Ohio County residents press court over proposed Vital Farms egg operation on Toms Branch Road

Residents from the Toms Branch Road area told the Ohio County Fiscal Court on Monday that they were surprised and alarmed to learn a commercial egg operation would be sited near their homes.

Roger Carter, who identified himself as a Toms Branch Road resident, told the court “they're gonna put a chicken house in on Toms Branch Road,” and said the parcel could support two houses holding as many as 40,000 birds. He said neighbors were not given notice before trees were cleared and worried the operation would reduce property values and send manure and runoff into a nearby creek that already floods the road in heavy rain.

“People said … if you're within a half a mile of that chicken house, your property is gonna lose at least 21 to 25% of its value,” Carter said, and described a child in a nearby home who has asthma as a reason for concern about air quality.

A second public speaker, who gave his name as Sean, echoed the environmental and traffic worries and questioned the logistics of running commercial trucks on a narrow, mostly one‑lane road. “We're on a one‑lane road, commercial vehicles running in and out,” he said, adding questions about school‑bus and emergency‑vehicle safety where ditches prevent pulling fully off the traveled way.

County staff and officials told residents they can pursue several avenues but emphasized limits to county authority over agricultural siting. Justin (county legal counsel), explaining the process for the court to act as the Ohio County Public Facilities Corporation on bond matters, also advised that water and creek crossings fall under state permitting. “The Division of Water will have to check the creek you're talking about,” Justin said, naming the state agency with permitting authority.

Magistrates said the county has no comprehensive planning and zoning outside incorporated towns (Beaver Dam and Hartford), so county regulation of agricultural siting is constrained. Several magistrates acknowledged they had not been aware of the project until residents began contacting them and local news coverage surfaced; Michael McKinney, who identified himself during the meeting, said the court as a whole did not have prior knowledge of the proposal.

Residents asked the court to consider ordinances or permit processes that would require notice or additional review for large, commercial poultry operations. Court members said an ordinance could be considered but cautioned it could face legal limits if framed as a restriction on agricultural activity rather than on specific, permit‑type conditions.

The court said it will check road‑use permits and confirm what state permits, including Division of Water reviews and any U.S. Army Corps involvement, are required for the creek crossing. No formal action to prohibit or delay the project was taken at the meeting; magistrates indicated staff would follow up with the residents and with state agencies.

The court moved on to other agenda items after public comment; residents said they would organize and share information with other communities that have challenged similar operations.