Quote:
Even worse than the above chicken and bunny ban, I found this gem while trying to find the exceptions to the rule in 'the provisions':
Section 5 (Of Article I, page C-8). Be it further enacted, That all ordinances, now in force or
hereafter enacted, of a moral, criminal, quasi-criminal, sanitary or penal nature
shall apply to any and all surrounding territory within one mile of said corporate
limits. The City Council may by ordinance determine what constitutes a
nuisance within the city limits and within said above mentioned mile limit, and
regulate or abate said nuisance therein and within said mile limit. The
jurisdiction of the City, City Court, and the police powers of the City shall
include said one mile territory for the purpose of enforcing the above provisions
and the police power shall be co-extensive with that of a sheriff or his deputies
in the execution of any paper or process issued from said City Court, or in the
enforcing of any of the city ordinances.
They are now claiming that the ordinances apply one mile outside of the city limits and includes for 'sanitary purposes'. That's a pretty broad brush since some folks (ignorantly) state the reason to ban chickens and other livestock is for sanitary reasons.
Unless state or county laws give the city jurisdiction over land outside its limits, that part is unenforceable. That said, I recall reading a case a while back where a city's zoning ordinance was effective outside of the city limits. I cannot recall exactly how, but the city did have jurisdiction.
Check the uses allowed in your zoning; that is the place most likely for countering the ordinance forbidding animals "except as..."
Even worse than the above chicken and bunny ban, I found this gem while trying to find the exceptions to the rule in 'the provisions':
Section 5 (Of Article I, page C-8). Be it further enacted, That all ordinances, now in force or
hereafter enacted, of a moral, criminal, quasi-criminal, sanitary or penal nature
shall apply to any and all surrounding territory within one mile of said corporate
limits. The City Council may by ordinance determine what constitutes a
nuisance within the city limits and within said above mentioned mile limit, and
regulate or abate said nuisance therein and within said mile limit. The
jurisdiction of the City, City Court, and the police powers of the City shall
include said one mile territory for the purpose of enforcing the above provisions
and the police power shall be co-extensive with that of a sheriff or his deputies
in the execution of any paper or process issued from said City Court, or in the
enforcing of any of the city ordinances.
They are now claiming that the ordinances apply one mile outside of the city limits and includes for 'sanitary purposes'. That's a pretty broad brush since some folks (ignorantly) state the reason to ban chickens and other livestock is for sanitary reasons.
Unless state or county laws give the city jurisdiction over land outside its limits, that part is unenforceable. That said, I recall reading a case a while back where a city's zoning ordinance was effective outside of the city limits. I cannot recall exactly how, but the city did have jurisdiction.
Check the uses allowed in your zoning; that is the place most likely for countering the ordinance forbidding animals "except as..."