Times Examiner Facebook Logo

Thursday, March 28, 2024 - 07:05 PM

INDEPENDENT CONSERVATIVE VOICE OF UPSTATE SOUTH CAROLINA

First Published in 1994

INDEPENDENT CONSERVATIVE VOICE OF
UPSTATE SOUTH CAROLINA

Council Majority Fouled by their Own Rules

The Greenville County proposed Chicken Ordinance met its fate Tuesday, November 6, by a vote of seven in favor, three against and two absent. Following the vote, the County Attorney reminded the Chairman that the particular motion required 8 votes in favor according to Council rules. The controversial ordinance is now dead, at least for a while.

Some Council members stated that without the ordinance some chicken owners in zoned areas of the county are vulnerable to being cited by county inspectors for having chickens.

The Proposed Chicken Ordinance would not apply to municipalities or un-zoned areas of the county.

Fred Payne, chairman of the Planning and Development Committee, proposed two amendments to the proposed ordinance.

The first amendment would require the staff to brief the P and D committee on the effectiveness of the Ordinance one year after the effective date.

The second amendment would add the words: “Chickens may not be allowed to roam off the owners property and must be enclosed in pens.”

Joe Baldwin thinks people are confused about the ordinance. He was disappointed that no one showed up at the meeting scheduled to explain the Ordinance and get input from citizens.

“I think this Ordinance has been misunderstood and is still misunderstood by a lot of people,” said Baldwin. “This Ordinance is not to restrict anybody’s right to anything. It’s to extend rights to people that don’t currently have it, to have chickens…. That’s no reason to kill an ordinance, just because it is misunderstood.”

Dr. Bob Taylor spoke in favor of the ordinance:

“Mr. Chairman, I’m going to vote in support of this ordinance because as it stands right now there are some 60 some cases out there that are illegal. In other words, they are in areas where they are not allowed to have chickens at this time. And if we don’t pass this, tomorrow, essentially the codes people are going to go out and issue citations to those people. And I’d like to see them, you know, be able to do that, but even though at this time they might not know that they’re breaking the law unless they’ve been cited.”

Dan Rawls commented:

“In all of the complaints last year, the chickens were running loose and the rooster problem we had. It’s not how many chickens are out there or whatever.

“My problem with this is that I think we are trying to get involved in regulating everything… We already have an ordinance regulating grass, but I think that there’s a stopping place. We need to use some common sense. I’m for the people having their chickens. How do you do it other than going to the ordinance we already have on the books that deals with animals. It’s a funny thing, a man can have a dog next door to a man who has chickens and the dog aggravates the chickens and it doesn’t matter. But if the chickens bother the dog, we have rules about that.

“If you’re in a subdivision, then that subdivision should take care of those kinds of things,” Dill said.  But where I live a chicken and a dog and a cow and a goat are all barnyard animals.”

Dill said he opposed the $50.00 permit so you could have 8 chickens. “I can’t vote for this like it is. I wouldn’t put my name on it for any amount of money.”

“Mr. Chairman, If I could respond,” said Fred Payne. “I understand what you’re saying, Joe, but here’s the deal: Yes, they do have to pay a fee, but one of the things they have to do is they have to have a structure in the backyard that if you built a structure as a carpentry shop, you have to have a building inspector come out and look at it to make sure it meets codes. And that has a fee that goes along with it. Those laws are already on the books, and, you know, if you raise chickens and you ate the eggs, it wouldn’t take long to recoup the amount. You have to balance it out. I’d rather see people be allowed to do something than not allowed to do something. And that’s what this does.”

On the final vote at second reading, Joe Dill, Dan Rawls and Willis Meadows voted “no.” Fred Payne, Joe Baldwin, Jim Burns, Xanthene Norris, Liz Semen, Bob Taylor and Butch Kirven voted “yes.” Sid Cates and Lottie Gibson were absent.

The chicken ordinance was killed. For it to be brought up for another vote would require one of the three who voted in opposition to change their vote. That is not likely to happen.

No comments

Leave your comment

In reply to Some User