Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission to require resident waivers before approving proposed 4,800‑head hog barn
Summary
An applicant described plans for a 4,800‑head hog barn near Orient Road — citing 8,000–10,000 gallons/day water use and 270‑day manure storage — but commissioners said they would not advance approval until the required resident setback waivers are obtained in writing.
Speaker 5 presented an application and engineering materials for a proposed 4,800‑head hog barn on Orient Road, saying the project is above the 1,000‑animal‑unit threshold that requires commission review. The applicant told commissioners the farm expects roughly 8,000 gallons of water use per day on average (peaking near 10,000 depending on animal age) and planned an 8‑foot below‑pit manure storage designed to meet roughly 270 days of storage (the plan documents indicated roughly 14 months of storage capacity in current drawings).
Speaker 5 described proposed mitigation: fully below‑pit storage, fans with elevated exhaust chimneys to improve dispersion, vegetation or wood‑chip windbreaks used elsewhere, and use of an SDSU odor‑footprint tool to estimate odor impacts. The applicant also said they had outreach underway with residents inside the two‑mile setback and had obtained two waivers so far; the ordinance requires a qualifying percentage of resident waivers within the setback area before some conditional permits can proceed.
Nearby residents spoke during the hearing (Speakers 7 and others), expressing concerns about potential odor, increased truck traffic (the applicant estimated roughly 60 additional finished‑hog loads per year) and proximity to existing homes. Commissioners questioned application details such as water sourcing, manure‑application acreage (applicant estimated about 400 acres available), and whether written resident waivers would be provided.
Commissioners (Speakers 1, 6 and 7) expressed that they were generally satisfied with the application’s technical details but preferred to receive the required written resident waivers before formally advancing the conditional‑use permit. The chair indicated the commission could reconvene as the Board of Adjustment or place the item on a future agenda after the applicant secures the signatures; there was no final permit vote at this meeting.
What happens next: The applicant agreed to collect additional written waivers from residents inside the setback and return so the commission can consider the conditional use permit, potentially convening as the Board of Adjustment.
