Pueblo County commissioners on Aug. 14 upheld a zoning administrator determination that the Pratt Show Cattle operation on South Road is classified as a feedlot and voted to refer enforcement to the county attorney’s office while preserving options for the owners to seek compliance through rezoning, a PUD amendment or other remedies.

The decision came after extended testimony from Pratt representatives and neighbors, technical input on water and drainage concerns, and debate about whether mediation under the county’s right-to-farm policy should be required before enforcement. County planning staff had asked the board to decide whether the county zoning administrator’s stop-work/notice of violation (VZ20-50) was appropriate; the board voted to uphold the administrator’s decision and directed staff to prepare a resolution requesting that the county attorney pursue legal action if voluntary compliance is not reached.

The ruling matters because it converts an administrative stop-work determination into a formal enforcement posture that can lead to county court action or settlements that impose binding conditions on the use of the property. Planning staff outlined several paths for compliance if the decision is sustained: voluntary cessation of the current use, rezoning, amending or rescinding the PUD, or seeking a special-use permit that would include conditions to address stormwater, nuisance and water-quality concerns.

Attorney Alan Curtis, representing the Pratt family and Pratt Show Cattle, urged the board that the operation is a “show” operation and not a feedlot, described the animals’ seasonal movements and husbandry practices, and asked the board to overturn the zoning administrator’s determination. Curtis said Pratt Show Cattle had provided technical reports and asked for a joint, facilitated meeting with neighbors and county staff; he argued the family had arranged a Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) site visit and that CDPHE and Division 2 water engineering input supported Pratt’s compliance with applicable water rules. “We are also not provided any opportunity to address other water quality and drainage issues because we weren't included in the meeting we requested,” Curtis said.

Planning director Carmen Howard and Assistant County Attorney Marcy Day described the outreach and record staff prepared, and clarified that staff held community meetings with neighbors but did not have time to schedule the joint meeting Pratt requested between all parties before the hearing. Howard said staff’s earlier step was information gathering and that a joint meeting could not be coordinated in the limited interval between written-comment deadlines and the hearing.

Day told the board that if the administrator’s decision is upheld the county may pursue legal action but that voluntary compliance paths remain available: “Compliance could look like rezoning the property, rescinding the PUD, [or] applying the zoning of the surrounding area and getting an SUP to operate” with conditions of approval to address impacts, she said.

Technical witnesses and exhibits were submitted by both sides. John George, a water-rights engineer with BBA Water Consultants who has reviewed the site and communicated with CDPHE and the Division 2 engineer, summarized his discussions: CDPHE characterized the Pratt operation as a small animal feeding operation that is applying best-management practices and the Division 2 engineer had previously recommended county drainage changes to route stormwater back toward the Saint Charles River. George told the board CDPHE planned to provide a written report within 30 days reflecting its recent site visit.

Neighbors who spoke at the hearing described persistent drainage, runoff and odor concerns and said storm events have caused standing water and localized water-quality impacts. One public commenter, Wendy Kern, provided late correspondence and said she had located an earlier special-use-permit record from the 1970s for a feedlot on the parcel and questioned gaps in record access.

Commissioners debated mediation under Pueblo County’s right-to-farm policy. Pratt’s counsel proposed impartial mediation to resolve nuisance complaints; planning staff and the county attorney cautioned that the policy’s mediation provisions apply only when the property is operating lawfully and that the county is not required to enter binding mediation if the board approves legal action. The board’s vote to uphold the administrator’s finding does not immediately close off negotiated solutions, but it does authorize the county to pursue formal enforcement if voluntary compliance is not achieved.

Votes at a glance: The board approved the consent agenda while continuing one consent item to the next land-use meeting. The board also voted to uphold the zoning administrator’s decision (VZ20-50) regarding Pratt Show Cattle and directed staff to bring a resolution to the board asking the county attorney’s office to institute legal action if necessary. Individual roll-call votes were recorded verbally as “aye” by the board; no individual roll-call vote names were entered into the record at the time of the motion.

The board recessed the zoning board of appeals and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners; staff said it will return to the board with the necessary resolution to request legal action and will attempt to facilitate further discussions between the parties going forward.

Pratt Show Cattle and its counsel may still pursue administrative or judicial appeals available under county rules and state law.

Ending: The county scheduled its next land use meeting for Sept. 11, 2025. Planning staff said it will supply the missing draft resolution on House Bill 24-1173 (electric vehicle charging system permitting) that had been removed from the consent agenda and will continue outreach to the parties in the Pratt matter while the county attorney reviews enforcement options.