|
Slaughter facility, ag center: Where should one be built?
BY JAMES JACENICH • STAFF WRITER
 | | Monterey town council confronted for the first time this week the proposed zoning change that would permit slaughterhouses conditionally in agricultural and light industrial zoned districts and remove them as a conditional use from business districts. They came away not 100 percent satisfied the proposed change would work for Monterey and prepared to ask questions at the Jan. 24 joint hearing on the change. Pictured (l-r) are councilmen Sam Shell, Tony Stinnett, Francis Fenn, Bill Niswander, town clerk Nancy Hooke and mayor Janice Warner. (Recorder photo by James Jacenich) |
|
MONTEREY - The proposed change to Highland's zoning ordinance to allow slaughterhouses by conditional use in agriculture and light industrial zones reached the Monterey Town Council last week, and not everyone was happy with what they heard.
The question of where to put a slaughterhouse, or abattoir, as the ordinance also calls it, is a relatively new one. The Highland Center executive director and Agriculture Center advocate Betty Mitchell said she went to zoning administrator Jim Whitelaw last month to find out where the proposed agricultural center could be located. It was Whitelaw who realized the ordinance needed to be changed because it appeared to allow slaughterhouses, by conditional use, only in Monterey, McDowell and Blue Grass.
Supervisors sent a change proposal to the planning commission. The commission set a public hearing for 7:30 p.m. Thursday, Jan. 24 at the Highland Modular Conference Center in Monterey, where town council members will join them.
The options available to both the county and town, following the Jan. 24 hearing, are to accept the change as written, modify the proposed change and accept the modification, reject the change, or table it. Also, the county might accept the change while the town rejects it, in which case zoning ordinances for the two public bodies would differ in the matter of conditional use allowances for such facilities.
Councilmen conceded that removing slaughter facilities as a conditional use in business zoning may be a good thing (Main Street Monterey is mostly B-2 from the Methodist church to the courthouse). But they were concerned that even a 200-foot setback from residential lots, as proposed in the amendment, might not be enough.
The 200-foot setback is the same as required for a poultry house, town attorney Melissa Dowd reminded council. The number had been used in the proposed ordinance change as a starting point for discussion.
It's unlikely a slaughterhouse would be permitted in Monterey, even under the present law, because cattle are not permitted in town. Also, the use would be conditional - subject to a public hearing when the pros and cons of the project would be considered, and approval either granted or denied by the governing body.
Councilman Francis Fenn said his home on Main Street adjoins property zoned for light industrial use. Under the proposal, a slaughterhouse could be located as close to town as 200 feet from his residence. "I don't want it there," said Fenn.
Town employee Mike Isles said there would be a problem tying a slaughterhouse into the town's sewer treatment plant. "You need a pre-treatment system," he said. The additional nutrients pumped in to the system would exceed design and permit specifications for the current plant, he added.
There were other concerns about the proposal as well. "Obviously, you wouldn't want a slaughterhouse next to a bed and breakfast," Dowd noted.
Mayor Janice Warner had her doubts about the proposed agriculture center. "I'd like to see (the issue) tabled until they are sure they are going to get it (agriculture center)," she said.
Dowd clarified for council that the change in conditional use would not change the existing zoning of any property in Highland County. She also assured council a slaughterhouse would be a conditional use wherever it was located in the county.
At Tuesday's meeting of the economic development authority, Mitchell briefed members of the authority in closed session about progress being made in finding a suitable property for the proposed center. "We went into closed session … so that the EDA could be brought up to speed on issues related to the ag center and potential property acquisition," Mitchell explained. "There were no decisions made, other than to continue our meeting in order to learn more about negotiations that may be coming down the pike."
Mitchell said the agricultural center is in the fourth year of a seven-year process from conception to completion. She said the center committee is not ready to reveal a final plan or location.
The EDA meeting was continued to 5:15 p.m. Monday, Jan. 14 at The Highland Center.
| 
)