Who wants to slaughter something so cute (and really not that tasty)?
Here are the proposed major changes to city ordinance over keeping livestock within city limits;
NONDOMESTIC ANIMAL. Any animal that is not domestic.
Glad they cleared that one up. LOL!
(1) A maximum of six animals may be kept on personal land in the city.
Slaughter of animals is prohibited. This prohibition shall not include slaughter as part of any research, educational instruction, stockyard, or slaughterhouse.
All applications for license certificates must be accompanied by a written consent of at least 80 percent of the owners of the several descriptions of real estate situated within 100 feet of the applicant’s real estate and the appropriate fee. Upon the city’s approval of the required application, the city shall issue a license certificate. The license shall specify any restrictions, limitations, conditions, or prohibitions required by the city. The license may be modified or revoked by the city for failure to conform to such restrictions, limitations, conditions, or prohibitions including, but not limited to, noise and odor.
While I agree there should be some kind of limit to how many livestock animals you can have, and having a license, I am admantly against asking permission from your neighbors. If your animals become a nuisance, your neighbors can issue a complaint, but getting there permission is silly. Do you have to get your neighbor’s permission to repaint your house a different color? I think we are going down a slippery slope if we all this part of the ordinance to stand.
The issue I have with neighbor approval is it makes the granting/denial of a permit and use of your property utterly capricious. By that I mean its going to be completely random. I might have a neighbor who says ‘sure, I don’t care’ while someone down the street might have a neighbor who says ‘no way’ to the SAME use (say 3 chickens). It’s completely random, dumb luck, based on who I happen to live by. Zoning law should be applied equally. As you said, the test should be if you create a nuisance. If so, a neighbor should and can ask for enforcement, and you have to abate the nuisance.
If you think the right being granted is so problematic that it has to be approved by neighbors then perhaps you should think twice about granting it at all, maybe its too much of a problem.
The other reasons I don’t like when any ordinance puts in a neighbor vote:
1. Neighbors change often – people don’t stay in the same house forever. This ‘vote’ is only a snapshot in time. What happens if a new neighbor moves in and now doesn’t like it?
2. It puts a neighbor in a bad position – you say ‘no’ as the neighbor and now you then get to be portrayed as the person who ruined the chances for me to have my chickens or whatever and thus hard feelings and hostility results – and we live next to each other.
Completely agree, just permit it equally for everyone, no neighbor vote, and simply enforce the nuisance regulations when someone complains for smells, noise, etc.
As an aside, I love dogs and have had one all of my adult life until our family dog passed away a few weeks back so don’t take what I’m about to say as ‘anti-dog’, but the issue as Councilor Staggers put it is nuisance – not a particular animal. I’m pretty sure I’d love it if a few neighbors had 2 chickens instead of the dog that barks all the time. Point being, the issue is noise, odor, etc not the particular animal or number of them.
Just more regs on the books. As I have said, there is a reason why this ordinance hasn’t changed for 50 years, it doesn’t need an overhaul, it just needs tweaking.
I counted 256 buzzards sitting in my “neighbors’ ” “backyard” last summer, and the city is totally fine with that. I doubt they would ever attempt to enforce this city code against them.
Well that’s interesting. I just spent two years dealing with someone who felt that there were too many regulations by the city and felt that it should ALL be left up to agreements with the neighbors; zoning, building permits, EVERYTHING – none of the city’s business. I suppose that once one decides they are simply opposed to any kind of rules (anarchists) any excuse to further the objective of eliminating rules is acceptable; even two opposite sides of the same issue – as long as there’s some rules-slamming venting opportunity.
Yes – neighbors DO change (which is why I am opposed to just leaving anything up to the neighbors). But I don’t think that every time a new person moves in after one has already obtained a license is gonna require a new application – do you?
They require neighbor approval for a lot of things, and I’ve never fully understood it. I had a neighbor walking around asking for people to sign an approval so she could open an in-home daycare. She told me she needed approval from a certain number of people within so many feet of her location.
So I suppose if you need neighbor approval to keep a gaggle of human kids in your house, you need the same to keep a herd of goat kids? Go figure.
But not for dogs . . .
Well per § 90.015 (Number of Pets Limited) people can only have a maximum of four domestic animals. So this nondomestic ordinance is going a step above that.
That said, I’d rather my neighbor have six chickens than four barking dogs… but that’s just me.
Urban puppy milling is pretty common in Sioux Falls.
It is true – this is not the first and only thing that has required neighbor sign off – zoning ordinance requires neighbors to sign off on an family daycare – this is true in the old and about to be new (Shape Places) zoning ordinance. A family daycare in a residential district is a ‘special permitted use’ which means you can get a permit to do it if you meet the required criteria, and there are 3:
1. A petition signed by 75 percent of property owners within 250 feet.
2. Adequate outdoor play area(s) protected by a 4-foot barrier such as a fence, wall,
berm, or hedge.
3. The zoning permit shall state that a health department license is required before the
beginning of operation.
No, I don’t think every time you get a new neighbor you should have to reapply or have people sign again. I’d rather just not have it required at all. I get the general idea – I’ve had neighbors that caused me problems – so I’m sensitive (very sensitive actually) to it (nuisances) – I just don’t like this ‘voting’ to allow something for the reasons I stated.
I’ll one up Craig – sometimes I think I’d rather have 4 chickens next door than the one barking dog a few houses over that won’t shut up! 🙂
So you posed the question; Are 6 hen chickens or 10 screaming kids more of a nuisance? I think we know the answer.
So you posed the question; Are 6 hen chickens or 10 screaming kids more of a nuisance? I think we know the answer.
Having grown up on a farm, I don’t understand why anybody living in town would want any type of farm animal. But I guess to each his own, but I haven’t had anything other than a small dog since leaving the farm, and a dog doesn’t take as much work as farm type animals.
I wonder if there is a correlation between wanting farm animals in an urban setting and an inherent low wage policy which is perpetuated with the help of our local economic developers?
The city makes these ordinances but they have no way to enforce them. The state does not acknowledge their civil procedures and courts dismiss their case. How can we respect a city who outlaws driving and texting but a lengthy email on a smartphone is ok.
Winston. Wow. That blew my mind.
Did you see the line of questioning towards Shawna by Staggers about ‘real’ nuisances, like barking dogs? She Was dancin’ Mexican like crazy. Good Stuff.