Even after a compromise, even after a change on a re-done final reading, even after seeing images of horses hurt by fireworks, members of the Laurens County Council deadlocked, again, on a fireworks-specific ordinance advanced by farmers and ranchers in Northern Laurens County.
For most of last year, the Council debated and considered various forms of the proposed ordinance. One more-restrictive form was struck down on first reading. One form made it all the way to final reading, before fireworks and residential property rights proponents succeeded in striking it down. The latest form passed Council on a 3-2-1-1 vote, then a few minutes later was struck down on a 3-3 vote (a tie means the ordinance fails).
Then, last Monday night, the Council rescinded last month’s vote, and voted again - with the same result. Last month, Council Member Brown Patterson was absent, so the ordinance failed 3-3. On Monday, Council Member Justin Lane was absent, so the ordinance failed 3-3.
That’s despite 4 citizens speaking in favor of fireworks restrictions around farms and ranches, especially in the fast-growing residential areas north of Laurens and south of Fountain Inn.
Fireworks ordinance proponent, and horses owner, Nancy Garrison gave one last impassioned plea for the ordinance that she first proposed to Council.
She said of her horses - spooked into flight-mode by fireworks fired onto her and others’ property - “They become our partners. I want to protect them all.”
Compromises had been made to the ordinance as a result of meetings of the criminal justice and public safety committee, chaired by Council Vice-chairman Matthew Brownlee.
One recommendation was to add a section restricting fireworks in a 1,000-foot area from the boundary of a residential subdivision. Patterson objected to that language because, he said, there was nothing in the ordinance defining what a “residential subdivision” is.
Council Chairman Jeff Carroll, who wanted the ordinance to pass, recommended a compromise - removing that 1,000-foot restriction.
The ordinance motion, overall, still failed.
“I’m disappointed we could not accomplish something with fireworks (restrictions near farms and ranches). It was narrowly tailored to a specific concern, but the vote is the vote,” Carroll said later during the council comments time.
Carroll, and council members Shirley Clark and Kemp Younts voted “yes” on the proposed ordinance, as amended.
Brownlee, Patterson and council member Arthur Philson Jr. voted “no” on the proposed ordinance. Lane was absent.
Brownlee made the suggestion that the council’s February vote on the ordinance be rescinded. During that vote, at first, Carroll, Clark and Younts voted “yes”; Brownlee and Lane voted “no”; Philson did not vote, and Patterson was absent.
Carroll said the motion passed 3-2; but then he changed his mind. Philson said he needed more explanation; County Attorney Wes Meetze authorized that additional information; and Philson came over from the “not voting” side to the “no” side.
Brownlee indicated in a letter to the council and county staff that an attorney for a group that Garrison and others have formed — Laurens Residents for Quality Rural Living LLC - sent a letter asking why the fireworks-specific ordinance had “failed” when the vote was 3-2 (with 1 not voting and 1 absent) in favor.
To clean up the situation, another vote was set at the March 10 meeting.
Carroll agreed with Patterson when Patterson said this would be “the final vote.” Despite the fact that this was another 3rd reading, another public hearing was not conducted - since that was conducted last month.
Council members opposed to the ordinance say it is a property-rights issue, but Younts said the farmers and ranchers were the only ones in this debate who have “made concessions.”
“People with horses are the only ones who have given (concessions)?” he asked.
“Yes,” Carroll said.
Proponents of the fireworks-specific ordinance had told council that the Laurens County Sheriff’s Office has no local law that allows it to take action on July 4th and New Year’s when people in subdivisions shoot their fireworks over fences, tree-lines, or rural roads onto farms and ranches.
Opponents of the ordinance said a state statute already is in place, allowing property owners to declare their land a “fireworks-prohibited zone.” The local ordinance was an attempt to build on that state law to give local authorities more jurisdiction to act and to give farmers and ranchers more protection, if they want it.
Later, in council comments, Brownlee said he is a proponent of limited government, and is in favor of protecting agriculture. The new, much-debated ordinance is “not the right mechanism” to afford that protection, he said (this debate went on so long in 2024-25 that 3 council seats changed occupants - Philson replaced Diane Anderson, Lane replaced David Tribble, and Brownlee replaced Luke Rankin on the council).
During the ordinance’s latest discussion, Younts said, “We are giving the people who own the farms a chance to protect their property.”
And Carroll agreed, “What we heard from our constituents, and it echoes my thoughts, we need some protections when people are affected by neighbors; this doesn’t prevent anybody from doing anything - it impacts people who are impacting people with their fireworks. It is not prohibiting fireworks. People who choose to put their land in a fireworks-free zone can petition for an additional 300 ft from a fence line. If they have actively pastured livestock, they can petition the county for 300 ft - they can request 1,000 if they can prove 300 ft is not sufficient.”
Garrison said, “Since 2010, fireworks have been responsible for hundreds of horse injuries in the United States. These include anxiety, cuts, sprains, broken limbs; more than 360 horses have been killed or injured in fireworks incidents. Horses run when they are frightened, and that flight reaction can be destructive to them. … Horses are flight animals, they remove themselves (from danger). People say, ‘my property, my rights’ - we feel the same way looking out for the agricultural community.”
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety recommends that Ordinance No, 976 be amended from 2nd Reading as follows:
1. Amend Section III to define Livestock as:
Livestock is defined as cattle, sheep, horses, goats, and other domestic animals ordinarily raised and used on a farm.
2. Amend Section IV as follows:
i. Amend Subsection A to read as follows:
A. In a “Fireworks Prohibited Zone” as defined by S.C. Code 23-35-175 and, if applicable, within 300 feet of a Livestock housing facility or a fenced area actively containing Livestock located within a Fireworks Prohibited Zone and any adjoining public property to which the local governing body has extended the Fireworks Prohibited Zone . If a person seeks to use fireworks in a Fireworks Prohibited Zone and, if applicable, at a distance less than 300 feet away from a Livestock housing facility or fenced area actively confining Livestock located within a “Fireworks Prohibited Zone”, the user of the fireworks must seek express permission of the owner or entity that controls the property at least 72 hours in advance. The Discharge of Fireworks Prohibited Agreement attached as Exhibit A is approved and adopted for use by the Laurens County Sheriff’s Department.
ii. Amend to add a new Subsection A(i) to read as follows:
(i). In the event a resident is able to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Livestock suffered actual harm by the discharge of Fireworks further than 300 feet of a “Fireworks Prohibited Zone”, the resident may petition Laurens County Council to extend the “Fireworks Prohibited Zone” to within 1000 feet of a Livestock housing facility or a fenced area actively containing Livestock located within a “Fireworks Prohibited Zone”.
iii. Amend to add a new Subsection B to read as follows:
B. Within 1000 feet from the perimeter of a Residential Housing
Development.
3. Amend Section V to read as follows:
Any person who uses or discharges any fireworks within the unincorporated area of Laurens County and who fails to comply with the provisions of Article IV shall be deemed guilty of an infraction and is punishable by a civil penalty as provided in the Laurens County Uniform Fee and Fine Schedule Ordinance.
Committee Comment: The Committee recommends the following civil penalties:
a. warning/ no fine for a 1st offense;
b. up to $500 for a 2nd offense;
c. up to $750 for a 3rd offense.
