Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agriculture topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
CAFO expansion proposed near Fort Morgan; hearing continued after safety and access dispute
Summary
CK2 Cattle Company seeks a Special Use permit to expand into a 25,850-animal-unit CAFO; staff recommended conditional approval pending demonstration of public need and technical conditions, but the board continued the hearing to Aug. 19 after disagreement over required turn-lane or access relocation and other safety conditions.
CK2 Cattle Company and applicant THEngineering, LLC presented a Special Use permit application Aug. 5 seeking to expand an existing animal feeding operation into a confined animal feeding operation (CAFO) with a maximum of 25,850 animal units, to be built in three phases on property near County Road 19 and the Riverside Canal.
Planning Administrator Nicole Hay reviewed the application and County staff analyses, noting the property is zoned Agricultural Production and parts of the site are in a Special Flood Hazard Area (Zone A). Staff included a Harris Engineering letter on floodplain structure concerns and an HDR Engineering review of traffic safety at the intersection of County Roads Y and 19. Public Works recommended lowering speeds on County Road Y and advised a visual assessment indicated County Road 19 could likely be widened within the existing right-of-way, but a survey would be required.
Applicant THEngineering’s Travis Hertneky said the operation would likely run about 15,000 head in normal operation and sought flexibility to operate either as a dairy heifer operation or as a beef feedyard. Hertneky provided traffic estimates saying a dairy heifer facility would generate about 9,000 truck movements (approximately 11 trips per day), while a beef feedyard would produce about 11,800 truck movements (about 19 trips per day). The applicant indicated a preference to close County Road 19, which would void the six proposed driveway permits; the applicant also said they would not move access if required to install turn lanes.
Neighbors raised safety and property concerns: Ed Wildenburg supported CK2’s operations but urged safer access (move access to the top of the hill or add turn lanes); John Longacre objected to Phase III, asked to repurchase land sold to the Riverside Irrigation District if a dam will not be built, and said the road study did not capture peak silage traffic.
Board members debated whether to require a left-turn lane from County Road 19 onto County Road Y or to allow relocation of access to the top of the hill. Chairman Becker said he would require a left-turn lane unless an alternate agreement was reached; Commissioners Bernhardt and Malone supported a turn-lane requirement. Because the applicant and commissioners disagreed on access and turn-lane requirements, Commissioner Malone moved to continue the hearing to Aug. 19 so staff could draft clearer wording for the condition. The motion carried 2–1, with Chairman Becker voting in opposition.
What happens next: the hearing is continued to Aug. 19, 2025, for further consideration of turn-lane/access conditions and verification of technical items (right-of-way survey, BFE determination for proposed ponds, and documentation of property control/lease for Riverside Irrigation District land).
