PUEBLO, Colo. — The Pueblo County Zoning Board of Appeals kept open an appeal on July 17 of a Sept. 9, 2024 notice of violation that alleges Pratt Show Cattle operates a prohibited feedlot on land zoned as a Planned Unit Development. The panel set an Aug. 14, 2025, 9 a.m. return date and directed county staff to convene the applicant and neighbors to compile a list of concerns and possible remedies.

The appeal matters because the land-use determination affects whether Pratt's operation must cease or be regulated under a special use permit or an amended PUD, and neighbors say odors, flies, dust and drainage have worsened in recent years. County staff and several residents told the board the dispute implicates water management and public‑health review by state agencies.

County planning staff said the underlying issue is whether the operation meets the county code definition of a feedlot. Carmen Howard, director of the Pueblo County Department of Planning and Development, told the board the department and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) had investigated and that CDPHE “did determine it was an AFO” during a site visit. Howard said the county had discussed options for bringing the property into compliance, including an applicant-initiated special use permit, but that the applicants had not submitted the requested letter of intent or followed through on earlier outreach.

Alan Curtis, the attorney representing Anna Pratt and Pratt Show Cattle, disputed that the operation is a prohibited feedlot under the PUD and pointed to earlier county correspondence. “We are not a feedlot,” Curtis said, referring to a 2021 county letter that concluded the use was a cow‑calf and show‑cattle operation rather than a feedlot. Curtis provided documents from CDPHE and independent consultants showing the site installed recommended best-management practices and that CDPHE’s follow-up letter concluded no further action by CDPHE was required.

Neighbors gave specific examples of nuisance and property impacts. Danny Genova, a nearby landowner, described manure and feed moving into irrigation ditches and said a county-placed plug in a culvert had changed drainage patterns. Barbara Ludwig, who lives in the immediate area, testified that flies have increased and that animals now remain in pens year‑round. Several speakers described visible dust and standing water during storms.

Pratt’s counsel and staff discussed two paths for addressing the neighbors’ concerns: (1) the applicant could apply for a special use permit (SUP) under the county’s Uniform Development Code to allow animal feeding operations subject to conditions; or (2) the parties could reach a negotiated agreement on mitigation measures. Planning staff told the board that the county’s regulatory mechanism to impose enforceable, long‑term conditions is via zoning (an SUP or PUD amendment) and that staff cannot unilaterally guarantee approval of an SUP.

During questioning, one commissioner asked Pratt’s counsel for specifics about seasonal herd numbers. Counsel supplied a month‑by‑month summary for the board: April–May 35 donor cows; May–July about 120 recipient cows; August–September roughly 125–160 calves about six months old; October–December 4–20 unsold calves; January–March (calving season) up to 120 pregnant cows with a maximum cow‑calf count of about 180 at one time.

After extensive testimony and staff input, the zoning board voted to leave the hearing open and directed staff to coordinate a stakeholder meeting and to return the case to the board at the Aug. 14 land‑use meeting with any additional information or proposed conditions. “The ball is in your court,” a commissioner told Pratt’s representatives, urging them to convene neighbors and staff to outline remedies for water quality, flies and dust. A motion to keep the hearing open until Aug. 14, 2025, 9 a.m., passed.

The appeal record before the board includes the PUD (PND‑13‑6), correspondence from county planning, CDPHE site visit letters (2021 and 2022), consultant memoranda and multiple neighbor letters and photographs submitted as exhibits. The zoning board emphasized that, as a quasi‑judicial body, it must receive additional material in the hearing record and directed any follow‑up to be presented back in the formal hearing process.

The board did not render a final determination on whether Pratt Show Cattle operates a prohibited feedlot. Instead, it set a schedule for further stakeholder meetings and a return hearing date, and it asked staff to include public works and legal office input on drainage and enforcement options in the packet for the Aug. 14 meeting.