Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Livestock topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board allows limited livestock on 14‑acre Anderson lot, denies cows and sets numerical caps
Summary
The Anderson board granted petition 8‑25 by Domingo Hernandez Cruz to allow some livestock on a 14‑acre property but limited the animals: no cattle, up to 10 goats, up to 10 hens (no roosters), and up to 2 pigs. The vote was 3–1; staff had recommended denial citing city ordinance that prohibits livestock inside the city.
The Anderson City Board of Zoning Appeals approved petition 8‑25 with conditions to allow limited livestock at 3510 West 5030 after neighbor complaints, staff inspection and extended public testimony. The vote to grant a variance from the city’s livestock prohibition was 3–1.
Staff presented the case and recommended denial, noting the city ordinance explicitly prohibits bovine, equine, porcine, caprine or avian species within city limits. City staff said certified mail notices were sent and that the city received a complaint in May prompting inspection. Micah (city staff) reported seeing a small number of animals on a site visit but did not observe odor at that time.
Petitioner Domingo Hernandez Cruz, with interpreter Grace Reyes, told the board he bought the 14‑acre property believing he could have animals. Cruz described plans to keep animals for home use — eggs, milk and cheese — and said he was willing to relocate a rooster to address crowing complaints. He said language barriers and confusion with county vs. city zoning partially explain his situation.
Neighbor remonstrances were extensive. Resident Adam Gualtney said the existing, unpermitted livestock operation already “demonstrates the real world consequences we fear,” adding that “manure accumulation is unmanaged creating a risk of storm water contamination and ground water pollution.” Neighbors cited increased flies, coyote sightings, alleged noise and odor impacts, concerns about well‑water contamination because many nearby houses use private wells, and potential impacts on property values.
During deliberations the board discussed precedent and the unusual acreage of the parcel; some members said they were open to a limited variance rather than denial. Board Member Spencer moved to approve the variance with restrictions; the motion as recorded allowed no cattle, a maximum of 10 goats, a maximum of 10 chickens (hens only; no roosters), and a maximum of 2 pigs. The motion attached the petitioner’s findings of fact and directed staff to work with the petitioner on a divestiture timetable for existing animals. The board voted 3–1 (Grubbs yes, Spencer yes, Mrs. Williams no, Mr. Williams yes).
Staff instructed the petitioner to coordinate with municipal development to obtain permits and to show tangible progress removing excess animals; the board indicated enforcement would be complaint‑driven and would consider the petitioner’s cooperation in implementation.
