Hello beekeeper friends!

Here I am, rushing right in, the angels are holding back to see what happens
before they tread one way or another.  ;o}

I am not an attorney.  I was a paralegal for 25+ years.  I specialized in
legal research.  That said,  I would definitely second Jim's suggestion that
you talk with an attorney.

Here are some thoughts to consider.

-Snippage-
> 35-3.5-102 - Agricultural operation deemed not nuisance - state
agricultural commission
>                   - attorney fees - exceptions.
>
> (1) (a) Except as provided in this section, an agricultural operation
shall not be found to be a
               ======================
============
> public or private nuisance if the agricultural operation alleged to be a
nuisance employs
> methods or practices that are commonly or reasonably associated with
agricultural production.

Section 35-3.5-102, Sub 1, Sub (b) identifies some of the reasons that an ag
operation shall not be found to be a nuisance.  The Sub 1, Sub (b), Sub (I)
through (V) sets forth some of those reasons.  It is definitely an "OR" (As
seen at the end of Sub (IV):
(snipped only for brevity)
>    (IV) Employment of new technology; or
>    (V) Change in the type of agricultural product produced.

The next subsection may be a cause for concern.  You will note that Section
35-3.5-102, Sub 2, Sub (a)specifically identifies some examples that will
cause the ag operation to not be found to be a nuisance.  This subsection is
definitely an "AND" (As seen at the end of Sub (II):

>    (2) (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section to the
contrary, an agricultural
>             operation shall not be found to be a public or private
nuisance if such agricultural operation:
>    (I) Was established prior to the commencement of the use of the area
surrounding such agricultural
>        operation for nonagricultural activities;
>
Right there is my cause for concern.  If the ag operation was in operation
PRIOR to the development of the surrounding area; such as, farm land being
divided and sub-divided and the area becomes a suburb with a few farmers
holding out.  The ag operation cannot be forced out if it was there first.
However, this subsection could be interpreted to mean that the ag operation,
if it was not there first, could be found to be a nuisance.

 (II) Employs methods or practices that are commonly or reasonably
associated with agricultural
>        production; and
>    (III) Is not operating negligently.
>

I don't necessarily agree or not agree with Jim's interpretation.  However,
as usual, you probably want to talk to an attorney.

In addition, when a judicial officer is studying a statute, whether as a
result of a challenge or just a requested  application, they usually, if not
always, refer to the record of the legislative discussion held when a
particular statute was passed.  This legislative record is a common tool for
understanding, not always interpreted the same, but still helpful to the
resolution of an issue.

Sorry for the sub-legal speak, but I am sure someone on here expected it!

Judy in Kentucky, USA