X hits on this document





5 / 19

A5. Even if the existing permit did not explicitly set a maximum number of animal units, a maximum number may be implied based on the number of animals that the approved livestock facility was reasonably designed to house. If this can be done, then the answer to the question is the same as A4. If a maximum number cannot implied under the provisions of the siting law, the operation is not in violation of its original permit, and no further local permit requirements can be imposed until the number of animal units exceeds 900 (the number on May 1) plus 20%.

Q6. In 1996, a livestock operator has 300 animal units but does not obtain a conditional use permit as required by our local zoning ordinance. The operator expands the number of animal units to 800 units prior to May 1, 2006. What can the local government do if the operator does not obtain a permit for latest expansion?

A6. This is resolved the same way issues were addressed in A4. The local government cannot demand that the facility apply for a permit under the new siting law, because the law does not apply to expansions prior to May 1, 2006. However, the local government may take appropriate action under local law to enforce a violation of its ordinance. As previously stated, the local government could agree as part of a settlement to consider an after-the- fact application, under ATCP 51, to approve the facility for 900 animal units.

Q7. Changing the facts from Q6, what if the operator had 300 animal units prior to 1996. No permit was required because the operation was grandfathered into our existing ordinance. The operator expands to 800 animal units prior to May 1, 2006? What recourse does the local government have?

A7. Again the local government must pursue any violations,of its ordinance rather than first requiring that the facility obtain a permit based on the new siting law. If the prior expansion violated the terms under which the livestock facility was “grandfathered,” the local government may take appropriate action under local law to penalize or enjoin that violation and may use the settlement option discussed in prior answers.

It is important to understand the options that local governments have when making the transition from existing CUP requirements in their local ordinances to CUP requirements that are based upon the standards found in the siting rule (ATCP 51). The six month interim period between May 1 and November 1, 2006 is designed to provide local governments with time to work through their options and to update their ordinances to include the standards in the siting rule.

For more information about livestock facility siting and upcoming events and presentations, please visit http://livestocksiting.wi.gov.

Southern District Report by Brian Cunningham No Report

South East District Report by Michelle Staff

On June 2, 2006, the south east district met at the Waukesha County Administrative Center in Waukesha. The topic of discussion for this meeting was Act 347 and the maintenance requirements for on site waste systems. The south east district strongly believes that Comm 83 does not require "governmental units" to keep a maintenance program for system installed before the county adopts Wisconsin Fund program. Our supporting evidence: 1. Comm 83.55(1)(a) Reporting Requirements -- "The owner of a POWTS or the owner's agent shall report to the governmental unit or designated agent at the completion of each inspection, maintenance or servicing event specified in the approved management plan..." Comm 83.55(1)(b) The owner of a POWTS existing prior to July 1, 2000, or the owner's agent shall report to the government unit or designated agent at the completion of

Document info
Document views18
Page views18
Page last viewedTue Jun 07 19:33:16 UTC 2016