Residents and farmers clash over proposed limits on poultry houses in Ohio County

Ohio County Fiscal Court spent much of its January 2026 meeting hearing public comment on a proposed ordinance to restrict where poultry and egg houses may be sited in the county.

Sean Steele, a resident who said he represents neighbors near Thomas/Toms Branch Road, urged the court to place a hold on construction and to adopt siting rules to prevent heavy truck traffic, road damage and environmental impacts. "All we're asking is for help from you all," Steele said, adding that the draft ordinance was not intended to "shut poultry down" but to require that such operations locate where they are appropriate and not damage county roads or streams.

Zach Hintu, who said he operates the site at issue and contracts to sell eggs, pushed back. "This is not a commercial bottle farms operation. This is a local family owned agriculture operation," Hintu said, and described measures he said would limit impacts, including staggered truck timing and pasture-based management. Hintu cited county-level economic figures, saying poultry sales totaled $111,581,000 in 2022 and accounted for about 64% of the county's agricultural sales.

Other residents raised safety concerns about large trucks using a narrow road, questioned whether emergency vehicles would be impeded, and asked who would be liable for accidents. Parker Carter, a Toms Branch Road resident, said, "If you got a chicken house 1000 foot at your front door, believe me... I don't think y'all would think it's alright." Several speakers asked whether the county could pursue a referendum to require planning or zoning.

Court members told speakers they had "listened" and that the county lacks planning and zoning outside municipal limits; one member said the court did not plan to adopt the ordinance as submitted because poultry is a major industry in Ohio County but that it had taken the proposal under advisement. The chair asked staff to provide permit filings and asked Casey Richardson (a union representative who had earlier presented on contractor issues) to meet with county staff. The court did not vote on any ordinance or place a formal moratorium during the meeting.

The dispute highlighted competing aims: neighbors seeking limits to protect roads, safety and water quality, and farmers warning that broad restrictions could harm a dominant county industry. The court directed staff to collect permit information and to engage with residents and proponents before any formal action.