Council tables proposed change to animal ordinance

Change addresses number of animals on property

Simpsonville, S.C. — After a robust yet respectful debate on Tuesday night, Simpsonville City Council tabled a proposed change to the Code of Ordinances that would remove the mention of a numerical limit on how many animals are allowed to be kept on a given property in city limits.

City Council voted 7-0 at the Committee of the Whole meeting on a motion to table the motion for Ordinance 2021-01, which would repeal Section 6-84(a) under "Nuisance animals." The section defines an animal nuisance as keeping more than four animals on any property less than one acre in size.

Councilwoman Jenn Hulehan of Ward 1 said she opposes the amendment since the current animal ordinance is the product of reviewing in 2017 the previous ordinance with a "fine-tooth comb" and sees no justification for change.

“In general, I am opposed to changing an ordinance that has so recently and thoroughly been reviewed and revised without some significant evidence of need that impacts the majority—not just a few of the city’s residents," said Hulehan, who also serves as mayor pro-tem. "In this case, I have to ask what substantially changed since 2017, and I can’t really find an answer that would necessitate a change to the ordinance.”

A previous Council voted 4-1 at a business meeting in June 2017 to adopt the current animal ordinance. Hulehan, who made the initial motion and voted for the 2017 ordinance, said Council and staff conducted research, solicited legal advice, reviewed neighboring ordinances and national information and received public comments and expert testimony from animal advocacy groups to arrive at a "compromise" for regulating animals in the City.

Councilman Matthew Gooch of Ward 1 proposed on Tuesday the rule change to strike the numerical limit for animals from the Code of Ordinances. Gooch said at the Committee of the Whole meeting there are "several issues" with the current ordinance language, including a lack of distinction between types of animals.

"For example, a household with any combination of animals is in violation of the ordinance even if they have five fish or an ant farm," Gooch said before adding that the numerical limit also creates redundancy in the ordinance, which states the following: 

"Maintaining property in a manner that is offensive, annoying or dangerous to the public health, safety or welfare of the community because of the number, type, variety, density or location of the animals on the property" is a public nuisance, according to Section 6-84(c)(3). Gooch said his proposed amendment does "in no way" change the ordinance (emphasis added).

"There is an effective limit on the number of animals one can have, and it gives the animal control officer discretion in this section of the ordinance," Gooch said before noting that anyone who temporarily keeps more than four animals for the purposes of rescuing, selling or donating is in violation of the ordinance.

Councilwoman Stephanie Kelley of Ward 2 agreed with Gooch "there could be some revisions" to current regulations. Kelley said that she sees Gooch's point about the lack of a designation in the ordinance of prohibited animals.

"I think it would be worth reviewing and getting some input on possibly at least identifying the different pets that are allowed," Kelley said. "A nuisance can be very broad for some people like somebody who hates dogs and thinks that's a nuisance."

Simpsonville and the City of Travelers Rest are the only municipalities in Greenville County that specify a numerical limit on animals kept by a household, which is four animals for both cities. While Simpsonville does not differentiate between types of animals, Travelers Rest specifies four cats, four dogs or a combination of four cats and dogs.

The cities of Fountain Inn, Greenville and Mauldin do not indicate a numerical limit for animals on a given property.

Gooch said on Tuesday the City does not have a problem with the numbers of animals kept by households.

"We have not had a hoarding complaint that I’m aware of," Gooch said. 

Animal hoarding is the possession of an abnormally large number of animals for whom the owners do not or cannot provide adequate care, according to the Animal Legal Defense Fund, a nonprofit seeking to advance the interests of animals via the legal system. The Fund estimates that up to 250,000 animals are hoarded annually.

The only two states that explicitly address animal hoarding in their statutes are Hawaii and Illinois, according to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Since all states require the provision of adequate care by pet owners of their animals and animal hoarding by definition prevents the provision of that required care, all states effectively prohibit animal hoarding even if they do not explicitly ban it.

Gooch said the biggest change that happened in the last year has been the pandemic, which resulted in an increase in the fostering and adoptions of animals. Gooch reiterated the numerical limit on kept animals does not give the animal control officer any discretion.

"If there are five animals in a house, that person is in violation regardless of the type of animal," Gooch said. "Despite (the animal ordinance) having been reviewed several years ago when I was a part of that, clearly we missed some things."

At the business meeting in June 2017, Gooch made the second and voted for the motion by Hulehan to adopt the current animal ordinance. At the Committee of the Whole meeting in the preceding March, the previous Council discussed the elimination of the restriction on the number of allowed animals for a city resident.

The discussion included whether animal rescue would be hampered by the elimination of the numerical limit and whether animals like fish and hamsters fell under the restriction, according to the blog post Meeting Recap 3.28.17 by Hulehan.

"It was pointed out that the Animal Control Officer does not police inside people’s homes and that the ordinance is a complaint-driven one," Hulehan said in the post.

Councilman Ken Cummings of Ward 5 said Council should wait to discuss the issue with Animal Control Officer Nicholas Downing, who recently replaced Joshua Hightower and is currently on leave.

"It almost makes sense in my opinion that we can wait until we review this information with an expert in the field so we can make probably the most informed decision for not just today but the future," Cummings said. "I know we addressed it just a few years ago and covered a lot of things, and there may be some options to make some corrections, but I don’t think it would be in the best interest to make those changes now."

Mayor Paul Shewmaker supported Cummings's suggestion to refrain from changing the animal ordinance without an acting animal control officer. Shewmaker added that altering the ordinance would be "problematic" when enforcement duties are temporarily spread among several officers who each, without a numerical limit on animals, would have to exercise their own discretion. 

"Maybe we need to wait until we have an animal control officer in place, and we can have some discussion then about what makes sense,” Shewmaker said before Gooch motioned to table his motion to amend the animal ordinance.

In a memo to and during his discussion with Council Tuesday, Gooch suggested that Council discuss at its upcoming retreat in March the addition of language that specifically addresses foul, which he pointed out the City of Greenville has in its animal ordinance. Councilwoman Sherry Roche of Ward 3 withdrew from the October Committee of the Whole meeting an agenda item on the ownership of chickens as pets and noise complaints about roosters.

"I would like to go ahead and postpone this discussion for another time, so that I can do more research and collaborate with a few more people," Roche said in October. "I don't want to introduce it now without having everything in order.