DeKalb County panel recommends 100‑foot setbacks, animal thresholds for small feeding operations

The DeKalb County Plan Commission on the evening of the meeting recommended that county commissioners adopt a text amendment tightening how small animal feeding operations are defined and sited, voting 6‑2 to forward the draft ordinance.

The proposed amendment would add definitions for "animal feeding operations" and "diversified small scale agriculture," remove "hobby farming" from the unified development ordinance and establish animal thresholds and setbacks. Committee members said proposed thresholds are: cattle and calves, 25–299 head; swine and small ruminants (sheep/goats), 50–599; poultry, 100–29,999; and horses, 10–499. Setbacks would be 100 feet from property lines and 300 feet where a site borders residential zoning.

The ordinance review committee told the commission it met multiple times to balance enforceability and landowner rights, and that the 100‑foot property‑line setback was chosen because it is easier to measure and enforce than a distance measured to a residence foundation. "We felt as though setbacks from property lines made more sense from an enforcement part of things," a committee representative said.

The meeting drew extensive public comment from residents who said the proposed setbacks are a step forward but not enough. "A 100‑foot setback is nothing for the smell. You go out there, that smell goes half mile," said resident Rick Durkee, who described family members with respiratory concerns.

Environmental testimony raised contamination concerns. Susan Catterill, who said she has filed complaints with the state chemist's office and the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, reported recent water sampling after a heavy rain that measured ammonia at 10.5 (noting that she considered 0.21 to be a problematic reference level) and elevated phosphorus. "I test water. That's what I do," Catterill said, and urged the commission to consider pollution and manure control in addition to animal counts.

Commissioners and staff repeatedly flagged enforcement limits. Members said the county lacks the manpower to count animals continually or police manure application; for large operations, state agencies typically have primary authority. "We don't have the power to do what we do now, the manpower," one commissioner said, noting the county would likely rely on health department, drainage board and state agencies for technical reviews and enforcement.

Speakers suggested additional measures for the committee to study, including density limits (animals per square mile), minimum acreage and building‑size caps as a proxy for animal counts, buffer strips or windbreak plantings to reduce odor, and mandatory manure containment requirements as part of development plans. Commissioners agreed to send a second motion requesting the ordinance review committee research those ideas and return with recommendations.

On the required jurisdictional findings for a text amendment, the commission found the proposal consistent with the comprehensive plan, existing zoning character and the promotion of responsible growth. The motion for a favorable recommendation passed on roll call, 6 in favor and 2 opposed. A separate motion directing the committee to research additional manure‑management and density measures also passed and will be forwarded to the county commissioners for consideration.

The commission noted the committee is also working on a separate data‑center ordinance and said the animal‑feeding‑operations amendment may be refined further before the commissioners act. Routine municipal reports followed and the meeting adjourned.

What happens next: The planning commission's favorable recommendation and the committee's requested research will be sent to the county commissioners for their review; the commission asked for additional committee work on manure management, structure sizing and density options before final county action.