Asphalt plant loses support in Wellington - Coloradoan
Thomas Clayton
Wellington reverses approval of Connell asphalt plant
Pat FerrierConnell Resources has put its proposed asphalt mixing plant in Wellington on hold after the Board of Trustees overturned the planning commission's previous approval.
Trustees reviewed the planning commission's June 5 approval after residents Ayla and Ben Leistikow appealed the decision, arguing that commissioners ignored four setback violations, emissions dispersion issues and an incomplete site plan.
In a 4-3 vote Wednesday, trustees ruled the planning commission erred when it approved an 800-foot setback from the plant to the adjacent residential development rather than its more stringent 2,640-foot setback required for heavy manufacturing and industrial companies that produce toxic chemicals.
"We are disappointed at the Board of Trustees’ decision to overturn the planning commission’s previous approval as they applied a different interpretation of the code to Connell’s Site Plan Application versus past projects brought in front of the town," Connell Resources President John Warren said in an email to the Coloradoan. "We are exploring all of our legal options to move our project forward.
"We were looking forward to relocating a portion of our operation to the town of Wellington and being a part of solving some of the many infrastructure needs the town has. Unfortunately, the Board of Trustees’ decision has put that on hold."
Connell Resources had proposed moving its plant from Timnath, which is nearing the end of its lifespan, to an industrial zone south of County Road 66 between Larimer County roads 7 and 9, adjacent to the undeveloped Sundance subdivision.
"This strict interpretation, if applied consistently, could eliminate any heavy and potential light industrial uses in the future," Warren said.
Mayor pro-tem Ashley Macdonald and trustees David Wiegand, Shirrell Tietz and Jon Gaiter voted to overturn the planning commission's decision. Mayor Calar Chaussee and trustees Brian Mason and Rebekka Dailey voted against doing so.
"As a mom, I am relieved," Ayla Leistikow said in an email Thursday. "Our trustees stood up for our community. Our house will be safe for our kid to grow up in. I will be able to go to the park without wondering how many toxic chemicals my kid is being exposed to."
Asphalt plants have safer options outside town limits, Leistikow said. "We might be living in a small town, but we will never give up."
Trustees were charged with deciding whether the planning commission made a clear error or whether the decision was "fairly debatable."
Trustees debated for more than three hours the nuances of whether the code meant to impose the setback for uses that "produce or curate" any toxic chemicals or that produce and curate toxic chemicals at significant levels.
"The only question is if the things emitted into the air are toxic," said the Leistikows' attorney, Jeffrey Cullers. "It's an easy question. The answer is yes," he said, citing studies that show hot mix asphalt plants produce particulate matter and hazardous pollutants. "It is quite clear the plant emits these things."
Connell attorney Carolynne White argued the plant does not produce or curate toxic chemicals. "There is a mountain of evidence" that points to the fact that there are no toxic chemicals to be concerned about, she said. "Any emissions from the plant are well below levels" that might potentially pose a threat to human health.
Mason argued OSHA and the EPA concluded asphalt plants don't pose a health hazard, and the EPA removed asphalt plants from its list of major emitters.
No one disputes that Connell's emissions meet federal standards, Gaiter said, but the town's land use code doesn't distinguish between varying levels of emissions. "The Leistikows didn't say the levels were too high, they are simply saying they (toxins) are being produced and studies show items known to be toxic chemicals are byproducts of the plant," he said.
"The question is, are these chemicals produced as any part of the process?'' Gaiter said. Connell's own study said the emissions were "de minimis" (too trivial or minor to merit consideration) but they do exist as part of plant operations.
Dailey said she couldn't "in good conscience" say the planning commission made a mistake in not imposing the broader setback. She cited two points: What was the intention of the code and how do we interpret it? And, are emissions toxic? "I've seen evidence from both directions. This was a heavily debated topic, so I can't say there was an error."
Tietz said the issue didn't come down to if the emissions are dangerous or not dangerous. "If they are going to produce toxic chemicals, (code says) it shall be deemed the setback should be 2,640 feet."
 | Tom Clayton Communication and Media Specialist, Public Affairs |
| Commissioners' Office 200 W Oak St, Fort Collins, 80522 | 2nd Floor W: (970) 498-7005 tcla...@larimer.org | www.larimer.org |