Whitfield County planning commission hears hours of public comment on proposed poultry rules; approves 60‑day moratorium on new commercial chicken‑house permits

The Whitfield County Planning Commission on a crowded evening advanced a proposed amendment to the county’s Unified Zoning Ordinance addressing commercial poultry operations and separately approved a 60‑day moratorium on new poultry permits, excluding projects with permits already filed or properties under contract.

The amendment under consideration would change setback rules and limit the scale of future commercial poultry houses. Planning‑staff presentations and public testimony focused on two issues: setbacks and how many poultry houses a parcel may hold.

Supporters from the local poultry industry said the draft ordinance was a reasonable compromise. “A 200‑foot setback is a vast difference from what it is currently,” Heath Oaten, a Whitfield County poultry farmer and member of the Whitfield County Farm Bureau board, told the commission. “Limiting down to eight on a parcel … anymore it’s not a large farm.”

Opponents described off‑site impacts they attribute to nearby poultry operations including odors, sediment‑laden runoff into private lakes and what some called health and property‑value concerns. “We have a problem with silt water runoff,” said Mike Key of the Leisure Lake community. He said state inspections traced runoff to nearby poultry houses and that his community is paying thousands of dollars to mitigate algae and other effects in a 25‑acre lake.

Planning staff summarized the proposed changes: increase the setback from the current 25 feet to 200 feet and limit new commercial poultry houses to a specified maximum per parcel; the chair read the amendment as limiting houses to eight per parcel with a minimum acreage threshold. Ethan Calhoun, who presented staff findings, described alternate ways the draft has been worded in the ordinance language: staff told the commission the draft also contemplated a 10‑acre minimum for an initial poultry house and an additional 5 acres required for each additional house, with a maximum of eight houses on an approved parcel. Existing commercial poultry operations would remain as legally nonconforming uses under Article 10 and could be repaired or rebuilt in limited circumstances under that code section.

Commissioners and staff repeatedly told the room that the county has no regulatory authority over odors and related operational complaints; those matters, they said, fall to the Georgia Department of Agriculture and the Georgia Environmental Protection Division. Ethan Calhoun told citizens: “We welcome your comments on the proposed ordinance changes, however neither the planning commission nor the board of commissioners has authority over smells or similar complaints.”

After public testimony and commissioner discussion, the commission took two formal steps. First, commissioners moved the text amendment forward in the process (staff review and the board of commissioners’ consideration). Second, the commission approved a motion to impose a 60‑day moratorium on new commercial poultry permits. The moratorium, as passed, was explicitly written to exclude (1) permits already submitted and (2) projects for which a purchase contract is already in place; those were to remain eligible to continue through the permitting process.

Commissioners and several speakers urged that more study be done and suggested convening a stakeholder group of residents, poultry operators, county staff and state regulators to identify technical and enforceable solutions such as stormwater controls and nutrient‑management enforcement. A number of residents urged a moratorium while that process takes place; some poultry‑industry speakers urged caution about broad moratoria that could leave operators with large sunk costs.

What’s next: the planning commission’s action advances the proposed zoning text amendment and the moratorium recommendation to the county commissioners, who make the final decision on amendments to the Unified Zoning Ordinance and on any county moratorium.

Ending: County staff and commissioners said they will forward the record, including submitted exhibits and public comment, for consideration at the next Board of Commissioners meeting. Residents in the room were told to expect follow‑up from both county staff and the commissioners’ office.