A relatively new trend in ruralzoning in Missouri over the past three years has been the incorporation ofsetback requirements for certain agricultural uses. Thelegislature in 1996 approved statewide setbacks for certainlivestock confinement facilities, however several countiesincorporated specific buffer and setback distances into their ordinances beforethe state legislation was in place and have more stringent requirementsthan are required at the state level. Villageof Euclid v. Amber Realty, Inc . Stateex rel Columbia Tower, Inc. v.
Courts also look to see whether the publicinterest outweighs the private detriment.
State ex rel ColumbiaTower, Inc. v. Boone Co. , supra . To date, there have been noMissouri cases which have directly addressed the issue of whether agriculturalsetbacks for livestock production facilities are a valid use ofthe zoning entity's police power. As long as the zoningentity can prove that there is a valid connection to theprotection of the health, safety, morals, or public welfare, itwill be very difficult for anyone to argue its invalidity. The questionof unreasonableness requires the court to use a balancing test,and reasonableness of the ordinance is weighed in favor of themunicipality or zoning entity. Bannum, Inc. v. City of St. Charles,Mo.