Continuously serving Kosciusko County since 1854
Both ordinance amendments regarding Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs) received unanimous approval from the Kosciusko County Commissioners Tuesday.
In presenting the amendments, Area Plan Director Matt Sandy said back in July/August, the Area Plan Commission started talking about AFOs.
“The Plan Commission was approached by a group that said there seems to be some concern with Animal Feeding Operations that have been going into the county,” he said.
Sandy defined an AFO as “any confined feeding operation, not a Confined Feeding, so there’s two different distinctions here. Confined Feeding (CFO), regulated by IDEM. Those are all regulated down at the state, considered a permitted use in Kosciusko County. Animal Feeding then would be anything that is a CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation) all the way down, as we have defined in this ordinance, 299 animals.
“What we’re looking at is trying to set up regulations that would try to keep some separation. The reason this came up to the Plan Commission was, I’m going to say twofold. First, and foremost, I don’t think anybody’s surprised about what’s been going on with the avian flu, how that’s been affecting some of our producers, how it’s been affecting some of our neighboring producers. And that impact it could have on our county specifically, given the nature of our agricultural use out there.”
The second aspect of it, Sandy continued, was “the uses that were going up in some of these rural areas on some properties that were negatively impacting neighbors.”
In August, a committee was established that represented different types of agricultural animal farmers. Sandy said most of the committee members had CFOs backgrounds so they knew what the IDEM regulations are.
“Ultimately, we met a couple times. Brought it to the Plan Commission, not this month but the previous month, for just informal discussion. The Plan Commission looked at it, had us advertise, brought it back to the Plan Commission this month,” Sandy explained. There was a formal public hearing on it and the Plan Commission voted to recommend that the county commissioners adopt it.
Commissioner Sue Ann Mitchell said she watched the Plan Commission meeting online and she had some of the same questions that were raised at that meeting. The first was how did they land on 299 animals as the “magical” figure.
In the ordinance amendment, the definition of an AFO is “A facility, lot or premises where animals other than aquatic animals are confined, fed or maintained for 45 days or more in any 12-month period and where animal numbers total at least 299 animals, including dairy cattle, beef cattle, calves, swine, horses, sheep, goats, turkeys, chickens or ducks. Kennels are not included.”
Sandy said that 299 number was a topic of a lot of discussion, and they could have gone down to one animal as it only takes one to cause a problem, but that wasn’t practical.
“Looking at that 299 number, what they did, and through working with our CAFO folks, that is the lowest number for cattle. So if a cattle CAFO came into place, that would be that 300 number or more,” Sandy said. “As you move up through the different critters, there’s different numbers. IDEM has a sliding scale, and we felt as a group that would make it way too complicated to try to regulate. So trying to set one solid number was the best way to go, and that’s where that 300 came from.”
He said the 299 is the “trigger point.”
Mitchell asked, if she has 299 chickens, what did she have to do.
“Nothing. It’s when you hit that 300 number that that would become a regulated AFO and then at that point then we would implement the criteria spelled out in this ordinance,” Sandy said.
Mitchell asked, if she has 299 chickens, she wouldn’t be required to report anywhere that she has chickens?
“Correct,” Sandy said. “So, right now, technically, even if you have one bird for 4-H purposes, you’re still supposed to have a Premise ID through the Animal Board of Health. So, they should still be registering, but they’re not always. That Premise ID then is used if there’s an outbreak for them to try to figure out who do we need to go see? Who do we need to contact in those areas?”
If a person is going to have 300 chickens, Mitchell asked, there’s a process to do that but they have to go through the state?
“No. At this point, they wouldn’t even have to go to the state. It’s not until you get to 30,000 chickens ... that they would have to go through IDEM to file for a ... Confined Feeding Operation. Anything between that 300 and 30,000 number, there’s no oversight necessarily of it other than just basic Board of Health and some of those lower aspects,” Sandy replied.
“So if I have 300, I don’t do anything?” Mitchell asked.
“Correct. You come in, get your permit, as of today. Now if this (amendment) goes into place, then, yes, this would kick in,” Sandy said.
Having 300 chickens would require a person to have the proper acreage and setbacks.
The amendment requires that AFOs “shall” comply with the following minimum requirements: lot area, 20 acres; front yard setback, 100 feet from the right-of-way; side yard setback, 100 feet from the property line; rear yard setback, 100 feet from the property line; setback to sensitive uses, 400 feet; lakes or shorelines, 100 feet from the structure; drainageways or wetlands, 100 feet from the structure; water wells, 100 feet from the structure; distance from any existing AFO, 2,640 feet.
Mitchell said she has received “a lot, a lot” of phone calls on the ordinance amendments, which she appreciated.
After questions from the commissioners, Steve Miller, Creighton Brothers, said he was the one that brought this up to the county.
“A lot of my friends that are in the egg industry as well have lost entire flocks and have laid off all of their workers, 400 to the north of us and over that way about 200 people. We employ 220,” Miller said, in part. “We had a neighbor that had bird flu within a half mile of us and I know what we went through just from a neighbor having it, testing every day, trying to move stuff around.”
He said with the ordinance amendments they also wanted to try to protect the local farmers, but there’s a lot of concern regarding protecting their investments.
Indiana State Poultry Association President Rebecca Eifert Joniskan pointed out, “I’m aware of at least four applications that went in to IDEM for Confined Feeding Operation approvals, not knowing that this ordinance was coming through. I think some of them were able to pull permits yesterday, maybe one or two that haven’t been able to.”
She asked if the commissioners could consider people who have already invested in preparing applications in coming to the county with sizeable animal operations. She asked that they look at that and the date to which the ordinance amendments would go into effect to provide some leeway.
When Mitchell made a motion to approve the first ordinance amendment, she added that anything after Tuesday’s date would follow the new regulations. Any application to IDEM on or before Tuesday would be grandfathered in under the previous AFO regulations. The motion passed 3-0.
The second ordinance amendment, which is a zoning table for permitted uses, also passed unanimously by the commissioners.
