Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents tell Elkhart County Council they oppose confined poultry operation near homes
Summary
Multiple Elkhart County residents urged the council to intervene over a proposed confined poultry facility on County Road 13, citing odor, water runoff and health concerns. Council members said land-use and permitting authority rests with state agencies and recommended residents contact state legislators and IDEM.
Multiple residents told the Elkhart County Council during the public-comment period that a proposed confined poultry operation near County Road 13 would harm neighbors’ health, property values and quality of life.
"Therefore, 446 humans are going to have their lives adversely affected by this commercial industrial facility being put in the middle of a residential area," resident Gene Gibson said, summarizing his calculation of 63 parcels within a half-mile and citing census-derived household-size figures.
Gibson and other speakers described concerns including odors, airborne particulates dispersed by banked fans, water runoff and inadequate state enforcement of permit conditions. He said residents had submitted a petition opposing the project — "29 people signed a petition against this project" — and that interactions with the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) had been difficult.
"This thing's gonna go through 6 to 12,000 gallons of water a day that's going to go across the soil down to the aquifers and pollute our wells," Gibson said, framing the water-quality risk the neighborhood fears.
Other residents added that the site is surrounded increasingly by residential lots rather than agriculture and asked whether it could be relocated. David Hagen suggested creating a fund or land swap so the proposal could be sited away from rapidly growing residential areas.
County response and limits of authority: Council members and the county attorney repeatedly noted that the county council does not control zoning decisions in this matter and recommended that residents press state agencies and elected state legislators. The chair suggested contacting state legislators and said, "the state has more power over us than we have over them." The county attorney and a council member identified state legislators who may be able to assist with constituent inquiries.
Health-department presence: Melanie Sizemore of the health department was present; council members suggested residents speak with the health department and with state contacts about public-health concerns.
What residents said they’d done: Gibson said residents filed a petition with IDEM in December but were told it was lost; he reported contacting county commissioners and awaiting responses from state legislators. Several residents said they had reviewed published materials and local news coverage and were seeking greater transparency and enforcement.
What the council can do: At the meeting council members acknowledged sympathy with residents’ concerns but reiterated that the council’s formal responsibilities are county spending and taxation, not zoning or state permitting. They advised residents to continue pursuing IDEM and to contact state legislators for further action.
Quotations are verbatim from public-comment remarks during the meeting; the council did not take policy action on the matter during the session.
