Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Farm bureau urges Boone County to preserve livestock protections as UDO moves forward
Summary
A Farm Bureau leader told the Boone County Board that the draft Unified Development Ordinance needs clearer protections for existing livestock operations, raising concerns about proposed setbacks, removed well rules for A2 lots and a reduced adult‑use setback. Staff said the UDO will be refined and revisited at an upcoming finance meeting.
John Mitchell, president of the Winnebago‑Boone Farm Bureau, told the Boone County Board during public comment that the draft Unified Development Ordinance should preserve stronger protections for livestock operations.
“Current language is adding a 500‑foot setback for a new large livestock facility to property lines,” Mitchell said, contrasting that with the Illinois Livestock Management Facilities Act, which measures 1,320 feet from the nearest occupied residence. He urged the board to “clean up some of the language” so the local code matches the state statute and to retain a reverse‑setback provision that he said helps protect long‑standing farms from nuisance suits.
Planner Jesse told the board the draft UDO does incorporate livestock‑facility language to reflect state statute and that some confusing A2‑lot well language was removed because well capping and verification are handled by the health department. “We have a process for indicating whether or not a well has been capped,” Jesse said, and staff will finalize editorial edits before forwarding the ordinance for formal consideration.
Mitchell also flagged what he described as a reduction in the draft’s distance requirement for adult‑use establishments — citing the current code’s 30,000‑foot standard and a proposed 1,000‑foot standard in the draft — and asked the board to ensure the issue will receive further review. Jesse and board members said many of the Farm Bureau’s suggestions had already been addressed in staff edits and that the county’s planning consultant will attend next week’s finance meeting to walk the board through outstanding issues.
Board members broadly supported giving staff one more week to refine the draft before a formal vote. Tom Wahberg said he appreciated the effort to align local language with state regulations but asked that the board and staff take more time to consider how changes will affect existing farms and future subdivisions.
The board did not vote on the ordinance; members directed staff to bring the UDO and its accompanying zoning‑map changes back to the finance committee with the planning consultant present for a more detailed review.
