SHELBY, Ohio – Legislation addressing the keeping of livestock in the city of Shelby passed its first reading at Shelby City Council on Monday night, but not before strong opinions for and against the legislation were voiced by council members and members of the community.
The leading piece of legislation, Ordinance 42-2015, passed by a 3-2 vote after three heavy amendments were proposed by Councilman Nathan Martin and passed by council.
The initial challenge presented to council was to find a way for the city to control the locations and numbers of livestock inside the city while also writing legislation that could be enforceable and prosecutable.
The original language of Ordinance 42-2015 was drafted by council members Pat Carlisle and Derrin Roberts during numerous meetings of the Safety Committee. Martin called the proposed ordinance a “travesty of legislation.”
“Instead of fashioning legislation with the least amount of effect on the hundreds of citizens who obey the rules and instead of embracing the agrarian nature of our place as a city in this county, this committee decided to thrust on us a new bureaucracy wrought with permitting, associated fees and a new, shiny appeals board that seems to be the committee’s answer for any objections, improper wording or imperfect theory in this legislation,” said Martin.
The proposed legislation originally put in place a permitting process for any and all citizens wishing to keep livestock within city limits, and created a livestock appeals board in the case of a denied permit. Council members Martin, Garland Gates and Steve McLaughlin voted to delete this language from the amended ordinance; council members Carlisle and Roberts voted against.
The need for new legislation regulating animals within Shelby city limits was first brought to council in January, when Shelby resident Deanna Ratliff complained about the sights and smells coming from the animals belonging to her neighbor, Samantha Wilson.
“Lest we forget this is about one property, seemingly unbeknownst to some members on this council there is not a cavalcade of pig farms, donkey pens and chicken coops rising up on every corner here in our city,” said Martin. “Yet instead of proposing simple legislation allowing city council to deal with the ‘onesy-twosey’ unruly citizens, we have to punish everyone.”
Martin, whose children participate in 4-H programs, argued the city needs not more bureaucracy but instead more accountability for the “select few” who break the rules. A handful of Shelby citizens spoke at council in favor of allowing 4-H and FFA students to keep animals within city limits.
“The reason why we take 4-H is because it teaches people responsibility; it also gives us something to do over the summer because there is nothing in this town that you can really do in the summer,” said 14-year-old Alexis Eldridge. “Why can’t we just have it where it is passed and we only have to sign a paper saying we have the animals and how long we have it for, that way we know where the animals are and who they belong to.”
“If you want to take away the chances of all the 4-H and FFA kids learning responsibility and learning things we never would have known, this program is giving kids the best experience they can get and you are taking that away from us,” added her sister, 12-year-old Hailey Eldridge.
Council members Roberts, Martin and McLaughlin also voted to delete language from the ordinance that would require 4-H and FFA livestock to be housed on the grounds of an educational institution; members Carlisle and Gates voted against. Martin explained this amendment would exempt 4-H and FFA students from restrictions on lot sizes and numbers of livestock allowed.
Carlisle, an avid supporter of 4-H and FFA programs in Shelby, stressed that the exemptions should not be interpreted as a carte blanche for 4-H and FFA students.
“It doesn’t mean you do any damn thing you want because you still cannot be annoying and a nuisance to your neighbors even if you’re in 4-H, it’s not neighborly and it’s not the way Shelby should be,” said Carlisle. “I’m not going to allow 4-H and FFA students to abuse animals or abuse their neighbors simply because they’re 4-H and FFA; it doesn’t mean I don’t support 4-H and FFA, it means they can likewise have issues and we need ordinances they have to abide by.
“Those who do not appreciate or do not want livestock next to their home have the same rights as those who find they will have to adjust where or how many livestock are permissible inside the city,” Carlisle added in a statement. “No one situation is more important or valuable than another.”
A third amendment presented by Martin and voted on by council added language that states, “Council can, by resolution, exclude citizens from livestock ownership based on reports of abuse, negligence, or ordinance violations.”
“We should have a system in place to remove the rights of livestock ownership by resolution for the few troublemakers and abusers, and not force everyone to undergo the task of registration and permitting,” Martin explained. “We don’t have to put undue influence on people and more importantly we keep the control where it needs to be, and that’s with the people’s elected representatives.
“They won’t have to worry about the police department getting mad at them and revoking their ownership,” he continued. “They won’t have to worry about whether this appeals board is not going approve them having multiple rabbits and they have to decide which of their kids are going to the fair.”
Carlisle explained the concept of a permit process was originally created because of the detailed information that would be available to law enforcement and the health department when asked to investigate a livestock complaint. She added Shelby Police Chief Lance Combs was present at all meetings of the Safety Committee when writing the ordinance to assist in making the language enforceable and, if necessary, prosecutable.
“It doesn’t matter if it’s a 4-H animal being complained on, an FFA animal or somebody’s fresh eggs – the complaint occurs. And law enforcement needed more specific language to process those complaints,” said Carlisle. “Law enforcement is in charge of that, not city council. We’re in charge of writing the language so that law enforcement can function, we are not in charge of being law enforcement.”
The amendment passed with Gates, Martin and McLaughlin voting for and Carlisle and Roberts voting against, and against the advice of Law Director Gordon Eyster.
“I would be very cautious with this; there are three branches of government and how this is proposed, making you the enforcer, I don’t think that’s permissible,” said Eyster. “In my legal opinion, I don’t think we have any authority to write this at all. I strongly discourage it.”
Council also passed the first reading of two additional livestock ordinances; one regarding the location and care of barns, coops, pens or barnyards in proximity to residences and businesses, and another regarding the disposing of animal wastes. A third ordinance enacting the livestock appeals board was postponed indefinitely, rendered moot by the amendments in Ordinance 42-2015.
The second reading of the livestock ordinances will occur at the Oct. 5 meeting of Shelby City Council, starting at 7 p.m. in the Shelby Justice Center.
“Why can’t we just have it where it is passed and we only have to sign a paper saying we have the animals and how long we have it for, that way we know where the animals are and who they belong to,” said 14-year-old Alexis Eldridge.
