HomeMy WebLinkAbout20171236.tiffEXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET
Case USR17-0007 — MARK VILLEREAL AND ALMA GARCIA
Exhibit Submitted By Description
A Planning Commission Resolution of Recommendation
B. Planning Commission Summary of Hearing (Minutes dated 4/18/2017)
C. Planning Services PowerPoint Presentation
D. Joanne Adler Letter of Support (7/10/2017)
E. Teresa Sponaugle Opposition — Powerpoint Presentation (7/11/2017)
F. Iris Mesbergen Letter of Opposition (7/12/2017)
G. Iris Mesbergen Pictures (7/12/2017)
H. Warren Hammerbeck Letter of Opposition (7/12/2017)
I. Gordon Mesbergen Pictures (7/12/2017)
J. Carmen Mesbergen Letter of Opposition (7/12/2017)
K. Carmen Mesbergen Pictures (7/12/2017)
L. Rick Sponaugle Letter of Opposition (8/4/2017)
M. Teresa Sponaugle Letter of Opposition (8/4/2017)
N. Applicant Letter of Withdrawal (8/4/2017)
O.
P
C
P,
S
T
U
V
VV
2017-1236
0
1' cotiocumnig this Property 'Anil be heard before the
uiuy Marmon() Commission and
Board of County Cornitussienets:
Both hearings wilt be hein Qr.*
WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
Greeley, CO 80631
Pi)nrting Commission He *►rev tie hold on
a& n
lean. trig frs.,S5Kist_
la
Vim 5omc r�V* $rt1,11N4 ' e" l t'r % gria
As
t m� it a k b r n ,noqi ►RItileSISI e P
to
antra h e tunas? $naanc) twig per, ~�s t sir trot to eosin tst any itesilaine A
Putt, &he the a > wrvM la Ill.s K
n� FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CC)NT
AT THE �7Uii ,_ 1-D Coutg'ry � [iE R. �4Pf141ENT or
PLANNING SERVICES. A T Qx4.363.coo, vsr z1/445a,9
FO kn toaiau womiatiott visit ter** vistacoun
typimitageastwom
ilaa boat r�.wx..�y'u+s lb waste+ - d+sYnrs5A.- oak ea Lt-i- r ..,Reap. darn. acs "'°� tern?
wasters.
r,f +r w►....
�V 4wus.�{r°`e�.M�6+i�e io.w s - asset � ip.�w. -sw sue,,.
4
DC -a
�.
att
USX --T fir.I 74
-•"."41,fatn-gliirs.:41-tiveltnai?att -at
.# 'N▪ .▪ if _r
'..
- :tibi z
411441- El
doer it ;t
rl
-1
•
V,
t 4
a S _
r s.
T -
y
r
}
pi rat r
it▪ o
4. *I . i
r' z E r .. 0,
It Q▪ . i
'z tiYy ', r 1. .
1
View looking east
�� !S_Rlibt_- air 1—ie amnia amel
View looking west
a- I
w •y
u
t -94. a I.
•
z
—. b. ,.
,E
k"
X
r
it
te-
w
a
awl
-24•10.7'7i --
vrir
4
111_ 4hthala
e
r - .i ce . R • as. a
o +
a a
ar
s :-
Mt - _�
i
J i •
1 — ._-418A•
a.
I
,r 1 _
abilfrika
View looking northwest
_
Tisa Juanicorena
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Diana Aungst
Monday, July 10, 2017 10:32 AM
Tisa Juanicorena
USR17-0007 SPO letter of support
2741_001.pdf
Tisa:
Please add this letter to USR17-0007 for Wed.
Thanks!
Diana Aungsl, AK'?, ('FM
Planner ll
Weld County Department of Planning Services
1555 N. 17th Avenue - Greeley, Colorado 80631
970-400-3524
Fax: (970) 304-6498
daungst a�), weldgov. corn
www. weldgo v. corn
a
0
C
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.
From: Diana Aungst [mailto:daungst@weldgov.com]
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 10:18 AM
To: Diana Aungst <daungst@weldgov.com>
Subject: Attached Image
1
lets'
J
•
64- 1, r
teettie
a
i�&tset,
�7
i &Oil" g/tiir
74 4 .i
i
jefirseeitie-Aa
r
tid dadt. 42-sessiet,
,l.
ezescit,e._
tut Set ae-itetter
eZteicoewst
tea'
LIE 4 /
efrA47€204-te—e.
d;t,(
4to
et a -- '
at/
aeirese
Sir
se
Letifte n
,e %
ata7ris
toe 4452-11-AteiLie
Atetceormatids) emit -
a ...ascra,‘„ 4 441 r )
a- tit Jh.t
te- at! dix-
de/kJ& -id'
•
ate' le If
Ltit 11 V14-Lf
jeirettilearit_
ertineenep efrno a k J
a/
r'
diezzt., aces eer e oce,,
lama, ,,,,,stitiofs-
J
file
Cr '
oni tr eLasid a dee/.
Atesile
F
eat reritegeiem
M
etet. itsitztraree,...74,
r
ted-ii-ea), rtrs' feigartiel
A
beetzel'etan its brie—ree-e, areelwriociat
ttoes
EXHIBIT
1LS(LI--060
A Case Against USR1] 0001
•••
A Case Against USR1I 0007
Primary Concern: Compatibikty
USR Is Not Compatible with This Agri -residential Area
• I believe the proposed USR is too close to other
residences.
• County Road 621/2 is designed for farm -to -market
seasonal farm use and graded once a week, not enough
for the wear and tear of a truck terminal.
• Multiple trucks, trailers, service and personal vehicles
present a year-round safety risk.
15 children aged infant to 16 years live on this mile of 62-1/2
• This road is a schoolbus route and home to young drivers. There are 11 residences with access onto
CR 621/2 on the route these vehicles must travel to get to the applicant's property.
• Added year-round traffic is not just from 4 semi -trucks. It's from multiple service vehicles and multiple
employee personal vehicles arriving and leaving, sometimes multiple times a day.
• The safety and security risks in our neighborhood will rise significantly because of this USR.
Rights and Reputations of Established Property Owners
Deserve Consideration
Property purchased specifically for agricultural zoning should not be
encroached upon by commercial interests through USR process without
establishing a compelling burden for greater good.
• The expertise and experience of surrounding property owners should be
heavily considered when new developments are proposed for land that
borders their properties.
• Elected Commissioners do and should continue to represent the property
rights of current landowners in an unbiased manner -- in my perception,
the USR system is predisposed toward applicants seeking exceptions to
the current zoning.
Concerns About Future Ramifications
• This USR transfers to future property owners, thus it is a defacto rezoning
from agriculture to commercial.
• Revocation of a USR is rare; yet I understand that minor changes requested
by applicants, such as increasing the number of trucks, terminal area, or
such, without future hearings.
• This USR applies to the applicant's entire acreage; even though current plans
are to use the rest of the acreage as pasture, the USR does not limit
operations to the area currently specified for the truck terminal -- what
keeps operations of this or future owner from extending onto full acreage?
Concerns About Future Ramifications
• The X417 oil and gas industry demands for services, such as
what is offered by the applicants, indicate that the business
will frequently be in violation of the USR.
• In addition, upon receipt of a USR, the current applicants or
future owners could move and use this property -- not as a
residence, but as an office and staging area, or even sleeping
quarters for employees -- eliminating any personal
investment with and concern for established neighbors.
Environmental Concerns: Flooding
The property in question
contains Owl Creek,
which is known to flood
periodically during
periods of heavy rain,
often cresting County
Road 62 1/2. The road has
not been modified in more
than 20 years.
Owl Creek is the path of water for surface drainage miles away.
ID Rain adds to the
PP burden of the creek.
I' Those waters backup
into the fields seen here,
ID flooding CR 62 '/z at and
► east of the location of the
proposed truck yard.
These events are often before
Pi irrigation season begins.
Spanning 20 years, photos exhibit historical problem,
Proves this property incompatible with USR
The potential to contaminate
surface and ground water is
multiplied with each vehicle
and evolving USR limitations.
• Crop damage costly: Hammerbeck's lost two plantings of
beets this year alone; their salvage corn crop is substandard
for this field.
• Flooding came after one hour of hard rain, crested the road
and washed away sections of shoulder.
Man cannot stop these natural disasters. BUT,
A USR permitting a truck terminal on a property with such a
history of flooding is irresponsible and short-sighted.
May 8, 2011
Water completely
submerged the
applicant's truck yard,
went up to the shop
and into the house. It
crossed road and left
tractor and trailers up
to hubs in water.
Applicant's Property and Home Was Flooded
i — alk
During first flood, the
build-up of debris from
upstream clogged culverts
and diverted water over the
road and into fields.
Applicants cannot control,
nor be faulted for these
acts of God, but their
operations are not suited
for property where this
historically occurs.
Mesbergen's property
was entirely surrounded
by water. Foreground
shows Hammerbeck's
recently sprouted beet
field. Shot taken from
flooded CR 62 '/z.
Owl Creek is a natural
waterway. The county must
fix this KNOWN problem
before any variance can even
be considered.
Cutting an opening in the bank of the creek
.diverted water from the natural flow south
and sent it east, where it destroyed crops and
damaged property of neighbors.
USR 11-0007 Stipulations Are Not Specific Enough
• For example, the USR states operation of 4 trucks (tractors) are allowed
to operate in and out of property. This needs to be limited to 4
individually identified and permitted trucks operating under company's
� license /ownership. (i.e. Not 4 today and 4 different ones another day, or
even later in the same day.)
. The number of service vehicles allowed to be operated and stored on
� premises needs to be stated and registered as property of company.
Number of trailers allowed to be stored on property must be limited. For
example, no more than 2 per tractor, all with current permits and registrations.
• Drivers need to be duly licensed and employees of applicant, with appropriate
liability Insurance, not contracted owner -operators with no insurable status
with the company.
• Road maintenance/dust mitigation responsibilities need to be defined.
• "Emergency" after-hours operations should be rare. This needs to be clearly
defined and limited in the USR.
• Stipulate type of loads that can be carried (now and in future) as
ALWAYS non -hazardous, including backhauls.
• Currently the USR is for the entire property; it should be stated that
it is limited to the currently designated truck yard.
• If applicants change residences or sell property, the USR should be
revoked and property returned to agricultural use.
• Consequences to violations must be clearly stated and enforced.
Finally, infractions reported to County must be logged and available
to public.
r USR 11-0001 Should Not Pass
• Incompatible with location
o Established agricultural -residential use
o Safety and security of numerous residents
o Environmental concerns (especially water)
• Not enough specific limitations
• It is a Defacto Rezoning in perpetuity --
We're concerned about the future. The County should be, too.
Allowing Applicants to Be "In Violation" Before
Approval Is Irresponsible: Encourages Ignorance of Laws
USR11-0001 states applicant is in violation
� -- and has been during entire process.
Why does the County ignore violations,
and participate in establishing a pattern of
disregard for authorities and laws?
ExpectingNeighbors to Police USR Infractions
Divides Communities
� At the April meeting, a zoning commissioner said they rely on residents to record
� and report infractions. That burden of proof adversely affects neighborhoods.
The county should not issue USRs if it doesn't have the resources to monitor them.
It's not always about growth. Solid communities build thriving economies.
or Character Matters: In Land Use, Too
An applicant's history of public personal and business behavior
should carry weight with planning decisions.
Decisions based on the promises of applicant need to have
assurance of a proven pattern of integrity.
Rehabilitation avenues must be clearly established, monitored,
and reviewed. There is a place for provisional USR permits.
Screening Fences Make Poor Neighbors
My perception is that "screening" is the county planner's
default solution to many USR objections.
Don't assume a fence or landscaping improves the view or
solves flooding or other issues.
fencing can also hide infractions, making enforcement
difficult to impossible.
Good morning, Madam Chair and other members of the Board of Commissioners,
My name is Iris Mesbergen. My husband and 1 own our home at 26710 WCR 62 & '/2 where we
have lived for over 19 years, most of them with our daughters before they were grown. I teach
and 12th grades at Weld Central High School in Keenesburg. Thank you for this opportunity to state
my primary opposition to Case 17-0007.
The zoning for our area is light residential/agricultural. However, there are as many as 10 residences
on 62 & '/: between County Roads 53 and 55. Farmers may have the necessary vehicles they need to
run their farm -to -market operations. But, in regards to commercial industry, a resident is limited to
one commercial vehicle for parking and operation on a property of less than 80 acres. Without the
appropriate land use permits, only one tractor trailer and one two -rear -axle vehicle are permitted.
(Weld County Charter & County Code, 23-3-30, Letter M.)
Ever since the applicants have moved onto 26659 WCR 62 & '/2, they have continually violated this
law by having several tractor trailers, numerous tanker and other -use trailers, one camper, and an
assortment of service trucks on the designated property. The accumulation of these vehicles has been
steadily rising. In fact, as recently as July 4, we counted 6 semis on the property along with many
other trailers and service trucks (show pictures).
Furthermore, the application lists hours of operation as Monday through Friday, 6 a.m. to 8 p.m.,
and Saturday from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. The applicants have not been abiding by these hours from the
occupation of the property through the pendency of the USR. Due to where the truck terminal is
located, the use impacts our family with noise, dust, fumes, lights. Our home is directly south and
lower than the applicant's access point. This results in headlights brightly striking our bedroom,
which is less than 75 yards away. Last week, a tractor trailer left the property at 9:30 p.m., waking
my husband and me. Last month, work on trucks continued into the night, after hours. That noise
was this (show audio). Our family has had to purchase blackout blinds to try to limit the noise and
lights impact, at a cost of $1,000. Screening from evergreen trees will be slow and not provide
adequate barrier during the intervening years of growth. Screening by fencing will not alleviate the
problem either, because Owl Creek, which runs through the appellants' property, cannot by fenced,
and so a significant gap exists.
An additional violation occurred, referenced in Section 22-2-20 G2A, Policy 7.2, during the second
flood of this year on May 18 , when the applicant purposefully diverted the historic flow pattern of
Owl Creek, resulting in a new path for the water, which washed out our driveway and destroyed our
neighbor's beet crop (these neighbors will speak to this and show documentation).
Because of these continual and ongoing violations over the last 10 & '/2 months, I see a definite
pattern of erroneous conduct that is consistent with the applicant's criminal record, as illustrated by
a 49-pg. Register of Action spanning over 15 years and includes multiple DU1's, felony convictions
for possession of illegal substance and aggravated motor vehicle theft, with a current probationary
sentence. Because of all the aforementioned reasons for lack of trust in the applicant, I ask you to
vote "no."
Thank you for your careful attentiveness and wise discernment in this matter. I have seen first-hand
some of your service to our county and I am convinced you truly seek to honor and protect the rights
of the law-abiding citizens therein. I trust your leadership , and in our form of government that has
given me the choice to vote for you --through the privilege of county elections --I ask you to speak for
me.
Thank you.
I
EXHIBIT
P
fr
t
I
I
mhe
G ,
Vet,'
ey
•
L t
v 4 40t
r/• 4'sat
lir'
f
vI.46 7
Oho
/s-
,
Tig +4 lit
,t,4,
se_ #' A
flier
AsidiraT
to • ,w �.
s
.trior for *sill, e
v'•
0
04.- ?...... ":„-- af# ,,,,,,,,
,, ., e <A,
_sr ,
- s Cati r
SI ."4 el° in
'`� e
a sr
its r pi. , -. p a y
trtri , lij pilyre ,
'er t.4111#73;
t
r ice
sitar Silirlicti:41 Mir e
sr`i�►
s.� `�. r i • _ �.
�a
r Alas .
•••••
s�
Sew
•
ser
orsifrogar
tillaakLaile
PC
41
►S • / - �I
sit
'ir 4te Y ban . b.; � 4 ![ - �
1 ��t
lyjA. 6.
v
\i, 1/4-4 i #17 ti ?
\\ IIR
11, riltittaii
1 t sir quires rwft
• i a c--- 4ar‘t Nik ILA- °it'
,,,,,,,,k,,,, No,. Wait .- . . lestess
i
It
' ks
'I ' b-
,, -iii &'t►
ifts
i kA z
'44) S-
• tor after
.� . 1• it 401i4 t
„once it',411.11:4,clikirj. a; Nies"; N. go; V. en. ah!
zsi
•,
ea
-
f talkkvik
hilltaVeteN
# tow 441 •
rs•*_
;a' " - r lb
Air
161 At A h
-• \I 41 11/4 -4t.
4 1 1:771 4110:070L la.. al: ritrlaWl_sreaseirk, era- \I; still?! 1.
4th. �/ 44
A
• „co 44. 8:•,0 • I lir #.
a. �
•�_ ��1�� • artist �.
t
frt
•
.T
Ate! 'raft 4P1r7 �'�
.:;;n •fi:ai-r {1fw=' f :dt.,. . Ig4.s4•'T:
I
•
ti
-_. • r -• -4 `-
"• . " - � i y 1 •
•�IIt
Mi t 1•.• i • y n1.71t` •� •Y .t. I!�►� 9.0.4401.17.f 'i 'f^J1/4
, • a
r
Presented to the Weld County Commissioners
RE USR17-0007
July 12, 2017
by Warren Hammerbeck
Good day, Ladies and Gentlemen:
My wife Fran and I have property "cornering" Mark Villareal and Alma
Garcia and adjoining the Sponaugle's and Mesbergen's along County Road 62 1/2.
We understand the County is considering granting a USR permit to allow Mark
Villareal and Alma Garcia to start some sort of a trucking operation on their
property "cornering" ours. Because of the terrain, they have diverted the flow of
Owl Creek from their property. Having been warned about that at our zoning
commission meeting in April, they nevertheless have proceeded to run this
trucking business without a permit. Since then, two floods have occurred, during
which they did in fact divert Owl Creek to have substantially more of thetonto our
property and Mesbergen's and Sponaugle's, causing extensive crop loss. This crop
loss consisted of two plantings of sugarbeets to the tune of $42,000, and has
since caused a follow-up planting of short -season silage corn. (Refer to
documentation by our lessee of crop loss) Incidentally, this third planting of corn
is way behind, and is still in danger of flooding from their diversion. Even
yesterday we were dealing with water concerns caused by flood silt and debris
EXHIBIT
VS R -C'oc
clogging culverts under the County Road 62 1/2 to our property. (For further
explanation, consult County Road and Bridge employees.) If you have a copy of
my presentation from the April zoning meeting, this was spelled out in some
detail and would be a waste of your time and mine to beat this "croploss" drum
further.
However, as discouraging as this is to have an upstream neighbor do this,
especially after having been warned, this is not my major concern.
Having been in the Ag Chemical manufacturing and distribution business for
some 47 years, and having had responsibility for many company trucks, both
longhaul and local delivery, I am deeply concerned about trucks and materials
being located directly upstream in a meandering creekbed, with little or no regard
to their cargo, notwithstanding the fact that trucks and trailers are inherently
messy. (This USR should have a definition of what constitutes a truck and trailer.)
As you well know, trucks and trailers can vary greatly: flats, tankers, vans,
dumptrucks, hopper bottoms, etc., etc. At our April zoning meeting, I expressed
concern about designated hazardous and designated nonhazardous materials in
this zoning permit being allowed. I expressly mentioned tankers, either loaded or
empty, and the dangers they posed to downstream property. Sure enough, at the
first flood, a tanker nearly flipped over in the flood water, and who knows,
whether loaded or empty, whether rinsate (or cleaning materials) or not, was
released. This brings me to my greatest concern: namely, contamination of flood
water in both the surface and subterranean water table below and underneath
the Villareal and Garcia property, as well as Weld County property itself,
downstream.
1. This Villareal/Garcia property is in the Owl Creek flow.
2. Mark and others attempted to and did divert the creek onto us,
Sponaugle's, Mesbergen's, and then downstream to Corliss's and Weld
County properties.
3. To my knowledge, there has been no offer of payment or restitution of any
kind, either to us or the other individuals named.
MY SINGLE GREATEST CONCERN IS THE POTENTIAL OF FUTURE
CONTAMINATION OF SUBTERRANEAN AND/OR GROUND WATER BY THIS OR
FUTURE TRUCKING OPERATIONS, ESPECIALLY AT THIS LOCATION. As already
shown in the short-term, Mark and Alma have run this business; whether
permitted or not, they have put us down -stream property owners in serious
danger by these two floods since the warning of this potential occurrence in April
of this year.
Another problem on this site is that there is a series of 60- to 70 -year -old
underground drain tiles coming off the Villareal and Sponaugle properties and on
downstream to Corliss's and Weld County. Once any subterranean moisture is
percolated through the soil that has been contaminated with some foreign
material, such as crude oil, crude oil tank rinsate or cleanings, fertilizer,
herbicides, soaps, adjuvants, or ANY of the ingredients or combinations of
chemistry today, such as polymers for frac sand; IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CLEAN THE
SOIL PROFILE TO ITS PREVIOUS STATE.
This is why we as citizens are and must be so careful not to contaminate
our drinking or irrigation water with any foreign substances.
Someone at the April hearing said "why worry, since some of the crop chemicals
are used and never cause any problems?" NOT TRUE. This is why river water is
constantly monitored to detect contaminants downstream from upstream source
pollution, since we all know "the dose makes the poison." For example, aspirin,
when used properly can be a great relief. But a whole bottle can kill you. Another
example is table salt. Table salt is a great seasoning and non -hazardous in small
amounts, but a truckload of it spilled at any time, whether during floods or dry
periods, from a truck's backhaul could ruin our downstream properties forever.
Incidentally, salt, bagged or bulk, is a common and popular backhaul commodity
by many different kinds of trucks.
To sum up this statement, it is a plea to you Commissioners and decision -
makers, to protect us adjacent and downstream property owners from this
attempt to start a business that has not addressed the ebb and flow of the energy
and trucking industries. What happens when the going gets tough, as we all know
it will, and there is no more frac sand and gravel to haul for some energy
company?
At the risk of being pompous and preachy, and lecturing you decision -
makers, I would like to quote from Judge Gorsuch at his hearing for the Supreme
Court of the US to a Senate panel: "It is not my job to do your job." My take away
from that is, we the landowners around 62 1/2 need your protection.
ejthiy c t d ay 4//an f i
Pr (244K - O LM^ can�i���'s
-612)
catel 721,1i
/Me ti lent
CoS „p/5x1 e7,. .z-hincs /la / u
0b j(
etc -_,,S
e:1)- Ar /9 q8A
Plow HMfi.?c cri)= x y�
1)1,0. birn, A ye..„±€::
nf,$/n$// /./;q.
t//f/e.E'
r�rf5c.c4n�%�=iY 5ul P44)5 2(
/per „,<,
92
ger !lit'
'et? at
ybe
`f6`
react) Cedef /track yesa
reircLat x (is
riga_
15eees st/na
(or y�
ICC 1 421 Flits F: j 4,A idlifce5( 11
11041 9rel
soca a on5r1( 4- 4/9 /4
11 C C o; �-
e4.5 Qi 4 iC �anJ p .20 -74nS reit,
- 0. ,ace
/fat Yo 76. a
Lorfri
>C /PAZ 96� bvs
geve /Jo f.„ �6�
T� lcss 7am — 3 y Sao
P
July 12, 2017
Objection to USR 17-007 by Carmen Mesbergen, 26710 Weld County Rd 62 1/2. Small Business owner.
Reasons for objection to the land use permit:
1. Although the department of Planning Services has deemed a truck terminal "compatible with the
region" (to quote Section 22-2-20G2A, Policy 7.2 of the Weld County Code) the Villereal residence is
not compatible with the industrial use proposed.
a. Owl Creek has flooded the property twice already this year with flooding occurring where
trucks will be parked. The applicant has altered historic flow patterns and damaged neighbors'
properties and crops to the east and south of Owl Creek.
b. County Rd 62%2 is an area of rural residences, pastures, & farmland. Neighboring residences
are close enough to the Villereal property to raise several concerns on how a truck yard will
impact neighbors' quality of life, including issues of dust management, road use, noise, air
quality, light pollution, and environmental contamination.
2. We are told from the application that "screening along with limited hours of operation and the
Developmental Standards will mitigate the impacts of the facility on the adjacent properties" (pg 3)
but the applicant has a history of violating his own developmental standards. Examples of this with
evidence in bold print include:
a. Hours of operation Mon — Fri 6 a.m to 8 p.m. & Sat 9 am to 4 pm (Standard 3, pg 6). The
applicant's trucks operate outside of these parameters and come and go from the property nearly
on a daily basis.
b. Noise reduced by applicant "lining the shop with insulation" & Standard 17 (pg 7) that states
the "facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels." Neighbors have recorded proof of noise
generated by the property over an hour past the proposed hours of operation.
c. "Owner will control noxious weeds on the site" Standard 8 (pg 6) and although approximately
2.00 acres of Prime Farmland will be taken out of production by truck parking, "the portion on the east site will
remain as crop land" (pg 4). The east side of the property is overrun with noxious weeds with no apparent
plan to support its agricultural use.
d. "Oil changes will not contaminate ground or water in Owl Creek" (pg 3)_& also "the parking area on
the site shall be maintained" Standard 5 (pg 6). Sufficient trash, including a 55 gallon oil drum washed from
the property from Owl Creek into the ditch and caused the washout of CR 62.5 in April of this year. Pictures
taken by neighbors show trash from the property blown into neighbors' fences.
3. These instances of how the applicant has failed to uphold his own developmental standards put into
question his ability to operate within the bounds of the USR permit. Further issues to consider:
a. Trucking violations and use of trucks
b. Character and background
c. Changing historic agricultural zoning and its affect on surrounding property values
d. Reduced quality of life for neighbors
Ultimately I ask you to deny the permit for the above reasons and to carefully consider stipulations to addres
these concerns raised if you do not. Thank you. EXHIBIT
1 5
v51 Cl-
I
I
Rick L Sponaugle
August 4, 2017
Madame Chair and Commissioners
I am writing to you in regards to the USR17-0007, an application for a commercial truck terminal and
repair facility. At the last hearing on July 12, 2017, you were presented a good volume of information as
to why the USR should not be approved. You, the commissioners, voted to continue the hearing until
August 9, in order that the applicants could meet with neighbors to find some common ground and
work out an acceptable "site specific development plan" for all. It was also stated that if the vote was to
be taken at that time, at least one commissioner would oppose the USR. As of today, August 4, 2017, I
have not heard anything from the applicant. As an aside, I did shake Mr Villereal's hand after the July 12
meeting and told him to "Let me know when you wanted to meet". Ms Garcia acknowledged that she
had the contacts to get a hold of me.
Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the August 9 hearing due to previous plans, son's wedding in
Pennsylvania. I am still opposed to the approval of the USR based on the fact that it is not compatible
with the surrounding neighborhood, and also adding, the refusal of the applicant to even make an effort
to meet with neighbors to work out issues. To remind you, the following are my reasons for my belief of
incompatibility:
- Flooding issues and the possibility of contamination thru run-off.
-Density of residential population on County Road 62 %.
- History of operator not following restrictions of USR and any other law that is not convenient to the
operations or him.
-County Road 62 Y2 is riot suitable to handle the volume of traffic, nor are the specifications of the road
such that allow tractor/trailers to turn without difficulty.
- The USR is conveyed to future owners.
-Unresolved issues with the "site specific development plan".
I would also like to point out and clarify statements made by Mr Villereal at the July 12 hearing, that
were not correct and disturbing. Mr Villereal stated that we made accusations that he "breached" the
berm on the East side of Owl Creek during the flood on May 18, and he stated that he never did make
the breach. I was at the site after the breach was made and the breach looked exactly like a backhoe
had made the cut. I asked Mr Villereal why he breached the East berm and he replied to me "I had to.
The water was about to go over the berm (on the West) and flood my property". I am not sure why he
was compelled to testify in front of the commissioners that we were not telling the truth, but he himself
admitted to me that he breached the berm. These types of comments add to my distrust of the
applicant to obey the rules and regulations of the USR and County.
Thank you for your time in reading this and your service to our community. Please do not approve this
USR.
EXHIBIT
k/Lwri-0001
August 4, 2017
Madam Chair and Commissioners:
In reference to USR17-0007, I have twice presented valid concerns regarding this application for a commercial
truck yard. You have in your files the presentation I made at the July 12 hearing, as well the letter and photos I
presented to the planning commission April 19. I hope you have taken time before the current hearing to
review the reasons I consider this USR incompatible with my neighborhood. Legitimate concerns included:
• Neighborhood safety in regard to the proximity of residences to this USR and the number of homes (11)
and children (15) on our mile section of County Road 62 %2.
• Photographs providing 20 years of evidence that periodic flooding of Owl Creek on the applicant's
property results in road, crop and property damage downstream.
• It is also of concern to me that this USR is commutable to future owners of this property.
As it worked out, when this hearing was continued until August 9, plans had already been made to travel to my
son's wedding, so I am unable to present in person the continuation of concerns listed briefly here:
1. Much work remains to make the USR 17-0007 Development Plan specific and limited. For example:
a. Clearly stating the number of tractors, trailers, and service vehicles allowed, and that they must be
the property of the applicant's company, Colorado Well Site Services, with current licenses,
registrations and identification.
b. Defining minor maintenance: verbiage has vacillated from the beginning to the end of this process,
and needs to be consistent and definitive.
As an aside regarding a contamination concern: Application states there is no plan for floor
drains where oil changes take place. Does the shed need to have concrete flooring throughout
for oil and other fluid changes to take place? Previous owners state that 1/3 of the shop floor is
dirt. Has that been changed?
c. Hours of operation: All references must be consistent and considerate of neighboring residents.
d. Noting that a stormwater drain study IS required. Flood history proves that stormwater drainage
needs to be addressed through an engineering study before allowing this change in land use. Our
storms are not "100 -year" storms and we are not in a "flood plain" as defined by the County. By the
way, the detention pond visible on the site map was constructed by former owners to hold irrigation
water for a drip system for their vegetable farm. Owl Creek does NOT drain into this pond, which in
fact sits higher than the creek, making it ineffective for stormwater runoff. Item 11 on the USR
Development Standards states "The historical flow patterns and runoff amounts on the site will be
maintained." Yet downstream damage from these periodical floods will increase because of the
diversions the applicant has already made to the natural and historic flow of the run-off. Raising the
level of the truck yard and berming the western side of the creek changes the flow of Owl Creek, a
natural waterway, and diverts more flood water to downstream neighbors, causing increased
damage to crops, property and roadways. The fact that the applicant stated that he did not breach
his newly constructed berm on May 18 in order to make the water flow east was not true.
Photographs submitted showed the breach, showed the applicant in the front loader that created the
breach, and when my husband asked him "why?" on the day of the flooding, he admitted that he
"had to." His answer to the Commissioners to a direct question concerning this breach was untrue,
and that pattern of behavior drives our distrust.
e. Application states that Colorado Well Site Services does not have shift workers, yet drivers work day
and night. What changes need to be made in the USR if they answer, truthfully, "yes"?
f. Definition of emergency and number of times the "emergency clause" can be used before it is a
violation of the USR stated hours. The exhibit from Raul Lara (p. 21 of 45) is an example of a driver
coming in at 1 a.m. to pick up a piece of required safety equipment. Does a driver's forgetfulness
constitute an emergency? Also concerning is the fact that the response from the applicant (p. 23 of
45) states that even though he was on site, he was unaware the driver was present in the yard that
night until a complaint urged the planner to ask him to examine the GPS records; this does not foster
confidence in his ability to control these situations. In addition, it does not matter if the "neighbor
closest to the applicant" is disturbed by the trucks; her house is not directly in line with the noise and
light disturbances, her bedroom may be situated in an area of the house that is buffered by other
rooms, she may sleep more soundly, or any other number of variables. The fact is that "emergency
hours" activity has disturbed others to the point of disrupting sleep and interrupting quality of life.
g. Types of loads hauled (application and current development plan say "sand and gravel", yet tanker
trailers are hauled and stored on site, as seen in the photos, and applicant has stated he hauls
"clean" water.) Additionally, while the applicant continues to state he has no certification to haul
hazardous wastes, nowhere in the USR is it specified that NO hazardous wastes may be hauled or
stored in trailers at the site. This amendment would protect neighboring residents from future
upgrades in certifications, or plans of future owners of the permitted property.
h. Road maintenance was deemed unnecessary because of the "small" operation. However, the number
of semis traveling our road on a consistent, year-round basis will increase significantly. Farm traffic is
seasonal and subject to crop cycles. This business will impact our road enough that the applicant
should be responsible for working with the county toward road and dust maintenance.
This is just a quick perusal of items that I ask you to carefully address and specifically define before moving
toward approval of this USR. But, of course, I am writing to recommend that you deny it, and here's why:
2. When the applicant's company was running trucks down County Road 62 1/2 last November and
December, before applying for this USR, residents here had a more accurate picture of what life can be
expected to be like with this truck yard on our road. Traffic, speed, dust and noise was considerably
greater than it has been these past few months as the applicants try to keep a low profile until the USR is
approved. Admittedly, they have done things to adjust to your requirements, but we anticipate that may
change as soon as the permit is granted. This is partly because the applicants claim ignorance when they
are confronted about violating the current USR directives, such as having 6 trucks between the April and
July hearings when the commission stated they could have 4. It is also partly because they have
demonstrated a willingness to do anything to get what they want, even so far as to go against safety
recommendations in order to appease neighbors. (At the April 19 hearing, Mr Villereal testified that he
went against his own better judgment and had his drivers disable the back-up beepers on their trucks to
address complaints.) They are also eager to shift the attention to others, whose land use is permitted
under County zoning laws. This behavior extends to how complaints are handled, with the applicant
claiming that he doesn't know things that should be known by the operator of a trucking business, and by
someone who wants to be a good neighbor. For example, after receiving complaints about the Canadian
thistle going to seed in his field, I was prepared to head down the day after the July hearing to lend a
hand and help him know how it has worked for us to best handle the situation of this tough noxious
weed going to seed. I didn't get that chance because he had hurriedly borrowed a mower from someone
and mowed them down — effectively releasing the seed to spread to neighboring fields while
simultaneously planting a bumper crop in his own. The applicant states that he and his wife are young
and inexperienced, yet they have not shown diligence in learning or doing what is right, only what is
necessary to get what they want. The pace at which they make adjustments reveals a way of thinking
that does not consider consequences, to them, or especially to others.
3. Another example of a reason for continued distrust is that the applicant has not complied with
Commissioner's admonishment to hold meetings with neighbors, and as Commissioner Conway stated
clearly: "This means more than once." Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated bluntly that she was ready to vote
for denial of the USR if he did not take advantage of this option to meet with us. The Villereal's have our
phone numbers, and they know where we live: right next door. I am home most of the daytime, and
someone is here most evenings. I have waved to them as they drive by. As far as we are aware, no
attempt has been made to contact myself or my husband since the July 12 hearing, even though after
that meeting Mr Villereal shook hands with my husband, who said, "Let me know when you want to
meet," and Alma admitted to having our numbers. This continues to add to our distrust that the
applicant will follow through with USR directives and limitations, and should serve to inform the
Commissioners of his intent to disregard the parts he finds uncomfortable or inconvenient.
4. An applicant's character is, in effect, a Land Use issue, because the OPERATION of the company using the
land comes under his direction. The way he executes the USR directives, the way he handles complaints
and business decisions, the way he overcomes his claims of ignorance, all indicate the way the USR will
be implemented. Your vote to approve the USR is your vote for his character, something we have not
personally witnessed as worthy of that vote. That is why I ask that you vote to deny the permit.
Please consider these facts when you vote today. The neighbors who stand in opposition of this USR have a
proven record of being upstanding citizens and contributors to Weld County. Their reputations were earned
over many years of learning, growing and sharing knowledge. We are a generous resource for those who are
willing to seek our assistance.
Thank you for serving Weld County in such an important and demanding role. This has been a learning process
for me, and vital in shaping my views of local representation of values and rights.
KY,ma6--7e4at
Teresa Sponaugle
26899 County Road 62 1/2
Greeley CO 80631
August 8, 2017
Good Afternoon Diana,
I Alma Villereal and my husband Mark Villereal are writing this letter as we would
like to request the Weld County Board of Commissioners to withdraw the
application for USR17-0007, our address is 26659 CR 62 1/2 Greeley, CO. 80631. We
would like to thank you all for your time and effort trying to make this work for
everybody. Please accept this withdraw request as of today, August 8, 2017.
Thank you,
Alma Villereal
Mark Villereal
EXHIBIT
u.9e_` T ood-+
Hello