|
Winona County Zoning Ordinance
Winona County, Minnesota
February 28, 2008 Open House
Comments gathered at the February 28, 2008 Open House
- Who profits from the proposed changes? Who loses? These questions must be answered. So far, it appears that the consultants will win and the citizens of Winona County will lose, through polluted water, contaminated air, loss of economic activity with consolidated industrial "farms", and less democracy.
- Cluster housing is a better form of zoning then leap-frog housing. If people don't want to deal with agriculture issues they should stay in town.
- I am in favor of the new plan. In the past special interest groups have asked the public hearing process to criticize well planned feedlot permits. These groups are more concerned about losing the public spotlight to take shots at agriculture, than actually protecting the environment. As a small family farmer myself, I know I will have to grow my operation to support the many members of my family. My family should not have to run the gauntlet that activists put forth in order for me to farm. Any farmer applying for CUPs likely already has a well thought out plan before applying, making the hearing largely pointless. I also represent farm bureau, supporting in eliminating hurdles in the way of livestock agriculture.
- A sliding scale for feedlot set backs would be appropriate.
- The feedlot permit is too high. County people are already being paid by the taxpayers.
- The people considering the CUPs should include environmental scientists, hydrologists, geologists, etc.
- Permits should go before elected officials every time.
- Concerned about how "minor" variance.
- Who asked for this proposal? It is not democratic.
- Option 2 would be a way for livestock farmers to get a permit in a timely basis without all the emotionalism caused by homeowners who are infringing on the ap/NR zones.
- Farming today is a complex, detailed industry. It is not the farming of the 1950s. We need review boards and processes that are governed by people who have knowledge, expertise, education, hands-on experience relating to agribusiness and factual water and soil conservation. We do not need volunteer commissions made up of well-intentioned, but unqualified volunteers, making important decisions about farming or housing developments.
- I would like to propose that when a feedlot expansion requires a variance, and the petitioner is required to his engineers for design plans, provision should be made to clear the variance question before tens of thousands of dollars must be expended to establish the exact location of the waste systems and new feedlot features. After the preliminary variance question is established the petitioner can abandon the project or proceed with confidence. A final review should be required then to notify compliance with the preliminary approval.
- Please rephrase the Animal Unit, or be cleaver on this definition. 700 AU = 2333 feeder pigs or more. At this level, this is not really a "family farm", but more of a "factory" and hogs are product.
- To make this scientific, we need geologists and other specialists, who have studied our under water pathways.
- What do you feel is wrong with the way this process has been done in the past?
- I am concerned that this is not being done in a Democratic way, with plenty of input from citizens. The planning board system we currently have to permit feedlots works very effectively. People need the opportunity to be heard when it concerns their quality of life. The Technical Review Board is not democratic. There's conflict of interest. Our permitting process needs to take into account environmental concerns. I'm alarmed at the grave threat that this new review process poses to our water.
- Quality of life for citizens: clean water, clean air, etc. needs to be of prime concern with feedlots. With our geology, ground water is already a problem as a result of recent flooding. Geologists are needed to review.
- I felt this evening brought a lot of the Winona County general public, but breaking this up into 4 or 5 separate areas really was a bit self-destructive. Hearing others' questions, concerns, comments, would have been much more productive of an evening.
- I think the County Commissioners are afraid of the emotion from the Public Hearings and want to avoid unpleasantness. They are elected and need to deal with their decisions. Winona County needs a zoning regulation process that is predictable, subject to facts, and that follows recognized best land management practices. We need to take the emotion, fear, and hysterics out of CUPs.
- Do not change current law CUP. We need to have the public's input in each CUP. The set back of 1000 ft minimum is not enough. The notification of land owner should stay 1 mile. The notice of the meetings should be 6 months for CUPs.
- We have a hobby farm. We have 1 milk cow, a yearling, 3 dairy goats, and some chickens. We are concerned that the new regulations would be prohibitive to our continuing to maintain our animals and develop our hobby farm. If the proposed changes would require us to jump through the same hoops as "real farmers", we are afraid we would have to get rid of our animals. Our "farm budget" is already in negative territory, and we could not afford the additional permits, fees, etc. that might be involved. Surely the existing plan for less than 50 (or is it 75?) Animal Units (i.e. assume we are good citizens unless proven otherwise) was good enough. More regulations are not necessarily equal to better rural environment.
- Let's leave things as is. We have a planning and zoning board. We have our County Commissions. Why take the power out of the hands of the local people? We are a small farm, we manage well and don't need further regulation. Too much big brother stuff going on.
- This proposal bypasses democracy. It puts decisions in the hands of those who are not elected.
- Did the commissioner o.k. this change ordinance plan? What is wrong with present ordinance? Why do away with public input which is the basis of our governmental democracy?
- Feedlot setbacks are important and should not be reduced. It should be reviewed by elected officials.
- Our wells are polluted! Our streams are polluted! Confinement dairy and hog facilities are harming the health and environment of Winona County. All of the citizens need to have the opportunity to determine the future land uses of this area.
- The presentation 2-27-08 seemed very vague and didn't get to the point of any specifics regarding the new zoning ordinance. I hope the county intends to inform the citizens of the county of both the positive and the negative impacts of the new ordinance. It seems the county is sugar coating what it is going. Of the 79 pages of new ordinance drafted, it appears the ordinance only takes freedoms away from the landowners and gives far more power to the government. The existing ordinances are working well for the citizens, but the government wants more power at our expense.
- We need to keep as much agricultural land in production as possible. We need pure, unaltered food as we need to feed us. The confinement feedlots don't produce as healthy food as the small family farms. Small family farms make nice neighbors. The confinement places spread stinky air and manure-water that is not what any one wants as a neighbor.
- I think the Animal Unit numbers should be lowered for the fast track as well and an increased set back distance perhaps 1000 ft for a large hog facility.
- Even though public hearings can be contentious, they are essential for our democratic process. The Animal Unit cap for a CUP should not be raised through this undemocratic process. We need more citizen involvement, not less!
- We need to raise the animal cap because our farms can't compete with neighboring counties on efficiency scale.
- Who is SEH? Where are they located? Why are we paying $70,000 for outside consultants to weaken our zoning regulations? Who is on the Zoning Task Force? How were they appointed?
- The enforcement Feedlot Officer we have now is not enough. CUP conditions are not being met. There basically is no enforcement.
- We need to change the 1/40 acres.
- No to this change. We aren't checking up on the existing confinement "forms" now. This proposal can not make the situation better. And do a better job of protecting our air and our water.
- Whether or not it is the intention, the Technical Feedlot Review looks like a way to bypass a strictor enforcement that a public hearing now provides in awarding conditioned use permits. Corperations are constantly pulling the laws in their direction, a while ago having redefined Animal Units to allow larger farms, and now more than doubling the size of factory farms. A hearing if the Review Team is to maintain existing standards. There need to be better assurances of who is on these committees.
- I like the two-part proposed feedlot. What I don't like is all the outside influence on feedlot decisions. The people that are notified are the only ones that should be able to speak at a public hearing. The general public has an idealistic thought of what live stock ag should be. That does not always agree with sound science. If a farmer has a clear picture of what is expected before the process, the better off everyone is.
- I have concerns about the proposed changes to feedlot ordinances. #1 - The proposal that there could be a choice between having a public hearing or having a "professional team" make an assessment and give permission without a public hearing is troublesome. There should be public hearing no matter what, even if a "professional team" is involved. All people have a right to be heard on issues and a democratic process used. #2 - SE MN is unique in it's Karst Topography. It is a very delicate situation with regards to water quality and because of the Karst topography, I think that zoning should reflect the concerns, and protect the uniqueness of the situation with regards to potential water problems. Definitely any "professional team" for reviewing large scale feedlot proposals should include hydrologists and geologists familiar with SE MN. Strict rules are not a substitute for common sense. Feedlots do not belong in delicate Karst Topography areas.
- Please do not do ag zoning districts.
- I appreciate the desire to preserve agricultural lands, making more stringent standards for those who opt to go with the "review team" process. However, I think those who want to increase to large feedlots need the high standards of the review team process plus public hearings. The impact on the environment is paramount, whatever criteria is used should have environmental considerations as top priority. The review team should include experts in environmental geology. I'm a Winona City person very concerned about the equality of this area's life for all of us.
- How many wells in Winona County are currently polluted with nitrates? Coliform? Pesticides? How are agricultural nutrients and pesticides getting into our drinking wells? How will the proposed changes to the ordinance improve water quality? How will they better protect public health?
- Please keep the current ordinance. The public should maintain input with public hearings. The current ordinance appears to work. Why change it? The changes are steps backwards. Keep the current ordinance.
- The existing process of issuing a CUP is not a bad thing. Do not change.
- #1 - It is a conflict of interest for anyone involved in the Planning Department, i.e. who are also assisting individuals, to complete the feedlot application and then also vote on these operations. #2 - The Planning Board is a good vehicle for permitting feedlots. It's okay if some are controversial. #3 - Decision making boards must have scientists from a variety of specialties in addition to planning, also need geologists and water quality experts if we are going to protect our water and soil resources in Winona County.
- It is a bit ridiculous to require manure management plans for people having just a few animals. The current level of 75 animal units is a good number to weed out people with a horse or two, or a few goats or sheep.
- This five-member group to review feedlots is a bad idea. This proposal should not be adopted. Large-scale feedlots can be dangerous in our Karst area, and any enlargement of feedlots must be open in a public hearing. Small groups, meeting privately, are not keeping with the American way of life.
- When considering "design" changes and proposals, keep in mind the application of liquid manure and the smell/oder it gives off. Even when the manure (hog) is injected properly, the smell is so concentrated and strong that a neighbor closer than 1,000 feet is greatly impacted in a negative way. For example, my house is 75 ft from my neighbor's field and after the hog manure is knifed in, my kids, wife, and I don't/can't really do anything outside. In fact, my kids refuse to play outside 1-2 weeks after each application, and my wife has been outside unloading groceries (approx. 5 minutes) and has to immediately wash her hair after this. So, my issue is that having 1,000 ft set-back from a neighbor's dwelling is useless if the spreading of concentrated manure is allowed within this 1000 ft. Bottom line, my family is not able to use our property for approximately 1 month a year (2 times spreading) due to the odor.
- Why are we changing the permitting process? I do not want to lose our citizen rights like the residents in Iowa. Once the local control is gone, how do we get it back? It would be possible to build a 2300 hog facility with no public input!
- Keep the public hearing process as it is. Maintain the ability of planning commission and county board to vote on CUP's above 300 animal units. Feedlot review team process is not open enough.
- There is no protection of quality of life. Please, please, please consider people in these decisions. I am so discouraged I just want to move, but there is no where to move that I can have my quality of life protected.
- Do not change the current system of public comment on more than 700 animal units. Reduced public input and elimination of county oversight at that level would reduce rural quality of life. That current system works and is sustainable. The proposed system is not.
- These decisions affect a lot of people. The people making them (elected officials) need to be held accountable and answerable to the people.
- Committee personnel need ag background.
- As a dairy producer in Winona County I would like to see the permitting process streamlined. Option #2 looks like something that would give the producer an idea of what's expected of them and if they meet all requirements they can get a permit.
- Winona County's economic engine is agriculture. We need to position the county to protect the livestock industry. The livestock issue has to have decisions based on sound facts and science. This new proposal would take some of the emotions out of the process.
- Option 2 is not acceptable.
- This is an excellent forum. I like the plan. I think it's workable and very valuable to the county zoning. I think it's important to have "qualified" people on these boards who have to review these plans. I'm sure you will struggle with who these people are on the board. My thought would have a science-based, technology-based, and common-sense based individual who can take the emotion out of the decision making.
- Two option system looks very good. Would like to see people who comment at meetings be held to tell where they got their information from. People who give testimony should have to show why they are saying what and where information came from.
- Leave it the way it is. We need public input. It needs to be voiced and heard, not just written.
- All feedlots over 300 AU must have a public hearing with the Planning Commission and in front of the County Board. The CUP should go with the farmer and if she sells, the farmer must apply for the CUP to operate a farm over 300 AU.
- Keep rural areas livable. Must allow for a public hearing for any proposal over 300 AU. Remember that a feedlot of 700 AU is the equivalent to a city of 3500 people as each adult person by average weight would be about 2/10 AU.
- 300 animal units limit is plenty. Any bigger needs public input. We, the public, should have air we can breathe, stay healthy, and water we can drink.
- No to this proposal. Do a better job with the one we have. Who asked for this process that reduces our democracy?
- The proposal to use a 5-member group to review is bad and should not be adopted. We have a democratic system, and the public must be heard and informed in the open about how these are handled.
- We are going in the right direction, but when this is done, be sure to follow the rules that are set.
- What is wrong with the existing ordinance? If 50 animals or less can have environmental impact, what about 750 animals?
- Option 1 only. The county needs the Planning Commission, County Board, and the democrat process in deciding the needs and concerns of the public.
- Please keep the current ordinance. The public should maintain input with public hearings. The current ordinance appears to work. Why change it? The changes are steps backwards. Keep the current ordinance.
- Please do not change the feedlot permitting process. It is working and not broke! Commissioners, both planning and county, need to vote on this. Who's afraid of a public hearing?
- I would like to see what the best management practices are. What has prompted the change from 300 animal units to 700?
- Where are we going to find the proper authorities to staff a team to make a good decision on a feedlot permit? Seems we have a pretty knowledgeable Planning Commission now.
- I question having to submit a manure management plan for less that 75 animal units.
- Zoning should allow buildings and/or residents closer than 1000 ft if the petitioner signs.
- There is no sense in having someone with 1 cow submit a manure management plan that costs $700. Another point is the smell and pollution of 500 AU sheds travels more than half a mile.
- The current rules are being enforced. We need to start by enforcing the current ordinance, rather than by weakening the rules. At least 12 feedlot lagoons overflowed last August, sending raw sewage into streams, rivers, and wells. All of our water is connected.
- I would like to see Option #2 get tossed. It is a terrible option for the public. We want to see things go through the Planning and Zoning Board. We also want a public hearing so that our voice may be heard. Don't get rid of the "middle man".
- I am encouraged that public feedback is being solicited on this proposal as it is developed. Maintaining Winona Count's economic viability and beauty is something that most all of its citizens care about; it will be critical that ordinance changes are fair and affordable.
- Proposal looks good. Please adopt a review process and application with rules for a feedlot at the same time as these proposals.
- Historically, the feedlot officer and planning staff have acted as advocates for feedlot permit applicants. This is a total conflict of interest, which undermines public trust in the regulatory system. To concentrate the power further by eliminating public hearing and removing authority from the Planning and Zoning Commission is dangerous and undemocratic.
- The Planning Commission is too politically driven to make decisions on feedlot operations. The feedlot permitting process needs to be something clear, based on facts, and established criteria. I like having a group of individuals who have the professional and educational expertise to make decisions.
- The conditional use permit process has been too divisive in Winona County. Unless Winona County takes this opportunity to make the process for farmers reasonable and predictable they might as well hang a sign at the county line: "Farmers not welcome here".
- Land stewardship uses fear, anger, and intimidation to bully farm families at public hearings. The county has a moral and ethical obligation to stop this senseless and shameful process.
- We need to know the carrying capacity of each township and the county as a whole in terms of the tillable access and number of animal units already present in that township. How do we know if there is really land available for the manure? Shouldn't the county pass this info for citizen review?
- In Mowe County, the feedlot officer issued a CUP for a large hog confinement facility to himself, built the facility, then sold the operation to Holden Farms. The proposed changes to our ordinance and streamlining the application process, opens the door to such abuses occurring in Winona County.
- Presenters names on the handout would have been nice. #1 - I don't believe that having decision makers that have a hand in the pot should also be deciding who gets a CUP. It's a conflict of interest. Where are the enforcement issues?
- When we go from 300 animal units to 700 animal units and it's an internal permitting process, then we don't keep our elected officials accountable; the consequence is that neighbors and other rural residents are not going to be able to raise legitimate concerns that could result in grave harm to the environment. The quality of life to neighbors is also a risk.
- County should be helping feedlot applicants and monitor manure management. Stress the importance of economic impact of feedlots. We need all feedlots big and small. We also need upgraded roads in rural areas.
- I feel that raising the limit of animal units from 300 to 700 to require a public hearing for the conditional use permit, seriously compromises the environment in the county. The review team will not be outside inspectors made up of geologists, hydrologists, etc. Rather it seems that the team will be made up of county staff that have worked with these farmers and ag business people. It's sort of the fox watching the chicken coop. Our water supply has already been compromised from these large feedlots, especially after last August's flood. We need as much public oversight as possible in order to protect the environment for everyone and not to compromise it to benefit a few. The system as it stands now is working fine!
- I think option 2 will create more problems for the county. If people do not feel like they have a voice and a big feedlot goes through on option 2. It will tear up the community. We can't have road picnics now. You say we are protecting the family farms and you may be for this generation, but the next will be run by a hired hand or 35 hired people. That's not family. I have worked on a lot of these farm and the kids don't even know how to milk. That's the direction it's heading. Think of your children first, not some guy's wallet or fear of manual labor.
- My main concern is change in the number of animal units from 300 to 700 before public hearings are allowed. As a rural resident, I'm very concerned I will lose the right to give input into possible negative environmental impacts.
- I like the option 2 for CUP. I'm concerned about setbacks. Maybe it should be kept at 1000 ft. I have not read all the draft and am looking forward to more clarification on housing in rural areas.
- What is Winona County's carrying capacity for animal units? How much animal manure can be safely incorporated into Winona County's soils? How much nitrogen from animal manure can be applied? How much phosphorus? These questions must be answered before the zoning ordinance is changed.
- People move to the county for a reason: to get away from the tight, overwhelming, loud city life. If lands are being developed for subdivision it would be nice to add or have land set aside as a conservation boundary within the development, not around the farmer's land.
- Fine tune tired tiered setbacks. Right direction to increase AUs. Eliminate setback from lot line and go to building corner instead.
- Please keep the system simple and all feedlots need to be on the same system. Home set backs need to stay the same and not decreased. Facts not emotions should be used for decision making.
- #1- I would like to see the set backs remain at 1000 ft between an existing or new feedlot. Reducing the set back requirement may hinder future expansion of a current feedlot. #2- I would like to see cluster developments in agricultural and areas zoned NR to be restricted to a bare minimum. Urbanization will be hard to deal with in the future: Reduced wildlife habitat, increased run-off, ground water issues, infrastructural issues, etc.
- I don't see any reason to require manure and nutrient management plans for small farms, manure and run-off problems in the county. The proposed changes concerning feedlots seems to favor large farms with little oversight or control (or taking public opinion into account) and hassling small, often environmentally sound farms with excessive paperwork.
- The township would like the opportunity to comment on anything proposed. Could make a new document on what goes on in the Township. Hart Township is Primary.
- I like the concept if Option 2 on the feedlots. I believe in the public hearings that there is too many emotions without people looking at the facts. There should be a list of criteria (stops) that the person applying for the pursuit can follow. Try to make the laws black and white: Monoca Management, order issues and fire that make sense, engineering plans, etc. The people looking at the application should be qualified and have an open mind. If people want more answers (questions) get them on the application.
- Will the experts chosen by the Review Team to assist with the review represent the standards of environmental science? In the public hearing process, the public can bring in experts to ask the tough questions and give tough critiques. But will the experts picked by the County government ask those same tough questions and perhaps result in not allowing the approval of applications?
- Feedlot permit applicants must bear all regulatory costs. It costs far more than $450-$500 for the county to administer each application. Unless applicants pay the real costs, citizens of Winona County are heavily subsidizing concentrated animal feeding operations in this county. This is not right! Science shows that CAFOs pollute the regions ground water with nitrates, coliform, antibiotics, and resistant bacteria.
- Permitting process require input by all those affected. Animal units should not be increased. Winona County Geology is totally different than other Minnesota counties. Farms under 75 units do not need manure and nutrient management reporting requirements. These smaller farms are not the problem. Thank you for the open house opportunity.
- I am not in agreement with the idea of expanding local farms through feedlots. The impact of feedlots on the environment is disastrous and sufficient to justify the need to maintain the economis ciability of farms, similarly I oppose the idea of "developing" land and allow permission to build on the bluffs in the vicinity of Winona. Such a vision of "development", although lucrative for some, is detrrimental to the community and posseses more negative issues than advantages. The resource base of the region has reached its capacity. These and similar proposals of development are unsustainable and deleterious to the long term prosperity of the community. Let's develop local market niches for farmsers. Let's allow them to produce quality foods, rather than expanding for greater yields of commodities to be sold elsewhere. Scholls, universitied, the hospital and other institutions in Winona could support loval agriculture by purchasing directly from these farms. Similarly, the bluffs and adjacent open space should be spared from development as Winona has a good market from houses in town. The City of Winona is attempting to become a more sustainagble cummunity. Allowing an expansion of feedlots and further development of the bluffs is a paradox vision to an achievement of long term prosperity and sustainability in our area. To this end I would rather wish for a moratoriul on feelot expansion and land development. Thank you for you attention and consideration.
- Who profits from the proposed changes? Who loses? These questions must be answered. So far, it appears that the consultants will win and the citizens of Winona County will lose, through polluted water, contaminated air, loss of economic activity with consolidated industrial "farms", and less democracy.
- Cluster housing is a better form of zoning then leap-frog housing. If people don't want to deal with agriculture issues they should stay in town.
- I am in favor of the new plan. In the past special interest groups have asked the public hearing process to criticize well planned feedlot permits. These groups are more concerned about losing the public spotlight to take shots at agriculture, than actually protecting the environment. As a small family farmer myself, I know I will have to grow my operation to support the many members of my family. My family should not have to run the gauntlet that activists put forth in order for me to farm. Any farmer applying for CUPs likely already has a well thought out plan before applying, making the hearing largely pointless. I also represent farm bureau, supporting in eliminating hurdles in the way of livestock agriculture.
- A sliding scale for feedlot set backs would be appropriate.
- The feedlot permit is too high. County people are already being paid by the taxpayers.
- The people considering the CUPs should include environmental scientists, hydrologists, geologists, etc.
- Permits should go before elected officials every time.
- Concerned about how "minor" variance.
- Who asked for this proposal? It is not democratic.
- Option 2 would be a way for livestock farmers to get a permit in a timely basis without all the emotionalism caused by homeowners who are infringing on the ap/NR zones.
- Farming today is a complex, detailed industry. It is not the farming of the 1950s. We need review boards and processes that are governed by people who have knowledge, expertise, education, hands-on experience relating to agribusiness and factual water and soil conservation. We do not need volunteer commissions made up of well-intentioned, but unqualified volunteers, making important decisions about farming or housing developments.
- I would like to propose that when a feedlot expansion requires a variance, and the petitioner is required to his engineers for design plans, provision should be made to clear the variance question before tens of thousands of dollars must be expended to establish the exact location of the waste systems and new feedlot features. After the preliminary variance question is established the petitioner can abandon the project or proceed with confidence. A final review should be required then to notify compliance with the preliminary approval.
- I find Option 2 of the Feedlot Application process to be very deficient. First, it provides for notification of landowners with .5 mile of the facility. Let me tell you a story that will help illustrate the inadequacy of this: many years ago, a sewage treatment pond in Altura was found empty one morning. A million gallons of raw sewage disappeared into a sinkhole overnight! About two years later, one of our maintenance guys brought me a one page report from one of his friends, who he said lived about two miles away from the town. The report was from a water treatment company and indicated 186 ppm nitrate in this fellow's drinking water (the legal limit is 10 ppm!). I told him it must be accurate, since no one would make up such a ridiculous number. I know where that sewage went! The karst topography of this area makes it possible for contaminants to travel many miles. So a 1/2 mile limit on notification is ludicrous.
Last summer, I became dizzy and nauseous (something that rarely happens to me) when the air around my house became filled with the odor of hog manure. I know of no hog facility within at least a mile of my house. Again, the idea of 1/2 mile notification makes no sense. The document we received says that there is an "opportunity for public to obtain & review app.". It does not say how that will be done--do I have to check the county website every day to find these? Then the First Team Session is open to the public. This is NOT a public hearing and I presume that NO public comment would be allowed. It is certainly not specified. People such as myself have expertise in these areas and our input may be valuable in the decision-making process. Why do you seek to exclude it?
In the Variance Procedures, ONLY those living within .5 mile would be notified. No public notification is given at all for those living elsewhere in the county.
I also have concern about the make-up of the Technical Review Team. It includes four members PLUS any other members they designate. I was told that these would be voting members. WHY? It smacks of making it possible to direct committee decisions by altering its make-up. I certainly appreciate the need for outside technical advice, but they should not be voting members.
Democracy is messy, to be sure. Public notification and meetings are time-consuming and sometimes controversial. But anything less is undemocratic and I stand opposed.
- Much more information (science) and organization is needed to make feedlot decisions. Current CUP process is flawed because there is a lack this and a lack of preparation from the planning department before a permit gets to the Planning Commission. The solution isn't to thwart public hearings and accountable decision makers. Create an FTRT and have it advise the Planning Commission. Write Best Management practices into ordinance for certain feedlots which are appropriate for their characteristics. Ex.: CUP won't be granted for "X" amount of hogs without the biofilter and other measures. Closed deliberation (2nd Team Sesssion") reeks of secrecy. Get rid of secret decision making - an obvious affront to what democracy and America is about.
|
Winona County Zoning Ordinance
ABOUT THE PROJECT
WEEKLY FACTS
Project Update News Releases
OPEN LETTERS
OPEN HOUSES AND PUBLIC MEETINGS
View materials, comments, summaries and video
|
