By Cindy Allen Managing Editor
Enid city commissioners nearly debated changes to a new livestock ordinance until the cows came home, but they ended up approving the ordinance as it initially was presented.
Commissioners unanimously approved an ordinance Tuesday night prohibiting livestock, including fowl, in city limits except for property zoned agriculture or R-1 estate or on lots one acre or larger. The ordinance goes into effect Aug. 15.
The point of contention among some residents and
commissioners was how residents would prove they were “grandfathered” in under the new ordinance. The ordinance adopted Tuesday allows livestock operations in existence prior to Aug. 15 to be designated non-conforming uses. If non-conforming use is discontinued for one year or more, the land would lose its exemption and livestock operations would be prohibited.
“It does not mean that people on small lots will have to do away with their animals,” said City Attorney Carol Lahman. “The only way you would lose your exemption is if you stopped having a livestock operation for a year.”
The current ordinance does not have a specific vehicle for people to prove they are grandfathered in, and Enid resident Boomer Appleman objected to no registration process.
“I think it’s a dog with no teeth,” said Appleman, who admitted to having his own issues with neighbors raising chickens in a residential area. “If a neighbor of mine has chickens and the city does not require them to register or track those that are grandfathered, time could pass and they could add more livestock.”
Local developer Bob Berry agreed there needs to be some registration process. However, City Commissioner Daron Rudy objected to having a registration process because of logistical concerns.
“I understand you don’t want registration because that’s a real pain,” Berry said. “But if you do not have a registration with this ordinance, there needs to be a certain proof of being grandfathered. We need to have some form of minimum standard.”
City Manager Eric Benson said he is the one who originally brought up the ordinance because he sees a level of expectation rising among city residents to clean up parts of the city. He said the ordinance is an extension of the cleanup effort that began in March.
“There is a level of expectation that we are on the rise, that we are embracing a standard of living that will help us all,” Benson said.
City staff are concerned about a growing number of residential lots, particularly in the 73701 ZIP code, that are housing more livestock and fowl within city boundaries.
Benson said the livestock ordinance is needed, and city staff can hash out the details or registration or other mechanisms that need to be tweaked to make the ordinance more effective.
Commissioner Larry Dillon was concerned the ordinance is too broad and won’t solve the problem of getting rid of livestock animals in backyards. Lahman said the area of property law makes it tricky to take away property rights.
“Generally, a non-conforming use is not specific to the actual animal but specific to the operation,” Lahman said. She emphasized it will take time for an real changes to take place and attrition to occur.
Commissioner Don Rose wanted to make a motion that a basic registration process be established to prove who is grandfathered and who is not. However, he amended his motion to pass the ordinance as presented and let city staff hash out further details or enhancements that may be needed.
