Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mauldin committee sends animal ordinance changes to full council after debate on shelter and complainant requirements
Summary
An amended animal-control ordinance would add definitions for "sustenance" and "shelter," require two signed affidavits for nuisance-animal complaints and require complainants to appear in court; staff recommended adoption and the committee forwarded the measure to full council unanimously.
The Mauldin Public Safety committee voted Oct. 6 to forward to full council proposed amendments to Chapter 6 of the city code that add statutory-style definitions for animal care and change how nuisance-animal complaints are pursued.
Sam Duncan, Mauldin’s animal control and code enforcement officer, told the committee the draft inserts two definitions — “sustenance” and “shelter” — drawn from state-style language to clarify enforcement. He said “sustenance” would require adequate food at suitable intervals and clean, potable water; “shelter” would require protection from exposure and adverse weather beyond a roof alone.
The draft also changes nuisance-animal complaint procedures: officers would investigate only after receipt of two detailed, signed affidavits; complainants would be required to appear and testify at trial and cases where the complainant fails to appear would be dismissed. The ordinance would also require the animal-control or codes officer to notify the owner that complaints were received and being investigated.
Several council members questioned whether the shelter definition could be interpreted too broadly and whether the requirement to force complainants to appear in court might discourage reports. Duncan said the two-affidavit and appearance requirements stem in part from nuisance complaints such as barking disputes that frequently lack sworn statements and where complainants sometimes decline to appear, resulting in dropped charges. A council member noted the definitions were “pulled directly out of South Carolina Code 47-1-10” (as cited in the presentation) to use a standard formulation.
After discussion about wording and practical enforcement, the committee moved and seconded a recommendation to forward the ordinance to full council; the motion carried unanimously.
If approved by the full council, the changes will narrow the city’s enforcement pathway for nuisance-animal cases by requiring written, signed statements and in-person testimony for prosecution.
