Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Udo Amendments Livestock topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
After hours of public comment, Noble County pauses proposed 10‑year livestock moratorium and continues UDO review to January
Summary
Facing extensive public comment from farmers, industry groups and nearby residents, the Noble County Planning Commission removed the proposed 10‑year moratorium on additional livestock barns from consideration and continued remaining UDO amendment items (setback/definition consistency) to a January public hearing for further study.
Noble County commissioners and staff heard more than a dozen members of the public Dec. 17 before choosing to drop a proposed 10‑year moratorium on additional livestock barns from the county’s draft Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) amendments and to continue debate on setbacks and language changes to the January meeting.
Staff introduced three proposed UDO changes at the start of the public hearing: (1) clarify minimum distances and which farm features count as structures (for example, whether parking areas and truck‑maneuvering areas are treated as structures), (2) increase the minimum separation for livestock‑operation buildings on adjoining lots from 150 feet to 250 feet, and (3) create a 10‑year period during which a second confined‑feeding barn permit could not be submitted following completion of an initial barn.
The third item drew the strongest pushback. Rebecca Schroeder, speaking for the Indiana Pork Producers Association and identifying herself as a fourth‑generation county farmer, said the moratorium “would grant unequal privileges to differing classes of applicants” and warned the provision could be unconstitutional because it treats applicants differently based on whether they had applied within the prior 10 years. “There is no reasonable relationship here,” Schroeder said.
Rebecca Johnishkan, president of the Indiana State Poultry Association, and other industry representatives argued the moratorium and larger setbacks would chill investment, disrupt processing‑facility economics and risk job losses. Local farmers likewise told the commission the restrictions would make it harder for younger operators to finance barns and to recover after a catastrophic loss; a number of speakers urged site‑by‑site review rather than a time‑based moratorium.
Several residents raised notice and neighbor‑relations concerns. A nearby neighbor, Emily Brenney, said a poultry barn was built beside her and that she did not receive notice about a rezoning request to expand — a point staff clarified afterward as a separate rezoning process that was not on the night’s agenda but which underscored neighborhood sensitivity to expansion plans.
At the end of the public comment period the commission voted to remove Section 3 (the proposed 10‑year moratorium) from consideration. The board then voted to continue the remaining proposed amendments — including the definition consistency items and the 150‑to‑250‑foot setback question — as a continued public hearing at the January meeting and asked staff to prepare visual examples (a layout showing the difference between 150 and 250 feet on a typical 10–12 acre parcel) and to refine the draft language.
Staff and commissioners said the goal of the changes is to create consistent language between livestock operations and confined‑feeding operation standards and to make the ordinance easier to administer. The commission encouraged parties to return with focused, site‑specific input at the continued hearing.
