILLINGS , VICTOR JACOBUCCI , ROY )
I6 MOSER, NORMAN CARLSON, JUNE STEIN- )
MARK, INDIVIDUALLY AND ACTING AS )
IT THE WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ; )
AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY , A )
18 DELAWARE CORPORATION, )
19 Defendants . )
20
THIS MATTER coming on to be heard on Plaintiffs ' Motion re
21
questing a Temporary Restraining Order against the Defendants ,
22
and the Court having examined the sworn Affidavit of the Plain-
23
tiff and the Complaint on file herein and being fully advised in
24
the premises , and it appearing that sufficient grounds exist for
25
said Temporary Restraining Order , therefore :
26
IT IS ORDERED, that the above named Defendants herein, and
27
each of them, and their officers , agents , servants , employees ,
28
attorneys , and other persons in active concert or participation
29
with said Defendants be restrained from interfering with or pro-
30
ceeding with , considering or passing on the pending rezoning ap-
31
plication of Amoco Production Company, and/or from further inter-
32
fering with Plaintiffs ' use of and activities on Plaintiffs '
33
property , said property being a certain tract of land in the
34
Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest '1/4 of Section 12 , Township 1
33
North , Range 68 West , 6th Principal Meridian , Weld County, Colo-
36
*ti1,-
i
rado, said property is more fully described in the Complaint on
2 file herein .
3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendants be restrained
from any and all acts which will render unusable portions, OZ4r'
Plaintiffs ' aforementioned property as Plaintiffs ' manufacture
9 requires use of the entire said property .
7 AS CAUSE FOR the issuance of said Temporary Restraining
Order, this Court finds that if said Temporary Restraining Order
9 were not issued at this time , the Plaintiff herein would suffer
ID immediate and irreparable damage because the deprivation of use
II of any portion of Plaintiffs ' property will require Plaintiffs,
12
to cease manufacturing and testing operations and thus Will
Is constitute a complete bar of business or will force Plaintiffs I
14
to cease all business operations pending a relocation of Plain-
I3
tiffs ' physical plant at great cost to Plaintiffs .
16
Said Temporary Restraining Order shall continue in effect
17
for a period of not more than TEN (10) days or until further
18
Order of this Court, whichever shall occur first.
19
Done in open Court this Li day of May , 1976 , at /p;/,5
2u
o 'clock .M.
21
22 BY HE CO IRO •
23
Judge
24
23
• 26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
9G
jsr,7nr;Iran
-2-
} /Cud �� rte /
CASE NUMBER : Z-272:7_6:3
L-0C-ATION :_pt. NE4NW& Sec. 12, T1N, 1168W; 3/4 mi . S. and z mi . W. of iTacono
REQUEST : Zone Change — I to A-liD
NAME : Amoco Production Co. _ t-- .r
19. THE WELT COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS
REQUEST BE take it under advisement FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS :
1 . Unresolved at this point is the question of whether or not Amoco as lessee
of the mineral rights has the right to request the -rezoning on property
which the owner of record, Mr. Stonebraker, opposes. Therefore, it is
recommended that a meeting take place prior to the May 18, 1-976 Planning
Commission meeting between the County' s Special Legal Counsel , Mr.
Stonebraker's attorney, and Amoco's legal counsel to resolve the situation.
2. A second area of concern in Section -8.3 Reasons for Rezoning of the Weld
County Zoning Resolution. There is a question as to whether this item
has been addressed completely.
20 . PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION :
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES : DATE :
21 . COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ' ACTION :
CDUNTY COMMISSIONERS ' MINUTES : DATE :
22 . DATE : -STAFF :
1 COLOPADo
WELD COUNTY PLANNING tOMMISSION
G R E E LEY.Co LO.
1516 Hospital Road
April 6, 1976
Mr. John lang two - t S84-
-Amoco Production to.
Room 2211
Security life Building
Denver, CO 80202
-RE: Rezoning request on parcel of land described -as part of the NE'
of the NW' of Section 12, 71N, R68W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County,
Colorado.
Dear Mr. lang:
Your application and related materials nre complete and in order.
• I have tentatively scheduled the hearing before the Weld County
Planning Commission for May 4, 1976.
If you have any further questions pertaining to this natter, Please
contact bur office.
-Respectfully,
t 1% / / c7LC� �vn
Ken McWilliams
Assistant Zoning Administrator
KM/pr
11 1
H
r' • /
j.)P ; 116'
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION p/)
•r
)
County of Weld )
S S: + -
State of Colorado )
, fCrc' dG
fJ 'Jo solemnly swear that I am the
publisher of the Farmer and-Miner, a weekly news-
paper printed andpublished in the Town of Frederick,
in the County of Weld, State of Colorado, and having
a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has
been continuously and uninterruptedly published in Well
said county fifty-two weeks prior to the first publica- ning
�GlcHEA
tion of the annexed notice, and that said newspaper is NOTICE OP-PUBLIC NEARING
a newspaper within the meaning of the act of the The Weld County Planning Commission will PGeneral Assembly of the State of'olorado,approved Company foreview a request zone chngefrom Industrial to
March 30, 1923, being Chapter 1939,Session Laws-of Pt.AgrlNortheast cultural n�Quener _off°fthe nNorthwest
1923, as amended by Chapter 113 of the Session. Laws Quarterbi Section 12, Township 1 North of
of 1931; and -as further amended by Chapter 155 of countytoi0 elooThe meeeting wlM'be-held
the Session Lawsrof 1935; that the annexed notice-was oMeeting Room,in
County Public missiealth i-published in the regular and entire issue of every Building, 1516 Hospital Road, G7eeley,• number of said weekly newspaper for a period f Colorado at z:oo P. M. Comments or
/ // the Pl ns should be submitCoted In writing to
11.1fe consecutive issues,-and that the firstpub-
lication Hospital Ro e,0omemisalon Office, 1516
before ti
above edate. Copies of�e
of said-notice was in the issue of said news- application are available for
i in the public inspection
r7 -ext.227.Planning Commission Office,353-2212,
paper dated .,-.S--, 19...7L , and the Published in the Farmer and Marc Apra 15,
1976.
last publiztiioon -was in the issue Of said -newspaper
dated C. 'fil , 19
0.
In witness whereof, Brave set my hand this./,
dayof 4 .iif ,19..7JJ..
//?' e-itlide .62;les-Zt,C)
PTublisher
Subscribed and sworn before me this / 7 trg day
of kill ( , 19 7,4i
*tary Public
My xommission-expires My Commission C::r March;; March11, 1978
f
6
ll IL '
r`j XI ttia
i OFF11'✓"c OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
3,'- 1I1 '41W—:'
' GARY2.�ORTNER
` =14 DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
I\ PHONE (303) 353-2212 EXT.227,228
' 151B HOSPITAL ROAD
GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 itigge4tECEIPT FOR CE TIFIED MAIL-30c, E
5 (plus postapr
I COLORADO STRE gr�'g_ryDNO�2)7 e- POSTMARK
OATEN
E AND 2
April 28, 1976 oRTIONAI fFERYICE3 OR Arg T 0SAI fEE5�1 r RECEIP I. Shows to whom ain00 00ate delivered 15d
RECEIPT
Worth deltvery to addressee only.
1EgVICE5 7 51100.,:to whom,00atNnd where 00,11 55Q
DELIVEP Worth delivery to addressee only 35�
0 e TO ADDRESSEE ONLY 85�
SPECIAL DELIVERY -"'
{,y _ (extra tae regm red �d
P5�orm ..... .........
Mr. John Lang
Ay,, 1971 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED—
Amoco Production Company -NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL
(S..-0h•r ,;, ,
n GFo;1➢11 o-400-i Cr
I Security Life Building ---
1 Denver, Colorado 80202
+
I Tear Mr. Lang:
This letter is to inform you that your request for a one change
1 from Industrial to Agricultural _Unit Devel-opment on property
described as Pt. NEa NWa Sec. 12 TIN R68W will be heard before
-the Weld -County Planning Commission on Tuesday, May 4, 1976•
The meeting will be held at 2:DO 'P.M. in the County Commissioners
I Meeting Room, Second Floor, Publi-c Health Building, Greeley, Colorado.
Please be present or have a representative present. Thank you.
Sincerely,
I � � QA
//-€A�i' ///r. 2-CiC LZ!-L9MKLJ
Ken McWilliams ' °--._..____
Assistant Zoning Admin
��yy� 1 ��
Y i xt,44 ��yyTTII n. Y`
I 'S p0.' 148\ D t m1 v}' {'- WF.
'° WG � rc 7 4' 1 t x a' .O.I= too
k w y W _ $ ti t. 0 ?.
R
WW >: R a a.ti .,
I C 9 {+. e �,4 x vt.7)4 o
• y�O 9 /aj Aq i
jsm .a G q ad a u o ° •A • Y+ ,r ''.�" �i 14.1", N} 1'
�' EI x A w D u a .r s �, m -
1 ng s 2 ,2 -0 ° , 2 I .. , ti,�� +mss > "
-S eb; a a2 00 , r,, " I, E °�
V u
rA:. _U JII . j. Mme . f... J
.-. ci rim rn N aj ul
PS Form 3811,Nov.1973 RtETURN RECEIPT, REGISTERED, INSURED AND CERTIFIED MALI.
--I _�'_I_ f TL1 �I 1T 111 II I I I r-__
_1 REZONING APPLICATION.-
Weld 'County Planning Depa'Ytment Services Building, Greeley, Colo.
FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT USE ONLY CASE NUMBER:
PC HEARING DATE: ,'4 .--)6
SEC: -PWP RANGE: CC HEARING DATE: JJ
LAND CODE:
T: S : 1/4 : KEY:
SUB/DIV CODE:
SUB: BLK: LOT: KEY:
REFER TO: REZONING FEE: //45��N site/ t/O.�e
1) 0, 4in Date: APP. C-HECKED BY: /-r4 3-5-%
`tjri Vic,. Pate: REC. NO. : 5--e
3) y(t, _ ..{- 'w�, u Late: LEGAL DESC. APPROVAL:
4) C ,c -,�. L� Date:
(lc a i l�) f , �. ,rti�4': ) (�,r L . L'l0 !- r'I i c 0?.,.'.f. .v>,,'Qi�.,,-.,_,
. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROCEDURAL GUIDE REQUIREMENTS :
Print or type only, except for necessary signatures.
I (we) , the undersigned, hereby _request a hearing before the Weld County
Planning Commission concerning proposed rezoning of the following described
unincorporated area of Meld County: LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
A tract of 5. 007 acres located in the NE/A
• NW/4 of Section 12 , Township 1 North, Range
68 West, 6th Principal Meridian, Weld County,
Colorado, being more particularly described
as follows, to-wit:
Commencing at the North quarter corner of
Section 12 , thence Westerly along the North
line of the NE/4 NW/4 of Section 12 a distance
of 203 feet to a point, thence South parallel
to the East line of the NE/4 NW/4 of Section 12
a distance of 203 feet to the point of begin-
ning. Thence South parallel to the East line
of the NE/4 NW/4 a distance of 467 feet, thence
West parallel to the South line of the NE/4 NW/4
a distance of -467 feet, thence North parallel to
the West line of the NE/4 NW/4 a distance of
467 feet, thence East parallel to the North
line of the NE/4 NW/4 a distance of 467 feet
to the point of beginning.
STREET -LOCATION: N/A
PRESENT ZONE Industrial PROPOSED ZONE Agricultural APPROX AREA: 5 acres
PURPOSE: Oil and gas drilling and production operations
IS THIS AREA PLATTED: YES ( ) NO (X) . IF PLATTED, NAME OF PLAT:
IS THIS AREA TO BE PLATTED: YES ( ) NO (X) . IF ANSWER IS YES , HAS PLAT BEEN
SUBMITTED: YES ( ) NO ( ) .
LESSEE OF OIL AND GAS IN AND UNDER AREA -PROPOSED FOR REZONING
NAME: Amoco Production Company ADDRESS: Security Life -ldg.TEL:
Denver, Colorado 80202
NAME: ADDRESS: TEL:
NAME: ADDRESS : TEL:
I hereby depose and state under the penalties of perjury that all statements,
proposals and/or plans submitted with or contained within this application
are true and correct to the best of my knowle ge.
Amor ROD OMPANY
STATE _OF COLORADO
CITY AND ss.
COUNTY OF DENVER ) Byks)
is At -Fact Subscribed and s worn to _before me this 4'day f , 19 /q 6 .
I V
SEAL
OTARY PUB IC
My commy;sion expires: Y Commission Expires June 3,1g7R
IfPIIII III 1I IIIIIIIIIIIM IRP Jfl{f)II
TO PETITIONE.J _'OR CHANGE OF ZONING
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Q. 1. Is it impractical, impossibl-e, or undesirable to
develop the land according to its -current -zoning classification.
A. Yes. No nil and gas well drilling operations may be
conducted in an industrial zone.
Q. 2 . Would the proposed rezoning benefit the entire county
by allowing a typical development which is needed and cannot
locate in other parts of the county.
A. Yes. Oil and gas production is now taking place in this
area. The entire nation will benefit from the added production;
the county will also benefit from the additional revenue
derived from such activity.
Q. 3 . -Would the proposed rezoning benefit lands adjoining
the area requesting the change.
A. Yes.
Q. 4 . What features apply to the property requesting
rezoning which make it logical to rezone this tract and not
to rezone in a similar manner surrounding properties which
may have like land use characteristics.
A. This tract is presently zoned industrial ; no oil and gas
well drilling activity may be conducted. The surrounding
land is zoned agricultural, where such activity may be
conducted.
Q. 5. Why are other -areas in the county already zoned
according to the requested classification, unsuitable for
the development which is proposed.
A. Oil and gas development is carried on in an orderly
manner; the locations for nil and gas wells is determined by
the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.
Q. 6 . What proof of evidence is available that the origin-al
rezoning is faulty or that changing conditions in the area
justify rezoning at this time.
A. Industrial zoning does not permit oil and gas well
drilling activity, but such activity is allowed in an agricultural
zone. This tract is included in the productive area for oil
and gas and operations on this tract will allow the oil and
gas to be developed in accordance with the spacing pattern
developed by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.
Q. 7 . Please submit Economic or other -evidence that the
area covered by the petition needs additional commercial or
business in the area. (To be answered an changes requested
for business or commercial) .
A. Not applicable.
Q. 8 . Give some evidence of the proposed business or
commercial enterprises that are to locate in the requested
area and a tentative time schedule for construction. (To be
answered on changes requested for Business or Commercial. )
A. Not applicable.
AMOCO OD N OMPANY
By
t t y-in-Fact J
,/
01 1111 1 Ill 1f'fT rl■III■I1M1T I i I■ if f' �___.
;'1jO ) -
NAMES OF OWNERS OF PROPS-RTY WITHIN 50-0 fEET
NAME MAILING ADDRESS
N/2 NE/4 of S"/II • f S^ctinr 1., T1 r, R(24
r•a to f .J;l,.1., ,r- 'W3-11 ^1.1-,
.—i ^1.1-, Drnrea,.nd !r .t1 n iv - r25 Penr.l ;tr •et
C
Est:nt' nf L. 'T'i.err.p , Doan :,ed i ViVino I. to '•on•.- r-;4 T•cD0nald Avenue
gohert:a A Inn,1r,.' 8� 1Iathnwa
r).1.i sir-rll •} 7-144, �' y
Gt'rt.nlrIr, Allr`n r'. )
J �'1., .t. r'1+•1nr 11r�t. 17 •Q S'1n!':et
_el.en^, Orrs-on 970 )1
letly Jrin CO ^,ln".. 'il''ie .;(' • l((c'cl `I M, ' t; SLrer+f '18004
R4,701,,r0
,r0 ?(17O !T(,.r: rri qv"n+1e, Apt. 5
R;lli.nr.s, I`ontano rir)lr)r?
u►, ?, TJ1J/!} (r-,t), 12, pi N,
A)r t-n Storel)rnknr and \lillinm .tonehrnker 51O1 North 1-'d ra1 3l.vd.
D1'nv r, Colorr)rio S02,1
SW/4 SE/4 of ;1'.r,+.;r r 1 , 3'1.1'1, R(,'':rJ
RoT)^rt A. •I.1l1tc ,Hitt; nn•! T.nv'nn G. Hrl r;{,Ar13 iY(.r7 3o l' Tn
tlt It �. r-Ir?v ,atrr+nt
_..-•_-- ..__......_—____------_...._— Denver, Col.orndo 86237
/
•
•
•
•
}�:.� M:r.x r M w. •-• t `.fir )• NItge �'• ,� �}t�y• v•
.._ M7 `r 4,r wn 1 �•4 Tr TINE
II)
ITEMS -SUBMITTED SHEET
Case No. Date Received
Items -Submitted: For
Dept. Check
1. Ten (10) sets of the Agricultural Unit Development.
2. Completed Rezoning Application with Legal Description.
3. List of Property Owners within 500 feet.
4. Answers to Questions Regarding Rezoning.
5. Memo Regarding Mineral Severance.
6. Drilling Title _Opinion dated May 17, 1974, covering the
AUD Tract.
it il�ftlf ��I� 1rI
• s' � II4.16
r -1
AMOCO) Amoco Production Company
Security Life Building
Denver.Colorado 80202 �.
303-820-4040
L.G.Gaskins
Attorney , ..+
December 10, 1975
Weld County Planning Commission
1516 Hospital Road
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Attention: Mr. Gary Z. Fortner
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to our conversation with Mr. Tom Honn of your office, we are
enclosing two (2) copies of a memorandum prepared for use in the upcoming
hearing which Amoco will request pertaining to a variance of a tract of land
in the NE/4 NW/4 of Section 12, Township 1 North, Range 68 West, Weld County,
Colorado. This memorandum discusses the general information and the Colorado
case law in the area of severance of the surface and mineral estates and the
rights of the mineral owner or his lessee to explore for minerals and use of
the surface estate. The copy of the title opinion discussed in the first
paragraph of the memorandum will be presented with the copy of the memorandum
included in the material accompanying Amoco's request for a hearing.
If I can answer any questions you may have pertaining to the memorandum,
please advise.
Very truly:yours,
.G. Gaskins
LGG:bmd
cc: Mr. John Lang
Room 2211
I 11 ■rMil li r�1
Amoco Production Company desires to conduct drilling
operations for an oil well in the NE/4 NW/4 of Section 12 ,
Township 1 North, Range 68 West, 6th P.M. , Weld County,
Colorado. As indicated in the attached Drilling Title
Opinion, dated May 17 , 1974 , William N. Stonebraker and
Austin P. Stonebraker are the surface owners of the proposed
drillsite; the mineral estate, except coal, is owned by
Elizabeth W. Graham, et al (see pages 8 and 9) . Amoco is
the present owner of the oil and gas leases covering the
proposed drillsite.
SEVERANCE OF SURFACE AND MINERAL ESTATES :
Volume 1A, Summers, The Law of Oil and Gas, Section 136 ,
Page 281, states :
"It is well settled that a landowner has powers, by
proper operative rights, to create separate and
distinct legal interests in lands and the oil and
gas thereunder. "
Williams and Meyers, in Volume 1, Oil and Gas Law,
Section 301, Pages 431-32 , provides:
"A, the owner in fee absolute of Blackacre, has the
same rights , privileges, powers and immunities with
regard to the minerals therein as he has in the
surface, subject of course to regulation under the
police power of the state. This totality of interest
may be granted or reserved separate and apart from
the surface, and such severance of minerals from
surface interest creates what is called here a
mineral estate, being the most complete ownership
of oil and gas recognized in law. The owner of the
mineral estate (B) has the same rights , privileges ,
powers and immunities as A had before him . . . . "
T-1I 9 I I®■I S
Ii•
Professor Eugene Kuntz , Dean Emeritus and Professor of
Law, College of Law, University of Oklahoma, in his paper,
"Old and New Solutions to the Problem of the Outstanding
Undeveloped Mineral Interest, " 22nd Oil & Gas -Inst. (Matthew
Bender, 1971) , page 81, at page 91, states:
"The language used to describe the nature of the
title to a severed mineral interest varies considerably
from state to state, depending upon the theory of owner-
ship adopted. An exercise in semantics to distinguish
or reconcile the various expressions describing
the nature of ownership of oil and gas is unnecessary
because, regardless of the theory entertained, it is
uniformly recognized that when title to the mineral
interest is severed from title to the surface interest,
two -distinct interests are created. " (Emphasis supplied)
Colorado adheres to the statements quoted above. C-alvat
v. Juhan, 206 P. 2d -600, a case dealing with whether or not a
previously severe-d mineral interest was included in a subsequent
tax deed, the court stated:
"Title thereto had been severed from the title to
the surface by the deed from The Michigan Trust
Company to McNew, with its reservati-on of oil ,
gas and minerals and the right to enter and explore
therefor . . . . The possession of each, like the
title, became distinct from that of the ether. "
In the case of Mitchell v. Espinosa, 243 P. 2d 412 , with
a fact situation similar to that in the Jnhan case, the
Colorado Supreme Court reiterated its previous statement
in the Juhan case, saying:
"In the instant case, from and after the date of
severance of the oil rights, there were two separate
and distinct freehold estates in the property which
theretofore had been assessed as a unit. 58 C.J.S. ,
Mines and Minerals, Sec. 156, Page 328. "
- 2 --
Milt IR FM Ii
•
Subsequent Colorado cases have quoted the Mitchell case,
among others, and contain statements pertaining to the severance
of the surface and mineral Estates, as follows:
Simpson v. Langholf, 293 P. 2d 302 , S.Ct. Colorado,
1956:
"That oil and gas and other minerals may be severed
from the realty and a separate estate created therein
is recognized in this jurisdiction. "
Corlett v. Cox, 333 P. 2d 619, S.Ct. Colorado, 1958 :
"An estate in oil and gas may be severed from the
remainder of the realty, and as severed owned in
fee simple. "
Radke v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 334 P. 2d 1077,
S.Ct. Colorado, 1959:
"Our conclusion is not to be taken to mean that there
cannot be an entire severance of the surface and
mineral estates (see 36 Am. Jur. 300, Section 29,
for a discussion of this general rule) , such as we
recognized in Mitchell v. Espinosa, supra, but the
severance must be by clear and distinct wording in
the conveyance. Until such a severance occurs the
ownership of the surface carries with it the ownership
of the underlying minerals. "
Clevenger v. Continental Oil Company, . 369 P.2d 550,
S.Ct. Colorado, 1962 :
"Oil , gas and other mineral rights in lands may be
severed and held by other than -the owner of the
surface, and a fee simple title thereto may vest
in the person to whom said rights are granted. "
Brian v. Valley View Cattle Ranch, Inc. , Colo. App. ,
535 P.2d 237 , 1975 :
"Upon reservation in the contract between Brian and
Sullivan of the one-quarter mineral interest claimed
- 3 -
.
by plaintiffs, the possession and title of that
mineral interest became distinct and separate from
the surface estate. See Simson v. Langholf, 133
Colo. 208 , 293 P. 2d 302. " - ->
RIGHT OF MINERAL OWNER OR HIS LESSEE TO USE OF THE SURFACE:
A general discussion of the rights of the mineral owner
or his lessee is found in 53 A.L.R. 3d 16, in an article
entitled, "What Constitutes Reasonably Necessary Use of
the Surface of the Leasehold by a Mineral Owner, Lessee, or
Driller Under an Oil and Gas Lease or Drilling Contract. "
Mr. Lee Sellers, in his article, "How Dominant is the
Dominant Estate? Or, Surface Damages Revisited, " 13th Oil &
Gas Inst. (Matthew Bender, 1959) , 377, at Page 378 , states:
•
"Stated as briefly as possible, the authorities of
the oil and gas states are virtually uniform in
holding that the lessee under an oil and gas lease
enjoys the dominant estate as regards the surface of
the land and is entitled to the free and uninhibited
use thereof to such extent as is reasonably necessary
to explore for and develop mineral production . . . . "
Volume 4 , Summers, The Law of Oil and Gas, Section 652 ,
Pages 2 to 5 , sets out the rights of the lessee as follows:
"An oil and gas lease carries with it the right of
possession of the surface to the extent reasonably
necessary to enable the lessee to perform the obligations
imposed upon him by the lease. 'This rule is based
upon the principle that when a thing is granted all
the means to obtain it and all the fruits and effects
of it are also granted. ' Accordingly, the right
to such use of the surface is implied if it is not
granted, whether the form of conveyance is a mineral
deed or a lease . . . "
The case law in Colorado adopts the principle, as set
out in the above general statements, to-wit:
Simson v. Langholf, 293 P.2d 302, S.Ct. Colorado, 1956 :
- 4 -
"Where the conveyance or reservation, as the case
may be, consists of an interest in perpetuity to
all the oil and gas minerals that may be extracted,
the conveyance or reservation is a grant or reservation ,
of the minerals in fee simple with the attributes and
rights that go with such ownership, including the right
to enter upon the land for exploration of oil, part-
icipation in delay rentals, bonuses and leasing. "
The Supreme Court of Colorado, in the case of Clevenger v.
Continental Oil Company, 369 P. 2d 550, 1962, cites the Langholf
case with approval.
Rocky Mountain Fuel Company v. Heflin, 360 P. 2d 577 ,
-S.Ct. Colorado, 1961 :
"The Fuel Company is admittedly the owner of mineral
rights, including, but not limited to, fire-clay,
'oil and gas, and by deed and general law has the
• right of ingress and egress and all existing rights-of-way
and the right to prospect for and carry on all necessary
'operations for the production of oil and gas. "
"The owner of a mineral estate -has rights of ingress,
Egress, exploration and surface usage as are reasonably
necessary to the successful exploitation of his interest. "
Frankfort Oil Company v. Abrams, 413 P. 2d 190, S.Ct.
Colorado, 1966:
"Although Frankfort alleges that upon a severance,
a mineral leasehold becomes the dominant estate while
the surface becomes servient to the reasonable require-
ments of exploration and development, * * * it is not
necessary to classify these property rights so categorically.
The rule is clear that a mineral lessee has ' * * * a right
to use so much of the surface as may be reasonably necessary
for operation. ' 2 American Law of Property, Sec. 10-28 ;
1 Williams and Meyers, Oil and Gas Law, Sec. 218. 7. "
Amoco Production Company, as successor to the rights and
privileges of the owners of the mineral estate, under the leases
covering the same, and the case law cited herein, is authorized to
- 5 -
enter upon the surface of the -drillsite tract and use so much
thereof as is reasonably necessary for its operations, subject _,_
to the limitations az set out -in said leases upon its use
thereof.
- 6 -
) II td 11 3O ' , i . , _„
dam' .1Q 1)v ;`) St1 1rninS1I<L1 - t)..,.11 103h L ...i(ThITH_ '171t,H1 i -o__ , .) %6o?"l :CU �
L , -tlytG L " r,uttl-" 11 I 21171-0.3 p
, .
:) �� L .'1,- _ : or
Fo•
, .
ion,. F _6 _ "O ,F l r; 0 10 _ rtt.
y
prop , }D,- oC. _ S_ � , f 1.‘ ,
'i.-o not-- J(i -;, i4i r_ l tip.( r • ••• L CP"
?1 r
B. P.'L.. 11 (1 _ l 7.7jt 1stL`l:'_. L 31.!
".Si , 1'): o JPi1-,,(a-
�.^ r . _C _.
l . 7o . a was
J n<;
os:se eh
it d ._a:\ 6 . 6 (id) 1.(1. za 'I ,
[Mii <. shall be guided by theids-tent c)S the hasolu--
ti hi the vn1515 00,1717 . 77i3 of ts land inv >1rid. at1h,y the.
Co nerd `o, such cl, \re 10 or _n :- _
The %:oh- .3 .les pint:ice, states that in c ene Ifai L .'3 iii.lb.L1C
he '.i: , s P..[Stagy and we rare a '" e pre „_ed through zoning , Spec bid_
i c a '.7 c tiii:, Reso , a Lica lists ever a ways that zoning r,c'onVOFCS
la iiiijit,?. , safetp stel 'ih 1 z' , arapiisil cal-rich dcci ;
t
.. 'a. .':3u1 ttHE,. o "' i)n, of over J' • .. . sad-
b..
Cl ;.1 the property l , t,e thh proprotesfahts hnfhia would .,c.
I
'�-= eT 111 'iCF �a a _ ✓a�; ,tlnl i r ` E 7 SO )7..S JS
or. i .. '.s Lc act YO':' ii_ o{_:"1 1 piicposs c,,-111 base ..i_ i jeep-
ardized by the rano-ding , if ' 7.omeed ,
In add t ._ _ , the pliPfestaehh haee de: a: : o Cacility
i _.t iSL i! 3 the space .z i_booed. on the 111 agree tdidc S . id:s a c)::: bpi:,
s" an l t:=s „a on t• :.):` i 'S , 1,�_._
licit1a t bon of a1i 3i. I 7 .'d, 9-aS wo11 a J\lb s ipthle_.:.` >t1! . iL
_ � tr
:....
61 . 22 7 ',4 ('o-o , /1:',.) (19(611 .
T.Hipt . ;
1
the , ,
• 202 ( z≥) The stilts. y' _, L_ _ re too groardaid counties the:, au_
t
.0 " C.) zone (197.9 �. . .,. _, 30-.38- 1.113) 71. :7. rezone 1973 C23 .5 .
30--2 12) _ This dialoGidsica of didfifority by the Late tagisla-
tura is 7.ou the S7 rpn of occur.L n 'the general optilic in. 3 d 1At
c •,)_r,. , (1972),
c ii, re •___1_
. _ - -
s?I L ..--_c "_ 0ep] _.. 1 "z. �n it 1 :a.?- lt£-? test of �.�', `, It_:_p _
r r
Colo. i (1974) .
In Calitor,...1_ ' , ,.. _1i (5 '.COC dbl -. all a.ctivity has Seen
._ ., ::l, the Carrotso 'nava upheld the r i j C ; of C i t l s
iii_ restrict?of and in .2ofpa cases, tc bfof_D.i_ t do .1- _._
pa 13c ' n v City 01: fharitiffichoiTh. • 3-zc 237. P . .532 , J_95
C ,, : 7 , ( 1225 ) ;; „ ) . to r o' . _.,.,'
iA 9
P , .,1c; C0 rill . L . 31 95 , i) Cal . Apo . .21 3': 6 (1333) .
r.nother Cali a 0 IrTC,ill. d CC 1.3 1. held that a• county nz+r the
P . f i ) �.�J t. r . I 'lv
) ...' N - '.-t,(2.1 ,
Referrals
Amoco Prod. Company
Z-272
t
tt)( County Engineer
7/ )1(: Town of Dacono
I/M , Colo. Geol . Survey
PC Member, Graham
11/7,1)1 County Attorney
County Health
//VV.- Colo. Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
itfORnn DUI I
11(71111die. To Planning Commission Date April 29 , 1976
COLORADO From Engineering Department
Amoco Production Company Zone Change
subject: - g
No engineering problems indicated from on site inspection.
Prior to installation of access please notify Engineering
Department .
/
E-dilman E. Olson
mfm
/
!
/ .
BOARD OF HEALTH
Weld County Health Department
CATHERINE BENSON. AULT
FRANKLIN D. YODER, MD. MPH 1516 HOSPITAL ROAD RALPH AAB. GREELEY
DIRECTOR GREELEY. COLORADO 80631 WILLIAM BUCK. ROGGEN
13031 353-0540 CLARENCE SITIMAN. GREELEY
DAVIE, WERKING. DOS. GREELEY
April 28, 1976
Gary Fortner, Director of Planning
Weld County Planning Commission
1516 Hospital Road
Greeley, CO 80631
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
We recommend approval of the Zone Change for Amoco Production Company
located in the NEa, NWa, Section 12, Township 1 North, Range 68 West,
Weld County Colorado.
Sincerely,
Gleam/ Director
Environmental Health Services
GEP/hv
A
I
seenittj$ blink
6:1010 14m4:4
RICHARD D. LAMM
GOVERNOR JOHN W. BOLD
N
Director
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
254 COLUMBINE BUILDING - 1845 SHERMAN STREET
DENVER, COLORADO 80203 PHONE 892-2611
April 29, 1976
Weld County Planning Department
Attn: Thomas E. Honn
1516 Hospital Road
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Dear Mr. Honn: RE: AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY ZONE CHANGE
The Colorado Geological Survey has reviewed the zone change request for Amoco
Production Company. We find no geologic hazards that might affect the proposed
use. Therefore, we recommend approval of the zone change.
If we can be of further assistance, please contact this office.
Sincerely,
Stephen S. Hart
Engineering Geologist
cc: Land Use Commission
SSH/jp
y1O3031 7
1..73 s
HT RECEIVED
r• :y
"L^ain1 L xt1issieA
GEOLOGY
STORY OF THE PAST . . . KEY TO THE FUTURE
COLC:-;r',��0' J' •
WELD COUNTY -PLANNING COM ,•,ISSION
GRLELE4.COLO.
-April 7, 1976 1516 Hospital Road
Dacono Town Clerk
Town Hall
Dacono, Colorado 80514
TO WHOM IT 1IAY CONCERN:
Enclosed is an application from Amoco Production Company
for a Zone change from "I" to "A-UD" •
•
This item will be heard before the Weld County Planning Commission on
May 4, 1976 . If you have any comments or suggestions,
may we please hear from you before April 27, 1976 . The location •
of the parcel of land for which this application has been submitted is
Pt. NE4 NW'4 Sec. 12 TIN R68W
If no comments are received by April 27, 1976 it will be
assumed you have no objections and wish to make no cona;cnts with refer-
ence to either the granting or denial of this application.
• Thank you.
Thomas E. Honn((jsm) )
Enclosures: plat
application
reason for zone change
f LOLCRAr.) o '
WLLL] COUNTY PLAN.NINC COMMISSION
On r EL�`/•COLO,
• April 7, 1976 1516 Hospital Road
Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission
1845 Sherman
Denver, Colorado 80203
•
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Enclosed is an application from Amoco Production Company •.
for a Zone change from "I" to "A-UD"
• This item will be heard before the Weld County Planning Commission on
Clay 4, 1976 If you have any comments or suggestions,
may we please hear from you before April 27, 1976 . The location
of the parcel of land for which this application has been submitted is
Pt. NEo NW's Sec. 12 TIN R68W
If no comments are received by April 27, 1976 it will be
assumed you have no objections and wish to make no con;ments with refer-
ence to either the granting or denial of this application.
• Thank you.
•
Thomas E. Honnc(jsm) )
Enclosures: plat
application
•
•
•
.1- 1 i1< 11 ET 111111 IF
��f lei
CairnaT�a"' Ni emu. ia- t) Z 07Q
e - ✓ --- 4- Ub
ri - pt 4)E zu `i- Sta.° , 1a - 1 - 6S
Q %.4,ne" ,
: A) -
-fryt-kyrt ; A'
-
5- _
G) - yQ 2 9G
a-n tette.t -ems -a-C aTit ,.t..- zzA4.01,
nizet t/V -C44-2 (2 - 9 e l e. -
e2, _eayvt.o C../ -c. -e.w (//J7 ,-42
llllllll 11111 •
Mailing List
Amoco Production Co.
Z-272
Wilda J. Cosslett Estate (etal . )
Flanders, McCarthy -and Wood
P.O. Box 6589
Longmont, Colorado 80501
Robert A. and Lorna G. Houtchens
3765 S. Jersey
Denver, Colorado 80237
Austin P. and Wm. N. Stonebraker
5401 N. Federal Blvd.
Denver, Colorado 80200
l [1I,'i H l IIlf lfltl it
Hello