No action taken on poultry houses

After wandering deeper and deeper into a discussion of how to respond to concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) such as four or more large poultry houses, Bedford County Planning Commission finally decided to do nothing at all.

A motion to take no action whatsoever on the issue passed by a 6-2 margin Tuesday night, with three other planners abstaining, presumably because they operate poultry houses under contract to Tyson Foods.

Planners had been talking about concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, for months, even before neighbors of two proposed poultry sites complained to planners. Neighbors of a site on Big Springs Road claimed that there was a plan to build 14 chicken houses there. The owner of that land told planners last month the deal had fallen through.

Tuesday night, attorney Roger A. Maness of Clarksville, who said he was representing Mr. and Mrs. Jimmy Cochran of Lewisburg Highway, said a CAFO permit application to build eight houses has been filed with the state for property across the highway from his clients. Maness tried to encourage the planners to regulate CAFOs.

Right-to-Farm Act

Bedford County planners said they are only concerned with the largest class of CAFOs, Class 1. In terms of poultry houses, a Class 1 CAFO is any site with 125,000 or more confined chickens if a liquid manure handling system is present. One poultry house can hold anywhere between 16,000 and 30,000 chickens depending on its size.

State law, in broad terms, protects agricultural uses from some of the land use requirements that govern residential subdivisions, industries and commercial development. This law is often called the "Right-to-Farm Act." The state and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have special definitions for CAFOs based on their size and the number of animals confined there, but for many purposes state law appears to treat farming as farming regardless of its size or density.

CAFOs must file permit requests with Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation to ensure that they are not negatively impacting water quality or the environment.

There's a 1999 attorney general's opinion stating that local governments have no right to restrict CAFOs. The issue has not been tested in court; some Tennessee governments, such as Rutherford County, have passed rules regulating CAFOs in spite of the opinion, but no CAFO developer has yet tried to challenge those rules in court.

Maness said he believes CAFO regulations would stand up in court. He is also pursuing the state regulatory route for his clients and said he will seek a public hearing on the state CAFO permit.

Wayne Simons, one of the three planners who abstained from the eventual vote, said that in one local court case, even Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation was overruled due to a Right-To-Farm Act issue.

Self-regulation

Tyson Foods plant manager Wally Taylor, who attended Tuesday night's meeting, said Tyson wants to be a good corporate citizen and that it works with its contract growers to make sure that new poultry operations are appropriate. He cited the guidelines issued by the University of Tennessee Extension as "a good basis for voluntary restrictions on the way poultry houses are constructed."

Taylor said that Tyson is noticing a trend towards larger poultry operations but is not driving or encouraging that trend.

Planners discussed with Taylor the idea of setting up a voluntary advisory committee which would look at new poultry house proposals, and Taylor said that in principle he was open to such an idea.

Maness, however, said that voluntary guidelines could change at any time, such as if Tyson management were to change.

Weighing the options

Planners discussed four different options for responding to CAFOs:

* Create a new A-2 zone for high-density agriculture. This would require that a developer get a piece of property rezoned to A-2 before building a new Class 1 CAFO there. The rezoning would have to be approved by Bedford County Board of Commissioners, and then the Planning Commission would have to approve a site plan. The new zone would contain extensive regulations for poultry houses, such as setback requirements and the requirement that poultry houses be located on major arterial roads or better.

* Allow Class 1 CAFOs as a special exception within the existing A-1 zone. This would mean that a developer would have to bring a proposal to the Board of Zoning Appeals, which would have latitude to negotiate various conditions in granting the request. However, the Board of Zoning Appeals is considered a "quasi-judicial" body, and its decisions could be appealed to the court system.

* Specifically ask Tyson to self-regulate CAFO operations and create a local advisory panel.

* Take no action at all on the CAFO issue.

After extended discussions Tuesday night, planner Venson Hawkins made the motion to take no action, the only formal motion on any of the four options. That motion passed 6-2. Voting in favor were Hawkins, Frank Nichols, Brent Stacy, David Crump, Michael Watson and Alan Gill. Opposed were Chuck Craig and Linda Yockey.

Earlier, Maness had said that any planners who operated chicken houses should recuse themselves from voting. Three planners did so, without comment: chairman Kennon Threet, Tony Smith and Wayne Simons. Both Threet and Smith had mentioned operating chicken houses during the discussion. After the vote, casual discussion indicated that planners aren't sure whether state law specifically requires them to abstain from such votes.

After the vote, the board informally encouraged Taylor to use the UT Extension guidelines when considering adding new poultry operations.

In other action Tuesday night, the board deferred action on a change to subdivision regulations regarding the use of pre-existing septic systems, since a public hearing is required on the change. The board also deferred action on a proposal for cluster home developments, saying that after the long CAFO discussion the board probably wasn't ready to give the cluster home proposal the extensive discussion it required.