Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Udo topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Plan commission debates agricultural rules, signage and road-permit ideas during UDO review
Summary
Members spent the bulk of the meeting reviewing agricultural provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance, raising concerns about a proposed 20,000‑bird poultry operation, heavy-truck impacts on county roads, missing land‑use tables, signage and enforcement mechanisms including attaching fines to property taxes.
The Owen County Plan Commission conducted an extended review of proposed Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) language covering agricultural uses, visibility and sign standards, enforcement tools and planned-unit developments.
Planning staff noted the ordinance repeatedly references a land‑use table that the clerk’s office could not locate; Speaker 3 asked the commission whether to remove that reference until a concrete table is adopted. Speaker 1 and other commissioners proposed adding agritourism as a permitted use and asked staff to confirm the state definition.
Members discussed a proposed free‑range laying hen operation near Wesley Chapel Road that the packet described as 20,000 birds. Speaker 5 warned about the route for egg trucks and said a typical semi load “was double what that state maximum was,” expressing concern about road damage and a hill near the driveway that could be a safety hazard. Commissioners noted state and DOT permitting but said local conditions and ingress/egress are relevant to safety and recommended routing heavy truck traffic to the highway when possible.
On enforcement, planning staff (Speaker 3) described the complaint workflow: inspectors investigate and photograph violations, staff sends letters identifying the code section and remedies, and fines escalate when property owners do not comply. Staff said attaching fines to property tax rolls requires a county ordinance and that pursuing violations through the courts has been used in at least one case.
Other topics included clarifying sign-size language (members asked whether “12 foot” refers to height or area), vision‑clearance rules at corner lots, a recommendation to exclude farm equipment from nuisance definitions, and discussion of minimum parcel sizes (members noted a 5‑acre minimum for the agricultural district). Speaker 5 suggested a permitting and fee structure for non‑routine heavy road users — for example, a frequency‑based permit for timber haulers or daily semis — as a potential revenue source for road upkeep. Speaker 2 also mentioned a county budget note that “we did find 1,000,000 dollars for roads,” but provided no further detail.
The commission asked staff to redraft ambiguous sections, locate or produce a usable land‑use table, and return with clearer language and examples at a subsequent meeting.
