1. Grant County Zoning Ordinance Review Public Comment Forum Todd Kays:Executive Director – 1 st District Association of Local Governments

2. History Draft is based upon 9 Planning conversations held between March and November 2015 Planning Commission reviewed Draft on 1/5/2016 Revisions were made and posted on Websites and at Courthouse on 1/8/16

3. Timeline January 5, 2016: Tonight’s meeting January 8, 2016: First District delivers updates based on comments on Jan 5, 2016 and drafts are posted on First District and County Web sites January 19, 2016 5:30pm: Public Comment Meeting January 22, 2016: First District delivers draft with any proposed changes from 1/19/16 meeting January 27, 2016: Joint Public Hearing and 1 st Reading Notice published February 9, 2016 – 7pm: Joint Public Hearing held – PC makes recommendation and County Commissioners hold first Reading by title February 17, 2016: County Commission 2 nd Reading notice published March 1, 2016 – 9am: County Commission hearing, 2 nd reading and action on ordinance March 9, 2016: If Approved Notice of Adoption published March 16, 2016: If Approved Notice of Adoption published April 5, 2016: Ordinance in effect unless referred

4. Changes From Draft Posted on 1/8/16 Page 5 and 12

5. Tonight’s Purpose The purpose of this meeting is to allow the public to make comments on the proposed zoning regulations

6. Public Comment Process First District will provide cursory overview Public Comment Period – Ask those who want to provide comment to indicate their intent on the sign in sheet – Set aside up to 2 hours for public comment Time limits will be established If you have made a comment and wish to make additional comments - you will be asked to wait until all others have had an opportunity to comment before making a new comment if time allows – Those that have signed up to testify will be called – When providing comment please adhere to the following: State your name and address and who you are representing if applicable Identify the section(s) and page number of the proposed ordinance you want to comment on Make your comment The Planning Commission may or may not ask questions to clarify any comments received Planning Commission may instruct First District to make changes to the draft based on public comment Other comments will be collected, collated and placed on the County and First District Websites on 1/22/16 – Comments may be considered at Public Hearing on 2/9/16

7. First District Review 29 Pages Definitions – 3.5 pages Use District – 3.5 pages CAFO Regulations – 22 pages What are the major takeaways Classes of CAFO modification and Graduated Setbacks Vesting Process Administrative Approval Policy Standard for increasing/decreasing setbacks

8. Class of CAFOs & Graduated Setback P 11 Class A5,000 or more Class B2,000 to 4,999 Class C1,000 to 1,999 Class D50 to 999(Potential water pollution hazard) Class E50 to 999(No pollution hazard) CAFOs that are a permitted use changed from under 500 to under 1,000 P17 Increased Setbacks over 2,000 AU Decreased setbacks under 1,000 AU

9. Vesting Pages 25-26, 19-20, 5 Establishes a process for existing CAFOs that do not meet existing and/or proposed setback requirements to continue operating and in some cases expand The process is voluntary, however those existing CAFOs that do not become vested within two years are then required to adhere to proposed setback requirements

10. Vesting – How Does it Work? If an existing operation does not meet the current or newly established setbacks they would be considered “nonconforming” and not be able to replace structures related to their current operation if damaged by calamity nor would they be able to expand current structures or herd size

11. Vesting – How Does it Work? The vesting process would allow those “nonconforming” operations to be “Nonstandard” – meaning that they would be able to replace and/or expand to a prescribed level. – Class A and B facilities would only be allowed to be replaced in an event of calamity – no expansion without a variance – A Class D (over the aquifer) would be allowed to be replaced and expand an additional 300 animal units to a max of 999 – A Class E (under 999 au & not over the aquifer) would be allowed to be replaced and expand to a max of 1,999 au – A Class E 1000-1,999 au (not over the aquifer) would be allowed to be replaced and expand to a max of 1,999 au The replacement and/or expansion could be no closer to a required setback as the current facilities exist today

12. Vesting – Example 450 animal units existing in 1997 - 3/8 of mile from neighbor – Existing Ordinance Setback ½ mile – If new regulations are not adopted the use continues to be nonconforming and not allowed to be replaced or expanded – If the new ordinance and setbacks are adopted (1/4 mile for 450 animal units - 3/8 mile for up to 999 The CAFO could be expanded unencumbered as it meets the new setbacks up to 999 au – if the CAFO wants to expand over 1,000 au it could be permitted unencumbered from setback regulations under the proposed regulations up to a max of 1,999 au as long as the expansion is no closer than the 3/8 mile that existed in 1997 – Special Permitted Use required – No variance from setback is required

13. Vesting – Example 2 900 au CAFO started in 1999 ½ mile from neighbor with Conditional Use Permit with a cap of 999 au (Existing Setbacks ½ mile) – Operation is conforming New Setbacks are the same as existing for 1,000- 1999 – Operator would not need vesting – Operator could ask for vesting which would still require the special permitted use permit process if expanded over 999

14. Vesting – How Does it Work? County notifies all nonconforming CAFOs (mail and newspaper) Producer will sign affidavit attesting to number of animal units existing at the time of adoption of either the 1997 ordinance or the new ordinance adoption date Producer will be required to obtain zoning permit and sign a letter of assurance – this could be Permitted use (under 1000) or special permitted use for those 1000-1999 Non conforming CAFOS have 2 years to become vested – Those that don’t will be required to conform to new setback regulations

15. Administrative Approval Pages 26-30 Special Permitted Use – The Permitted Special Use procedure is an administrative review process for approval of Class C CAFOs (1,000- 1,999) animal units, where the Zoning Officer reviews the application for conformance with the applicable standards and approval criteria and issues a decision. – If any of the performance standards cannot be met the use will be considered a Conditional Use.

16. Administrative Approval How Does it Work? Same administrative review as required for a conditional use permit (only difference is no public hearing) Applicant submits application with required information – Proof that site is not over aquifer – Proof that setback requirements can be met – Signed Haul Road Agreement – Signed State General Permit – Fly and Odor Control Plan Zoning Officer – Publish a notice in news paper and notify landowners within the prescribed required setback area – If the Zoning Officer determines that the application is in conformance, the Zoning Officer shall make written findings certifying compliance with the specific standards governing Permitted Special Use Permits and that satisfactory provisions and arrangements have been made concerning the prescribed conditions for the Permitted Special Use Permit. The Zoning Officer shall then issue the Permitted Special Use Permit subject to the applicant and designee of the Board of Adjustment signing the letter of assurance. Board of Adjustment/Applicant/Zoning Officer – Zoning Officer reports the issuance of the permitted special use permit to the Board of Adjustment – Board of Adjustment designee and applicant sign letter of assurance – Zoning Officer may then issue any associated building permit Appeals – Issuance of special permitted use permit may be appealed to BOA – Ruling of BOA may be appealed to Circuit Court

17. Standards for increasing/decreasing Setbacks Pages 18-22 Addresses concentration of CAFOs Odor Footprint Model Non-standard CAFOs – (those existing CAFOs that don’t meet setbacks)

18. Public Comment