|
Dateline: July 18,
2002
City
aldermen enact new livestock rules
By
Roger Estlack, Clarendon Enterprise
The
Clarendon Board of Aldermen enacted a new livestock ordinance during their
regular meeting July 9 at City Hall.
Ordinance
342 takes the place of Ordinance 340 and was the result of much debate
among citizens and between the aldermen themselves. Much of last
Tuesday’s meeting was a verbal sparing match between Aldermen Michael
Tibbets and Janice Knorpp.
Tibbets
was a vocal supporter of people keeping livestock in the city limits,
saying he didn’t want to take away the use of people’s existing
facilities and that he was concerned about the impact a strict livestock
law would have on existing and future programs at Clarendon College.
“I
don’t want to do anything that might hurt the college,” Tibbets said.
“It’s a huge part of our local economy.”
But
Knorpp countered that something had to be done to prevent people from
moving horses and show calves into their backyards and said the number of
livestock must be limited in town.
“We
live in a city,” Knorpp said. “We don’t live on a farm or a
ranch.”
The
new ordinance removes the per head permitting fee required by the old
ordinance and reduces the space limitations on pens from 1,000 square feet
per head to 400 square feet, which citizens in attendance said should
cover most existing stalls.
No
more than 10 head of livestock can be kept on a regular city block, and
residents must obtain a license to keep livestock on their property. The
license will cost $20 per year.
If
the livestock are to be kept within 150 feet of a house or business, the
resident must get written permission from those neighbors before a permit
will be granted.
A
license is not required for livestock kept more than 300 feet from a
residence or place of business, and the new law does not apply to
veterinary clinics or livestock in the city for temporary events such as
parades, rodeos, stock shows, or other school or civic activities.
Ordinance
342 was approved 4-1, with Aldermen Knorpp, Tibbets, Mark White, and Tommy
Hill voting in favor. Alderman Bob Watson voted against the measure.
|