The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20171235.tiffINVENTORY OF ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Applicant Mark Villereal and Alma Garcia Case Number USR17-0007 Submitted or Prepared Prior to Hearing At Hearing 1 Surrounding 2017 property owner - Gordon Mesenberg email dated February 5, Surrounding 2017 property owner - Gordon M2esenberg email dated February 5, 3 Surrounding property owner - Iris Mesenberg email dated February 7, 2017 X 4 Surrounding property owner - Iris Mesenberg email dated February 23, 2017 X 5 Surrounding property owner - Connie E. Ley letter received February 27, 2017 X 6 Surrounding 10, 2017 property owner - Dennis and Joann Adler, letter received March X 7 Surrounding 2017 property owner - Gordon Mesbergen email received March 13, X 8 Surrounding property owner - Camy Padgett email received March 29, 2017 X 9 Surrounding property owner - Iris Mesenberg email dated April 3, 2017 X 10 Surrounding property owner - Rick L. Sponaugle letter dated April 7, 2017 X 11 Surrounding property owner - Carmen Mesenberg email dated April 13, 2017 X 12 Surrounding property owner - Dallas Ley letter submitted April 18, 2017 X 13 Surrounding property owner - Connie Ley letter submitted April 18, 2017 X 14 Surrounding 2017 property owner - Teresa Sponaugle letter submitted April 18, X 15 Surrounding 2017 property owner - Teresa Sponaugle pictures submitted April 18, X I hereby certify that the fiveteen items identified herein were submitted to the Department of Planning Services at or prior to the scheduled Planning Commissioners hearing. Diana Aungst , Planner Diana Aungst From: Sent To: Subject: Diana, Gordon <rnesbergentour@aol.com> Sunday, February 05, 20174:11 PM Diana Aungst PRE 16-0273 complaint We as a community have many concerns regarding this permit that is being requested. I have multiple photos of the current violations with the semi trucks. Just recently on Sunday morning (2/5/17) I was awaken at 2:30am due to semi trucks starting up and the revving of engines. This continued until about 3:00am when the trucks left. This happens often with the noise in the middle of the night. Thank you, Gordon Mesbergen Sent from my iPhone 1 Diana Aun•st From: Sent: To: Subject: Bethany Pascoe Monday, February 06, 2017 7:47 AM Diana Aungst FW: Online Code Complaint Please add to PRE16-0273 S-0273 and eventual USR application. Original Message From: webmaster@co.weld.co.us[mailto:webmaster@co.weld.co.us] Sent Sunday, February 0512017 3:33 PM To: Bethany Pascoe <bpascoe@co,weld.co.us> Cc: Wendi Intoes <wialoes@co.weld,co,us> Subject: Online Code Complaint Online complaint submitted February 5, 2017 Name of Complainant: Gordon Address of Complainant: 26710 VIN R 62 1/2 Email Address: Mesbergenfour@aot.com Complainant Phone: 970-390-5331 Address of Alleged Violation: 26659 WCR 62 1/2 Nature of the Alleged Violation: Zoning non-compliance How are Your/Your Property Impacted by this Alleged Violation? Noise, lights, traffic. Sunday (2.5.17) at 0230 was woken up due to truck engines starting. Drivers were revving engines and left at 0300. At 0830 another truck had returned and back up alarm going off from main road. Where is Your Property in Relation to the Alleged Violation: South across road Have You Discussed Your Concerns With the Property Occupant? Yes If Not, Please Explain Why? Are You in a Subdivision Which has Covenants that Prohibit the Activity? No Have You Contacted the Homeowners Association? No May we contact you? Yes EXHIBIT Subject: F'' : Case #PRE 16-0273 From: Iris Mesbergen [mailto:irsmestergen@re3d.co ] Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 12:48 PM To: Diana Aungst <daungst@ca.weld.co.�us> Subject: Case #PRE 16-0273 Good afternoon, Hi, Ms. Aungst. I am Iris Mesbergen and my husband. Gordon and I live at 26710 WCR 62 & 1/2, Greeley (although our property is really 5 miles north of Kersey). We are protesting the proposed change in zoning on the part of our neighbors, Mark & Jackie (Alma) Villareal. While Gordon and I applaud hard work, honesty, and thrift, we are highly disturbed and troubled over how quickly the atmosphere in our neighborhood has changed. We are zoned tight residential/agricultural, which means only one commercial semi truck is allowed. However, our neighbors do not comply with that, and have not since they moved into the property across the road from us last September. We are bothered by dust, noise, road deterioration, and continual interruptions to our sleep. Their property is not large enough to sustain the 4-6+ trucks they plan on using. What about the environment, with toxic spills washing into Owl Creek and adjoining properties, including ours? What stipulations would the Villareal's have on their permit, if their request is granted? What about the decrease in our property value? Our bedroom is 75 yards from the truck yard, and Gordon and I fear a truck stop next door. When is the first meeting on this that we should attend? Thank you so much for listening. We appreciate the work you do. Iris Mesbergen Senior Engilish sh Teacher Weld Central High School Keenesburg, Co 80643 1. EXHIBIT From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Iris Mesbergen <irismesbergen@re3jcorrr> Thursday, February 23, 2017 1:06 PM Diana Aungst Fwd • IM _0539 JPG; I _0541.) P" ; I _O5424J P r IMG_0543 0543,JPG; IM ,0538 JPG Letter of Objection, regarding Case U R17-0007 from Iris Joy Mesbergen 26710 WR 62 & 1/2 Greeley, CO 80631 Good afternoon, I am writing to object to the proposed project of the USly17-0007 for truck operating and parking by Mark Villereal and Alma Garcia at the property across the road from us. When my husband and I purchased our property 19 years ago, the zoning was light residential/agricultural, and has remained so over these two decades. The Weld County Charter and County Code stipulates under Section 23-3-30, Accessory uses, that the parking and operation of ONE commercial vehicle as per one tractor trailer semi and one two -rear -axle vehicle are permitted on a parcel of land less than eighty acres (M.). Ever since Mark Villereal and Alma Garcia have moved into this neighborhood in September of 2016, they have been in violation of this stipulation with the running and parking of several semi tractor trailers. During these last five months, my husband and I have been subjected to Eden disquieted though various and sundry disturbances to our quiet and peaceful lifestyle: * semi truck noise, including backing peppers, often at night time when we're trying to sleep * fugitive dust * odor of several trucks idling *road deterioration, as these trucks turn from 62 & 1/2 onto the Villereal property and out again, sometimes using our driveway for turn room * eyesore of a commercial -appearing truck operation and parking right across the road from us * our concern with environmental hazards, including Owl Creek contamination * our concern with decrease in our property value (who would pay appraisal price for our home that is less than 75 yards from this proposed business?) Now that an application has been submitted, our concerns deepen. there are inconsistencies in the application, including the hours of operation, no plan to maintain the road, indication of keeping the property "basic and simple" which means no noise wall, no landscaping, and so forth. To explain one of the above concerns der, 4+ trucks x 18 wheelers 72 wheels x 6 days a week of operation is 432 truck tires grinding along a gravel/sand road every week...and that is considered "minimal truck traffic"? 1. Gordon and I, along with our two daughters, have lived in the place and the lifestyle we have yearned for and achieved, for almost two decades. Much of this is due to our hard work and thrift. Last year we were able to pay off our home and to now enjoy the freedom of a property that is truly ours. To think of this paradise lost is a hardship and heartache. Thank you for your listening and understanding ear. I appreciate your thoughtful contemplation of this critical issue. Sincerely yours, Iris Joy Mesbergen Attachment: pictures: most photos show the property in question with truck parking and trash. The one picture of the horse in the pasture with the white fence is our property, directly across the road from what the other pictures show. Forwarded message -------- From: Gordon <mesbergenfour (ol.co Date: Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 9:42 AM Subject: To: irismesbergen ,re i.con Sent from my iPhone 2 "g, e • •. e B t,_ r t • it r r. 7 !-_; aAry g .i �1 7 ip i A kr r if to 4ja t,e aI.,fa. If .r , r .I -r. • .M k 11 44.- I 17 r e 3 tri t t.. ,. aer alED a t s. • J e off fi l • ♦ a 6 1 February 18, 2017 Good afternoon Ms. Dianna Aungst, I am writing in reference to Case # USR17-0007 Mark Villereal & Alma Garcia. The proposed project is for truck parking in the Agricultural Zone District. I live directly across the road to the south and have been on this same place since 1979. Over the years, I've dealt with neighbors in that house from every walk of life. I've dealt with goats with an unbearable odor that even lived at times in the home, pigs that rooted up my yard and discarded their bodily waste throughout my property, horses that ran free eating my hay, filthy people, multiple families living within the house at the same time, drunks, a prostitute and much much more. Many years ago, a wonderful family owned that home, keeping it clean and were very kind and caring, Nothing positive in that home since the Justin Sidwell family left. currently do have other wonderful neighbors nearby that are kind, clean and such. Dennis & Joann Adler are amazing neighbors that I have the deepest respect for. They live on the west side & had a truck but sold it. They have farm equipment, backhoe and loader but never disrupt me. Gordon Messburgen who is on the east side has trucks as well I understand he still runs one truck on a commercial basis and again does not disrupt me. It is with great pleasure to have Mark and Alma as my neighbors. They are truly a blessing for me. They are kind, generous, caring and clean. They do have trucks and run a small business from the property, but I've not had a single problem to this date. They do not run their trucks late at night and the noise level is very low. I have occasionally heard the dog bark, but that's normal out here in the country and it doesn't bother me. All though I just met Mark and Alma just a few months ago, they have done more with the place than anyone in the past 20+ years. I am in complete support of this family and their business. I would like to recommend that they are granted the USR for truck parking in the Agricultural Zone District. Respectfully, / J Le „Omni,r r Connie E. Ley 25660 County Road 62.5 Greeley, CO 80631 (970) 353-8699 f ,,rtm .pm q treraN To whom this may concern, MAR 10 1017 GREELEY ` is ICE Regarding USR17-0007 about Mark Villereal & Alma Garcia, I am a close neighbor. My husband and myself have lived here for going on 14 years. We had a truck. We sold it. We're no longer trucking, Mark and Alma are a breath of fresh air compared to the last people we've had there. They are trying to get the place cleaned up which no one has for quite a while. I think they are an asset to our neighborhood. I have enjoyed visiting with them and I hope the permit passes, Dennis and Joann Adler 26622 Weld County Road 62 'A Greeley, CO 80631 Diana Aungst From: Sent: To: Subject: Gordon Mesbergen <mesbergenfour@aol.com> Monday, March 13, 2017 7A0 PM Diana Aungst USR17-0007 Diana Again we have come thru a chaotic weekend of trucks coming and going nevi ng engines, backup beepers, 2 plus hours of engine idling; and shop noise. this occures at 4:00 am,8:30pm and this morning at 12:45 am We are a residential community and obviously Mark Vilireal and CWSS co. Have no regard for neighborhood relations or has any intent to operate within the perimeters of regulations Please feel free to call with any questions 970 390 5331. Gordon Mesbergen 1 Diana Aungst From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Diana, Cerny Padgett <camypadgett@gmail.com> Wednesday, March 29, 2017 9:09 PM Diana Aungst CASE NUMBER: USR17-0007 Mark Villereal iSt Alma Garcia Mtg Minutes 1.29.17.docx In regards to case number USR 17-0007 I have attached the meeting notes from the community meeting which was held on 1.29.17 at the Villereal household. I did want to bring to your attention a conflict of who the present attendees were and the signatures that are listed on page 10 of the application. It allegedly appears that a signature may have been added after the meeting took place in which this individual was not present during the meeting. A lot of legitimate concerns where brought up by the neighborhood and Mr. Villereal said a follow up meeting would take place to address these concerns. That meeting has not taken place or been scheduled and my understanding is the first hearing is approaching quickly. Regards, Camy Padgett 1 EXHIBIT Minutes from Community Meeting Held on 1/29/2017 Re: Special Review Permit (Agriculture to Commercial Zoning Parcel # 080133100002) Location of Meeting: Mark Villereal & Alama Garcia Residence 26659 WCR 62 1 Greeley Co 80631 Attendees: Mark Villereal Alma Garcia Karolyn Patch Connie Ley Gordon Mesbergen Iris Mesbergen Carmen Mesbergen Ca ray Padgett Warren Hammerbeck Rick Sponaugle Theresa Sponaugle Dallas Ley Meeting Convenes: 12:25pm Adjourns: 1:40pm Opening Comments Presented by Mark Villereal: States they have applied for a Special Review Permit to change current agriculture zoning into commercial zoning for their business. Business hours would run from 6:00am to 6:00pm, Monday through Friday with an occasional Saturday. They would run 4 trucks, not including any trailers. Application of permit was submitted on 1/20/2017. Business name is Colorado Well Site Service, LLC. Connie Ley: Presents she respects all neighbors and the wishes of them. Rick Sponaugle: Does the permit require overhead lighting and resurfacing? Mark Villereal: No overhead lighting required, possible resurfacing Alma Garcia: Since mechanic work will be performed a fire call will need to be installed. For purposes of resurfacing crushed asphalt or gravel would be used. Warren Hammerbeck: Why type of environmental compliance will need to be done pertaining to permit? Is there a limit to the number of employees you can employ? How many trailers are allowed under your permit? Mark Villereal: No requirements of environmental standards required in permit, Do not own trailers therefore trailers were notdiscussed when applying for permit. Rick Sponaugle: What are the EPA regulations near an irrigation ditch? Dallas Ley: Believes any work can be performed up to 35 feet of an irrigation ditch Iris Mesbergen: When were you (Villereal & Garcia) interested in the property? Alma Garth: July 2016 Mark Villereal: This is all new to them. Prior work in the oil field in 2014, lived in town and invested in small trucking business when oil field started to crash. Alma Garcia: Seller of property didn't think it would be an issue to park semi -trucks on property. Warren Hammerbeck: Concerns about noise control and what measure would be taken Alma Garcia: Not sure, Planning Commission didn't say anything about that Mark Villereal: Wants to be conscientious about neighbors and noise control Iris Mesbergen: States wishes for commercial business to be held on a different location, there has been a lot of noise within the last 5 months that has been disruptive. Admires hardworking individuals, but highly concerned with the re -zoning. Gordon Mesbergen: States areas of concern include air wrenches, back up alarms, lights and excessive noise in the middle of the night. Dallas Ley: Makes statements regarding supporting the operation proposed Theresa Sponaugle: Has concerns for plans with the growth of the proposed operation Gordon Mesbergen: reports there is already dissention in the neighborhood because of this proposal Connie Ley: Doesn't believe there is any neighborhood dissention Warren Hammerbeck: What are the plans for noise control, dust control, run off from the equipment? Would sales of used pipe be permitted under this permit? Rick Sponaugle: States drivers continually come in way to fast and there has to be a stop to this Connie Ley: Controlled speed a good idea Theresa Sponaugle: How long would this permit be effective for? Dallas Ley: Suggests Villereal/Garcia check with the SBCC and that a diverson dam may be needed. Rick Sponaugle: Expresses concerns for flooding issues and how water would be managed. Mark Villereal: They are looking into pulling a ditch to the canal for water management. Connie Ley: Reports communication with Josh Lang with Weld County suggest they are working to widen the county road, but it will take time. Iris Mesbergen: Would like solid answers to these valid questions as this is a big concern for the. community. Mark Villeral: States they are going to put 6" foam insulation in the shop to help with noise. If the business would grow they would need to re -apply for a new permit to encompass larger business operations. Alama Garcia: States if their business is successful they will be purchasing an industrial property. Proposed permit is for 6 semi -trucks Warren Hammerbeck: Brings up concern for surrounding properties and environmental control Rick Sponaugle: Property values will decrease if permit is allowed and gives example of a neighboring property. Warren Hammerbeck: Concerns with burning, Can any type of trucks be used under this proposed permit regardless of what is being hauled? (i.e. trash trucks, cement trucks, etc) Gordon Mesbergen: What do you haul? Mark Villereal. Fresh water, frack sand/gravel Theresa Sponaugle: If the community would call to make a complaint would the complaint be handled? Mark Villereal: They would stop any violations right away Warren Hammerbeck: Are there any environmental concerns pertaining to track sand? If cargo consists of any poisonous materials are precautionary► measures going to take place? Mark Villereal: No environmental concerns for frack sand. Cargo is not stored on site and all trailers on site are empty. Rick Sponaugle: If hours of operation are 6:00am to 6:00pm, when will maintenance/mechanic work take place? Do you do background checks on employees? Mark Villereal. 3rd party company completes random WA's, any employee's actions while leaving the premises would be the company's liability. Mark Villereal: Would like to have another meeting in a week or so with answers to the community's questions. Response from the applicant. Diana Aungst Subject: FW: FW: CASE NUMBER: USR17-0007 Mark Villereal & Alma Garcia From: CWSSTRUCKING [mailto:cwsstrucking@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 4:03 PM To: Diana Aungst <daungst@co.weld.co.us>; camypadgett@gmail.com Subject: Re: FW: CASE NUMBER: USR17-0007 Mark Villereal & Alma Garcia Good afternoon Diana, our neighbors to the south and west Denis and Joann could not attend the meeting they already had plans for that afternoon Joann stopped by the next morning and ask how it went i informed here about the concerns that were brought up she said she did not have anything to add and singed the sing in sheet. As for the follow up meeting we have decided to hold off to see what will be allowed by county so that we can give our neighbors correct information and accurate. THANK YOU AND HAVE A GOOD AFTERNOON Mark Villereal Alma Villereal Ofiice i ce management 970-515-9093 970-673-5196 970-330-0352 Colorado Well Site Services, LLC 1 Diana Aungst Subject: FW: Colorado Well Site Services, M. Villareal From: Raul Lara [mailto:raullara93@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 8:54 AM To: Diana Au ngst <daungst@co.weld.co.us> Subject: Colorado Well Site Services. M. Villareal To whom it may concern. My name is Raul Lara. I work for Colorado Well Site Services as a truck driver for the night shift. Last night (4- 3-2017) I went to the yard at around 11:00 pm in a company semi truck to pick up some of my safety equipment which was required for this specific well site. I drove in from the west off of CR53 made turn around inside the yard and exited back to the west to CR53 as all drivers are told to do so whether it be day or night. It is the quickest way to and from the locations where we are currently working. I was as quiet as possible leaving the engine only at idle speed and had the truck slowly crawl to leave the area as to make the least amount of noise possible. I shut off the headlights while making the turn around as to not cause a shine into anyones windows which is something all night drivers are instructed to do. While we usually dont come back to the yard after 8:00 pm unless absolutely necessary, last night was one of the few times it was required. We are also told to turn on our headlights only after we are on the road completely straight not facing any houses. 1 Diana Aungst From: Sent To: Subject: Good morning, Diana, Iris Mesbergen < irismesbergen@re3j.com > Tuesday, April 04, 2017 7:24 AM Diana Aungst Case #USR17-0007 17-0007 Please register this letter in the file of Case ## USR17-007. Thank you. If violations are already and continually occurring from what is stipulated in the Use by Special Review Application, what will happen if the permit is granted? Specifically I am referring to the stated hours of operation, Monday -Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to :00 p.m., and Saturday 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. (pg. 1 of 4). Trucks still occasionally operate on Sunday, as this past Sunday demonstrated, April 2. Then, at 1:45 a.m. this morning, repose was interrupted by a truck starting, running, and leaving after 2:00 a.m. Gordon and I want to emphasize that we wish Mark and Alma outstanding and deserving success with their business. We applaud and admire honest work through diligent effort, but we would appreciate the location of their enterprise elsewhere. Across the road from our residence is no place for a commercial truck terminal. Appreciatively, Iris Mesbergen 1 Diana Aungst Subject; FW: FW: Case #USR17-0007 From: CWSSTRUCKING [matlto:cwsstrucking@grnaiLcom3 Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 8:28 AM To: Diana Aungst <da ungst@col eld,co.us> Subject: Re: FW: Case ##USR17-0007 Good. morning Diana yes i do have A UPS report for this last night after looking through them one truck did stop by the house a driver needed a piece of safety equipment i did not even know he had stopped by he was not here for more then 15 mins. i han to wake him up this morning to ask what he was doing here ( note he came from 53 east made a U turn in our driveway and left to the west )PLEASE note this in our file also because it is no more noise then someone driving down the road i will be asking our neighbor that lives closer then the Mesbergen's if she was waken up. I have told that driver he could have called me and i would have taken it to him. 11 26055-26899 County Road 62 1/2r Greeley, Colorado 15 min N/A Mark Villereat Alma Villereal Office management 970-515-9093 Office 970-673-5196 Ceti 970-330-0352 Fax Colorado Well Site Services, LLC --_-- i.---s -Oa -. On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 7:45 AM, Diana Aungst <daungsta eo4 eld=ed.uus wrote: Do you have any GPS data on the trucks for last night that address the below comment? Diana Aungst, AJCP, CFM Planner I! Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue - Greeley, Colorado 80631 970-400-3524 Fax: (9 70) 304-6498 dal � i e d/�a!'Yf T . orn www. weldgov. corn f Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. 1 Diana Aungst Subject: FW: Colorado Well Site Services, M. Villareal From: Raul Lara [mailto:raullara93@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 8:54 AM To: Diana Au ngst <daungst@co.weld.co.us> Subject: Colorado Well Site Services. M. Villareal To whom it may concern. My name is Raul Lara. I work for Colorado Well Site Services as a truck driver for the night shift. Last night (4- 3-2017) I went to the yard at around 11:00 pm in a company semi truck to pick up some of my safety equipment which was required for this specific well site. I drove in from the west off of CR53 made turn around inside the yard and exited back to the west to CR53 as all drivers are told to do so whether it be day or night. It is the quickest way to and from the locations where we are currently working. I was as quiet as possible leaving the engine only at idle speed and had the truck slowly crawl to leave the area as to make the least amount of noise possible. I shut off the headlights while making the turn around as to not cause a shine into anyones windows which is something all night drivers are instructed to do. While we usually dont come back to the yard after 8:00 pm unless absolutely necessary, last night was one of the few times it was required. We are also told to turn on our headlights only after we are on the road completely straight not facing any houses. 1 April 7, 2017 Planning and Zoning Board, RE USR-17-0007 i hoped to be present at the April 18 hearing to discuss with the Board my concerns about USR-17 OOO7. However, as a tax accountant, it is not prudent for me to abandon my business or clients on the final day of tax filing season. In regard to the proposed USR-17-0007, I have debated carefully its merits, and conclude that to approve the USR is not in the best interest of the community in which it is located . This is due to three factors: 1) Suitability for this particular community; 2) specific site characteristics; and 3) surrounding environment. * Suitability for this particular community. The area is mainly agricultural but this specific site has a distinctly residential bent. There are 11 residences along the stretch of 62 A between CR 53 and 55, in which we have actively promoted a community spirit. Unfortunately, this issue has divided us deeply due to differing views of the nature of a property owners rights. An owner should have some latitude in the use of their property, as long as it does not eclipse the rights of other property owners within close proximity. The proposed use change adds an additional burden of non -conforming use by allowing a larger business to operate without restricting its impact on the immediate surrounding properties* Additionally, it appears impossible to appropriately mitigate the effects of this business. Specific site characteristics. This issue warrants careful consideration. Directly across the road are several properties that will experience daily impact from the business activities, The residences most affected are in very close proximity to the road. That closeness., in conjunction with the narrowness of the road, will require trucks to swing wide on the road, sometimes causing multiple adjustments back and forth for the trucks to exit and enter the property. This factor, along with additional volume, creates abnormal wear to the road, excessive truck noise, and unwarranted road congestion in an otherwise regularly quiet rural residential area. The increased traffic will cause additional dust issues along the whole road, especially that portion going east from the site. Additional issues include intrusive light at night and early morning from headlights, possible excessive yard lighting, noise from repair work, and from employees coming and going. Some of these issues could be mitigated by widening the road, "{oiling" the road on a regular basis, additional grading of the road, or establishing appropriate fencing. Note, however, that fencing Is not a total practical solution due to the closeness of all the residences and narrowness of the egress and ingress to the property. Still, mitigating remedies need to be in place before the issuance of a special use permit. The surrounding environment. To me personally, this is the most concerning factor. In the middle of the property, on the east edge of the proposed truck yard, is the tail end of Owl Creek. it carries excess water flows from natural drainage and field runoff. As a neighbor to this property for 21 years, I have periodically, almost yearly, seen the ditch overflow and flood, The property being discussed, my property, and three of the properties to the south of said property are affected when Owl Creek floods, On occasion these floods have resulted in standing water up to two feet deep and sometimes cresting the road. The potential for the contamination of EXHIBIT SD 4.4 Lo 711 this water from the type of operation proposed is very possible and concerning. Again, it could be mitigated by construction of a diversion to reroute floods, but at a cost I'm sure the applicant does not want to incur. No berm will stop or mitigate this flooding, The amount of water that cones down the creek needs an adequate means to drain, andwithout additional diversions that won't. happen. Again, mitigating remedies for this environmental concern needs to be in place before approving a USR. My opposition to the special use permit is due to the facts discussed above. I don't believe this property is an appropriate location for such a business. If, however, you decide to issue the permit, I have two requests: 1) Require that mitigating remedies be in peace before approval, or 2) Require bonding until mitigating remedies are in pliace4 This is a logical conclusion due to the applicant's statement that they should be allowed time to accomplish improvements as a conc i : io n of approval, which may be due to the lack of funding or the inabi ity to acquire borrowed funds. If the permit is issued without the mitigating remedies in place, you place the burden on surrounding property owners to become the County's watchdogs for something the County should be monitoring. Such .a misplaced burden is not "just" and will result in additional complaints and potential legal action to accomplish what the applicant promises to complete in order to get County approval,. Instead, the County should take appropriate measures to assure the mitigations are funded and completed. Planning and Zoning needs to step up and do appropriate planning, now for the growth that is here now and the further growth coming to the county. Zoning must be planned in a coherent manner, with an effort to make the county an orderly asset for growth,not a hodgepodge or hopscotch land -use mess= Mixed -use areas incompatible with surrounding communities are not attractive or conducive for growth. If any Board members or County employees would like to discuss clarification of my concerns, I would appreciate a phone call. Thank you for your time. Rick L Sponaugle 26899 County Road 62 IA Greeley, CO 80631 970/330-9485 o 970-381-0056 c From: Sent: To: Subject Attachments: April 13, 2017 Carmen Mesbergen PO Box 873 Platteville, CO 80651 Dear Ms. Aungst: Carmen Mesbergen <carmen.cavequine@gmail.com> Thursday, April 13, 2017 11:45 PM Diana Aungst Letter for Case#: USR17-0007 R17-0007 Owl Creek Ditch Villereal Property peg; Villereal Property April 12 2017.jpeg Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to express my objection to the proposed project under Case #: U R17-0007. I attended the community meeting Jan 29 at the Villereal residence and have watched this case evolve since then. While I will always applaud hard work and small business building, I admire logical planning and common sense even more. I was 8 years old when my family moved into my parents' current residence across the road from the proposed truck yard, and have enjoyed the best of neighbors and friends in the ten years it was my primary residence. Although I currently operate my equestrian business in Firestone, CO, it is always an escape to Eden to come home again to visit family and the neighbors who had such a positive impact on my youth. The more I see of the world, the more precious this neighborhood becomes to me and the more critical the preservation of its peaceful and quiet purpose. Granting this permit to Colorado Well Site Services therefore seems an illogical option for the good of the community and the future of the small business itself for the following reasons: 1- The properties along County Rd 62 1/2 are maintained by owners who have lived in the area for 15+ years and who selected this neighborhood based on its "country quiet," friendly neighbors, and agricultural surroundings. To allow a commercial truck yard nearly half way down County Rd 62 1/2 from both intersections (County Rd 53 and County Rd 55) puts residences on both sides at the mercy of the additional dust, noise, traffic, light pollution, and road wear that this road was not designed to handle. Even with "normal„ agricultural and residential traffic, the dust can become unbearable regardless of county maintenance - an issue that my father has alleviated around his property and that of other properties to the east of the Villereal residence by investing his own time and money into ordering tanker loo's of dust control solution throughout the summer. Were the permit granted, I wonder how this added expense of dust control could fit into Colorado Well Site Services' budget as the number of commercial ticks on the road would increase significantly and create a subsequent increase in maintenance demands. 2- One of the main concerns expressed by meeting attendees the 29th was the impact a truck yard will have on the local environment, and indeed, it is a primary reason for my objection to the proposed truck parking permit. Owl Creek empties into a holding pond on the east end of the Villereal property and routinely floods, nearly on a yearly basis, with the resulting flood waters pouring over the road into my parents' pasture and over three other properties south and east of the ditch. Weld County has closed 62 1/2 from the area directly in front of the Villereal property to CR 53 in years of excessive rain/run off when large sections of the road were washed out, and to imagine a truck yard in the middle of this with any small oil leak or other commercial wastes joining the flood run off and running through the whole of the flood plane sounds like a plan for neighborhood contamination. EXHIBIT When I stopped home last evening (April 12) it appears a sort of privacy fence has been built parallel to the segment of Owl Creek on the Villereal property, and whether or not this is within regulation of the ditch company's area of use I mention only as an example of the sort of planning that has gone into this project from the beginning. It's no concern of mine if the fence washes away in the next flood or contributes to the severity of flooding in the proposed truck yard, but its impact on the rest of the flood plane t i oughout the neighborhood will have to be seen. 3- Allowing this permit in a current Agricultural and Light Residential Zone will set the precedence for future commercial permits. if additional residential properties were zoned commercial and/or industrial, the whole point of living in a "quiet agricultural zone" would be invalidated and the neighborhood devalued of what initially attracted the majority of its current residents. My parents have already discussed the possible loss in property value on their residence should the permit for truck parking pass and the field across from them turn into an additional truck parking area, parts storage, and/or repair center as no one would pay maximum value to live across from that. 4 - Should Colorado Well Site Services fail as is the fate of too many small businesses, a granted permit for truck parking would open the door for other commercial and/or industrial purposes at 26659 County Rd 62 1/2 should the Villereals decide to sell their property in the future. If that were the case, would another owner of a trucking company or other oil/gas small business need to apply for their own permit? Or could they set up shop under the permit originally granted to Colorado Well Site Services? An additional question I have is what the proposed permit actually allows. The notification cards from Weld County state "USR for truck parking in the Agricultural Zone District" but Mr. Villereal originally stated at the community meeting Jan 29 that he had applied for a Special Review Permit to change current agricultural zoning into commercial zoning for his small business, with business hours running from 6 am to 6 pm Monday through Friday with an occasional Saturday and that they would run 4 trucks not including any trailers. (Minutes from this meeting are currently part of Exhibit 8). This sounds much more expansive than simply parking trucks in an agricultural zone, so I would appreciate clarification on that matter. Does this permit allow for on -site repairs and truck maintenance? Additional pickup truck parking or service vehicle parking? Are all trailers permitted, including ones potentially carrying toxic material or waste? The last attached picture is from the evening of April 12 which I took around 7:45 pm while en -route to my parents' property next door, and should explain why I'm currently confused about what the proposed permit grants as to type of truck allowed and hours of operation specified. Ultimately, I hope Weld County Planning and Zoning will consider the dangerous consequences of granting the truck parking permit to Colorado Well Site Services. The neighborhood and surrounding area's potential to attract additional residents is unlimited in the years to come, provided Weld County respects the original Agricultural and Light Residential zone put in place to protect the people who live here from the effects of Commercial and Industrial land use. Thank you for your time and attention to my concerns. I would be delighted to discuss any of the issues I've mentioned in -detail and am available by email or phone. Best, Carmen Mesbergen Ph#: (970) 324-3426 2 co r. - r • • NI Y _ '• f •- .. II • .$`• elr. i ► ,••'I ' c ,f ' r' r . �._' w •• - +• - • . i r r"4•a Or it b _-1 r4� • y- a 1.. _ aue 1.1Jli Vs -. ("0 .01 a 1. f�._ii•r -IM-r ■• - h law•Ir c• •▪ r_a _�'N _.•Ul _I..:v.+. i. Re; t . 6•�ii _r• ear. re-ant� ..` ._ ■ • 1• • .y •- I • p Ir• , X11 •ti TZ -- - i. d.. r II 0 i• 1 ▪ • . ... RaA` 6 1. • C - , n 1. n .- •':.� ;+ Xi ..taL _ � 'S" .�' r :!IY • ` w - -.� , � u e +' i{ . t' 1 y.. t. yf`4 - i- r ' a ... L. t "�. " L" 4f ' .!aft '• '° ` r • J • .trY' •' ' 1' _ �t LM1 p •'i .�. .�- '"' 1 •IL .. • y 'i. • , se • .� . all 9 ,+� '�'" •J• R.n� " i ry •y CR,"}�� i° -l:: „h r''f .I"' 17_ .I _ n •s _ J . .„A(��r.. • f 'f r + r., ' wit sr.' 1 T M •Ps y ."`i 'Y1 n.. •" -- tt t 1. # ••ti r.� ir':,, 4a•¢-•-t.-r;rTt �a 1ree R•ery�,;T.r r �- . _ _ • - A. � .� r' {�` S-__.._ l x{49; r. - _ _ .•.-• '`•r�w. 10.2"" •'• =r'Ilf #11i••etry-d • ""�. r a e. •i • J 11 •.,A. a ,ti.t ' - ' -- - - !r.fi r':; ,'i - ...a,d:a - el. ill . .- '.r •v.- s � ,. p.-. ▪ v: ��y,}- �' v �. �z� �Ir_.'; -s e`" � t ';'u� 'Jt+l�. t r t , .4 •I . �... . +r -�r1` R,�-'� -�Wyfe�i' _ A . ■■,r' ..r ; 1 . 1r i. p •.1_ `.-(ir! aj o , ▪ ..: ",f si ..J .• .. ... .aa 8-. _ "'_r� ,.r ■ �,l dr •.f. a I!" I • �y - - " ' 'sue r� a S. y.di •�• o d` R r '°, a° r tt i' �•' f - 1 f 1 r 5 . R . - S - . ,j r 6 . • rr ••1• -19- . iiL. r �t � ` T I. '. psi • Iy, 1 •� t _ Y >. :r7 . • .,., 1. �°;; t. i l '.�:a e r ra a�•'r.+t11--,1+'• ••�. i._ ev �. .r ;s •■ `'r_ • `y I - e r I `j! 0.7 1 • s' r�-.• -1. A r ' ■ *et.; ,A _ •L i d a .r • L- a yc A e a ° -. • . �• y s a " A� . ° ' , r r. . rS • 'y` • •-• n �� .�. •' u " •-!'FJ'4 `yam - r • 4, • • a r -. ▪ ••` ^._Affirms " ▪ r -ry' -, - , - •-,e r -t, rr` 1' - r s i'"•-'' l r'k�' aL >� • • e' ye►L aC'•'. ! 1y i. `•,pu, �I' y�p -lL. i 1-.) • .ri _ G !Tin; y' t,::::: - p' M"L-. } 'c_+fn : :t' Y •' 5. or:.5a.1 r Nli. •t•t J.'. 1 .7. 1. 6. .I r.�`-' es el.$ spat; • • N L.7101 me Kam•.., • 1 {r m .•�. ,414%, • �, f aj +i. ' 4- Dr Li •F r1'l'� �1y .per 'e?, + r, e _ • # plt q`? IYT Qyi a. ti 1.cart 1 r i •t: r,. r 11Fr om.. . e• . "w 1 -I? l` -'��"Ill_._‘,.."‘ 4_:1-k" 4 - iry ■ •, i.�La lir1 - `�'. t "` .t • l?;;; i ..•-•.7i- • _ r- it, pY`mi s•_ 4-7 t: r'r .iv +'&''gip_ a• `'ci - i lea leu ..1 • - ' • r. r r ..- °'° •. a _-`, 3`.•� I.Pi -f+- - - •1y'-. • L .. • s' . L .�.f y y a, -, • y a ' 31 -. I-- ` +• 1 •! . � z..E. - - •• • C4 L' la :WIL ti r.4'' I4 -11 . • 2Y - • _ • ' as _ - L ;;A;;;4_ -- am, Y - p� E 4rrs. eta • — • :r j -■ 1: • te To whom it may concern, My name is Dallas Ley and live at 26274 WCR Rd. 62 12. We recently had a family move in just down the road to the east of us. They are inquiring about rezoning their property to run commercial trucks, I applaud their efforts to do so. They're following the rules and there is truck traffic, farm traffic and general public traffic that travels this road. All of Marks drivers travel this road past my house at a slow pace and he is been gracious enough to inform me that if any of his trucks are traveling too fast past my property to call him immediately and he will take care of the issue. I appreciate that very much because I have children from the ages of 1 to 9. They have cleaned their property and made it presentable. They have also introduced themselves to all of us as and shown that they are outstanding neighbors. The reason that I am writing this letter is to praise Mark and AlmaTs family for their wonderful efforts. I have been told and have seen that one of our neighbors, the Mesbergens do not feel the same way. There has been a lot of false information reported i.e. "we the community". I did not agree to be part of that. Mr. Mesbergen also runs commercial trucks. At least that's the way their plated. I would hope that he would look at rezoning as well instead of condemning someone that is trying to follow rules. feel that Mark and his family plus their business is an asset to our community please reference case number USR 17-0007. Thank You Dallas W. Ley EXHIBIT u‘se, rtiancoole3-4, April 18/ 2017 Good morning. My name is Connie Ley and I am here to support Mark and Alma. I moved onto my property 38 years ago as I indicated in the letter I submitted on February 18, 2017, but this isn't about me. In my opinion, this is about a young couple trying to be the good neighbor and earn an honest luring. Although there are several inaccuracies and missing responses in the minutes from the community meeting notes submitted on March 29th, I feel it's in the best interest of Mark and Jackie to reflect on a couple of key notes that 1 feel may add value. There was a comment submitted on February 5th indicating that "We as a community have many concerns regarding this permit that is being requested". I was unaware that a person within our community was delegated to speak on our behalf. I didn't give my permission and I choose not to be part of this comment. The products transported by Colorado Well Site Services LLC owned by Mark & Jackie are fresh water, frac sand and gravel which are not harmful to our environment. They do not store any product on their property. . Products used for agricultural purposes such as insecticides, pesticides and herbicides have chemicals within the compound of each which may produce a harmful impact to the environment. The magnesium chloride which has been applied on the road east of my home has created a slippery hazardous condition when wet. I travel that section to & from work and my vehicle requires several washings to decrease corrosion on the underside of my vehicle I've not complained about the mag chloride because I realize the value it adds for the home owner. In my opinion, the same respect should be applied to all neighbors by all neighbors. I live directly across from Mark and Jackie and have not had a negative impact from their business. Please consider acceptance of the land use application to allow Mark and Jackie to continue with their business. Sincere ly, bonnie Ley 0 (1 Ler ' ` �� 7 4 . ry. (� , . • l • ▪ * -a LL • 4 i a a -r - d - ` on• 1-�s��' '._n.. a • 4 .. e • • 4. r a eto •'• i.' X1_0 et art �.•. 46, 4 • -.IV - , - 1.t,411, .. • a 1 4 .� •mssr . . ail • '4a - f 3 v r .. '4I- r.. �..P.4OA- ,• , .� _r • •u 1.. lb sea- ,N T ea sr J �. «pt' 9 op ita - ' �- i J a' E • n --. ... amt+ e. • atm �._Ma ✓ >M r - - ,IF, t ^fir all lb - r % • a ..= 7^ - a or r ■ a ./ - 1 r 1 . '* • .I - . � z s a niu� r ta s -` 4'•-r'ti 'F I yiTry-4allamal+te ` • • 4: y f a ; 4 a_ . 4�� .'news' �.r.r _. + _ a a •••• * �a -r —. 1'-',tci fa..=. el.: D a r la 1 - ,. ' . I:. TY + 7 {., d • , . y f r ► S • ' -.tarR a • y J • •. '� • aT a�'� - .! -• r - v7 . ".- -'. Pe; .If ,-'r ;ar a -'4 �'a i.. • s4r ,r' 1 '. t -, .r. .'..: r ;s'rl.f -ra= -- r is - • ay Mint S Y at• a;i Y 'r • - ■ s.• a a awilSill tr ills L"i. v r. ' .i �r .t n1 'sera • ' ti r t .r a.. ▪ ti • F r+ y 4 Mitt lb v. � y�.'. al , fir.. " a. • ' q _'4'?'' • . Y - RE: USR 17-0007 April 18, 2017 Application Review Hearing My name is Teresa Sponaugle. My husband and I own and reside on -- the property adjoining the east boundary of the property reviewed in this hearing. Out of respect for my neighbors and residents of this stretch of County Road 62 X, I am obligated to come and state that I oppose the issuance of USR17- 0007. It is unfortunate that we have been called here at all. We are unclear as to how the Villareal's were led to believe that the property they purchased would be suitable for a trucking company and service shop. At a community meeting at which i was present, they shared that they had been interested in the property since July 2016; it was being refurbished by a property management company after the former residents were evicted, and at the time the Villareals purchased the property in September the house had been on the market one day. Mark stated their real estate agent misled them to believe that the property line extended to the north of the shop, when it did not. They were surprised the first week they occupied the property, when notices were placed on their trucks informing them they were trespassing. They were also led to believe that it would be no problem to operate their business from this location. After several complaints were issued, they learned they needed a USR to do so. I am confident that when they purchased their property, the Villareal's did not envision the delay the USR process has caused, or the work they have had to do to be here today. We have a close-knit community that looks out for each other. We respect each other's privacy, property rights, and freedom to conduct our own interests without intrusion. However, the business activity the Villereals propose is not compatible with this rural residential area. It includes gathering and dispatching multiple employees or clients on a nearly daily basis, year round. While the Villareals intend to oversee these employees and their activites or behaviors, they are not behind the wheel of the trucks in order to maintain their speeds on our road, their hours of entering and exiting the property, their after-hours behaviors, or their moral character. These employees will not have the same sense of responsibility and respect toward the neighbors, because they do not live here, and no matter how much Mark and Jackie instruct them, the drivers are not personally invested in keeping the road safe for those who use it. The business is also subject to the high and fluctuating demands of oilfield companies, which operate outside of stated hours. You already have documentation of complaints filed to bring to your attention circumstances property owners believe need to be mitigated. To their credit, while the Villareals are waiting for their USR, it has been very evident that truck traffic has been carefully kept to a minimum; however, their permit status indicates that they are operating "an active Zoning Violation." This seems to be something that is not concerning to the Board, even to the point that should Commissioners approve the USR, these violations are to be dismissed; legal action for the violations will only be pursued if the USR is not granted. I submit that these current violations are an indication of patterns of behavior that can be expected should the USR be approved. The permit states that sand and gravel will be the loads of the trucks operated. Why then, are tankers and flatbeds stored at the site? Sometimes six or seven trucks are parked at the property. The permit says nothing about the number of trailers are allowed to be stored on the property, yet the current indications are that there may be two or three trailers for each truck, some being parked in the field where the permit states the land will be farmed. The permit would grant "minor truck maintenance" to occur on the property, with flat tires and windshield wiper replacement being done outside the shop in the truck lot which should soon be graveled. l have documentation that shows servicing of trucks taking place in this field as well, and that servicing is under the engine and inside the hood — not typically necessary when replacing windshield wipers or repairing a flat. These issues are riot even addressed in the application, so what are we to expect should it be approved? The application states that hours of operation will be Monday through Friday 6 a.m to $ p.m. and Saturday 9 a.m. to 4 p.m, but already noise and traffic at hours outside of the stated operating hours is frequent, yet complaints are dismissed. In addition, before filing for a USR, the increased amount of truck traffic and dust and noise was noticeable, giving residents on 62 1/2 a taste of the expected results of a USR. How can we believe these patterns will improve with the approval of the USR? The county planning and zoning commission is set up in such a way that you offer assistance to applicants in order for them to meet your criteria for a USR. However, you do not seem obligated to visit the surrounding property owners and site to determine from a planning standpoint whether this specific USR is suitable for this specific property.There also seems to be no concern about an applicant's patterns of behavior or financial ability to complete mitigation requirements. Both of these factors can be telling, and affect whether an applicant is able to fulfill the promises they make when they are trying desperately to gain approval. I request that you consider the substance of the file of complaints you have received and use due diligence in making your recommendation to the County Commissioners. I would like to offer some evidence for a complaint about flooding submitted February 23. The people consulted about this issue do not live here, and it is true that we are not on a FEMA flood map; in fact, in the past, county road crews have left road hazard signs at our property as forgotten reminders that our road is treated with insignificance when it comes to attention to this issue. It is understandable that referral responses from Public Health and Public Works show no knowledge and no concern for this issue. But I can tell you that the people who have lived in this neighborhood can attest to firsthand knowledge of flooding. That is why I am baffled by the Planner's request to Mrs Villareal to explain drainage issues (which she admittedly has not yet experienced) and the Planner's acceptance of Mrs Villareal's response, which states that "it seems there is a ditch that cuts through the north side of the property for waist (sic) water. This ditch has not been maintained and is mostly blown over I will be repairing the ditch when weather gets better." This response demonstrates Mrs Villareals lack of understanding of the complaint and uninformed proposal for a remedy of the issue, and yet it was enough to satisfy the Planner's requirement that it be addressed. This dismissal of our concern was also based on responses from county agencies who have no experience with the flooding on our road. Because it seems we won't be believed without evidence, I brought with me some photographs that represent our concern. The tail end of Owl Creek splits the Villareal's property in half from north to south. (It is not an overblown ditch on the north side of the property.) The trucking terminal they propose is on the west side, with a retaining pond and field on the east. While it runs year-round, this little creek doesn't seem like much concern most of the year, and in fact has been called a "ditch" most of the time, which inaccurately makes one believe it only a facilitator of irrigation and therefore subject to altering to serve the needs of the owner. County responses indicate that the County does not even recognize the problem, because on the surface it really affects only the five properties closest to the Villareals. These photos span 20 years. Mrs Ley, who has no issue with this USR, confirmed at our community meeting with the Villareals that her property is flooded regularly, and since she has lived here the longest, she knows it is a historical occurrence. The fact that the Villareals have "cleaned up" the property is evidence that they are earnestly seeking USR approval; it does not address current patterns of violation nor indicate that maintenance of the yet -to -be -completed mitigations. The applicants have stated that hazardous wastes from servicing trucks will be contained in the shop and appropriate containers, but no concern is shown by the planner regarding the incidental and accidental leaks and contaminants common in trucks that need servicing. Currently the trucks serve oilfield companies, and come into contact with contaminants known to be present there. Our concern is about those trucks and trailers parked where it is known to flood, and about potential contaminants from them getting into the periodic flood waters. When Owl Creek floods, the runoff flows to the south and east. Much of the overflow ends up at the bottom of our field, which then flows under (or sometimes over) the road to the Hammerbeck property. But other water flows to the Mesbergen property and to the Ley property. Any one of us could be detrimentally affected by contaminated water. In addition, property owner Dennis Adler receives delivery of his irrigation water from this half - mile stretch of Owl Creek; he, too, has a vested interest in making sure the creek is cleaned out periodically and kept free of contaminants. A fence that was just erected on the east side of the Creek will make such cleaning incredibly difficult, as it interferes with access from that side of the waterway, I spoke with Bob Wardlaw, whose family has farmed in the area for more than 40 years, and who has experience with cleaning out Owl Creek, and he expressed concern about how the cleaning will be conducted now that this fence blocks access to the east side of the creek. A property owner cannot change the flow of the pathway of this natural waterway. From these properties lining Road 62 Y2, the water flows underground further south and empties out on a property north of County Road 60 Y2. Unless you have lived here many years, or use water carried from this spring, you would not know this; nor would you have any indication of the periodic flooding issues. Mrs Villareal was not qualified to answer the concern, and her response should not indicate the concern has been adequately addressed. The potential for contamination by hazardous materials that enter the water can affect not only surface farmland but also ground water, and eventually the aquifer. At which point does the negligence of addressing this issue become an EPA matter? Dealing with the periodical flooding has been an issue of localized "natural disasters". I have photos taken from my house in 1997 and 2001, The other photos were taken on the property in question in 2010 by former owners of the Villareal residence, While it doesn't occur every year, these photos are representative of the numerous times Owl Creek has flooded, and the span of time should prove to you that flooding occurs with enough frequency there is a historical pattern. When previous residents of the property in question raised livestock and crops, as allowed with agricultural zoning, we didn't worry about what was in the water. But with trucks being parked right where the creek is known to overflow, any incidental spills from the engines or gas tanks, or from parked trailers which may have residual contaminants, the risk of environmental impact is much higher. If water engineers have not been consulted, if ditch companies have not been alerted, and if environmental impact studies have not been required or completed for this USR — all of whom should survey the long-time property owners and not rely on the inexperienced new resident — then it is not prudent to proceed. Owl Creek is a natural area, and the burden of caring for it falls to the property owner. Introducing this number of trucks, and the storage of numerous trailers with varied uses — in addition to the component of a service shop dealing with hazardous wastes — magnifies the potential for endangering that natural feature and becomes a great concern to those who are downstream from it Please note that the photos from the actual property were taken one and two days AFTER the flooding. The owners were so busy trying to save their livestock and create drainage to save their fragile vegetable crops that it took them a couple days to grab a camera to document the event. The bridge shown in one photo was constructed to cross over the creek, and you can clearly see the debris on top of the bridge that indicates the water crested over the bridge. The photo with the owner by the hoop house was taken just a few feet east of the shop building where servicing of trucks will be conducted. The older photos, taken from my house a couple hundred yards down the road, show water cresting the road itself. I noticed that you received no response from Owl Creek, It is no surprise, considering this is not the Owl Creek Supply that is governed by the Eaton Ditch. After contacting the New Cache la Poudre Irrigating Company, the A Eaton Ditch company, the Colorado Division I Water Resources office, and finally Evan Snyder, the Water Commissioner for our area, all in an attempt to determine who would be responsible to address these issues, it appears that prevention of such contamination falls under the jurisdiction and authority of the County Commissioners. That means it starts here/ with this Planning Commission/ to determine if a trucking terminal next to a natural waterway with a history of flooding, is a suitable and compatible use of the property. Contamination of waters is a very real concern, and I hope your board will recognize that before any further regulatory agencies, such as the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment or the EPA, have to be involved. This issue alone makes me consider the USR incompatible with the location. I would appreciate if I may indulge your attention for just a little longer to make a final point, I venture to say that if you are a parent — or if you were ever a teenager — you will understand what I any about to say. Most of us have experienced receiving a request to front money to a child who finds an item he wants to purchase or a privilege she wants to receive. They promise to do extra chores or get good grades to earn the item if only you will buy it for them today, or they agree to similar behaviors if they can convince you to let them hang out with their friends or attend an event. A wise parent weighs the child's patterns of previous behavior and prior trustworthiness before making a decision. Still, wanting to believe in the child's integrity of character, you believe the promises and give in and make the purchase, or extend the privilege without collecting the debt. Take a lesson from this parent of six: all of the best intentions and motivation to obey restrictions and conditions is almost instantly deflated when privileges are given before they are earned. A USR is a privilege being extended to an applicant; promises of following the regulations and completing projects that bring them into compliance need to be weighed carefully against evidence of patterns of current — and past — actions. Thank you for your time, and for the opportunity to voice my concerns. Teresa K Sponaugle 26899 County Road 62 1/2 Greeley, CD 80631 sponauglezoo@gmai1,corn 970-395-9810 Come/mai RSr2t1Oooe7 ar Si. . l „s a rte '4 . ,- �` s yr . -a!M - a w fi -*_-_�---! 'I These two photos show the same truck as in the night photos, still in a location east of Owl Creek and outside the USR parameters, The bottom photo indicates service being done under the hood. eacAmifrastk3I10001 Photos taken from the east, March 14, 2017, showing servicing of truck engine in field north and east of proposed USRI (Service being performed underneath the engine, with flashlights.) 4/4 CAMCJAA 448 A≤rZ %, Changing the flow of Owl Creel, a natural waterway, is not permissible by state law. From this point the overflow, and the delivery of one farmer's irrigation water, is taken under the road to a riser where irrigation water can be diverted; undiverted waters proceed to be carried underground further south. effivant; iMe. via. 00o This photo shows the tail end of Owl Creek, with trucks and trailers parked up against its west banks. ' •••& -'- • 4. The USR applicant states that his trucks will haul sand and gravel. These trucks and trailers are tankers, and unless I am ignorant and misinformed, one doesn't use tankers to haul sand or gravel. Present are three trailers in addition to the one attached to the truck, parked against the west bank of Owl Creek. The photo above was taken inside the chicken hoop house two days after the flood. On June 12, 2010, Matt Boyles stands in the proposed truck yard, just east of the shop where most servicing is to take place, 1 Top photo date stamped June 18 1997, from my property east of the USR17-0007 permit applicant. p p �p pp Shows the water, which originated from Owl Creek on the applicant's property, cresting south over the road and flowing toward the east. Bottom photo date stamped May 11, 2000, from the front steps of my home. The Villareal, Mesbergen and Ley properties are visible in the background. The Hammerbeck property is on the upper left side of the photo. All are affected by this flood, which crested the road and stood two feet deep in places and extended north to our shop building, more than 130 feet north of the road and not shown in this photo. These next two pages a of photos were taken June 11 and 12/ 2010/ by Claire Boyles/ farmer owner a t e photos property. The were taken one and two days after this flood, and show the field where parked the Villarealsl�avea tanker today, and where other photos show a truck being serviced in the field. Hello