§ 97.04  ODOR SETBACKS.
   (A)   Minimum setback for any CAFO waste management system from non-farm residences shall be as follows:
      (1)   750 feet as long as the CAFO includes three odor controls prior to the start-up of the operation;
      (2)   1,000 feet as long as the CAFO includes two odor controls prior to the start-up of the operation;
      (3)   1,320 feet as long as the CAFO includes one odor control prior to the start-up of the operation; and
      (4)   1,570 feet when the CAFO does not include any odor control prior to the start-up of the operation. Operations that do not include odor controls shall increase the minimum setback by 250 feet for each multiple greater than one (rounded up to the nearest whole number), above the animal numbers required to be a CAFO. For example, a dairy with 700 mature cows without odor controls would require a 1,570 foot setback; a dairy with 1,500 mature cows without odor controls would require a 1,830 foot setback; {[1,500-700]/700 - 1 0.14, round up to 1, 1,570 feet + [1 x 250 feet]}.
      (5)   (a)   Odor controls include, but are not limited to, the controls listed in Table 1 below.
         (b)   Proven odor controls are listed in Table 1 for reference.
         (c)   Other proven odor controls not listed in Table 1 may be used to determine the required setback.
Table 1: Proven Odor Controls
Diet manipulation/ feed additives
Liquid/solid separation
Shelterbelts
Anaerobic treatment lagoon
Vegetation screens
Anaerobic digester
Windbreak walls
Manure storage surface aeration
Biofilters
Reduced anaerobic lagoon loading rate
Biomass filters
Aerobic treatment
Air filters
Ozonation
Aerodynamic deduster (air cleaner)
Urine/feces segregation
Wet scrubber (ventilation air)
Permeable covers (such as geotextile)
Catalytic converter
Impermeable covers
Vegetable oil spray (dust control)
Pit additives (such as biological, chemical)
 
   (B)   A new CAFO shall not locate the waste management system within a one-mile buffer from the city limits of the cities of LaPorte, Michigan City, and Westville.
   (C)   An active animal feeding operation (AFO) that expands such that it is defined as a CAFO shall not locate a new waste management system within a one-mile buffer from the city limits of LaPorte, Michigan City, and Westville or any closer than the setback between an existing waste management system and the city limits of LaPorte, Michigan City, and Westville (whichever is least restrictive).
   (D)   A new CAFO shall not locate the waste management system within a minimum of 1,570 feet or the prescribed setback from a non-farm residence required by this chapter (whichever is greater) of an incorporated city or town limits.
   (E)   An active animal feeding operation (AFO) that expands such that it is defined as a CAFO shall not locate a new waste management system within a minimum of 1,570 feet, the prescribed setback from a non-farm residence required by this chapter, or any closer than the setback between an existing waste management system and the city or town limits of a incorporated city or town (whichever is least restrictive).
   (F)   If the setback between an existing CAFO and non-farm residence is less than the setback prescribed in division (A) above, the existing CAFO may expand at the same location provided the new or expanded waste management system does not reduce the existing setback between the CAFO waste management system and non-farm residence unless written permission is given by the owner of the non-farm residence.
   (G)   An existing AFO proposing to expand such that after the expansion it would be defined as a CAFO may expand at the same location provided the following:
      (1)   If the setback between the existing AFO and non-farm residence is less than the setback prescribed in division (A) above, the existing AFO may expand at the same location provided the new or expanded waste management system does not reduce the existing setback between the AFO waste management system and non-farm residence, unless written permission is given by the owner of the non-farm residence.
      (2)   If the setback between the existing AFO and non-farm residence is greater than the setback prescribed in division (A) above, the existing AFO may expand at the same location provided the new or expanded waste management system location maintains the setback distances prescribed in division (A) above, unless written permission is given by the owner of the non-farm residence.
   (H)   A newly constructed non-farm residence shall not be located within the required setback by division (A) of this section from an existing or proposed CAFO waste management system for the number of animals at the existing or proposed CAFO. The minimum setback shall be 1,570 feet.
   (I)   If a variance is granted by the BZA for a non-farm residence from the setback standards of this chapter, the party obtaining the variance shall be required to enter into the following covenant protecting the CAFO' s right to operate:
   "In accepting this deed, grantees acknowledge that surrounding land is agricultural in usage, and grantees, and their successors in interest, are precluded from attempting to enjoin any farm operation within the prescribed setback of [(required setback)] required by the LaPorte County Concentrated Feeding Operation Chapter because of nuisances which might result from said operation."
   (J)   If a variance is granted for a new subdivision development in an agriculturally zoned property, there shall be a condition of receiving a variance, the grantee must sign and agricultural clause that must be accompanied by a deed restriction to successive owners:
   "Grantee/owners of said lot(s) and their successors in title are on notice and understand that this residence/subdivision will be built in a predominantly agricultural area and that farming operations, to include animal feeding operations and other livestock operations, may be practiced in the area of this residence/subdivision. With this understanding, grantee/all owners of the lot(s) in this subdivision and their successors in title forego their right to bring claim against any agricultural operation in the area who has not been negligent."
(Ord. 2007-16, passed 9-4-07)