Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agriculture topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission opens broad review of livestock setback rules, public urges feet‑per‑animal‑unit approach
Summary
Commissioners and dozens of residents began a detailed review of the county's livestock (KayO/CAFO) setbacks and class thresholds, with many urging a simpler formula (feet per animal unit), clearer conditional‑use triggers and protections to help young farmers.
Lincoln County commissioners and planning staff opened a months‑long review of the county’s livestock/CAFO (KayO) rules on May 12, initiating a public conversation about inconsistent class ranges, separation distances and how to preserve entry opportunities for young or returning family farmers.
Commissioner Eric Scott framed the issue by noting the ordinance dates to 1995, when facility sizes and technology were different. He suggested the county explore a simpler metric — a fixed number of feet per animal unit — rather than the existing class table with multiple ranges. "When you look at those ordinances ... the size‑setback relationship makes sense, but it's easier to measure in acres," Scott said, urging a practical per‑unit approach.
Public commenters — including young farmers and long‑time operators — told the commission the current configuration can disadvantage smaller entrants and favor very large operations that can navigate permitting. Jared Sterns summarized comparative practice in other counties (e.g., a per‑animal‑unit factor or incremental increase per 500 animal units) and recommended Lincoln consider similar incremental adjustments with a capped maximum setback.
Speakers also discussed water‑well protection, odour and modern livestock technology that reduces emissions; several urged the county to balance protections for neighbors with the need to keep farming economically viable for new entrants. Commissioners asked staff to prepare numeric options (feet per animal unit, conditional‑use thresholds, and where the county should defer to state permitting thresholds) and to continue public input next month.
Next steps: Staff will return with draft numeric options and comparisons from peer counties; the commission expected to continue the conversation and possibly recommend code changes after additional hearings.
Reporting note: The meeting featured extensive public participation and technical suggestions; the county’s regulatory authority intersects with state permitting thresholds for large operations, which staff said they will account for in any draft changes.
