Signal Mountain considering allowing pygmy goats within town limits

Brenda Smith's pygmy goats, which are kept in a pen behind her home in Soddy-Daisy, gather in her yard in this 2012 file photo. The town of Signal Mountain is considering allowing a limited number of pygmy goats on single-family residential properties of 2 acres or more.
Brenda Smith's pygmy goats, which are kept in a pen behind her home in Soddy-Daisy, gather in her yard in this 2012 file photo. The town of Signal Mountain is considering allowing a limited number of pygmy goats on single-family residential properties of 2 acres or more.

The Signal Mountain Town Council is putting off the final vote on an ordinance that would make changes to the municipal code related to keeping miniature goats within town limits.

The ordinance, which passed unanimously on first reading Oct. 8, was tabled by a 4-1 vote at the council's Nov. 12 meeting, with Councilman Bob Spalding dissenting.

The ordinance says that "small livestock" can be kept on single-family residential properties of 2 acres or more. According to the town's classification, that currently includes only miniature goats no more than 30 inches tall and weighing less than 90 pounds, said Town Manager Boyd Veal.

Owners of 2-acre properties would be allowed to have two miniature goats, and owners of larger properties could have an additional miniature goat per each additional half-acre.

Veal noted that the ordinance also establishes a permit requirement for keeping small livestock on residential estates, as well as a nuisance provision to provide an avenue for the town to revoke the permits of owners of all types of livestock the town allows.

"I'm uncomfortable with the temperature in the room about this," Councilman Dan Landrum said before the scheduled second vote. It was he who suggested tabling the ordinance.

Despite the matter having been discussed in several public meetings of the town's planning commission, Landrum said he was uncomfortable with some citizens' comments that they were not adequately informed of the potential change to the municipal code. Five people, two of whom were from the same household, spoke in opposition to the ordinance at the town council's Oct. 26 work session. Three of them, including those from the same household, returned to speak in opposition at the Nov. 12 meeting, and one person spoke in favor of the ordinance at the same meeting.

A public hearing on the matter is not required because the ordinance does not involve a zoning change, said Veal.

Veal - who is personally interested in having goats on his nearly 4-acre property - said numerous citizens have expressed an interest in keeping goats on their properties. The matter first came before the planning commission at the request of one such citizen, who did not attend the meeting at which it was to be discussed, said Veal.

The town manager asked the planning commission for guidance in drafting the ordinance, which the body reviewed at its September meeting and recommended the council approve.

Concerns of citizens who spoke in opposition to the ordinance at the Oct. 26 work session and the Nov. 12 council meeting included fears that goats in their neighborhoods would attract coyotes, and that the goats' feces would add more harmful E. coli bacteria to the town's already polluted streams. Others didn't want the sounds and smells that come with goats in their backyards.

The ordinance includes a sunset provision that would automatically reverse the ordinance if the council does not take affirmative action before the end of a yet-to-be-determined period. The provision would leave the ordinance in place for at most a year, though the council could set a different time frame should they pass the ordinance on second reading.

The council, which at its next meeting Dec. 10 will include two new members, will decide if and when to hold a second reading of the ordinance. If any significant changes are made, the ordinance would need to pass two readings before becoming law.

Upcoming Events