Changes in feedlot rules OK'd

New ordinance sets limits on number of animal units per feedlot

By GUY PRIEL

Journal Staff Writer

ST. PETER -- Nicollet County commissioners on Tuesday approved changes to the county feedlot ordinance.

The biggest debate centered around setback limits and the setting of caps on the number of animal units allowed for each feedlot.

Under the ordinance, any new construction must meet a 93 percent emission factor for odors. This stipulation means that there must be no more than 50 hours per month when there is some odor present from a feedlot.

"This only applies to new construction," Environmental Services Director Tina Rosenstein said. "Existing buildings on feedlots do not need to meet this requirement under the ordinance."

According to the ordinance, the setbacks will be determined by measuring the distance from the odor's source to areas that may be affected by prevailing winds.

"We need to keep the broader community in mind when you adopt these ordinances," a resident of Oshawa Township said. "We need to have established setbacks and caps for the good of all of us."

One of the misunderstandings with the proposed ordinance was connected to the definition of urban growth boundaries.

"Urban growth boundaries have not been set yet," Commissioner Judy Hanson told the crowd of approximately 100 people who attended the meeting. "Currently, they are set at half a mile from the cities. That may not be the case once the boundaries are set and officially mapped."

Setting a boundary between rural and urban areas is important to residents, one resident of St. Peter said.

"It is not fair to limit a farmer to a certain amount that can be produced, which you are doing if you set the cap," a Belgrade Township resident said.

If caps were not established, then the county would become a haven for farmers from other counties with caps wanting to expand, a St. Peter resident said.

"We do not limit the size of anything in this country," a resident of Belgrade Township said. "Animals are not regulated anywhere in the state. A cap forces producers to grow to a certain size, and then forces them out of the county."

One problem with setting limits based on urban growth areas is inflated zoning near Courtland, expanding more than one mile south of town, one resident of Courtland Township told the board.

Commissioners unanimously agreed on the definitions of a feedlot. This part of the ordinance removed "industrial feedlots" from the definition; allowed for the sale of processed farm goods; and changed the definition of animal units to match state statutes.

The board also unanimously approved removing the terms "industrial agricultural uses" from the ordinance; added wording stating that a conditional use permit would be required for feedlots of more than 300 animal units; and dimensional standards. Commissioners approved the change that would limit feedlots to within half a mile of rural townsite zoning districts.

"These are items already included in the ordinance," Rosenstein said. "The setbacks are measured from the barn to the nearest house, or to the boundary lines established by the county for public parks and urban residential areas."

In new language, the commissioners unanimously approved regulations that limit feedlots outside a designated urban growth boundary as defined on county maps; limited construction of new dwellings not designated as accessory buildings to the feedlot outside the setback limits; limited the issuance of a permit for a house within the setback for two years after an intent to construct a feedlot has been filed; and stated that a house built on a separate parcel must be designated as part of the feedlot on the permit.

Commissioners approved, on a 3-2 vote, an ordinance that will not allow feedlots to be constructed within half a mile of public schools, private schools, or churches. Commissioners Judy Hanson and Clete Schroepfer voted against this provision, stating they were against all setbacks.

"We cannot afford to stick another dagger in the back of farmers by passing these setbacks," Hanson said. "Feedlot locations in the county have been self-policing. We have tried to establish setbacks without affecting existing farms."

The part of the ordinance stating that new feedlots needed to meet a 99 percent odor-annoyance free rating was passed with Hanson voting against it.

The change in the size restriction to 3,000 animal units drew the most debate from the commissioners, who approved it with a vote of 3-2, as the audience expressed disappointment. Hanson and Schroepfer cast the dissenting votes. Commissioner Jack Kolars, who tried to establish a temporary cap so the board could determine the success of the odor modeling experiment, hesitantly approved the change.

"This is self-regulating," Schroepfer said. "We don't regulate other things in the county. We shouldn't regulate this. We need to focus on regulating other ordinances we passed here today."

Hanson stated she was against all caps because farmers were responsible and progressive enough without them.

"I have to ask if a farmer can be profitable with 3,000 animal units," Kolars said. "Some view caps as a security blanket. This is an evolving question. I am looking for a compromise, I guess."

There are a variety of issues at stake with the ordinance, but setting a cap would not curtail farming, Commissioner LaVonne Craig said.