Ag United News

Feedlot zoning changed by county

November 17, 2005 The Daily Republic

By ROSS DOLAN, The Daily Republic

Nearby neighbors no longer will have the power to stall feedlot operations after a decision from the Davison County Commission Tuesday.

In an unanimous vote, the commission decided to place the power to grant zoning variances in the hands of the county’s Board of Adjustment, on a case-by-case basis. Recommendations to grant such variances must first be forwarded to the Board of Adjustment by the County Planning and Zoning Commission.

Previously, property owners within a half-mile setback had the power to veto such operations.

Tuesday’s approved zoning amendments do not affect farms with fewer than 500 animals. The amendments do change setback standards for the conditional use permits required of feedlot operations in the agricultural zone.

New regulations in the county now dictate that animal feeding operations of 500 to 999 animal units must be no closer than “one-quarter mile from any church, commercially zoned area or residential dwelling,” unless granted approval by the Board of Adjustment. Previously, the distance was a half-mile and it was only allowable with a signoff from neighbors within that half-mile zone.

For operations with more than 1,000 animal units, setback requirements will remain at the half-mile distance. All operations, regardless of size, must comply with state environmental standards for maintaining water quality.

Also, new rules will allow on-site construction of one or more dwellings associated with the feeding operation. Such homes will not be subject to the new setback requirements. Previously, only one home was allowed.

Under the new rules, a feedlot operator must request a variance if his operation is closer than the required setback distance. Residents within a half-mile of either size operation must be notified - by certified mail - of the pending feedlot application at least 10 days prior to any hearing.

It will be up to the Board of Adjustment to consider the variance - as well as testimony for or against it - and render a final decision.

“It will give us the opportunity to check many things, including the type of operation, the proximity to roads, and nearby waterways,” said Commissioner Carol Millan.

It was a mixed victory for Mount Vernon farmer Travis Hostler, who petitioned for the changes, but still faces setback problems with his proposed livestock operation.

“It’s one small step for the next generation who wants to farm,” Hostler said after the meeting.

Hostler’s neighbors, the Bakers, under the new regulations still are closer than the required quarter-mile setback required for operations with 500 to 999 cattle.

The new ordinance, however, leaves granting a variance up the Board of Adjustment, rather than the Bakers.

In recent months, the Bakers have refused to sign off on the feedlot expansion because they say it produces dust and allergens that aggravate their daughter’s asthma.

Hostler would not say if he will submit plans for a new feeding operation under the new rules.

“We’ll be analyzing the situation,” said his attorney, Carl Koch.

The Bakers found the new ruling confusing.

“Are we within the quarter-mile?” asked Cheryl Baker.

“That depends on the plan your neighbor finally adopts,” said Commissioner Bernie Schmucker. “As long as they stay below 500 head of cattle, what they have stays.”

Commissioners told the Bakers they could not address their pending complaint against Hostler for allegedly running more than 500 animals at his operation, since it was a legal matter.

Cheryl Baker said she and her husband filed a complaint with Zoning Administrator Dan Sudrla on Aug. 11 that claimed animal numbers on the Hostler feedlot operation exceeded 500.

State’s Attorney Pat Smith said an ordinance violation is a petty offense that would most likely draw a fine if prosecuted. Smith said his office has not yet dealt with the Baker complaint.

Smith said that when the complaint is considered his office must determine whether the complaint should be pursued, if there is proof of an actual violation, the number of days the ordinance was allegedly violated and whether the infraction would still be a violation when seen in light of the latest changes to the animal feeding ordinance.

“These are all things I don’t know and can’t answer to at this time,” said Smith.

For more information, see: www.mitchellrepublic.com/main.asp?SectionID=3&ArticleID=13930&SubSectionID=83

 

For more information, see: www.davisoncounty.org/planning.html