CAFO report presented (03/09/07)

Large-scale livestock operations in Jay County have doubled in volume over the past three years, a preliminary report estimates, and that rapid growth has county officials looking at ways to better regulate the industry.

A much-anticipated report from that study was presented to members of the Jay County Planning Commission Thursday night by representatives of Ball State University's Office of Building Better Communities.

For the past few years, the vigorous growth of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and confined feeding operations (CFOs) has had many rural residents concerned, and county officials looking for solutions.

And while some of the information offered Thursday night helped put a handle on the scope of such operations in Jay County, no magic solutions were offered.

"It's a matter of grave importance to all of us," Richard Heupel, senior project director for the study, said as he presented highlights Thursday in the auditorium at the Jay County Courthouse.

The $10,764 study, approved in September by the planning commission and Jay County Commissioners and partially paid for by county economic development income tax funds, was first expected to be completed by early January.

When it was finally reviewed individually in February by commission members, they expressed "disappointment" at the findings and asked Heupel for more information. The initial findings provided only a financial analysis of the hog production industry in Jay County.

"The planning and zoning were not included in the scope of work we were hired to do," Heupel, director of Jay County Development Corporation from 1986 to 1991, explained about the delayed report Thursday.

According to an August 2006 report from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Heupel said Jay County's swine herd was projected to be in excess of 270,000.

Comparing this number with the 2002 Census of Agriculture that reported total swine in Jay County at 95,567, it shows a tripling of the county's inventory during the past five years, he said.

However, 2004 estimates showed a total inventory of 95,567 hogs nearly doubling to 185,848 in 2007.

"It's the third largest industry in the county," he said. "And we think these numbers will grow."

Scott Tyree, an undergraduate of Ball State's department of Urban Planning and Building Better Communities and an intern for the Jay County Development Corporation in 2006, explained his department's recommendations to the commission.

He first praised officials for having zoning regulations in the county, although they have been criticized by rural residents as minimal.

"You have this tool on the books," he said noting that many counties do not have dual zoning classifications in rural areas - agricultural-residential and rural-residential. "Use it. It's a really useful tool."

The county's comprehensive plan was prepared in 1989-90 in response to the concern of local citizens about a possible second landfill in Jefferson Township. This was a required step leading to the adoption of a Jay County zoning ordinance in 1991.

The county zoning ordinance has two zoning districts for rural areas, an agricultural district which includes specific rules for CFO's and a rural residential district.

"One step that Jay County might take to reduce the conflicts over this issue would be to split the current AR (agriculture) district into two districts," Tyree pointed out.

He recommended agricultural/limited, which could allow row crops and animals in numbers below state-defined CFO and CAFO figures, and agricultural/intensive, to allow all forms of agriculture - including CFO's and CAFOs. Residential development should be discouraged in those areas, he suggested.

"Jay County should consider adopting such a provision to limit or prohibit residential subdivisions in its agricultural zoning district," he said.

Other recommendations includes fine-tuning the existing ordinance for additional standards that the county may wish to add to its permit criteria.

"There's no science in it," Tyree said about the county's decisions to upgrade any regulations. "It's a matter of preference and policy."

Some local governments require a special use permit or conditional use permit for every new livestock operation, Tyree explained.

The theory behind such an approach is that it provides local officials with additional control over the location of, and conditions imposed upon, each new operation.

"The problem with such an approach is that it can result in a contentious public hearing every time a new operation is proposed," Tyree said.

He noted that Jay County currently has variable setback standards for confined feeding operations that seem reasonable and effective.

"However, it may want to consider amending those standards," he said.

The county's setback regulations currently are 500 feet from a residence not owned by the CFO/CAFO operator, 1,000 feet from a public gathering place and 1,500 from a residential subdivision.

Commission members did not receive the report until their arrival at the meeting Thursday night and had not had time to study the findings.

"This is a starting point for us," Heupel said, noting that questions commission members may have will be addressed in a final report that is expected to be completed by the end of March.

He said additional information will include other setback regulations in surrounding counties that are experiencing similar concerns.

The planning commission is expected to hold a special meeting in early April.[[In-content Ad]]