The Seward County Planning Commission’s June 15 meeting included the possibility of accepting a revised and updated version of the county’s zoning regulations that has been in the works for the past six years or more.
But after listening to some of the 40-plus meeting attendees question the public’s access to the revisions and the methodology used to determine livestock conditional permit requirements, more answers were needed.
That led Seward County Board of Commissioners Chair Misty Ahmic to recommend from the back of the room that the planning commission reject an active motion on livestock operation setbacks and instead re-open the public hearing it had just closed. That enables the commission to hit pause and reconvene the public hearing at the board’s July 20 meeting.
Those attending the public hearing questioned why the proposed regulations were only viewable in the Seward County zoning office and why commissioners could not say what regulations had been changed in the revision process.
Ahmic said on June 19 that three steps would be used to address the situation:
1. A committee of people from the planning commission, Ahmic, Commissioner Scott Pekarek, and Keith Marvin of Marvin Consulting will meet to identify specific changes made in the zoning regulations now proposed.
2. The county will work with Marvin to create a document showing those changes which will be posted with the draft regulations on the Seward County Zoning website for people to review prior to the July 20 planning commission meeting.
3. The work done by a subcommittee of the planning commission to offer alternative setbacks to those in the existing draft regulations would be revisited.
The 2007 zoning regulations and the updates and addendums tacked on to them in 2012, 2014, 2015, 2022, 2023 and 2024 were combined and revised when working with JEO consulting firm several years ago. The entire document was reformatted with the assistance of Marvin Consulting in recent years.
Ahmic has said the changes to the regulations are primarily additions of topics not previously included in the regulations, such as battery energy storage systems and solar or wind energy facilities.
County representatives said they had not made the draft document more easily accessible due to concerns that circulating a proposed document that may be different from the final document might cause confusion.
A day after the hearing Ahmic and Zoning Administrator Marissa Pfile told members of the Seward County Board of Commissioners on June 16 that a digital version of the new regulations featuring a “draft” watermark would soon be posted on the county website.
While that addresses public access to the proposed regulations, it does not identify the changes made as the county worked with two separate consulting firms in recent years to update the document.
Typically, when regulation changes are made, a “red-line” copy is created to show what has been deleted, added or edited. But because the first consultant the county worked with focused on the content of the regulations and the second consultant was more focused on the usability and readability of the document, no such document seems to exist.
Ahmic suggested at the public hearing that the county would prepare documents to introduce and work through each area in which regulations were added or updated with the planning commission on July 20.
Planning Commission Chair Dale Niemann said the lack of information is an issue.
“I am not sure I even know what is new,” he said.
Some of those attending the June 15 public hearing, like Ryan Adams of Garland, said they were trying to mesh their own village zoning regulations with the county’s and the lack of availability and information made that difficult.
Ahmic assured those attending that there is nothing in the revised regulations changing housing density or “anything like that” and the water conservation district remains in place. Rural, agricultural and transitional areas remain unchanged.
The county hosted an open house on April 20 to unveil the updated and reformatted regulations, and 15 or 20 people attended. Ahmic was the only county representative at the event, though John Shepard from Marvin Consulting also attended to answer questions.
They shared county maps and circulated a document labeled “Seward County Zoning Regulations DRAFT April 2026” that defined zoning, listed zoning districts and overlays such as the groundwater conservation district, floodplains and areas that now exceed the zoning regulations for housing density.
It described but did not provide detail on how the regulations address livestock feeding operations, housing and business standards, and renewable energy systems.
Livestock moratorium expired
At the April Planning Commission meeting that followed the open house, commissioners sought additional time to address the livestock feeding operation criteria related to the moratorium that was then in place on applications for new feeding operations.
That moratorium expired May 31.
Ahmic said June 19 that means that conditional permits would be considered under existing zoning regulations at this time.
Setback revisions proposed
In April, the zoning regulations listed a new set of setback regulations that determine by animal count how close a feeding operation can be to a home, school or other structure.
The regulations refer to the number of animals on site, which for poultry operations counts 100 chickens as one animal. Most of the existing poultry operations in Seward County have 212,000 to 228,000 chickens, or 2,120 to 2,280 “animals.”
Under the regulations proposed as of April, such operations would be categorized as Class II, requiring setbacks between the barns and any non-participant house or other entity of 3,960 feet or three-quarters of a mile for environmentally controlled housing (ECH) and 5,280 feet or one mile for open-lot operations.
Existing regulations put those operations in the small category and require 1,320-foot or quarter-mile setbacks. There is no distinction between open or ECH operations.
The existing range of setbacks goes from 1,320 feet for those operations to 5,280 feet for Large IV operations.
The proposed regulations in April increased the setback range to 2,640 feet to 9,240 feet (one and three-quarters mile).
At the June 15 planning commission meeting, commissioner Ryan Krenk circulated a handout comparing the setbacks included in the proposed regulations to those he found for 11 other counties via online searches and assistance from the Alliance for the Future of Agriculture in Nebraska (AFAN).
Only Clay County had a minimum setback for the livestock operations, or concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), with 301 to 1,000 animal units the matched Seward County’s 3,960 feet proposal. One other county started at 2,310 feet and another at 1,650 feet, but the rest began at 1,320 feet.
Those differences were fairly similar in the other operation sizes, up to the 20,000-plus livestock facility size, for which the Seward County proposal is 10,560 feet and others range from 3,960 to 6,600 feet.
Contacted later in the week, Krenk said the zoning regulations are complicated and the board has been working toward revising them for the eight or nine years he has served on the board.
He served on the subcommittee that brought a different set of setback numbers with smaller increments to the commission in May, but commissioners voted 5-3 with one member not voting to stick with the numbers included in the draft regulations. He said keeping the levels adopted in 2014 might be better.
Krenk has a small number of livestock on his farm, but said he takes a larger view of the county as a commissioner.
“These are not realistic,” he said of the proposed setbacks. He said they would harm the livestock industry in the county.
He wants the board to identify reasonable and realistic setbacks that will not stifle livestock operations.
“This is still an agricultural county and agricultural community,” he said.
Livestock regulations
of interest
Most of those speaking at the public hearing supported leaving the livestock setback rules as they are or proceeding with modest modifications. A few who have expressed concerns about the proximity of those operations to rural homes sought more stringent distances.
Jessica Kolterman, who said she was speaking as a county resident and not representing her company, encouraged the county to leave setbacks and livestock regulations as they are and address special concerns through conditional use permits.
Andy Scholting of Nutrient Advisors told commissioners that allowing agricultural producers to add livestock is important in the economy. He noted the setbacks in the proposed regulations are among the largest he has seen and would make adding livestock difficult.
“We cannot manufacture any more farmland. Livestock production is the only way we can add value to our land,” he said.
Nick Hack of Farm Bureau said dairy farmers may not look as favorably at Seward County with the proposed restrictions, and the new DARI Processing LLC aseptic or shelf-stable dairy production plant opening in Seward needs farmers to provide milk.
He said Seward County has a “unique and challenging environment,” but there is a place for agriculture here.
Jay Ferris, who lives near Staplehurst, said the economic growth of the area and zoning should not be on opposite sides.
Chris Beckler said people who are moving from towns into the country need to be aware of what it means to live in an agricultural setting.
“When you choose to move there you are choosing to move into livestock and barns and all that,” she said.
Commissioner Kati Schweitzer noted the livestock operations affect people differently.
“We act like agriculture is so neighborly and kind, but are we actually doing that?” she said.
Lindsey Schwan, who has opposed livestock development near her home, said the proposed setbacks increase the smallest farms’ setbacks from one-quarter to one-half of a mile.
“I do not feel like that is that drastic,” she told commissioners.
Keith Marvin of Marvin Planning in David City attended the June 15 public hearing and said Shepard is no long working with his company and he is not aware of how the setback numbers were identified.
But he said he would stand by the work done until the county board of commission directs him to change the setbacks.
