School asks Monticello to change rule on sheep

School asks Monticello to change rule on sheep

MONTICELLO — Administrators and parents at Metamorphosis Montessori School are urging the city to amend its animal ordinance to allow them to keep two sheep that have been housed at the school since spring.

"At the Montessori school, we use animals as part of the curriculum, so children learn empathy and responsibility from caring for animals," said Cody Sanantonio, administrator of the facility.

But city codes generally do not allow live swine, sheep, goats or cattle within city limits. When the city was informed there were sheep at Montessori, officials told the school they had to go.

In pleading its case at Monday's city council meeting, friend of the school Michael Doerr asked the city to consider amending the ordinance, and to allow the sheep to stay until a firm decision is made.

He pointed to inconsistencies, such as the rule that horses and mules can be kept within 75 feet of the owner's home, while fowl must be at least 75 feet away.

"It's kind of a funny ordinance. It needs to be cleaned up, and we hope it can be amended to allow two sheep for educational purposes," said Doerr.

Sanantonio said the school has had goats at differing times during its 31-year history in town, and thought they were following the rules due to exceptions for educational institutions.

But that exception applies only to "dangerous animals" such as reptiles, and not to livestock.

Superintendent of City Services Floyd Allsop said amending the ordinance will not be simple.

"It's easy to say 'let's look at our animal ordinance,' but it will be difficult once we get into it and start making decisions," he said.

"You have rules. There are all kinds of rules you have to follow. It just so happens this is the only time we are aware of that someone has had sheep within a residential zone," added Allsop.

Council members agreed to allow the sheep to stay at the school while they look at the ordinance, which will be done at a work session Aug. 6. A vote on any amendments could come at the Aug. 13 council meeting.

Comments embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.

Login or register to post comments

Ellen wrote on July 11, 2012 at 8:07 am

Gee, even Mary had a little lamb. =) ..Sorry, I couldn't resist. 

Carbine wrote on July 11, 2012 at 10:07 am

That was baaad.

rsp wrote on July 11, 2012 at 1:07 pm

But that exception applies only to "dangerous animals" such as reptiles, and not to livestock.

So if they wanted to keep dangerous animals it would be okay? Lions, and tigers, and bears? Oh my!

Betty Hayes wrote on July 11, 2012 at 4:07 pm

Couple weeks ago I (Sara Dubson) picked my mom up for a doctors appointment and the sheep were wondering around in a driveway of the house next door. Wonder how many other times they have gotten loose. Could cause an accident. Want to be safe. New stop signs have been put up in that particular neighborhood because residents thought they were needed for safety reasons. Even though there had never been problems. Yield maybe, but stop sign? Just Sayin'


wilsona wrote on July 11, 2012 at 5:07 pm

If the sheep are getting out and potentially causing traffic accidents, then can't we consider them dangerous?  This would, maybe, mean they can keep them.