Journal of the House of Representatives
of the First Session of the 111th General Assembly
of the State of South Carolina
being the Regular Session Beginning Tuesday, January 10, 1995

Page Finder Index

| Printed Page 2990, May 3 | Printed Page 3010, May 3 |

Printed Page 3000 . . . . . Wednesday, May 3, 1995

(1) at least two hundred feet from the center line of public roads;

(2) at least two hundred feet from private potable wells;

(3) at least two hundred feet from public potable wells;

(4) at least two hundred feet from a watercourse of the State;

(5) at least fifty feet from a ditch or swale that may cause a water quality or health problem;

(6) at least one thousand feet from occupied or occupiable residences. As used in this item, `residence' includes, but is not limited to, mobile homes, apartments, condominiums, nursing homes, camps, campgrounds, hotels, motels, or similar places people may live. However, the one thousand feet setback is waived with the consent of the owner of the residence;

(7) when zoning restrictions apply, on property zoned for agricultural uses;

(8) out of the one-hundred-year flood plain.

Section 47-20-20. Waste disposal areas of confined livestock and poultry facilities must be located:

(1) at least two hundred feet from a watercourse of the State;

(2) at least two hundred feet from private potable wells;

(3) at least two hundred feet from public potable wells;

(4) at least one thousand feet from occupied or occupiable residences. As used in this item, `residence' is defined as in Section 47-20-10. The two hundred feet setback is waived with the consent of the owner of the residence. However, the owner may not agree to less than one hundred feet;

(5) at least fifty feet from a ditch or swale that may cause a water quality or health problem;

(6) at least one thousand feet from a public place. As used in this item, `public place' includes schools, churches, and daycare facilities.

(7) when zoning restrictions apply, on property zoned for agricultural uses.

Section 47-20-30. Any agricultural facility or operation that is permitted pursuant to this chapter without receiving a permit from the unit of local government with jurisdiction over the site must post conspicuous signs visible from all public roads abutting the site. The signs must be designed to notify all persons of the nature and presence of the operation or facility, and must display a phone number for complaints to DHEC."/

Renumber section and amend title to conform.

Rep. NEAL explained the amendment.

Rep. RISER moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to.


Printed Page 3001 . . . . . Wednesday, May 3, 1995

Reps. NEAL and ROGERS proposed the following Amendment No. 35, which was tabled.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by deleting SECTION 2 and inserting:

/SECTION 2. Section 46-45-30 of the 1976 Code, as amended by Act 442 of 1990, is further amended to read:

"Section 46-45-30. (A) No established agricultural facility or any agricultural operation at an established agricultural facility is or may become a nuisance, private or public, by any changed conditions in or about the locality of the facility or operation if the facility or operation has been in operation for one year or more. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from the negligent, improper, or illegal operation of an agricultural facility or operation.

Renumber section and amend title to conform.

Rep. NEAL explained the amendment.

Rep. RISER moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to.

Reps. NEAL, ROGERS and HODGES proposed the following Amendment No. 36, which was tabled.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting the following:
/SECTION 1. The 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Chapter 20

Confined Livestock and Poultry Facilities

Section 47-20-10. Production and waste areas of confined livestock and poultry facilities must be located:

(1) at least two hundred feet from the center line of public paved roads;

(2) at least one hundred feet from private potable wells;

(3) at least two hundred feet from public potable wells;

(4) at least one hundred feet from a watercourse of the State;

(5) at least fifty feet from a ditch or swale that may cause a water quality or health problem;

(6) at least one thousand feet from occupied or occupiable residences. As used in this item, `residence' includes, but is not limited to, mobile homes, apartments, condominiums, nursing homes, camps, campgrounds, hotels, motels, or similar places people may live. However, the one thousand feet setback is waived with the consent of the owner of the residence;


Printed Page 3002 . . . . . Wednesday, May 3, 1995

(7) when zoning restrictions apply, on property zoned for agricultural uses;

(8) out of the one-hundred-year flood plain unless protected from flooding.

Section 47-20-20. Waste disposal areas of confined livestock and poultry facilities must be located:

(1) at least one hundred feet from a watercourse of the State;

(2) at least one hundred feet from private potable wells;

(3) at least two hundred feet from public potable wells;

(4) at least two hundred feet from occupied or occupiable residences. As used in this item, `residence' is defined as in Section 47-20-10. The two hundred feet setback is waived with the consent of the owner of the residence. However, the owner may not agree to less than one hundred feet;

(5) at least fifty feet from a ditch or swale that may cause a water quality or health problem;

(6) at least three hundred feet from a public place. As used in this item, `public place' includes schools, churches, and daycare facilities.

(7) when zoning restrictions apply, on property zoned for agricultural uses.

Section 47-20-30. Any agricultural facility or operation that is permitted pursuant to this chapter without receiving a permit from the unit of local government with jurisdiction over the site must post conspicuous signs visible from all public roads abutting the site. The signs must be designed to notify all persons of the nature and presence of the operation or facility, and must display a phone number for complaints to DHEC."

SECTION 2. Section 46-45-30 of the 1976 Code, as amended by Act 442 of 1990, is further amended to read:

"Section 46-45-30. (A) No established agricultural facility or any agricultural operation at an established agricultural facility is or may become a nuisance, private or public, by any changed conditions in or about the locality of the facility or operation if the facility or operation has been in operation for one year or more. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from the negligent, improper, or illegal operation of an agricultural facility or operation.

(B) No proposed agricultural facility or operation may be deemed to be a nuisance, private or public, by any changed conditions in or about the locality of the facility or operation on property unzoned or zoned for agricultural uses."

/SECTION 3. Section 46-45-60 of the 1976 Code, as amended by Act 442 of 1990, is further amended to read:


Printed Page 3003 . . . . . Wednesday, May 3, 1995

"Section 46-45-60. An ordinance of a unit of local government that makes the operation of an agricultural facility or an agricultural operation at an agricultural facility a nuisance or providing for abatement as a nuisance in derogation of this chapter is null and void. If all applicable permit requirements established by state or federal law are met, including the guidelines in Chapter 20 of Title 47, for the operation of an agricultural facility in an area unzoned or zoned for agricultural uses, no permit required for establishing or operating the facility may be suspended, denied, or revoked by enforcement of a local ordinance. However, the prohibition does not apply to ordinances of a unit of local government that require the installation of bufferyards and screening. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from the negligent, illegal, or improper operation of an agricultural facility. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from an agricultural facility or agricultural operation at an agricultural facility located within the corporate limits of a city."

SECTION 4. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./

Renumber section and amend title to conform.

Rep. NEAL explained the amendment.

Rep. RISER moved to table the amendment.

Rep. NEAL demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:

Yeas 54; Nays 43

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Allison          Bailey           Boan
Brown, H.        Carnell          Chamblee
Cotty            Dantzler         Delleney
Easterday        Fair             Fleming
Fulmer           Gamble           Harrell
Harrison         Keegan           Kelley
Kinon            Knotts           Koon
Law              Limehouse        Marchbanks
Mason            McAbee           McCraw
Meacham          Phillips         Quinn
Rice             Riser            Robinson
Seithel          Sharpe           Sheheen
Simrill          Smith, D.        Smith, R.
Spearman         Stoddard         Tripp


Printed Page 3004 . . . . . Wednesday, May 3, 1995

Trotter          Vaughn           Waldrop
Walker           Wells            Wilder
Wilkins          Witherspoon      Wofford
Worley           Wright           Young, A.

Total--54

Those who voted in the negative are:

Anderson         Baxley           Breeland
Brown, G.        Brown, J.        Byrd
Cain             Cobb-Hunter      Cooper
Cromer           Govan            Hallman
Harris, J.       Harvin           Herdklotz
Hines            Hodges           Howard
Hutson           Jennings         Kennedy
Keyserling       Kirsh            Lanford
Limbaugh         Littlejohn       Lloyd
McMahand         McTeer           Moody-Lawrence
Neal             Neilson          Richardson
Rogers           Sandifer         Scott
Shissias         Stille           Thomas
Tucker           Whipper, L.      Whipper, S.
Williams

Total--43

So, the amendment was tabled.

Reps. HODGES, NEAL and ROGERS proposed the following Amendment No. 37, which was tabled.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding the following to SECTION 1, to read as follows; and deleting SECTION 3 and inserting:

/I. The following is added to SECTION 1:

"Section 47-20-30. Any proposed agricultural facility or operation permitted pursuant to the provisions of this chapter without receiving a permit from the unit of local government with jurisdiction over the site shall only be located in an area of the State with a population density of less than ten persons per square mile."

II. Delete SECTION 3 and insert the following:

SECTION 3. Section 46-45-60 of the 1976 Code, as amended by Act 442 of 1990, is further amended to read:


Printed Page 3005 . . . . . Wednesday, May 3, 1995

"Section 46-45-60. (A) An ordinance of a unit of local government that makes the operation of an agricultural facility or an agricultural operation at an agricultural facility an nuisance or providing for abatement as a nuisance in derogation of this chapter is null and void. If all applicable permit requirements established by state or federal law are met, including the guidelines in Chapter 20 of Title 47, for the operation of an agricultural facility in an area unzoned or zoned for agricultural usis, no permit required for establishing or operating the facility may be suspended, denied, or revoked by enforcement of a local ordinance. However, this prohibition does not apply to ordinances of a unit of local government that require the installation of bufferyards and screening, and greater setback requirements than provided for in Title 47, Chapter 20 of the Code. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results from the negligent, illegal, or improper operation of an agricultural facility. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results form an agricultural facility or agricultural operation at an agricultural facility located within the corporate limits of a city./

Renumber section and amend title to conform.

Rep. HODGES explained the amendment.

Rep. RISER moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to.

Reps. HODGES and ROGERS proposed the following Amendment No. 38, which was tabled.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking Section 3 and inserting the following:

/SECTION 3. Section 46-45-60 of the 1976 Code, as amended by Act 442 of 1990, is further amended to read:

"Section 46-45-60. (A) An ordinance of a unit of local government that makes the operation of an agricultural facility or an agricultural operation at an agricultural facility a nuisance or providing for abatement as a nuisance in derogation of this chapter is null and void. If all applicable permit requirements established by state or federal law are met, including the guidelines in Chapter 20 of Title 47, for the operation of an agricultural facility in an area unzoned or zoned for agricultural uses, no permit required for establishing or operating the facility may be suspended, denied, or revoked by enforcement of a local ordinance. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results form the negligent, illegal, or improper operation of an agricultural facility. The provisions of this section do not apply whenever a nuisance results


Printed Page 3006 . . . . . Wednesday, May 3, 1995

from an agricultural facility or agricultural operation at an agricultural facility located within the corporate limits of a city.

(B) The exemption form an ordinance of a unit of local government contained in this section only applies to agricultural facilities or operations that are supplying agricultural products for processing to corporations or entities that have at least ninety-five percent or more South Carolina ownership as certified by the Secretary of State."/

Renumber section and amend title to conform.

Rep. HODGES moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to.

Rep. RICHARDSON proposed the following Amendment No. 39, which was tabled.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding Section 4 on line 12, page 3, which states that "a County without zoning requirements which has a written appeal process for the Planning Committee of the County, including community input on effects of proposed development shall be exempt from this act. The written appeal process shall be uniform throughout South Carolina for all counties lacking required zoning.

Rep. RICHARDSON explained the amendment.

Rep. RISER moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to.

AMENDMENT NO. 7--TABLED

Debate was resumed on Amendment No. 7 by Rep. NEAL.

Rep. NEAL explained the amendment.

Rep. RISER moved to table the amendment.

Rep. ROGERS demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:

Yeas 50; Nays 47

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Bailey           Brown, H.        Carnell
Cato             Chamblee         Dantzler
Delleney         Easterday        Fair
Fleming          Fulmer           Gamble
Harrell          Haskins          Huff
Keegan           Kelley           Kinon
Knotts           Koon             Law


Printed Page 3007 . . . . . Wednesday, May 3, 1995

Limehouse        Marchbanks       Mason
McAbee           McCraw           Meacham
Phillips         Quinn            Rice
Riser            Robinson         Seithel
Sharpe           Sheheen          Smith, D.
Smith, R.        Spearman         Stoddard
Townsend         Tripp            Trotter
Vaughn           Waldrop          Walker
Wells            Wilkins          Witherspoon
Wofford          Young, A.

Total--50

Those who voted in the negative are:

Anderson         Baxley           Breeland
Brown, G.        Brown, J.        Byrd
Cain             Cave             Cobb-Hunter
Cooper           Cotty            Cromer
Govan            Hallman          Harris, J.
Harvin           Herdklotz        Hines
Hodges           Howard           Hutson
Jennings         Kennedy          Keyserling
Kirsh            Lanford          Limbaugh
Littlejohn       Lloyd            Martin
McMahand         McTeer           Neal
Neilson          Richardson       Rogers
Sandifer         Scott            Shissias
Simrill          Thomas           Tucker
Whipper, L.      Whipper, S.      White
Wilder           Wright

Total--47

So, the amendment was tabled.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

The SPEAKER granted Rep. G. BROWN a leave of absence.

Reps. ROGERS and NEAL spoke against the Bill.


Printed Page 3008 . . . . . Wednesday, May 3, 1995

The question then recurred to the passage of the Bill on second reading, as amended.

Pursuant to Rule 7.7 the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Yeas 59; Nays 36

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Allison          Bailey           Brown, H.
Carnell          Cato             Cave
Chamblee         Clyburn          Cotty
Dantzler         Delleney         Easterday
Fair             Fleming          Fulmer
Gamble           Hallman          Harrell
Harrison         Harvin           Huff
Hutson           Keegan           Kelley
Kennedy          Kinon            Knotts
Koon             Lanford          Limehouse
Marchbanks       Mason            McAbee
McCraw           Meacham          Phillips
Rice             Riser            Robinson
Sandifer         Seithel          Sharpe
Sheheen          Simrill          Smith, D.
Smith, R.        Spearman         Tripp
Trotter          Vaughn           Waldrop
Walker           Wells            Wilder
Wilkins          Witherspoon      Wofford
Wright           Young, A.

Total--59

Those who voted in the negative are:

Anderson         Baxley           Boan
Breeland         Brown, J.        Brown, T.
Byrd             Cain             Cobb-Hunter
Cromer           Govan            Harris, J.
Herdklotz        Hines            Howard
Jennings         Keyserling       Kirsh
Limbaugh         Littlejohn       Lloyd
Martin           McTeer           Moody-Lawrence
Neal             Neilson          Richardson
Rogers           Scott            Shissias


Printed Page 3009 . . . . . Wednesday, May 3, 1995

Stille           Thomas           Townsend
Tucker           Whipper, L.      Whipper, S.

Total--36

So, the Bill, as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.

Rep. BAXLEY moved that the House do now adjourn.

Rep. WOFFORD demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:

Yeas 41; Nays 53

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Anderson         Baxley           Boan
Breeland         Byrd             Carnell
Cave             Chamblee         Clyburn
Cobb-Hunter      Delleney         Fulmer
Govan            Hallman          Harvin
Hines            Howard           Jennings
Kennedy          Keyserling       Kinon
Kirsh            Lloyd            Martin
McAbee           McCraw           McMahand
McTeer           Moody-Lawrence   Neal
Neilson          Phillips         Richardson
Rogers           Scott            Sheheen
Spearman         Stille           Tucker
Whipper, L.      Whipper, S.

Total--41

Those who voted in the negative are:

Allison          Bailey           Brown, H.
Cain             Cato             Cooper
Cotty            Cromer           Dantzler
Easterday        Fair             Fleming
Gamble           Harrell          Harrison
Herdklotz        Hodges           Huff
Hutson           Keegan           Kelley
Knotts           Koon             Law


Printed Page 3010 . . . . . Wednesday, May 3, 1995

Limbaugh         Limehouse        Littlejohn
Marchbanks       Mason            Meacham
Rice             Riser            Robinson
Sandifer         Seithel          Sharpe
Shissias         Simrill          Smith, D.
Smith, R.        Townsend         Tripp
Trotter          Vaughn           Waldrop
Walker           Wells            Wilder
Wilkins          Witherspoon      Wofford
Wright           Young, A.

Total--53

So, the House refused to adjourn.


| Printed Page 2990, May 3 | Printed Page 3010, May 3 |

Page Finder Index