Page County planning commission recommends CAFO ordinance clarifications to supervisors

The Page County Planning Commission voted to recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve clarifying amendments to the county zoning ordinance governing confined animal feeding operations, including language to clarify how animal-unit calculations and setbacks apply across parcels.

The commission’s discussion focused on technical wording and definitional clarity rather than a change in policy. Staff introduced the draft amendment and said it was prompted by an applicant who proposed building a dwelling on property that also contains an existing CAFO. The draft language applies in Agricultural and Woodland Conservation zoning districts and was described by staff as intended to remove ambiguity in enforcement after the board reduced the minimum CAFO setback from 600 feet to 300 feet in 2023.

Commissioners debated whether the draft should use the term 'residence' or 'dwelling.' One commissioner noted other parts of the zoning code use 'dwelling' and suggested aligning the terms for consistency; staff read the existing definition of dwelling—"Any structure which is designed for use for residential purposes except hotels and motels"—and recommended leaving the CAFO amendment in place and addressing any definitional harmonization in a later zoning amendment so it would not delay the CAFO changes.

Members also discussed adding"per parcel" language and whether 'parcel' is defined in section 01/2532. Staff said the 'per parcel' formulation makes the threshold calculation clearer for staff and applicants and gave an example: two structures on one farm that each house 200 animal units might not individually meet the single-structure threshold but would exceed the 300-animal-unit threshold when counted together on a parcel. "By putting it on a per-parcel basis, that now sends it over the threshold," staff said, adding that the change reduces the need for staff interpretation.

A commissioner cautioned that reliance on numeric thresholds can allow smaller operations that fall below the CAFO threshold to still create nuisance impacts for neighbors. Staff replied that the county is following DEQ/EPA definitions for confinement and animal-unit calculations and cannot substitute a different technical standard.

Commissioner Johnson flagged a typographical duplication in section 01/2535 ("confined poultry feeding operation for poultry") and asked that the redundant words be removed; staff agreed to correct the text.

After discussion, a commissioner moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the amendments to the Board of Supervisors; the motion was seconded and approved on a roll-call/voice vote with the commissioners recorded as voting in the affirmative. Staff said the Board introduction would occur the following week and invited commissioners to attend.

The commission did not adopt any permanent suspension or revocation clause during the discussion; staff noted enforcement and revocation of special use permits can be legally complicated and typically requires separate, legally grounded procedures.

What happens next: the Planning Commission’s recommendation will be taken up by the Board of Supervisors at its next meeting for consideration of final action.