Spalding County planners propose new AR‑1 livestock rules, carve out commercial poultry, swine and dairy for special review

Spalding County planning staff on Wednesday described proposed revisions to Article 5 (AR‑1) of the county zoning code that would narrow the blanket term “agriculture,” set limits on livestock for small lots and subdivisions, and require special exceptions for large commercial poultry, swine and dairy operations.

The changes were presented by David (staff member) as an attempt to balance “not having a bunch of excess on the smaller properties” while preserving subsistence agriculture. David said the current code’s single-word use of “agriculture” covers everything from backyard gardens to large poultry barns and that the draft revisions aim to clarify that range.

Under the proposal, gardens and crop growing would remain permitted on lots of any size; by contrast, livestock and poultry would be restricted inside “classic” subdivisions with interior streets. David said livestock and poultry present on properties before the ordinance’s adoption date would be grandfathered and not regulated by the new standards.

The draft distinguishes “large livestock” (cows, hogs, llamas, emus, donkeys and similar animals) from “small livestock and poultry.” For large livestock, the draft would prohibit horses on lots under 3 acres, permit a maximum of two of each large-livestock type on parcels of up to 0.999 acres, and allow up to four of each on parcels of 1.0–2.999 acres; parcels of 3 acres and above would not be limited in number by the new text. David said horses are treated differently because they are usually a non‑product hobby and require more space.

For small livestock and poultry, the draft proposes no numeric limits outside subdivision restrictions, reflecting planners’ intent to allow backyard eggs and similar subsistence activities. David told the commission he will add clear definitions in the code to separate hobby or household sales (“selling some eggs”) from true commercial operations that operate under contract with large integrators.

On commercial operations, the proposal would move commercial-grade chicken barns, hog farms and mid-to-large commercial dairy farms into a special-exception process; the staff presentation referenced Upson County’s approach and said Spalding’s draft borrows similar definitions and setbacks. David said a key distinction in the draft definition of “commercial poultry or swine operation” will be whether the site operates as part of a contract-growing business model with a processing company rather than a small owner-occupied farm selling limited product.

Commissioners and members raised practical enforcement and standards questions. Commissioner Bruce (commissioner) warned that leaving “not limited” for large-livestock counts on lots of 3 acres and above could invite feedlot-style concentrations on small acreage and urged the inclusion of referenced agricultural standards (for example, recommended acres per animal) rather than leaving the number entirely open. Commissioners and staff discussed examples on the county map — parcels around Malloy Road and North Rover Road and subdivisions commonly called Kendletown/Bridal Town — to show how the proposed language would apply to 0.5–1.0 acre lots inside platted subdivisions versus larger lots on main roads.

David said the intent is to focus enforcement resources on nuisance complaints in small-lot subdivisions and acknowledged the county lacks capacity to routinely “count” animals on every property. He said the approach would restrict livestock in the “true problem areas” (interior-street subdivisions) while allowing country properties on main roads broader uses, subject to special exception review for intensive commercial operations.

The draft also proposes that any new commercial poultry, swine or dairy operations meet minimum acreage and setback standards and that staff would add explicit definitions and thresholds so an occasional roadside egg seller would not be treated as a commercial barn operation. David referenced prior changes in 2019 that added medical‑hardship special-exception language and said the county would adopt similar targeted appendices for commercial operations to avoid arbitrary or overly prescriptive acreage bands.

Commissioners asked staff to consider tying numeric limits to commonly cited agricultural guidelines (for example, industry-recommended acres per horse or cow) and to add clear definitions of exotic animals and commercial operations. Several commissioners and staff reiterated that existing lots of record and existing livestock would remain lawful as grandfathered uses.

David said Articles 1–4 will be finalized for the May 27 meeting and that Articles 5–11 (including the AR‑1 text) would come later to allow more time for the large number of revisions.

Ending: The commission left the draft AR‑1 standards in discussion; no zoning text amendment or vote was taken during the work session. Staff said it will return with definitions and clarified thresholds and that commercial poultry/swine/dairy would be treated as special-exception uses under the proposed text so the county can apply setbacks and review criteria when an operator seeks to establish an intensive operation.