Barbara Payne and several of her relatives and neighbors “plaintiffs” brought a nuisance action against Louise and William Terrell “defendants” to enjoin the construction of four large commercial poultry houses next to plaintiffs’ properties. Following a bench trial in the Superior Court of Franklin County, judgment was entered for the defendants, and plaintiffs appeal therefrom. Because it appears the trial court failed to follow the legal criteria set forth in the Georgia Supreme Court case of May v. Brueshaber 1 in determining the existence of a nuisance, we reverse. Defendants contracted with ConAgra, a large poultry enterprise which conducts business in Franklin County, to erect the four commercial poultry houses at a specific location on their 77 acre property immediately next to Highway 320 near Toccoa. The trial court’s findings of fact showed, that, following ConAgra’s specifications for modern poultry houses, defendants cut down trees on the land and put down four adjacent cement pads on which to build the proposed houses. The four poultry houses would have a capacity of 100,000 chickens, and defendants intended to raise 5.5 flocks, for a total of 550,000 chickens per year. Each of the four proposed poultry houses would produce 1.1 million pounds of manure yearly, and 177,390 pounds of ammonia would be released into the air yearly. The closest plaintiffs’ house is 450 feet from the proposed poultry houses and set back requirements require the proposed poultry houses to be farther away. In the geographic locale, the wind blows from the southwest to the northeast; the plaintiffs’ properties are generally northeast of the proposed poultry houses; in addition, six 36″ exhaust fans in each proposed poultry house would exhaust toward the northeast and plaintiffs’ properties. Medical testimony demonstrated that such exposure to poultry houses adversely affects the health and triggers asthma. Evidence showed that at least five of the plaintiffs would suffer asthmatic affects from exposure to excess ammonia emissions. In this case, it is undisputed that defendants could have built their proposed poultry houses on an alternate site on their land away from plaintiffs’ properties but chose the location at issue because of the financial considerations involved with making an access road to the alternate site for ConAgra’s trucks.
Plaintiffs obtained a TRO and the case went to bench trial in superior court on plaintiffs’ complaint for nuisance based inter alia on the environmental pollution from poultry house ammonia emissions that would interfere with plaintiffs’ health and enjoyment of their homes. The trial court heard conflicting expert testimony from both sides regarding the degree of ammonia emissions from the proposed poultry houses. Following the close of evidence, the court issued judgment in favor of defendants. The court found that, There is an absence to a reasonable degree of certainty that the proposed poultry houses will create a nuisance for Plaintiffs. . . . Without doubt, there are periods of unpleasant irritating experiences with poultry houses, but generally, and in this case, it would be of insufficient duration to deprive the property owner of a legitimate use of their property. Franklin County leads the state in the number of poultry houses so the proposal by Defendants is consistent with the locality and character of the Franklin County community. The Defendants’ proper construction and operation will not legally depreciate or hinder Plaintiffs’ enjoyment of their properties. Held :
