Board approves some poultry barn variances, denies larger CAFO expansion after neighbor opposition

Marshall County BZA members spent substantial meeting time on multiple confined feeding operation requests and related setback variances on Feb. 11, approving some applications with conditions and denying one larger expansion.

Case summaries and outcomes - Burkholder (case 2501): The board approved a variance to allow a second broiler barn near existing facilities, finding state permitting (AFO/IDEM) and neighbor signoffs supported the application. The roll-call vote recorded the motion as approved.

- Dwayne and Ruth Ann (case 25BZA2): The board approved a second applicant’s similar request with recommended conditions such as shelter belts and odor controls; technical staff recommended mitigation steps and neighbors’ input was considered during the hearing.

- Caleb (Coughle/Coffle) (case 25BZA08): The board denied a request to add two new barns to an existing operation after multiple neighbors and a town official raised concerns about smell, increased truck traffic, drainage and proximity to future development. A roll-call vote to deny carried.

Applicants’ presentations Consultants for the applicants described their operations as existing agricultural uses and said state AFO/CAFO permitting and management practices — enclosed manure storage, regular inspections for permitted farms, and other IDNR/IDEM requirements — would limit public-health risks. Melissa Lehman of Agronomix Solutions, representing several applicants, said item-permitted operations come with monitoring and recordkeeping that “will actually make his farm be better for the surrounding community because he's going to have to be a better manager.”

Neighbors’ concerns Neighbors and area residents who spoke at the public hearings described recurring odors, flies on warm or humid days, increased truck traffic at load-out times, and concerns about property values. Jason Nunemaker, who said two homes he owns fall within the county setback area around one proposed barn, told the board: “Putting another 30,000 birds next to me is a little much.” Several written letters were submitted opposing further expansion; other neighbors living closer to the proposals signed letters in support.

Board and staff conditions For the approvals, planning staff and the technical review committee recommended or the board included mitigation measures: shelter belts of 6–8 feet, concrete-lined litter or manure storage meeting IDNR/IDEM standards, annual water-quality testing where required, and neighbor notifications. For the case denied, board members cited proximity to a neighboring residence that is used as a dwelling for the taxcard and concerns about cumulative odor and traffic impacts.

What the decisions mean Approved applicants may proceed to state permitting steps (AFO/CAFO and related environmental permits) and county building permits but must meet the conditions set by the BZA and by state agencies. The denied application may be revised and resubmitted or the applicant may seek an alternate location; the board’s decision will be part of any administrative record if the applicant pursues further appeals.

The board’s votes on these cases were recorded on the meeting transcript; the planning department will issue formal written decisions and lists of conditions to the applicants.