Chris Baggott of Tyner Pond Farm looks over some the inventory at the farm’s retail store in Greenfield. Baggott is among those who have voiced support for the proposal to develop a small meat-processing plant in Maxwell. TOM RUSSO | DAILY REPORTER
Chris Baggott of Tyner Pond Farm looks over some the inventory at the farm’s retail store in Greenfield. Baggott is among those who have voiced support for the proposal to develop a small meat-processing plant in Maxwell. TOM RUSSO | DAILY REPORTER
MAXWELL — A farmer and businessman wants to open a facility for processing meat from cows and hogs.

It would be the first such facility in the county, where a growing farm-to-table movement is creating demand for nearby processing. State government officials, meat industry organizations and local livestock farmers back the idea, citing an absence of such facilities in the county and long wait times at the closest ones.

A letter from Hancock County-based Tyner Pond Farm, operated by Chris Baggott, is one of several submitted to the county in support of the proposal.

“As local farmers and producers in Hancock County and surrounding areas, we can attest to the definite need for a local animal processing facility,” the letter reads. “We are experiencing lead times up to one year to have our livestock processed due to the lack of local facilities. There is a demand in the industry that cannot be met by the current facilities, resulting in the need to travel to other counties in order to have our processing completed.”

But residents of a nearby neighborhood, as well as Hancock County’s planning and zoning director, aren’t so bullish on the proposal. They argue the location of the proposed operation is too close to nearby homes, and residents fear noise and odors would hurt their property values.

The county’s board of zoning appeals is slated to make a decision on the matter later this month.

SP Property Investments is proposing the project at 238 N. Main St. in Maxwell, a property it owns where builder Smith Projects operates along with a commercial building housing an Edward Jones office. The firm wants to replace an existing pole barn used for storing construction supplies directly behind, or to the west of the commercial building, with a 13,800-square foot structure split into three units. One of the units would be for animal and animal products processing, while the others would be used for cold storage and storing construction supplies. Hours of operation would be 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. Saturday hours would likely be 7 a.m. to noon, but possibly to 5 p.m. during busy times. The facility would employ 20 to 25, and a retail meat store would go in the part of the commercial building not used by Edward Jones.

The building would be about 132 feet southeast of the Twin Oaks neighborhood, and about a quarter-mile north of Maxwell Intermediate School.

Project will require a variance

The land is zoned industrial general, which requires a special exception for an animal processing facility approved by the Hancock County Board of Zoning Appeals. A variance would also be needed for the building to be 15 feet, rather than the rule of 50 feet, from the south property line shared with Indiana Automotive Equipment, which supports the proposal.

Jon Smith, the founder and CEO of Smith Projects who’s also a cattle farmer, said at last month’s board of zoning appeals meeting that the processing facility would be for cattle, hogs and potentially sheep.

Smith said animals would be delivered by appointment one day a week, dropped off by a trailer backed up to an overhead door in the building, and kept in a holding pen and stalls inside the facility until processing. He told the Daily Reporter that the building would have a maximum capacity of 20 cows and 40 hogs per week.

“There would be no animals that are going to be outside of the building, other than when the trailer backs up to drop them off through an overhead door, which is then immediately shut,” Smith said at the zoning board meeting.

Smith also said the building would be air-conditioned and heated and that its walls would include block, two inches of insulation and a washable interior surface. The interior would be pressure-washed daily whenever there’s butchering, he said, in compliance with state and federal regulations. The facility would have cement floors with trench drains.

David Spencer, marketing director for NineStar Connect, told the Daily Reporter a formal application process would need to precede the animal processing facility hooking up to the utility’s wastewater treatment plant in the area.

Brad Gruell, a Hancock County-based butcher who would oversee animal processing in the facility, said inedible animal remains would go in barrels closed with lids and kept in a cooler. A fertilizer company he works with would pick up the barrels on slaughter days, he continued, adding when barrels were returned, they’d be required to be clean.

Gruell butchers for local restaurants and farmers at Tyner Pond Farm. He said a slaughterhouse in Decatur County is the only place that will process animals for him. He’s currently booked two months in advance.

“I get phone calls every other day for processing animals,” he told the Daily Reporter. “I don’t even have a slaughterhouse. There’s nowhere else to go. Everywhere else is 12 to 18 months out to get an animal killed. There’s just a need for it. I can’t believe Hancock County doesn’t have a facility like this.”

Smith said his wait for processing animals at a facility in Knightstown is currently 18 months.

Inspectors ‘run a tight ship’

There are a lot of misconceptions about the animal processing industry, Gruell said.

“I have inspectors at my place every day,” he said. “They run a tight ship. There’s a lot more to it than what people think. They regulate everything.”

The state inspectors monitor cleanliness, pest control, paperwork and even the height of weeds outside, Gruell said.

Smith said the facility would not be invasive to nearby property owners and residents, adding they wouldn’t be able to hear any noise from the animals, except perhaps briefly during drop-off, and wouldn’t see any of the animals or be exposed to any offensive odors.

“It will not affect any of their lives in any way other than to give them an opportunity to purchase local meat products from farm to table,” Smith told the Daily Reporter. “It’s going to enhance this area.”

Andrew Carty, director of economic development for the Indiana State Department of Agriculture, spoke in support of Smith’s proposal at the zoning board meeting. He said plans like Smith’s represent a “critical need,” adding there are roughly 100 to 150 smaller animal processors in Indiana processing less than 1% of all animals in the state.

State Rep. Bob Cherry, R-Greenfield, also spoke in support of the proposal, referring to the rising trend in farmers markets and farm-to-table food. He noted the state’s latest budget includes more funds for inspectors with the Indiana Board of Animal Health due to the demand for more smaller processing facilities.

Also filing letters of support with the county were Indiana Pork, Indiana Meat Packers & Processors Association, Indiana Beef Cattle Association, Brown Township, Jackson Township, Adkins Freezer Beef, Indiana Angus Association, Leaning Pines, Wensel Farms, Landuyt Ranch and Fout Family Farms.

Neighbors find a key ally

The county received correspondence from seven opponents and a petition with more than 50 signatures. Smell, noise and negative effects on property values are among opponents’ concerns.

Susan Honcharuk, a Twin Oaks resident, and several of her neighbors said at the zoning board meeting that the site of the proposed facility is inappropriate.

“I do think it’s an industry that’s needed, and I do think they have great qualifications to do it,” Honcharuk said. “The problem is location.”

Nicholas Grzych said there’s an abundance of better-suited areas in the county for the facility to go.

“It seems kind of odd to try to cram one in right here between a school and a heavily occupied neighborhood,” he said.

Mike Dale, executive director of the Hancock County Area Plan Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals, gave the proposal an unfavorable recommendation.

“I do have strong empathy for the people in the Twin Oaks neighborhood,” Dale said. “They’ve invested a lot of time and much of their lives in that neighborhood. Many of them have lived there many, many years. They are already very disappointed with the county having given industrial zoning to the site and so they view this as one more offense, if you will, coming to the Twin Oaks neighborhood…”

He believes an animal processing facility would produce an environment inconsistent with the nearby residential properties.

“And the proposal’s not consistent, in my view, with the purpose of the zoning ordinance, which is intended to promote compatibility between land uses,” he said. “In my view, this would be an incompatible use.”

Smith countered in order to get an animal processing facility on his farm, he’d need to be industrially zoned and have utility-provided sewer and water service, which he would not be able to achieve.

Better sites available elsewhere?

Dale estimated there are thousands of acres of industrially zoned land with appropriate utility access, particularly in the Mt. Comfort area. In light of the support from the proposal’s big players, he asked why they didn’t join forces and form a cooperative to carry out the project in a more appropriate location.

Smith’s filed proposal states 4,200 square feet of the 13,800-square foot building would be used for animal processing. However, he asked at the zoning board meeting if he could be approved for no more than 6,000 square feet, explaining exact cooler and freezer sizes have yet to be determined.

Chris Isom, the board’s lawyer, cautioned against that, calling it a substantial change the public outside the meeting had yet to be made aware of. He advised the board to continue the matter to its July meeting, giving Smith the opportunity to properly notify surrounding property owners of his exact intentions.

It will also give Smith the chance to include the correct proposed hours of operation, as they were listed as 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Sunday through Monday in his original statement of intent.

In addition, the continuance means a full board of zoning appeals may be able to consider the proposal, as only three of the five members were able to attend the June meeting.
© 2024 Daily Reporter