Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 Denial Documentation• File Name: i'1cLos, d 5\f) Application Submitted: Tech. Comp. Check Due: NTC Letter Sent: TC Letter Sent: Public Notice Sent: Meeting Date: Meeting Type: I'1 P111 Date Agenda Request Submitted Referrals Scut: Site Visit Conducted: Meeting outcome: DEn /.4-4 Date 31s/o1 3[23/D 5/2-1/e- v 3-a via Follow-up Letter Sent: Approval Expire. Date: Bill sent: Permit 1Vrilten: Resolution #: Case Closed: Conditions Met: Ilill Paid: Permit signed: Resolution signed: S/a11zi mat Ao(ro • • April 2007 BUILDING AND PLANNING - CONSIDER THE REFERRAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION ALLOWING "STORAGE OF OIL AND GAS DRILLING EQUIPMENT" TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION — APPLICANT; DOUGLAS MCLEOD — CRAIG RICHARDSON Craig Richardson, Cody Smith of Wagon Wheel Consulting and Michael Howard were present. Craig presented the request for a Special Use Permit application to allow "Storage of Oil and Gas Drilling Equipment" on a property owned by Douglas McLeod. The subject property is located on County Road 320 near the City of Rifle, CO. Specifically, the Applicant intends to allow Petrogulf Corporation to construct and operate a "lay down yard" which will include storage of pipe, valves, fittings and other equipment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Due to the limited size of the proposed operation, staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners not refer this SUP request to the Planning Commission for recommendation. A motion was made by Commissioner McCown to hear this by the County Commissioners. Commissioner Houpt seconded In favor: Houpt - aye McCown - aye Martin - aye May 2007 BUILDING AND PLANNING - CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW "STORAGE OF OIL AND GAS EQUIPMENT". APPLICANT: DOUGLAS MCLEOD — CRAIG RICHARDSON Craig Richardson, Jimmy Smith Wagon Wheel Consulting, and Carolyn Dahlgren were present. Carolyn reviewed the noticing requirements for the public hearing. Max Hall — 9460 CR 320 - challenge to the notification — properties within 200 feet — he is within 200 feet; the County Road separates him from this property. Jimmy Smith said the Assessor has your address in Erie, Colorado. Russell Marsh — brought the attention to the fact that he lives on CR 321, 'h mile to the west. He had a previous driveway on this property entered on CR 321 — no notice on that driveway. Jimmy Smith — the access belongs to Mr. Swallow, it's the only legal entrance into the property and is off CR 320. Russell Marsh — it may not be a legal access but it is open and is the original driveway — Petro Gulf owns the property. Carolyn reviewed the Regulations and said the posting is to be on a public right of way and it doesn't require more than one posting. Jimmy the access mentioned only allows entrance and is not an entrance to the other property, the only public access is 320. Commissioner Houpt is comfortable with notice. The Board accepted the notice. Chairman Martin swore in the speakers. Craig submitted the following exhibits: Exhibit A —Mail Receipts; Exhibit B - Proof of Publication; Exhibit C — Garfield County Zoning Regulations of 1978 as amended; Exhibit D — Application materials; Exhibit E — Staff Memorandum; Exhibit F — Memo from Garfield County Road and Bridge Department, dated May 11, 2007 ; Exhibit G — Email from Garfield County Vegetation Management dated May 11, 2007; Exhibit H — letter from Kirk and Trina Swallow dated May 14, 2007; Exhibit I — Letter from Judy and James Meyer dated May 11, 2007; Exhibit J — Letter from Shirley Donaghue dated May 14, 2007; and Exhibit K — Memo from Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc.; and Exhibit L — Jim and Sheila Estes; Exhibit M — Nate and Joy Lynn Luellen — dated May 20 and Exhibit N — Staff presentation. Chairman Martin entered Exhibits A — M into the record. REQUEST The Applicant requests that the Board of County Commissioners (the BOCC) approve a Special Use Permit (SUP) to allow "Storage of Oil and Gas Drilling Equipment" on a property owned by Douglas McLeod. The subject property is located on County Road 320 near the City of Rifle, CO, zoned Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density. Specifaclly, the Applicant intends to allow Petrogulf Corporation to construct and operate a "lay down yard". Which will include storage of pipe, valves, fittings and other equipment. SITE INFORMATION • • The proposed "lay down yard" will consist of approximatly 2.01 acres situated near the northwest corner of the subject property. Pipe racks and storage bins will be utilized for the on-site storage of equipment. Storage of heavy equipment is not represented in the application. This facility will be a transient operation and will not accomdate fulltime on-site employees. Water and sanitation services will not be required at this facility. The application included a traffic analysis conducted by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. The analysis and application represents a maximum of 3 trips per day. As represented current street improvements are adequate to accommodate the total traffic volume that will be generated from the centralized operation of receiving and distributating equipment that is to be stored on-site. Garfield County Road and Bridge reviewed the application. As condtion of the existing driveway access permit, the Applicant is required to complete a driveway access apron (paved or concrete). Staffrecomends the Board require completion of this requirment prior to the issuance of the Special Use Permit. The Applicant has proposed the utilization of slated fencing should the Board determine that screening is neccassary. Staffrecomends the Board require the Applicant to construct an 8 foot slated fence to mitigate the visual impacts created by the proposed use. Lighting will not be utilzed on-site. Water will not be utilized as part of the proposed operation. A drainage plan demonstrating the change in topography (on-site grading — property is Agricultural Exempt) and the effect it will have on historic on-site drainage patterns. The drainage plan will need to demonstrate the ability to manage run-off during a storm event, so that adjacent properties are not impacted by this change in topography. Dust will mitigated by periodic application of water or magnisium chloride to the existing road and storage site. The required driveway access apron will reduce fugitive dust emissions at the entrance of the sujbect property and County Road 320. Production fluids or other harzardous materials will not be stored on-site. Operation of the proposed facility is not expected to generate vapor emissions. The application included a Wildlife Impact Report conducted by O&G Environmental Consulting. The report concluded that the proposed facility will not adversaly impact wildlife. Utilizing Colorado Department of Wildlife (CDOW) data and conducting an on-site survey the report considered the following CDOW identified habitats and migration corridors know to exist in the area: > Elk — The report identified the presence of Elk on an adjacent property during the on-site survey. It is represented that no evidence of elk activity within the proposed boundary was observed with the proposed boundry. D Mule Deer — The report stated no evidence of mule deer activity was observed within the proposed boundary. > Bald Eagle — The proposed site does not fall within an identified Bald Eagle habbitat range, and none were observed during the on-site survey. > Raptors_— No nest or raptors were observed on-site Staff fmds that the Wildlife Impact Report conducted by O&G Environmental Consulting, represents that the proposed use will not adversly impact the identified wildlife known to be present in the area. The application and traffic analysis represent a total of 2-3 daily trips generated by this use. If this representation is accurate for the total trips generated by the proposed use, including delivery and distribution of equipment /material to and from this location, the traffic generated will not adversaly impact the area. The proposed location for this facility is located in close proximity (approximatly 50 feet) of two adjacent parcels. It is represented that the proposed location was chosen to accomadate the request of an adjacent property owner. Staff fmds that the proposed location will create possible impacts to adjacent property owners by placing the storage facility close to adjacent property boundary lines. However, the proposed locatioin is not situated near an off-site residence, the Board should determine if 50 feet is a sufficient distance to separate the proposed use from the abutting properties. Staff recomends that the Board require a $4,000 reclamation security, to be released after abadonment and full reclamation of the proposed facility. Sound measurements were conducted by Wagon Wheel Consulting at an existing "pipe yard" to demonstrate the sound levels expected at the proposed location. The measurements taken represent noise levels that exceed the maximum acceptable levels identified in by the Colorado State Statute. It must be demonstrated that the proposed use will comply with the residential standards demonstrated below at the time of application. If the proposed storage facility exceeds 55 dB(A) during the hours of 7 am to 7 pm or 50 dB(A) from 7 pm to 7 am, it will be operating out of compliance with State Statute or Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended §5.03.08 (1). Staff finds that the proposed use as represented does not comply with this standard. Zone 7 am to 7 pm 7 pm to 7 am Residential 55 dB(A) 50 dB(A) Commercial 60 dB(A) 55 dB(A) Light Industrial 65 dB(A) 70 dB(A) Industrial 80 dB(A) 75 dB(A) The Applicant has suggested a condition of approval requiring the submittal of a sound analysis taken on-site after the construction of the storage facility. If the sound analysis demonstrates non-compliance on-site operation will cease until the use is in compliance with State Statute. Berming or relocation of the proposed storage site on the subject property could mitigate noise generated by the use. The Applicant did not address this issue in the required impact statement. Staff recommends that as a condition the Board require compliance with all industrial performance standards identified in §5.03.08. The proposed operation shall not generate ground vibration, perceptible without instruments at any point of any boundary line of the subject property. Again, this standard was not addressed in the submitted impact statement. The proposed operation could potentially generate smoke and particulate matter. Staff recommends that the Board require all loading and unloading of equipment on-site to comply with Federal, State and County air quality laws, regulations and standards as a condition of approval. Since this item was not addressed as part of the required impact statement, Staff suggests that as a condition of approval the Board require compliance of this standard to insure adjacent agricultural land will not be effected by the proposed use. The proposed use will not be utilized to store flammable or combustible material. Staff recommends that Board require an 8 foot slated fence to reduce the visual impacts the proposed use will have on adjacent properties. All material stored on-site will be placed securely on racks or within storage bins. The application does not represent storage of Heavy Equipment on-site. The subject property is approximately 51 acres in size and is not located within a platted subdivision. The proposed location does not appear to be located within 300 ft. from any residential dwellings. It is the recommendation of Staff that screening of the proposed use be required. Repair and maintenance of equipment is not represented m the application. Staff recommends that this standard be included as a condition of approval to accommodate the possible need of on-site repair and maintenance. Staff is suggests this standard be included as a condition of approval. The proposed use is in compliance with this standard. Lighting will not be utilized at this storage facility. If lighting is added at a later date it shall be directed inward to the property center. The Applicant has proposed the construction of a rention pond to mitigate run-off from the proposed site. Staff recomends that the Board require the Applicant to submitt a drainage plan demonstrating the ability to manage run- off, so that adjacent properties are not impacted by this change in topography. STAFF RECOMMENDATION As represented the proposed does not comply with Colorado State Noise Statute (CRS §25-12-101) or Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended §5.03.08 (1). Staff can not recommend approval of the Special Use Permit request to allow "Storage of Oil and Gas Drilling Equipment" as represented. The Applicant should consider additional mitigation to reduce volume of sound generated by this use and demonstrate the ability to operate in conformace with State Statute. Should the Board move to approve this request Staff suggest the following recommendations: 1. That all representations of the Applicant, either within the application or stated at the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be considered conditions of approval unless explicitly altered by the Board; 2. The Applicant shall provide Garfield County with a revegetation security in the amount of $4,000; 3. Volume and Sound generated shall comply with the standards set forth in the Colorado Revised Statute at all times; 4. A sound analysis demonstrating the proposed use is in compliance with Colorado State Noise Statute shall be submitted within thirty (30) days from the construction of the proposed storage site, if the operation is found to be noncompliant all operations must cease until the facility can demonstrate compliance; 5. The proposed storage facility may be relocated on the subject parcel to increase distances separating the use from abutting property lines, the facility must be constructed and operate as represented in the application; 6. The Applicant shall comply with all performance standards identified in §5.03.08 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution as amended. • • 7. The Applicant shall construct a driveway access apron (concrete or paved) prior to the issuance of the Special Use Permit; 8. The Applicant shall submit a drainage plan demonstrating the ability to manage run-off, so that adjacent properties are not impacted by the change in topography as a result of the grading required to construct the proposed storage site prior to the issuance a the Special Use Permit; 9. The proposed facility will be limited to 3 daily trips for all vehicles as represented in the application and traffic analysis; 10. The Applicant shall construct an 8 foot slated fence encompassing the entire proposed storage area prior to the issuance of the Special Use Permit; 11. Any repair and maintenance activity requiring the use of equipment that will generate noise, odors or glare beyond the property boundaries will be conducted within a building or outdoors during the hours of 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., Mon. -Fri. 12. The Applicant shall submit an inventory and map of all listed Garfield County Noxious weeds found on- site; Applicant: Jimmy Smith — this facility is proposed by Petrogulf on the property owned by the CEO of Petrogulf Mr. Douglas McCloud. The purpose is to use for a temporary facility for storage of pipes valves and fittings only on a 2.01 acre facility. The pipes, valves and fittings currently are stored on different location around the general area where drill sites are located. This is an attempt to 1) allow them to clean up those sites by moving the pipe valves and fittings to a central location on a property owned by them and to stop the practice of delivering from town or off site facilities to those drill locations and to minimize the traffic to and from the Taughenbaugh Mesa area and limit it to the storage lay down yard. The pipe valves and fittings to be stored there have no contamination assumed there's no type of chemicals, tanks or other waste products that will be stored on the facility it would be limited to drilling operations pipe valves and filling and included in the pipe would be drill stems etc. that are typically moved from site to site. This would give them the opportunity to move that through a centralized facility and then subsequently move out to the next site when needed and not left on the initial locations. There are multiple sites in the area, many if not all of them have pipe valves fittings stored on them. That is the intent of Petrogulf in creating this yard. Addressing the staff findings on the noise generation, we did take a base level of sound at the property, there's nothing there now, no construction has happened, staff recommended we try to find a like facility as nearly as possible to conduct the other sound survey. There is limited storage yards of this size and nature used in this particular area. The one closest is the facility at the West Rifle where similar type materials are stored — we were not granted access by that operator to conduct that study on this site as suggested by staff. The only one we were given permission to conduct the study was Aztec Pipe, which is a commercial operation at the West Rifle directly below Taughenbaugh Mesa. The sounds surveyed there were definitely impacted by road noise other trucking companies immediately adjacent to the property, train, etc. which drove that decibel level up. The McCloud property and Petrogulf use of that facility is for owner/operation only. There's no intended commercial use of that and there will be no leasing to other companies to store materials on that site - it's not large enough to become commercial operations. Once the facility is built and under operation there should be a sound study then to give a comparable of what was before and what will be actual. Petrogulf understands they are regulated by law to meet these. The noxious weed survey when this application was submitted, there was still 8 — 10 inches of snow — concurred the survey should be completed on approval. Trip generation — is the absolute maximum — understand the lay down yard — 3 trips would be a maximum and usually in the stocking of the yard. It would only be an as needed trip to the site and the absolutely minimum is 2 — 3 trips on any given day. The 8 foot fence — mitigates the visual impacts — welcome both the county and residents as to the color of those slats. Flat yard — highest thing would be the shipping containers— 8 x 10 x 40. Pipes 4' off the ground on racks — fence would also allow sound mitigation. Petrogulf has a new manager as of Friday — wants to be a good neighbor — be a minimal impact and have approved planning trees to aid in this visual impact. Commissioner McCown — No. 11 on the conditions — 8 am — 6 pm Monday through Friday. Jimmy — centralization mitigates any emergency situation. Hours suggested, usually its 7 am but will honor the trips in the facility. Craig — hours of operation — not included. Commissioner McCown — can make it a part of the conditions. • • Max Hall - 9460 CR 320 - concerns - consider that the construction operation will impact all the homes - adverse the first day for construction - may include all of the following: content that in the oil and gas industry the times are not consistent. Truck traffic will increase on CR 320 Road. No hazardous material - contention - any equipment is contaminated with hydro carbons. They would have to steam clean and sterilize the pipes and fitting. Storage - original request - didn't limit it to fittings, pipes and original requests was to store oil and gas equipment. Dispute - wildlife - heard of 250 elk range there - there is an impact. Contention - BOCC has done relatively well - expansion to localize areas - reduces heavy use and this is not the property for a lay down yard - departure from their previous actions. Concern for pollution for ground water - most use ground water for domestic use - nothing stated the life span of this facility - he considers it to be an eye sour. Will Petrogulf lease this to other companies? Reiterated the equipment will have hydro -carbons - how separate and not become an issue of ground water pollution - odors not only with existing sites. He read in the record a letter from John and Mickey Neal who are opposed; they live directly across from the proposed site. This area is zoned Residential/Agricultural - busy noisy and dusty. Letter from Shirley Donaghue - next door to the proposed facility. Area is zoned ARRD - moved there in 1999 for the rural nature - fencing doesn't help. The application is to reduce oil field storage; there are several locations along 6 & 24 for this type of activity. If granted this Petrogulf SUP runs with the land - no assurance of McCloud - he could lease land to another owner - SUP is discretionary - please deny. Max Hall is in the industry and understands the need for this type of facility - this is not the place to put it. Exhibit J - was what he read. John Neiley - lives close to this property - CR 320 Road and borders us. Porch and driveway look directly at it. Elk herd there every year - also deer and wild turkeys - bear and had coyotes, fox and bobcats. Water comes down in torrents - we had 2 days of 24 hour rain flooded - torrents of rain - any contamination on the lay down yard will come on his property. Places for industry and places for residential - these do not mix. Linda and Gale Upton - CR 320 - position - this is rural agricultural - shouldn't have mixed uses. Russell Marsh - supports what Max and Linda has said - impacts on road, wildlife, decrease property values - he has been run off from the switch backs many times - road isn't adequate to handle this purpose. Paul McKee - CR 320 - agrees with the neighbors - Petrogulf should have bought in the commercial area and shouldn't force impacts on Taughenbaugh. Elk on the property - major winter grounds - opposes it. Terry Broughton - 320 roads- asked Luellen if he could put up barbed wire, no this is elk migration route through their property - must have smooth wire fences. Arnold Pressler - CR 320 - bottom line Petrogulf lied to us - we're mad. Laurie Pressler - agrees and questions for Petrogulf - heard they sold to Williams and what will happen if Williams takes over? Joe Oley - CR320 -children issue - son age 12 - kids will be kids and they will get out on a summer day - kids can get hurt in this type of operation - fences will not stop them. Craig Brunner - 944 CR 321 - agrees with everyone - attest to elk herds - he's seen 50 to 75 himself - sound mitigation - slat fence - mitigate the sound -'/4 mile from the Johnson pad and he hears all the noise. Last winter he complained and they put up a large hay bale stacks - residence is above the pad - sound rose above - an 8 foot fence will not mitigate the noise - this area is not an industrial - don't want that door open - this will be used as an example for other sites - he values our quality of life - 2 small daughters - negative impact on property values - Johnson pad - smell so bad - complained and neighbor called 911 about the odors. Bob Hooker - 8902 CR320 - same as the others - supports the denial 100%. BLM does not allow lay down yards except under certain - temporary staging area - not allowed - federal government. Unlike the previous EnCana request prior to this hearing - this is residential and not a site for industrial - last week he approached some residents in South Rifle - some have an irrigation ditch and little kids plays in - surface related from irrigations up above. It will contaminate water - opposed to this project. Tom Vondette - farm on Johnson's property - mag chloride - killed the grass. Petrogulf - road ordinance - oil and gas - ignored that - subcontractors - not a good neighbor - need to clean up their act. Joe Gottschalk - 320 Road - had to move from Rulison because of the oil and gas - they want to put a pond down here to catch the debris off this yard and that's going to be toxic, stinking crap - shouldn't have to put up with anything like this. Julie Worsen - CR 320 - ditto to what everyone said. In November 2004 she moved from Cattle Creek - saw the precedent set in that area with one business being started and now they are over there and going up the road and would hate to see it in this area. Tom Vondette - asked for clarification regarding the 3 trips total. Applicant response: 4 • • Jimmy Smith - not sure that anyone could answer these concerns to the satisfaction of the residents — the concerns my general gut feeling is that they are not so much totally against this particular project but against the industry as a whole as it relates to the activity of industry and sites, sound and activities associated with that. The industry is here — my self as well as other residents have to contend with that and I definitely as the owner of Wagon Wheel Consulting respect the concerns and issues of those speaking here today. The visual impacts that continually come up in the residents discussion, the impacts of any facility whether it be an oil and gas related facility or someone building a residence next to your property, there's going to be visual impacts and can not be 100% mitigated. Understanding the nature of this facility and my discussions as early as this morning with Petrogulf and the new management, I had suggested before that the fence would not totally obscure this site from the residents and previously my recommendation of planting trees around the facility has been approved as of this morning that we would plant trees. There maybe other mitigation measures that both the residents and myself could come up with to improve the visual impact of this facility — Petrogulf has assured me that within reason they are willing to do that. The trees were not a part of the original application but on record today they have become a part of Petrogulf s willingness to do that. The mention of the Petrogulf trading or selling to some operator, I have no knowledge of this — my conversation with Petrogulf this morning leads me to believe that this is not something in the plans and if it is it's not under the control of myself or any resident in this room — but I can safely say from my discussions this morning and what they are willing to do on this site does not lead me to believe they would sell to Williams and if so the conditions put forth by the Commissioners if the project were to be approved would apply not only to Petrogulf but its successors. There were many issues brought up by the residents — the truck traffic associated with the oil and gas industry will occur — Petrogulf as far as monetary gain has no initiative whatsoever in putting in this facility. The facility shortens time of delivery to any particular well site but that can be handled by advanced planning or specified to a vendor to have it at this date and time and that truck is still going to come up the road and will still impact the area. Their intent is to provide this facility in central locations so that those truck trips up onto Taughenbaugh Mesa can be limited and the locations people addressed today as far as site sight and smell can be cleaned up and those materials put in a safe and secure location. Again all the comments from the residents are duly noted and my feeling and am willing to go on record in stating what Petrogulf told me today, that they are concerned with the visual impacts, the sound impact and the living conditions of the residents and they are willing to mitigate to a feasible and practical amount anyway they can. Craig — the stormwater discharge is one acre and if the Board approves this might want to be a condition. Asked Jimmy to respond to the useful life of the facility Jimmy — the useful life of the facility and other oil and gas facilities is the oil and leases around them — should Petrogulf not operate — life is associated with the production ability of the wells and leases around them. Should Petrogulf no longer operate wells in that area this pipe yard would serve no purpose unless it could be changed to some other type of facility. The life of the facility is directly associated with the activity level in that area. Carolyn asked if Petrogulf would accept it as a personal permit and one that would not run with the land. Jimmy Smith — absolutely. The CEO of Petrogulf Corporation is the owner of the land and has stated before and I'll reiterate it is not an industrial commercial site — it is a privately owned storage facility for wells which they drill and operate. Carolyn — he owns it as his personal property, it's not Petrogulf. Jimmy — I would assume that, yes. Commissioner McCown — what would be the difference? Carolyn — more thank likely not for business purposes, it's personally owned. Jimmy - I would say the intended use and intended purpose of the land by Mr. McCloud is without question associated with his personal gain of land but it is with the site being on the location the intent is there that it is for oil and gas operation. Commissioner Houpt clarified the intent was for oil and gas use, not for a home. Max Hall — CR 320 —he's indicated he wants this for an industrial site; once it is classified as an industrial site he can sell it as an industrial, he can continue as an industrial site and my contention here is that if you agree with this you are in fact creating an industrial site in perpetituty. Chairman Martin — that was the clarification that Jimmy agreed to that it was personal site only going with the present day owner and if it were to be sold or lose that it would go away, that is what he agreed to, under the same circumstances, rules and regulations say that the SUP does go with the land, not with the owner unless specified in the SUP. Commissioner McCown — one sentence can clear that up. Ron Pressler — forgot the wildlife that's a migration route for that herd forever and we know on Hwy 82 what's going on there. Chairman Martin — that's one of the considerations and one of the review processes that we had on comment. Jimmy — that is for one reason to put the fence around the property is to prevent those animals and wildlife from entering that facility — that's the other purpose and the intent of Garfield County in requiring the fence is to not allow them to enter that 2.1 acres. Shirley Donaghue — 9420 CR 320- I have been taking care of 100 elk every winter since the day I moved on that property they are right below my house and they love it there. John Neal — CR 321 — the other issue — weed situation — even today along that fence line that borders across the road from them, this house that the owner owns if full of weeds that blow into his yard - do not take care of the weeds. Commissioner Houpt moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McCown seconded. Motion carried. A motion was made by Commissioner Houpt that we deny this application, it's quite apparent to me that the proposed use is not consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Commissioner McCown — second for discussion. This may not a consistent use of the neighborhood, but 40 years ago all those homes on that Mesa wasn't a consistent use on that property either. Everything has changed, Ron Pressler — put this in your front yard. Commissioner McCown - I hear concerns about the elk herd — I've seen that elk herd every since I've lived here; there was a fear that the drilling on that Mesa would ruin the elk herds and the elk herds would no longer live on that Mesa, they come down every winter. This is a 2 acre parcel that we're talking about with a fence around it that does not join any other fences so I don't know how that would inhibit migration. A 2 -acre parcel on the scheme of things is not very big, there's fences around every parcel up there along the road and that doesn't inhibit the elk migration so I don't understand those fears and I'm very sincere with that because I've seen that elk herd up there and I love to go up and see them. The public hearing is closed. I don't know fenced — doesn't inhibit the — doesn't understand the fears. I don't know about the carbon products that might be on a valve or on a piece of drill pipe that comes into an area, there could be and I have no reason to question Mr. Hall on that, but it is going to be in a confined area with a pond that will catch any water or anything that runs off of that area. Truck traffic, I don't know 3 trucks a day maximum — I don't know how many come up and down that road now, its more than that now, I guarantee you. I don't know if those three are going to have any significant impact on the road or not. I don't like to see industrial uses taking place in residential areas; but as long as we have provisions in our land use codes for these kinds of activities to occur with Special Use Permits I'm not going to vote for or against something just because I don't like it. If they meet the letter of the law and the mitigations have been put in place that will allow something to happen I have to support it. I can't just be a NIMBY and say I don't want something in my neighborhood so I'm going to vote against it — I can't do that — I don't think I'm doing any one here justice if that's the kind of leadership you want on this Board of County Commissioners if you operate from the hip like that and don't follow your own rules and regulations which allow this very activity to take place. That may be wrong, I'm not saying it is but it does allow it to happen, the applicant has come in and has applied through the proper process and has laid out what they're going to do and how they are going to do it and it meets, the only question that staff had was on the sound and there was not a sound test done at the location where this was going to be built and I don't know those of you who are familiar with that pipe yard down along Interstate 70 in West Rifle, the Interstate along would flunk that test as far as 55 decibels. 55 decibels is about like a normal conversation that we're having here right now. So I have a lot of trouble with this application and I'm not saying that's it's the greatest thing that ever happened but I'm saying that our land use codes do allow for it to occur. And they allow for other uses —to occur not just a pipe lay down yard, they're any number of things that you can get special and conditional use permits to occur in your ARRD zoning — you are not living in a bubble that is protected by Agricultural Rural Residency Density zoning, there are other land uses that are allowed there folks and I'm sorry if you bought your land thinking that you were going to spend the rest of your life surrounded by small Harvey ranches that nobody is really making a living off of. Nobody's income is derived from those ranches, we all love them but it's real hard to make a living on 40 acres on Taughenbaugh Mesa. Commissioner Houpt — our Code does allow the use and also allows us not to approve the use and you live in a rural residential area and you purchased your property and built your home with the thought of living in a certain area there is some reliance you should be able to rely on. Now we're seeing a lot of oil and gas development and Jimmy I'm sorry I don't agree with you that the concerns I heard today are a blanket concern about the industry because I heard people talk about a recognition that there are wells being drilled and that's okay, what I'm hearing today is that this use is simply not compatible with the neighborhood that's its being proposed to be built in and I have to agree with that and as a Commissioner I think it's very important that we look at the big picture and we look at how we want to approach planning and zoning and what we want our County to look like in 5 to 10 to 20 years and we make decisions that not only enhance our economic stability in our county but protect those natural values that drew • many of us here and that we're so special that made many of us stay here once they were born in this county. I can't support this use I think we all recognize that there's a great deal of energy development that will continue to grow throughout our county but in terms of industrial facilities and industrial park use, I think we need to find appropriate areas for that and I think I heard it stated several times this afternoon that there are appropriate areas for that and I agree. We see industrial parks growing in various different places around our communities so I do not believe that is a use that's compatible in this area and even with the mitigation I'm afraid it would be very intrusive to the area. Chairman Martin — I'm always pleased to see Wagon Wheel Consulting put an application together, it's very sound and its straight forward and it's good investigation. This is not a use by right, it is allowed by special use and it's up this board to allow to allow that special use, you're correct and the times are changing and we got some input and impact — this is one that of course the neighbors are very upset with, it doesn't comply with the existing live styles, etc. we know that oil and gas is going to be here, the other one is that this is not the most essential outright needed location for Petrogulf, that's true, there are other locations that can be used, etc. that's demonstrated by the conversation it's not always a economic gain but it is a convenience and would help in transportation, there are benefits and negative impacts as well. We have to look at all of these items. You heard both sides and we'll have to see how the votes come out. Whatever happens, I respect all of you and appreciate your testimony. In favor: Houpt — aye Martin — aye McCown — aye Chairman Martin — it is denied. ADJOURNMENT ATTEST: CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD