| Edgefield
County's Documented #1
Source for Daily Online Information! |
|
Sections Opinion Dr. Skip Myers The INsider Dining Wandering Minds Classifieds Archives Crime Blotter Off The Wall Video
& Audio Updates
Contact Us: Phone 803-634-0964 Mon-Sat 9 am - 6 pm School System EC District Office School Board Strom Thurmond Fox Creek High School News Student News Public Offices Edgefield County Edgefield Johnston Trenton Public Forums To enter you must read our Terms of Service Pundits Neal Bortz Townhall.com National Review Online The New Republic Add your online favorite by e-mailing it to us here. News links Edgefield Advertiser Aiken Standard North Augusta Star The State Augusta Chronicle Atlanta Journal United Press Associated Press FOX News Reuters CNS News WorldNet Daily Newsmax Drudge Report GoogleNews Yahoo!News New York Times New York Post Los Angeles Times Washington Times Washington Post |
Planning Commission Member Bernadette
Hudson's letter to Council on Zoning and CAFO's Edgefielddaily.com web posted July 6, 2005 July 5, 2005 To: County Council Cc: Wayne Adams Planning Commission Members Planning Staff Dear Council Members: In a packet sent to the Planning Commission Members, dated June 28, 2005, Wayne Adams addressed concerns the county has regarding the validity of setback regulations in the unzoned areas of the county. As you are well aware, these concerns stem from a proposed CAFO locating in the Trenton area. After extensive research, I have found the following to be fact. SC Code of Regulations - Chapter 61, Section 43, 200.70 (B) states as follows: “The agricultural program of the Department is not involved in local zoning and land use planning. Local government(s) may have more stringent requirements for agricultural animal facilities. The permitee is responsible for contacting the appropriate local government(s) to ensure that the proposed facility meets all the local requirements.” I would interpret this as State acknowledgment to the validity of local government(s) land use regulations regarding AFOs (Animal Feeding Operations). However, a General Bill (S.304) was introduced in the Senate on January 20, 2005 and currently resided in the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources proposes the following: TO AMEND TITLE 47 OF THE 1976 BY ADDING CHAPTER 23, TO MAKE CERTAIN FINDINGS AND TO PROVIDE THAT A PERMIT ISSUED BY A LOCAL GOVERNMENT MUST NOT IMPOSE A MORE RESTRICTIVE OR BURDENSOME REQUIREMENT THAN A STATE STATUTE OR REGULATION RELATING TO THE PRODUCTION OF LIVESTOCK OR POULTRY, AGRIBUSINESS, BUSINESS, OR INDUSTRY. To summerize: Should this bill pass, zoned or unzoned, the proposed setback requirements for CAFOs would indeed be invalid. Therefore the only accomplishment this ordinance proposes is the zoning of the entire county. The second issue I have with the proposal is the county’s definition of CAFOs - “ An agricultural facility where 100 or more animals are confined and fed......” Chapter 61, section 9 of the Code of Regulations defines a small CAFO for poultry as less then 37,500 chickens if the AFO uses other than a liquid manure handling system. The proposed ordinance is defining a back yard chicken coop. Chapter 61, section 9 also states: “No AFO shall be designated under this paragraph unless the Department or the Regional Administrator has conducted an on-site inspection of the operation and determined that the operation should and could be regulated under the permit program. In addition, no AFO with numbers of animals below those established in paragraph (b) (6) of this section may be designated as a CAFO unless: (I) Pollutants are discharged into waters of the State through a manmade ditch, flushing system, or other similar manmade device or (ii) Pollutants are discharged directly into waters of the State which originate outside of the facility........” In other words, only the State can designate what is defined as a CAFO, not local governments. In light of the above facts, I must ask Council to consider amending the Land Use Ordinance to reflect the setback concerns of CAFOs as a viable alternate to zoning the entire county. Your consideration is most appreciated. Bernadette Hudson, NOTE: Copies of this letter will be available to any interested party. Return to Main Page
Contact us All original material is property of Edgefield Daily.com and cannot be reproduced or distributed without the expressed written permission of Edgefield Daily.com |
|
| Contact us: Editor |
|
|
 |