Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ag Zone Lot Sizes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners debate lowering ag-zone lot sizes; clash over protections for farmers and future residences
Summary
The commission discussed proposals to reduce minimum lot sizes in Ag zones and a draft residence-acknowledgement that would allow landowners within 1.5 miles to start or expand animal feeding operations; commissioners disagreed on whether the proposed language would unfairly expose new rural homeowners to nearby AFO/CAFO operations.
Yankton County planning commissioners spent the largest portion of the meeting debating whether to reduce minimum lot sizes in agricultural (Ag) zoning and what protections should accompany any change.
A commissioner who brought forward the edits said lot-size reductions should be paired with changes to Article 5 (residence requirements and setbacks) to protect active farmers and to allow both retirement sales and ongoing farming operations. That proposed text would require a new-residence owner to acknowledge that any landowner located within 1.5 miles who is actively farming at the time a building permit is issued “may expand or start any AFO and or CAFO operation in the future without regard to setbacks for this new residence,” language several commissioners said could allow new homes to be built with the realistic expectation that adjacent livestock operations might be established or expanded.
Opponents argued the proposed wording makes the county inhospitable to new rural homeowners, would reduce property values and could prevent banks from issuing construction loans because of the risk that a large animal operation could be sited close to a new residence. Commissioners debated alternative protections: keeping the present balance that favors the property that existed first, tightening the definition of “actively farming” (for example by requiring proof of crop or livestock operations over prior years), limiting some expansion rights to existing operations, or making utility/agriculture setbacks consistent with precedent established in the county’s solar ordinance (commissioners referenced prior setbacks of 330 and 660 feet as too restrictive and suggested smaller setbacks used for solar).
Commissioners also discussed technical references used for siting (one commissioner presented a map applying a 2.64-feet-per-animal-unit calculation to illustrate how few places remain where a new 2,400-head hog barn could be sited under current setbacks). Several members suggested targeted zoning (preferential or tailored zones) for parts of the county that are more suited either to boutique/residential farming or to large-scale livestock operations, but others warned preferential zoning would concentrate development and increase land values for a small group of owners.
No ordinance change was adopted. Commissioners asked staff to prepare options and to consider whether existing tools — including planned-unit development (Article 13) and other sections (5.13 subpart 4, 5.16 subpart 2 and section 15 o 3) — provide sufficient flexibility to address retirement sales and farm protection before moving forward with a 20-acre minimum-lot-size change. A tentative timeline was discussed for further drafting and public hearing advertisement if the commission chooses to proceed.
