The URL can be used to link to this page

Economic Development Packet 2020 09-01-20 AGENDA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Tuesday, September 1, 2020 6:00 p.m. City Hall Conference Room 800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville, IL Citizen Comments: Minutes for Correction/Approval: August 4, 2020 New Business: 1. EDC 2020-38 Building Permit Report for July 2020 2. EDC 2020-39 Building Inspection Report for July 2020 3. EDC 2020-40 Property Maintenance Report for July 2020 4. EDC 2020-41 Economic Development Report for August 2020 5. EDC 2020-42 Limited Manufacturing Uses in Residential Districts Old Business: 1. EDC 2020-32 Urban Chickens Additional Business: 2019/2020 City Council Goals – Economic Development Committee Goal Priority Staff “Southside Development” 4 Bart Olson, Krysti Barksdale-Noble & Lynn Dubajic “Downtown and Riverfront Development” 5 Bart Olson, Tim Evans & Krysti Barksdale-Noble “Metra Extension” 7 Bart Olson, Rob Fredrickson, Eric Dhuse, Krysti Barksdale-Noble & Erin Willrett “Manufacturing and Industrial Development” 8 (tie) Bart Olson, Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Erin Willrett, Lynn Dubajic, Eric Dhuse & Brad Sanderson “Expand Economic Development Efforts” 10 Krysti Barksdale-Noble & Lynn Dubajic “Revenue Growth” 13 Rob Fredrickson, Krysti Barksdale-Noble & Lynn Dubajic “Entrance Signage” 17 Krysti Barksdale-Noble & Erin Willrett United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 www.yorkville.il.us UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WORKSHEET ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Tuesday, September 1, 2020 6:00 PM CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CITIZEN COMMENTS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MINUTES FOR CORRECTION/APPROVAL: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. August 4, 2020 □ Approved __________ □ As presented □ With corrections --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NEW BUSINESS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. EDC 2020-38 Building Permit Report for July 2020 □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. EDC 2020-39 Building Inspection Report for July 2020 □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. EDC 2020-40 Property Maintenance Report for July 2020 □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. EDC 2020-41 Economic Development Report for August 2020 □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. EDC 2020-42 Limited Manufacturing Uses in Residential Districts □ Moved forward to CC __________ □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OLD BUSINESS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ADM 2020-32 Urban Chickens □ Moved forward to CC __________ □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Human Resources Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number Minutes Tracking Number Minutes of the Economic Development Committee – August 4, 2020 Economic Development Committee – September 1, 2020 Majority Committee Approval Minute Taker Name Department Page 1 of 2 DRAFT UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Tuesday, August 4, 2020, 6:00pm City Council Chambers Note: In accordance with Public Act 101-0640 and Gubernatorial Disaster Proclamation issued by Governor Pritzker pursuant to the powers vested in the Governor under the Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act, remote attendance was allowed for this meeting to encourage social distancing due to the current Covid-19 pandemic. In Attendance: Committee Members Chairman Jackie Milschewski/remote Alderman Ken Koch/remote (6:04pm) Alderman Jason Peterson/in-person Alderman Joel Frieders/remote Other City Officials City Administrator Bart Olson/in-person Assistant City Administrator Erin Willrett/remote Community Development Director Krysti Barksdale-Noble/remote Senior Planner Jason Engberg/remote Other Guests Consultant Lynn Dubajic/remote Dave Pollock, Hillside Rehabilitation/remote The meeting was called to order at 6:01pm by Chairman Jackie Milschewski. Citizen Comments None Minutes for Correction/Approval July 7, 2020 The minutes were approved by a unanimous voice vote. New Business 1. EDC 2020-33 Building Permit Report for June 2020 Ms. Noble said there were 18 single family home permits and the trend is on pace for next month. She compared the number of permits with the past couple years. No further discussion. 2. EDC 2020-34 Building Inspection Report for June 2020 There were 550 inspections done in June with none being outsourced. Of those, 90% were done by the Building Department and 10% by EEI with most for new construction. No further discussion. Page 2 of 2 3. EDC 2020-35 Property Maintenance Report for June 2020 Five cases were heard in June with 4 being dismissed due to compliance and 1 was found liable. Ms. Milschewski mentioned a vacant house/property on Heustis St. which has been tagged for a second mowing. 4. EDC 2020-36 Economic Development Report for July 2020 Ms. Dubajic highlighted the following: 1. All new builds are proceeding. Popeyes should open in September with Verizon and Smoothie King after. The fitness center will also continue their project. 2. Cocina Madre is scheduled to open later this week. 3. Manpower will have a new office. 4. Five businesses were eligible for Childcare Restoration Credit Program grants and all received awards. 5. There has been no word on the downstate Stabilization Program. 6. Raging Waves and Gas n Wash have opened. Alderman Peterson asked about the status of ribbon-cutting for new businesses. One was held recently and they are trying to hold them outside. They are organized by the Chamber. Ms. Willrett said she reports on them in the Admin Weekly report. 5. EDC 2020-37 Hillside Rehabilitation – Sign Variance Mr. Engberg reported on the background of this request for Hillside Rehab Center and Mr. Dave Pollock was present on their behalf. The sign variance request is due to the recent Rt. 34 widening and is for a new requested location near Game Farm Road and Rte. 34. The sign meets all criteria except height. The actual sign is 6.5 feet, and the city ordinance allows for a maximum of 12 feet. There is a large topography difference at the proposed location and the request is for 23 feet, 6 inches. Alderman Frieders said the city needs to support the existing businesses and voiced his approval. Mr. Pollock noted that existing spotlights may be repositioned to illuminate the sign. The committee was OK with this request and this matter will proceed to PZC for a Public Hearing on September 9. Old Business: None Additional Business: Alderman Koch asked for an update on the lumber mill property. Ms. Noble said she will get this information and respond promptly. Ms. Milschewski asked for accelerated action on this property and she noted an unidentified change on the west side of the building. There was no further business and the meeting adjourned at 6:14pm. Minutes respectfully submitted by Marlys Young, Minute Taker/remote Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Human Resources Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number New Business #1 Tracking Number EDC 2020-38 Building Permit Report for July 2020 Economic Development Committee – September 1, 2020 N/A N/A N/A Informational None All permits issued in July 2020 D. Weinert Community Development Name Department C:\Users\lpickering\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\06PP9550\July 2020.doc Prepared by D Weinert UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE BUILDING PERMIT REPORT JULY 2020 TYPES OF PERMITS Number of Permits Issued SFD Single Family Detached B.U.I.L.D Single Family Detached Program Begins 1/1/2012 SFA Single Family Attached Multi- Family Apartments Condominiums Commercial Includes all Permits Issued for Commercial Use Industrial Misc. Construction Cost Permit Fees July 2020 204 24 0 8 0 14 0 158 6,296,223.00 207,609.60 Calendar Year 2020 1052 89 0 26 0 58 0 879 26,594,990.00 908,034.56 Fiscal Year 2021 666 44 0 22 0 18 0 582 14,896,478.00 440,572.99 July 2019 380 18 0 0 0 9 0 353 7,000,146.00 203,800.08 Calendar Year 2019 1030 92 0 10 0 71 0 857 31,153,024.00 1,154,308.81 Fiscal Year 2020 749 44 0 5 0 28 0 672 14,309,478.00 546,279.09 July 2018 104 19 0 0 0 10 0 75 3,920,993.00 163,603.44 Calendar Year 2018 649 109 14 36 0 89 0 401 35,211,354.00 1,685,260.59 Fiscal Year 2019 341 67 0 0 0 33 0 241 18,846,162.00 594,515.93 July 2017 99 4 5 0 0 10 0 80 9,822,020.00 144,687.19 Calendar Year 2017 553 31 54 0 0 83 0 385 42,786,519.00 1,527,090.03 Fiscal Year 2018 320 15 26 0 0 39 0 240 32,193,175.00 937,880.50 Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Human Resources Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number New Business #2 Tracking Number EDC 2020-39 Building Inspection Report for July 2020 Economic Development Committee – September 1, 2020 N/A N/A N/A Informational None All inspections scheduled in July 2020 D. Weinert Community Development Name Department DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 1DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 1TIME: 14:02:01 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2020 TO 07/31/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PR _____ 003-CMR COMP ROUGH, FRM, ELE, MCH 20180021 407 COLTON ST 1 07/15/2020 Comments1: PHOTOS VERIFIED BY PRPR _____ 004-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 07/15/2020 Comments1: PHOTOS VERIFIED BY PREEI _____ 018-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20180738 3101 LAUREN DR 93 07/14/2020EEI _____ 019-REI REINSPECTION 20180958 2401 ANNA MARIA LN 703 07/07/2020EEI _____ 016-REI REINSPECTION 20180963 2461 ANNA MARIA LN 708 07/07/2020PR _____ 017-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/13/2020PR _____ 018-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 07/13/2020PR _____ 002-CMR COMP ROUGH, FRM, ELE, MCH 20190113 542 WINDETT RIDGE RD 170 07/02/2020BC _____ 003-INS INSULATION 07/07/2020BC _____ 007-WKS PUBLIC & SERVICE WALKS 20190133 3112 LAUREN DR 108 07/20/2020PR _____ 008-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 07/02/2020BC _____ 003-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20190182 2411 ALAN DALE LN 134 07/24/2020PR _____ 010-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20190317 2681 PATRIOT CT 225 07/31/2020PR _____ 011-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 07/31/2020EEI _____ 012-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 07/28/2020BC _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20190644 4248 E MILLBROOK CIR 284 07/22/2020BC _____ 018-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20190920 2824 OWEN CT 173 07/31/2020PR _____ 024-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20191448 4100 N BRIDGE ST RET 07/13/2020 Comments1: LENNY'S PRE FINAL INSPECTIONPR _____ 025-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 07/13/2020PR _____ 001-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20191650 103 E COUNTRYSIDE PKWY 43 07/01/2020BC _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/28/2020GH _____ 004-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20191802 1131 BLACKBERRY SHORE LN 47 07/08/2020PR _____ 013-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20191864 1111 BLACKBERRY SHORE LN 45 07/22/2020 DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 2DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 2TIME: 14:02:01 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2020 TO 07/31/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PR _____ 014-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 07/22/2020PR _____ 009-CMR COMP ROUGH, FRM, ELE, MCH 20192092 1111 GOLDFINCH AVE 298 07/16/2020PR _____ 010-INS INSULATION 07/20/2020PR _____ 009-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20192093 1113 GOLDFINCH AVE 298-2 07/21/2020PR _____ 010-INS INSULATION 07/23/2020PR _____ 011-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 07/21/2020PR _____ 012-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 07/21/2020PR _____ 013-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 07/21/2020PR _____ 009-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20192094 1115 GOLDFINCH AVE 298-3 07/28/2020PR _____ 010-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 07/28/2020PR _____ 011-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 07/28/2020PR _____ 012-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 07/28/2020BC _____ 013-INS INSULATION 07/30/2020PR _____ 009-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20192095 1117 GOLDFINCH AVE 298-4 07/30/2020PR _____ 010-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 07/30/2020PR _____ 011-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 07/30/2020PR _____ 012-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 07/30/2020EEI _____ 013-REI REINSPECTION 20192097 1885 WREN RD 2902 07/14/2020BC _____ 014-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20192100 1121 GOLDFINCH AVE 2971 07/20/2020BC _____ 011-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20192101 1123 GOLDFINCH AVE 2972 07/20/2020PR _____ 009-CMR COMP ROUGH, FRM, ELE, MCH 20192102 1125 GOLDFINCH AVE 2973 07/01/2020BC _____ 010-INS INSULATION 07/06/2020BC _____ 011-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 07/20/2020PR _____ 009-CMR COMP ROUGH, FRM, ELE, MCH 20192103 1127 GOLDFINCH AVE 2974 07/02/2020 DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 3DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 3TIME: 14:02:01 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2020 TO 07/31/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ 010-INS INSULATION 07/08/2020BC _____ 011-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 07/20/2020EEI _____ 012-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20192106 3182 MATLOCK DR 664 07/07/2020EEI _____ 013-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20192107 3020 JUSTICE DR 631 07/07/2020BF _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20192122 508 SHADOW WOOD DR 101 07/09/2020 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175BC _____ 002-FOU FOUNDATION 07/10/2020PR _____ PM 003-BKF BACKFILL 07/15/2020PR _____ PM 004-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 07/17/2020PR _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 07/22/2020BC _____ AM 006-STP STOOP 07/24/2020BC _____ 007-BG BASEMENT AND GARAGE FLOOR 07/22/2020PR _____ 013-CMR COMP ROUGH, FRM, ELE, MCH 20192170 866 EDWARD LN 1A 07/13/2020PR _____ 014-ELS ELECTRIC SERVICE 07/15/2020PR _____ 017-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 07/13/2020PR _____ 018-INS INSULATION 07/17/2020BC _____ AM 019-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 07/30/2020GH _____ 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20192191 405 W CENTER ST 07/24/2020BC _____ 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20192193 211 WINDHAM CIR 50 07/06/2020BC _____ 008-STP STOOP 20192211 2010 SQUIRE CIR 200 07/01/2020 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175PR _____ 009-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 07/17/2020PR _____ 010-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 07/17/2020PR _____ 011-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 07/17/2020PR _____ 012-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 07/17/2020 DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 4DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 4TIME: 14:02:01 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2020 TO 07/31/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BF _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200017 110 E PARK ST 19 07/08/2020 Comments1: SUNRUN 224-301-3055 SOLAR INSTALLBF _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20200022 2689 PATRIOT CT 227 07/08/2020 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175BC _____ 002-FOU FOUNDATION 07/09/2020BC _____ AM 003-BKF BACKFILL 07/13/2020PR _____ PM 004-WAT WATER 07/15/2020PR _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 07/21/2020PR _____ 006-BG BASEMENT AND GARAGE FLOOR 07/21/2020EEI _____ 020-REI REINSPECTION 20200024 512 SHADOW WOOD DR 100 07/22/2020PR _____ 001-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20200031 109 BEAVER ST 07/24/2020PR _____ 002-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 07/24/2020PR _____ PM 003-ABC ABOVE CEILING 07/29/2020PR _____ 004-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/31/2020PR 11:00 002-REI REINSPECTION 20200068 1145 N BRIDGE ST 07/21/2020 Comments1: FINAL OCCUPANCYPR _____ AM 007-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200086 234 E VETERANS PKWY 1 07/31/2020PR _____ 008-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 07/31/2020BC _____ PM 007-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20200094 2005 MARKETVIEW DR 4 07/06/2020BF _____ AM 008-ABC ABOVE CEILING 07/08/2020 Comments1: POPEYES, JOHN 708-370-4619 MECHANICALBC _____ 009-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 07/10/2020 Comments1: JOHN 630-688-4443PR 08:00 010-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 07/13/2020BC _____ 011-INS INSULATION 07/10/2020BC _____ 012-TRN TRENCH - (GAS, ELECTRIC, 07/10/2020 Comments1: TRENCH FOR LIGHTS DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 5DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 5TIME: 14:02:01 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2020 TO 07/31/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PR _____ PM 013-ABC ABOVE CEILING 07/28/2020 Comments1: BLACK IRON WELDING ABOVE HOODPR _____ AM 014-ELS ELECTRIC SERVICE 07/30/2020BC _____ 015-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 07/31/2020 Comments1: SERVICE WALKPR _____ 007-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20200098 2088 SQUIRE CIR 179 07/01/2020PR _____ 008-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 07/01/2020PR _____ 009-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 07/01/2020PR _____ 010-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 07/01/2020BC _____ 011-INS INSULATION 07/06/2020BC _____ 012-WKS PUBLIC & SERVICE WALKS 07/15/2020PR _____ 011-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200100 2796 GAINS CT 185 07/01/2020PR _____ 012-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 07/01/2020GH _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200103 601 SUTTON ST 160 07/31/2020BC _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20200119 2042 SQUIRE CIR 193 07/15/2020BC _____ 002-FOU FOUNDATION 07/17/2020PR _____ PM 003-WAT WATER 07/22/2020PR _____ 004-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 07/28/2020BC _____ 005-BKF BACKFILL 07/21/2020BC _____ 006-BGS BASEMENT GARAGE STOOPS 07/29/2020BC _____ 003-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200122 1121 CARLY DR 41 07/01/2020PR _____ 011-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 20200129 2176 HARTFIELD AVE 425 07/28/2020PR _____ 012-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/28/2020EEI _____ 013-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 07/28/2020 Comments1: PUBLIC WALK 1 SQUARE CRACKED. CAN'T KEY Comments2: BBOX. REINSPECTIONS REQUIRED. DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 6DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 6TIME: 14:02:01 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2020 TO 07/31/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------EEI _____ 014-REI REINSPECTION 07/31/2020EEI _____ 015-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20200145 2491 ANNA MARIA LN 711 07/07/2020PR _____ 016-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 07/23/2020PR _____ 017-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/23/2020PR _____ PM 013-SUM SUMP 20200154 2077 HEARTHSTONE AVE 346 07/27/2020BC _____ 006-STP STOOP 20200155 2135 BLUEBIRD LN 235-2 07/16/2020PR _____ 007-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 07/22/2020BF _____ 008-INS INSULATION 07/24/2020 Comments1: RICH 224-358-6669PR _____ 011-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 07/22/2020BC _____ 006-STP STOOP 20200156 2137 BLUEBIRD LN 235-1 07/16/2020PR _____ 007-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 07/21/2020BC _____ 008-INS INSULATION 07/23/2020PR _____ 009-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 07/21/2020PR _____ 010-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 07/21/2020PR _____ 011-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 07/21/2020PR _____ 008-INS INSULATION 20200157 2125 BLUEBIRD LN 234-1 07/01/2020BC _____ AM 009-STP STOOP 07/16/2020PR _____ 011-INS INSULATION 20200158 2123 BLUEBIRD LN 234-2 07/02/2020BC _____ AM 012-STP STOOP 07/16/2020BC _____ AM 010-WKS PUBLIC & SERVICE WALKS 20200171 3152 LAUREN DR 112 07/02/2020PR _____ 011-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/29/2020PR _____ 012-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 07/29/2020EEI _____ 013-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 07/29/2020PR _____ 010-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200172 2046 SQUIRE CIR 192 07/17/2020 DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 7DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 7TIME: 14:02:01 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2020 TO 07/31/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PR _____ 011-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 07/17/2020EEI _____ 012-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 07/17/2020PR _____ 013-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200173 2685 PATRIOT CT 226 07/23/2020PR _____ 014-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 07/23/2020EEI _____ 015-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 07/23/2020PR _____ AM 007-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 20200174 1032 S CARLY CIR 115 07/02/2020BC _____ PM 008-FEM ROUGH FRM, ELE, MECH 07/06/2020 Comments1: SEE INSPECTION TICKET, TOO MANY ITEMS TO Comments2: LISTBC _____ 009-REI REINSPECTION 07/13/2020 Comments1: ROUGH FRAMING CHECK STAIRS AT INSUL INSPBC _____ 010-INS INSULATION 07/20/2020 Comments1: ENTRANCE DOOR NOT SEALED, SOME PENETRATI Comments2: ONS NOT SEALED, SEVERAL AIR LEAKS AT CEI Comments3: LINGBC _____ AM 011-REI REINSPECTION 07/28/2020PR _____ 009-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20200180 1161 BLACKBERRY SHORE LN 50 07/29/2020BC _____ 002-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20200206 1468 SLATE CT 343 07/09/2020 Comments1: PATIO AND WALKS POURED 3 DAYS BEFORE INS Comments2: PECTION SCHEDULEDGH _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200223 103 E COUNTRYSIDE PKWY 43 07/28/2020 Comments1: POD & RIDGE VENTS - SPOKE TO OWNER, HE A Comments2: DDED RIDGE VENTS WHEN ROOF WAS DONE, EXP Comments3: LAINED HE MAY HAVE PROBLEMS WITH TOO MUC Comments4: H ROOF VENTILATIONPR _____ 007-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20200224 3247 BOOMBAH BLVD 141 07/01/2020BC _____ 008-BG BASEMENT AND GARAGE FLOOR 07/01/2020 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175BC _____ 009-STP STOOP 07/01/2020PR _____ 010-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 07/27/2020BC _____ 011-INS INSULATION 07/29/2020 DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 8DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 8TIME: 14:02:01 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2020 TO 07/31/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ 011-WKS PUBLIC & SERVICE WALKS 20200242 2068 SQUIRE CIR 185 07/01/2020 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175BC _____ 012-STP STOOP 07/01/2020BC _____ 013-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 07/09/2020 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175PR _____ 010-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20200251 2498 ANNA MARIA LN 598 07/27/2020BC _____ 011-INS INSULATION 07/29/2020PR _____ AM 010-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20200252 2492 ANNA MARIA LN 599 07/22/2020PR _____ AM 011-INS INSULATION 07/24/2020PR _____ 012-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 07/22/2020PR _____ 013-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 07/22/2020PR _____ 014-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 07/22/2020BC _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20200253 2508 ANNA MARIA LN 597 07/31/2020BC _____ PM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20200270 604 TERI LN 6 07/02/2020BF _____ 002-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 07/08/2020 Comments1: SUNROOM DECK/STEVE 815-693-4084BC _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200277 406 FREEMONT ST 07/30/2020GH _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200278 1102 GRACE DR 98 07/08/2020BC _____ 013-WKS PUBLIC & SERVICE WALKS 20200342 2005 SHETLAND CT 35 07/22/2020BF _____ 007-STP STOOP 20200343 2052 WREN RD 30 07/09/2020 Comments1: UPLAND 331-431-3168PR _____ 008-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 07/23/2020BC _____ 009-INS INSULATION 07/27/2020PR _____ 011-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 07/23/2020PR _____ 012-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 07/23/2020BC _____ 008-STP STOOP 20200366 2147 BLUEBIRD LN 236-2 07/16/2020 DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 9DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 9TIME: 14:02:01 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2020 TO 07/31/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ 008-STP STOOP 20200367 2149 BLUEBIRD LN 236-1 07/16/2020BF _____ 007-STP STOOP 20200368 1637 SHETLAND LN 38 07/09/2020 Comments1: UPLAND 331-431-3168PR _____ 008-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 07/15/2020PR _____ 009-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 07/15/2020PR _____ 010-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 07/15/2020PR _____ 011-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 07/15/2020BC _____ 012-INS INSULATION 07/17/2020BC _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200397 1421 CHESTNUT CT 71 07/08/2020 Comments1: SKIMMER NOT BONDED,ELECTRICAL RECEPTAC L Comments2: ESS THAN 6FT FROM POOL,POOL MEASURES 32" Comments3: ABOVE GRAD REQUIRING GATE RELEASE MECH Comments4: TO BE 54" MIN FROM GRADE + MORE NOTESGH 12:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20200398 205 ELIZABETH ST 07/01/2020BC _____ AM 007-STP STOOP 20200408 2135 HEARTHSTONE AVE 430 07/15/2020BC _____ 009-STP STOOP 20200409 2143 HARTFIELD AVE 351 07/13/2020PR _____ 010-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 07/22/2020BC _____ 011-INS INSULATION 07/24/2020BC _____ AM 015-WKS PUBLIC & SERVICE WALKS 07/30/2020PR _____ 008-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20200415 2036 SQUIRE CIR 195 07/22/2020PR _____ 009-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 07/22/2020PR _____ 010-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 07/22/2020PR _____ 011-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 07/22/2020PR _____ 012-INS INSULATION 07/24/2020GH _____ 003-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200422 1972 WREN RD 8 07/24/2020PR _____ 008-CMR COMP ROUGH, FRM, ELE, MCH 20200444 2162 HARTFIELD AVE 424 07/13/2020PR _____ 009-INS INSULATION 07/15/2020 DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 10DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 10TIME: 14:02:01 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2020 TO 07/31/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ 010-WKS PUBLIC & SERVICE WALKS 07/23/2020 Comments1: SERVICE WALK CANCELLEDBF _____ AM 011-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 07/24/2020 Comments1: COMEX 847-551-9066BC _____ AM 007-STP STOOP 20200445 2188 HARTFIELD AVE 426 07/13/2020PR _____ 008-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 07/28/2020BC _____ 009-INS INSULATION 07/30/2020BC _____ 007-INS INSULATION 20200450 941 BLACKBERRY SHORE LN 28 07/02/2020 Comments1: CANCEL CAN'T GET WINDOWSPR _____ PM 009-INS INSULATION 07/29/2020GH 10:30 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20200469 2281 PRAIRIE GRASS LN 298 07/16/2020GH 11:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20200474 2621 LILAC WAY 311 07/02/2020BC _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200479 315 W KENDALL DR 6 07/16/2020BC _____ 002-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 20200494 1973 MEADOWLARK LN 121 07/13/2020BC _____ 003-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/13/2020BC _____ 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20200497 1305 EVERGREEN LN 168 07/08/2020 Comments1: ADDITION TO DRIVEWAY WIDTH. CLEAN EDGE O Comments2: F OLD DRIVEWAY BEFORE POURINGGH 10:30 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20200500 1101 MIDNIGHT PL 277 07/16/2020 Comments1: PARTIALGH 10:00 002-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 07/17/2020 Comments1: PARTIAL - GARAGE AND PORCHGH _____ 003-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/20/2020GH _____ 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20200511 1585 ORCHID ST 187 07/01/2020 Comments1: WEST SIDE AND GATES ONLYGH 11:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20200523 2337 EMERALD LN 103 07/02/2020 Comments1: ARRIVED AT 10:354 - FENCE WAS ALREADY FI Comments2: NISHED SO COULD NOT INSPECT DEPTH OF HOL Comments3: ESBC _____ 001-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 20200530 807 GREENFIELD TURN 53 07/07/2020 DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 11DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 11TIME: 14:02:01 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2020 TO 07/31/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ 002-TRN TRENCH - (GAS, ELECTRIC, 07/07/2020BC _____ 003-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 07/24/2020BC _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200542 2967 GRANDE TR 388 07/20/2020 Comments1: EGRESS WINDOW COVER IS UNOPENABLE DUE TO Comments2: POLYMERIC SAND AROUND ITBC 11:00 002-REI REINSPECTION 07/24/2020BC _____ PM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20200546 305 WOODWORTH ST 07/21/2020 Comments1: DRIVEWAY AND APRONGH _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200551 906 STONY CREEK LN 66 07/14/2020GH 11:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20200552 991 S CARLY CIR 89 07/02/2020GH _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200555 1102 GRACE DR 98 07/08/2020BC _____ PM 007-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 20200557 906 S CARLY CIR 99 07/27/2020 Comments1: NORWOOD 630-904-2288BC _____ PM 006-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 20200558 1171 BLACKBERRY SHORE LN 51 07/21/2020PR _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20200559 846 EDWARD LN 07/23/2020PR _____ 002-FOU FOUNDATION 07/28/2020PR _____ 003-FOU FOUNDATION 07/30/2020BF _____ AM 010-STP STOOP 20200562 2120 HARTFIELD AVE 347 07/24/2020 Comments1: COMEX 847-551-9066BC _____ 002-BND POOL BONDING 20200565 571 REDBUD DR 43 07/13/2020BC _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200571 2341 SUMAC DR 17 07/08/2020 Comments1: CHRIS 630-803-1685 GATES MUST BE SELF CL Comments2: OSING & SELF LATCHING WITH RELEASE AT LE Comments3: AST 54" FROM GRADEBC 09:00 001-FTG FOOTING 20200583 611 RIVER BIRCH DR 40 07/14/2020BC _____ 002-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 07/17/2020PR _____ 003-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 07/30/2020BC _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20200593 4364 E MILLBROOK CIR 270 07/07/2020 DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 12DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 12TIME: 14:02:01 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2020 TO 07/31/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200601 1438 CHESTNUT LN 53 07/17/2020 Comments1: TOO MANY TO LIST HERE PLEASE SEE INSP TI Comments2: CKET IN FILEGH _____ PM 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20200608 3238 BOOMBAH BLVD 138 07/24/2020BC 09:00 001-TRN TRENCH - (GAS, ELECTRIC, 20200612 2434 WYTHE PL 15 07/06/2020BC _____ 002-BND POOL BONDING 07/06/2020 Comments1: BOND POOL SHELL TO SKIMMER BOND WIRE USI Comments2: NG A SPLIT BOLTBC _____ AM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20200615 1093 REDWOOD DR 47 07/06/2020BC _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200631 666 WHITE OAK WAY 07/22/2020PR _____ PM 002-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20200635 2568 EMERALD LN 07/02/2020GH 09:30 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20200640 2364 TITUS DR 242 07/20/2020GH _____ 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20200641 421 FAIRHAVEN DR 32 07/24/2020BC _____ AM 002-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20200644 872 N CARLY CIR 46 07/01/2020BC _____ 002-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20200645 892 N CARLY CIR 49 07/14/2020 Comments1: LEDGER LOCKS,FLASHING, INSTALL LATERAL L Comments2: OAD CONNECTIONSBC _____ 001-TRN TRENCH - (GAS, ELECTRIC, 20200648 479 TWINLEAF TR 89 07/22/2020GH 11:30 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20200655 348 BERTRAM DR 1154 07/20/2020GH 15:00 001-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 20200658 1401 SEQUOIA CIR 07/16/2020BC _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200659 4542 GARDINER AVE 1133 07/17/2020GH 12:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20200660 2071 COUNTRY HILLS DR 340 07/07/2020GH 12:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20200665 373 PENSACOLA ST 1149 07/20/2020GH 13:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20200673 305 MCHUGH RD 19 07/17/2020GH _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/20/2020BC _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20200674 1321 SPRING ST 168 07/16/2020BC _____ AM 002-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 07/22/2020 DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 13DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 13TIME: 14:02:01 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2020 TO 07/31/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PR _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20200675 391 HAZELTINE WAY 16 07/13/2020BC _____ AM 006-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 07/13/2020BC _____ 007-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 07/13/2020BC _____ AM 008-STP STOOP 07/30/2020GH 09:30 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20200680 2304 TITUS DR 231 07/20/2020GH 10:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20200685 1304 DAKOTA DR 60 07/24/2020GH _____ 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20200686 1142 HEARTLAND DR 143 07/08/2020BC 15:30 002-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20200687 383 TWINLEAF TR 81 07/22/2020BC _____ AM 001-BND POOL BONDING 20200692 591 WINDETT RIDGE RD 73 07/23/2020BC _____ 002-TRN TRENCH - (GAS, ELECTRIC, 07/27/2020BC _____ AM 004-BKF BACKFILL 20200693 2155 HARTFIELD AVE 421 07/01/2020PR _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 07/13/2020BC _____ AM 006-BG BASEMENT AND GARAGE FLOOR 07/15/2020BF _____ AM 007-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 07/24/2020 Comments1: COMEX 847-551-9066BC _____ 008-STP STOOP 07/27/2020BC _____ PM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20200694 2312 EMERALD LN 39 07/21/2020 Comments1: NEED TO PIN TO FOUNDATION, COVER WOOD BE Comments2: HIND STOOP WITH MEMBRANEBC _____ 002-REI REINSPECTION 07/22/2020BC _____ 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20200708 1972 WREN RD 8 07/07/2020BC _____ 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20200709 476 WALSH CIR 66 07/08/2020 Comments1: 1. PIN PATIO TO FOUNDATION APPROX EVERY Comments2: 30" 2. INSTALL SOLID MEMBRANE BEHIND STO Comments3: OP TO PROTECT WOODBC _____ 002-REI REINSPECTION 07/09/2020 Comments1: PREPOUR PATIOBC _____ 001-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 20200716 618 GREENFIELD TURN 88 07/02/2020 DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 14DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 14TIME: 14:02:01 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2020 TO 07/31/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ 002-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 07/07/2020 Comments1: DECKBC _____ 003-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/16/2020GH 09:30 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20200717 657 RED TAIL CT 32 07/20/2020BC _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200720 402 E SOMONAUK ST 07/10/2020 Comments1: WINDOWSBF _____ AM 003-BKF BACKFILL 20200724 2195 BLUEBIRD LN 240-2 07/07/2020 Comments1: UPLAND 630-465-2021PR _____ 004-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 07/13/2020PR _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 07/17/2020BC _____ 006-BG BASEMENT AND GARAGE FLOOR 07/27/2020BF _____ AM 003-BKF BACKFILL 20200725 2197 BLUEBIRD LN 240-1 07/07/2020 Comments1: UPLAND 630-465-2020PR _____ 004-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 07/13/2020PR _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 07/17/2020BC _____ 006-BG BASEMENT AND GARAGE FLOOR 07/27/2020BC _____ 001-TRN TRENCH - (GAS, ELECTRIC, 20200730 1211 WILLOW WAY 207 07/22/2020BC _____ 002-BND POOL BONDING 07/22/2020GH 13:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20200731 3425 RYAN DR 9 07/08/2020 Comments1: PARTIALGH 10:30 002-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 07/09/2020GH _____ 003-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/13/2020BC _____ 001-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 20200733 962 OMAHA DR 27 07/06/2020 Comments1: holes too shallowBC _____ 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20200736 3167 MATLOCK DR 659 07/06/2020BC _____ PM 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200740 701 WINDETT RIDGE RD 84 07/09/2020 Comments1: DECKBC _____ 001-BND POOL BONDING 20200741 408 CENTER PKWY 46 07/10/2020 Comments1: AND ELECTIC DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 15DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 15TIME: 14:02:01 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2020 TO 07/31/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/10/2020GH 13:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20200744 2758 GOLDENROD DR 251 07/20/2020BC _____ 002-TRN TRENCH - (GAS, ELECTRIC, 07/24/2020BC _____ 003-BND POOL BONDING 07/24/2020BC _____ 004-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 07/24/2020BC _____ 005-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/24/2020 Comments1: GATE RELEASE MECHANISM IS BELOW 54"BC _____ 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20200746 2334 TITUS DR 236 07/08/2020 Comments1: PATIOGH 10:30 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20200748 2366 LAVENDER WAY 94 07/17/2020GH _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200751 4646 PLMOUTH AVE 988 07/17/2020BC _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200756 533 W BARBERRY CIR 41 07/10/2020 Comments1: WINDOW WEEP HOLE COVERS MISSING ON WINDO Comments2: W NEAR HOT TUB & FRONT RIGHT, WINDOW WEE Comments3: P HOLE RIGHT OF FRONT DOOR PLUGGED WITH Comments4: CAULKBC _____ AM 003-BKF BACKFILL 20200758 2022 INGEMUNSON LN 140 07/06/2020 Comments1: BRACE WALLS BEFORE BACKFILLINGPR _____ 004-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 07/13/2020PR _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 07/16/2020BC _____ 006-BG BASEMENT AND GARAGE FLOOR 07/20/2020BF _____ 005-BG BASEMENT AND GARAGE FLOOR 20200759 2159 BLUEBIRD LN 237-2 07/07/2020 Comments1: UPLAND 630-431-3168PR _____ PM 006-SUM SUMP 07/14/2020BF _____ AM 005-BG BASEMENT AND GARAGE FLOOR 20200760 2161 BLUEBIRD LN 237-1 07/07/2020 Comments1: UPLAND 630-431-3168PR _____ PM 006-SUM SUMP 07/14/2020BC _____ 001-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 20200763 2642 BURR ST 11 07/15/2020BC _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/31/2020 DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 16DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 16TIME: 14:02:01 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2020 TO 07/31/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200764 1545 COTTONWOOD TR 83 07/07/2020 Comments1: PATIO DOORBC _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200765 2404 SUMAC DR 55 07/01/2020 Comments1: PAVERBC _____ 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20200768 855 PARKSIDE LN 196 07/29/2020BC _____ 001-TRN TRENCH - (GAS, ELECTRIC, 20200769 1958 WILD INDIGO LN 83 07/29/2020BC _____ AM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20200772 2266 LAVENDER WAY 59 07/02/2020GH 11:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20200774 512 KELLY AVE 07/01/2020 Comments1: BACK & SIDES COMPLETE, STILL WORKING ON Comments2: FRONTPR _____ 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20200775 410 W KENDALL DR 0 07/15/2020GH 09:30 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20200783 1535 ORCHID ST 196 07/07/2020PR _____ 001-UGE UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC 20200785 2881 OLD GLORY DR 245 07/15/2020BC _____ 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20200792 2073 SQUIRE CIR 214 07/01/2020PR _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200794 2432 SAGE CT 29 07/14/2020GH 11:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20200797 842 HEARTLAND DR 168 07/01/2020 Comments1: 2 ROWS, GARAGE NOT STIPPED YETPR _____ 003-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 20200798 1112 GOLDFINCH AVE 311-4 07/02/2020PR _____ 004-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 07/17/2020BC _____ 005-BGS BASEMENT GARAGE STOOPS 07/22/2020BC _____ 006-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 07/23/2020PR _____ 003-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 20200799 1120 GOLDFINCH AVE 311-3 07/02/2020PR _____ 004-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 07/17/2020BC _____ 005-BGS BASEMENT GARAGE STOOPS 07/22/2020BC _____ 006-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 07/23/2020PR _____ 003-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 20200800 1122 GOLDFINCH AVE 311-2 07/02/2020PR _____ 004-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 07/17/2020 DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 17DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 17TIME: 14:02:01 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2020 TO 07/31/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ 005-BGS BASEMENT GARAGE STOOPS 07/22/2020BC _____ 006-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 07/23/2020PR _____ 003-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 20200801 1124 GOLDFINCH AVE 311-1 07/02/2020PR _____ 004-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 07/17/2020BC _____ PM 005-BGS BASEMENT GARAGE STOOPS 07/22/2020BC _____ 006-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 07/23/2020GH 11:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20200802 1406 WHITE PINE CT 96 07/02/2020BC _____ 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20200803 2485 ELLSWORTH CT 351 07/16/2020 Comments1: CANCELLEDBC _____ 002-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 07/20/2020BC _____ AM 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200805 586 REDBUD DR 37 07/28/2020PR _____ 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20200806 4302 E MILLBROOK CIR 276 07/15/2020BC _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200807 102 STRAWBERRY LN 06/30/2020BC _____ PM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20200809 476 TWINLEAF TR 139 07/02/2020GH 10:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20200810 495 PARKSIDE LN 107 07/21/2020BC _____ 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20200812 4351 E MILLBROOK CIR 209 07/09/2020GH 11:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20200815 1402 RUBY DR 360 07/13/2020 Comments1: WEST SIDE INPSECTED - STILL CLEANING OTH Comments2: ERSBC _____ 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20200816 806 HEARTLAND DR 170 07/15/2020BC _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 20200823 2192 BLUEBIRD LN 241-1 07/02/2020BF _____ AM 003-BKF BACKFILL 07/07/2020 Comments1: UPLAND 630-465-2021PR _____ PM 004-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 07/14/2020PR _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 07/21/2020BC _____ 006-BG BASEMENT AND GARAGE FLOOR 07/28/2020 DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 18DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 18TIME: 14:02:01 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2020 TO 07/31/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 20200824 2194 BLUEBIRD LN 241-2 07/02/2020BF _____ AM 003-BKF BACKFILL 07/07/2020 Comments1: UPLAND 630-465-2021PR _____ PM 004-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 07/14/2020PR _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 07/21/2020BC _____ 006-BG BASEMENT AND GARAGE FLOOR 07/28/2020BC _____ 003-REI REINSPECTION 20200827 3122 LAUREN DR 109 07/17/2020BC _____ PM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20200828 1037 N CARLY CIR 116 07/06/2020 Comments1: PATIOBC _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200830 2469 CATALPA TR 173 07/14/2020BC _____ 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20200831 1097 CANARY AVE 249 07/07/2020 Comments1: PATIO MUST BE PINNED OR DOWELED TO THE F Comments2: OUNDATIONBC _____ 002-REI REINSPECTION 07/08/2020 Comments1: PREPOUR PATIOBC _____ AM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20200832 382 POPLAR DR 100 07/09/2020BC _____ 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20200834 2047 SWITCHGRASS LN 139 07/07/2020GH 10:30 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20200836 634 ANDREA CT 12 07/17/2020 Comments1: FRONT ONLYBC _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20200845 1151 BLACKBERRY SHORE LN 49 07/06/2020BC 10:30 002-FOU FOUNDATION 07/13/2020BC _____ AM 003-BKF BACKFILL 07/21/2020 Comments1: BRACE WALKS PRIOR TO BACKFILLPR _____ AM 004-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 07/23/2020GH 14:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20200847 303 FONTANA DR 57 07/16/2020GH 08:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20200848 3188 BOOMBAH BLVD 134 07/15/2020BC _____ 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20200851 2953 OLD GLORY DR 256 07/21/2020 Comments1: WALK, DRIVE, PATIO--NO MEMBRANE AT STOOP Comments2: S TO PROTECT BUILDING FRAMING FROM WATER Comments3: INTRUSION DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 19DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 19TIME: 14:02:01 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2020 TO 07/31/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ 002-REI REINSPECTION 07/22/2020BC _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200852 2583 LYMAN LOOP 38 07/08/2020 Comments1: DECK 1. LEADER BOARD NOT ACHORED PROPERL Comments2: Y 2. BEAM TO POST CONNECTIONS REQUIRE 1/ Comments3: 2" BOLTS 3. GUARD STILES MUST BE LESS TH Comments4: AN 4" APART 4. FLASHING REQD ON LEDGERBC _____ 002-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 07/17/2020 Comments1: CANCELLEDBC _____ AM 003-REI REINSPECTION 07/24/2020PR _____ 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20200853 867 HAMPTON LN 132 07/29/2020BC _____ AM 001-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 20200855 2021 WREN RD 25 07/21/2020 Comments1: 42" MINIMUM DEPTH ON POST HOLESBC _____ 002-REI REINSPECTION 07/24/2020GH 11:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20200859 1847 COLUMBINE DR 71 07/02/2020 Comments1: CANCELLEDBC _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20200863 584 MANCHESTER LN 384 07/02/2020BF _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 07/07/2020 Comments1: COMEX 847-551-9066BC _____ AM 003-BKF BACKFILL 07/13/2020PR _____ PM 004-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 07/14/2020PR _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 07/17/2020BC _____ 006-BG BASEMENT AND GARAGE FLOOR 07/20/2020GH 12:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20200865 205 E ORANGE ST 9 07/23/2020BC _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200866 304 W FOX ST 07/29/2020 Comments1: BOND POOL. MOVE RECEPTACLE TO 6' MINIMUM Comments2: FROM POOLBC _____ PM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20200867 2024 SQUIRE CIR 198 07/01/2020 Comments1: SIDEWALK, PATIO & SHED PADBC _____ PM 002-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 07/01/2020GH 11:30 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20200869 1555 MONTROSE CT 34 07/27/2020 DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 20DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 20TIME: 14:02:01 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2020 TO 07/31/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20200872 2785 CRANSTON CIR 138 07/07/2020GH 11:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20200875 412 HONEYSUCKLE LN 182 07/23/2020BC _____ PM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200876 585 ARROWHEAD DR 88 07/27/2020GH 11:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20200877 355 E HYDRAULIC ST 07/23/2020BC _____ 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20200879 2011 WREN RD 24 07/07/2020GH _____ 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20200882 431 HONEYSUCKLE LN 149 07/23/2020BC _____ 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20200888 3212 LAUREN DR 117 07/28/2020BC 14:00 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20200892 1422 RUBY DR 359 07/10/2020GH 10:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20200894 2427 EMERALD LN 112 07/16/2020BC _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20200895 2104 HARTFIELD AVE 349 07/09/2020 Comments1: ADD 4 FT OF REBAR TO THE UFER GROUND. MU Comments2: ST BE 20FT IN THE FOOTINGBC _____ PM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 07/14/2020BC _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 07/17/2020PR _____ PM 004-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 07/20/2020PR _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 07/24/2020BC _____ 006-BG BASEMENT AND GARAGE FLOOR 07/27/2020GH 10:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20200899 1112 AUBURN DR 87 07/02/2020PR _____ 001-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 20200904 803 ALEXANDRA LN 9 07/23/2020PR _____ 002-FTG FOOTING 07/23/2020BC _____ PM 003-FOU FOUNDATION 07/28/2020GH 10:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20200905 907 STATE ST 07/13/2020 Comments1: PARTIALGH 10:00 002-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 07/14/2020 Comments1: 2/2GH _____ 003-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/17/2020 DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 21DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 21TIME: 14:02:01 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2020 TO 07/31/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20200907 2174 BLUEBIRD LN 242 07/20/2020BF _____ 002-FOU FOUNDATION 07/24/2020 Comments1: JESUS/UPLAND 630-453-9281BC _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 07/29/2020BC _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20200908 2172 BLUEBIRD LN 242 07/20/2020BF _____ 002-FOU FOUNDATION 07/24/2020 Comments1: JESUS 630-453-9281BC _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 07/29/2020BC _____ PM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20200910 3173 MATLOCK DR 660 07/29/2020BC _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20200912 1109 HAWK HOLLOW DR 310-1 07/16/2020BC _____ 002-FOU FOUNDATION 07/22/2020PR _____ 004-SEW SEWER INSPECTION 07/31/2020BC _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20200913 1111 HAWK HOLLOW DR 310-2 07/16/2020BC _____ 002-FOU FOUNDATION 07/22/2020PR _____ 004-SEW SEWER INSPECTION 07/31/2020BC _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20200914 1121 HAWK HOLLOW DR 310-3 07/16/2020BC _____ 002-FOU FOUNDATION 07/22/2020PR _____ 004-SEW SEWER INSPECTION 07/31/2020BC _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20200915 1123 HAWK HOLLOW DR 310-4 07/16/2020BC _____ 002-FOU FOUNDATION 07/22/2020PR _____ 004-SEW SEWER INSPECTION 07/31/2020GH 12:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20200916 214 A HILLCREST AVE 11 07/31/2020BC _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20200917 1054 CANARY AVE 243-1 07/28/2020BC _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20200918 1052 CANARY AVE 243-2 07/28/2020GH 10:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20200921 2072 RAINTREE RD 88 07/20/2020 Comments1: OVERLAY ONLY - NO INSPECTION NECESSARY DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 22DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 22TIME: 14:02:01 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2020 TO 07/31/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/24/2020GH 09:30 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20200922 504 W RIDGE ST 07/29/2020PR _____ 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20200924 528 W BARBERRY CIR 71 07/15/2020PR 15:00 001-BND POOL BONDING 20200927 1554 CRIMSON LN 3 07/30/2020BC _____ 001-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 20200929 403 CENTER PKWY 22 07/30/2020GH 10:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20200930 2205 LAVENDER WAY 68 07/22/2020GH _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/27/2020BC _____ 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20200931 1202 CANNONBALL TR 4 07/24/2020 Comments1: DOWEL FRONT WALK TO STOOP, APPLY MEMBRAN Comments2: DE TO BACK STOOP TO PROTECT BAND JOIST, Comments3: ADD MORE DOWELS TO FOUND AT PATIO. SEND Comments4: PHOTOS TO BOBBC _____ 002-REI REINSPECTION 07/28/2020PR _____ AM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200932 559 BIRCHWOOD DR 135 07/24/2020 Comments1: SOLAR CALL WITH TIMEBC _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20200934 2057 SQUIRE CIR 211 07/30/2020BC _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 07/31/2020PR _____ 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20200938 598 POPLAR DR 155 07/15/2020GH 10:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20200942 402 W CENTER ST 07/27/2020GH 10:30 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20200943 406 E ELM ST 39 07/16/2020 Comments1: PARTIAL - BACK ONLYGH 10:30 002-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 07/17/2020 Comments1: PARTIAL - FRONT ONLYGH _____ 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20200946 597 REDHORSE LN 145 07/16/2020BC _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200947 306 SANDERS CT 13 07/31/2020BC _____ PM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20200948 231 BURNETT ST 1243 07/22/2020BC _____ AM 001-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 20200949 1424 VIOLET CT 371 07/13/2020BC _____ 002-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 07/17/2020 DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 23DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 23TIME: 14:02:01 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2020 TO 07/31/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH 10:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20200952 2947 ELLSWORTH DR 408 07/17/2020BC 08:00 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20200953 500 PARKSIDE LN 106 07/15/2020BC _____ 002-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 07/20/2020GH 10:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20200956 4668 PLYMOUTH AVE 984 07/21/2020BC _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20200957 481 HAZELTINE WAY 10 07/20/2020BC _____ 002-FOU FOUNDATION 07/23/2020PR _____ PM 003-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 07/27/2020BC _____ 004-BKF BACKFILL 07/28/2020PR _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 07/31/2020GH 13:30 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20200962 988 HOMESTEAD DR 07/28/2020BC _____ AM 001-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 20200964 1421 CHESTNUT CT 71 07/15/2020BC _____ 002-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 07/28/2020 Comments1: R311.7.8. HANDRAILS SHALL BE PROVIDED ON Comments2: NOT LESS THAN 1 SIDE OF EACH FLIGHT OF Comments3: STIARS WITH 4 OR MORE RISERS. WILL INSPE Comments4: CT AT FINAL.GH 09:30 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20200966 409 SANDERS CT 07/23/2020GH 12:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20200981 410 POPLAR DR 07/13/2020GH 12:00 002-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 07/14/2020GH 13:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20200982 2835 OLD GLORY DR 232 07/30/2020BC _____ 001-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 20200984 488 HONEYSUCKLE LN 164 07/23/2020BC _____ 001-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 20200985 2312 WINTERTHUR GREEN 177 07/15/2020BC _____ 002-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 07/21/2020BC _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200988 4388 E MILLBROOK CIR 268 07/29/2020GH 10:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20200989 1408 WHITE PINE CT 07/20/2020GH 11:30 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20200991 861 OMAHA DR 21 07/16/2020 Comments1: PARTIAL ONLY (FRONT) DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 24DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 24TIME: 14:02:01 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2020 TO 07/31/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20200992 581 WARBLER LN 352 07/23/2020BC _____ 002-FOU FOUNDATION 07/28/2020BC _____ AM 003-BKF BACKFILL 07/31/2020BC _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20200993 656 MANCHESTER LN 381 07/29/2020BC _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20200994 632 COACH RD 401 07/23/2020BC _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 07/30/2020PR 12:00 001-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 20201002 1423 WOODSAGE AVE 22 07/15/2020PR _____ 002-FTG FOOTING 07/20/2020PR _____ 003-FOU FOUNDATION 07/23/2020PR _____ 004-BKF BACKFILL 07/29/2020BC _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20201005 582 COACH RD 404 07/29/2020BC _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20201006 593 MANCHESTER LN 400 07/28/2020BC _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 07/31/2020GH 09:30 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20201015 2511 EMERALD LN 122 07/20/2020BC _____ 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20201018 385 SHADOW WOOD DR 122 07/31/2020BC _____ PM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20201019 4404 E MILLBROOK CIR 266 07/27/2020 Comments1: CANCELLEDBC _____ 002-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 07/29/2020BC _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20201020 38 W COUNTRYSIDE PKWY 0 07/29/2020BC _____ 001-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 20201025 712 KENTSHIRE DR 119 07/17/2020GH _____ 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20201026 309 MULHERN CT 07/16/2020 Comments1: NORTH SIDE ONLY OF 307 MULHERN CTGH 12:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20201027 528 W BARBERRY CIR 71 07/22/2020 Comments1: PARTIAL - MAIN ROOF ONLYGH 12:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20201028 904 HARVEST TR 07/23/2020BC _____ 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20201035 1864 ASTER DR 115 07/17/2020 DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 25DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 25TIME: 14:02:01 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2020 TO 07/31/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20201038 1072 E SPRING ST 81 07/20/2020 Comments1: FRONTGH 11:00 002-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 07/21/2020 Comments1: RIGHT SIDEGH 11:00 003-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 07/22/2020 Comments1: LEFT AND BACK OF HOUSEGH 11:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20201040 2003 PRAIRIE ROSE LN 93 07/17/2020GH 12:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20201042 1823 COLUMBINE DR 68 07/17/2020PR _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20201047 1985 MARKETVIEW DR 07/30/2020 Comments1: ROSATI'S PERGOLAGH 09:30 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20201048 1876 ASTER DR 116 07/21/2020GH 11:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20201049 1101 AUBURN DR 90 07/27/2020 Comments1: PARTIALGH 11:00 002-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 07/28/2020 Comments1: PARTIAL - BACK MAIN ROOF ONLYGH 11:00 003-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 07/30/2020 Comments1: DELAYED DUE TO RAIN, WHEN I RETURNED, IT Comments2: WAS ALREADY SHINGLEDGH 11:30 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20201055 2876 CRANSTON CIR 92 07/29/2020GH 10:00 002-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 07/30/2020 Comments1: FRONT ONLYGH 10:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20201056 2244 MEADOWVIEW LN 12 07/22/2020GH 12:30 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20201069 268 BALTRUSOL CT 141 07/24/2020GH 10:45 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20201073 1578 CORAL DR 185 07/28/2020GH 10:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20201079 301 SANDERS CT 1 07/23/2020BC _____ 001-FOU FOUNDATION 20201082 4248 E MILLBROOK CIR 284 07/23/2020BC _____ 002-FTG FOOTING 07/22/2020BC _____ PM 003-BKF BACKFILL 07/27/2020PR _____ 004-WAT WATER 07/30/2020 DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 26DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 26TIME: 14:02:01 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2020 TO 07/31/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ AM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20201085 1053 CANARY AVE 253 07/31/2020BC _____ 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20201086 2539 EMERALD LN 125 07/30/2020BC _____ 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20201087 302 WOODWORTH ST 19 07/24/2020 Comments1: SIDEWALK AND STOOPBC _____ 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20201101 572 REDBUD DR 35 07/28/2020GH 11:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20201103 1143 TAUS CIR 109 07/30/2020GH 11:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20201108 531 ARROWHEAD DR 84 07/28/2020GH _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 07/31/2020GH 11:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20201109 403 E BARBERRY CIR 157 07/29/2020 DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 27DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 27TIME: 14:02:01 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2020 TO 07/31/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PERMIT TYPE SUMMARY: ADD ADDITION 5 AGP ABOVE-GROUND POOL 24 CCO COMMERCIAL OCCUPANCY PERMIT 1 COM COMMERCIAL BUILDING 19 CRM COMMERCIAL REMODEL 6 DCK DECK 31 DRV DRIVEWAY 3 ESN ELECTRIC SIGN 1 FNC FENCE 26 IGP IN-GROUND POOL 3 MIS MISCELLANEOUS 3 MSC MISCELLANEOUS 2 PRG PERGOLA 3 PTO PATIO / PAVERS 42 REM REMODEL 2 ROF ROOFING 68 RPZ RPZ - BACKFLOW PREVENTION 1 RS ROOFING & SIDING 6 SDW SIDEWALK 5 SFA SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED 99 SFD SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED 179 SHD SHED/ACCESSORY BUILDING 4 SID SIDING 1 SOL SOLAR PANELS 3 SPA SAUNA / HOT TUB 3 WIN WINDOW REPLACEMENT 3INSPECTION SUMMARY: ABC ABOVE CEILING 3 BG BASEMENT AND GARAGE FLOOR 13 BGS BASEMENT GARAGE STOOPS 5 BKF BACKFILL 18 BND POOL BONDING 7 BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 4 CMR COMP ROUGH, FRM, ELE, MCH PLR 7 EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPECTION 9 ELS ELECTRIC SERVICE 2 EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 2 ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WATER 16 FEM ROUGH FRM, ELE, MECH 1 FIN FINAL INSPECTION 60 FOU FOUNDATION 24 FTG FOOTING 31 GAR GARAGE FLOOR 2 INS INSULATION 25 PHD POST HOLE - DECK 14 PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 21 PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READY 11 DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 28DATE: 07/31/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 28TIME: 14:02:01 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 07/01/2020 TO 07/31/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 14 PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 18 PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 54 PWK PRIVATE WALKS 2 REI REINSPECTION 17 REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 13 RFR ROUGH FRAMING 33 RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 10 ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & WATER 63 SEW SEWER INSPECTION 4 STP STOOP 18 SUM SUMP 3 TRN TRENCH - (GAS, ELECTRIC, ETC) 8 UGE UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC 1 WAT WATER 3 WKS PUBLIC & SERVICE WALKS 7INSPECTOR SUMMARY: BC BOB CREADEUR 247 BF B&F INSPECTOR CODE SERVICE 20 EEI ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES 14 GH GINA HASTINGS 99 PR PETER RATOS 163STATUS SUMMARY: A GH 2 C BC 47 C BF 1 C EEI 12 C GH 13 C PR 24 I BC 199 I BF 19 I EEI 2 I GH 84 I PR 137 T PR 2 V BC 1REPORT SUMMARY: 543 Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Human Resources Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number New Business #3 Tracking Number EDC 2020-40 Property Maintenance Report for July 2020 Economic Development Committee – September 1, 2020 Informational None Pete Ratos Community Development Name Department Page | 1 Property Maintenance Report July 2020 Adjudication: 3 Property Maintenance Case heard in July 7/27/2020 N 4243 706 Heustis St Weeds Liable $1,000 N 4244 555 Bluestem Dr Weeds Dismissed N 4245 2000 Ogden Ave Weeds Dismissed Memorandum To: Economic Development Committee From: Pete Ratos, Code Official CC: Bart Olson, Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Lisa Pickering Date: July 29, 2020 Subject: July Property Maintenance Case # Case Date TYPE OF VIOLATIONSTATUS VIOLATION LETTER SENTFOLLOW UP STATUSCITATION ISSUEDDATE OF HEARINGPOSTED FINDINGS PUBLIC WORKS TO MOW20200342 7/31/2020 Junk, Trash & RefuseIN VIOLATION7/31/202020200341 7/31/2020 Watering Lawn Outside of Permitted Hours of Water UseIN VIOLATION20200340 7/30/2020 Watering Lawn Outside of Permitted Hours of Water UseIN VIOLATION20200339 7/29/2020 Junk, Trash & RefuseIN VIOLATION20200338 7/29/2020 Truck & Trailer ParkingIN VIOLATION7/29/202020200337 7/29/2020 Watering Lawn Outside of Permitted Hours of Water UseIN VIOLATION20200336 7/28/2020 Weeds IN VIOLATION7/28/202020200335 7/28/2020 Weeds & Grass CLOSED COMPLIANT20200334 7/28/2020 Chickens In YardIN VIOLATION7/28/202020200333 7/28/2020 Watering Lawn Outside of Permitted Hours of Water UseIN VIOLATION20200332 7/27/2020 Grass Height IN VIOLATION7/27/202020200331 7/27/2020 Dead Trees IN VIOLATION20200330 7/27/2020 Junk, Trash & RefuseIN VIOLATION20200329 7/24/2020 Weeds CLOSED COMPLIANTCase Report7/1/2020 - 7/31/2020ADDRESS OF COMPLAINT1483 Orchid St3131 Lauren Dr2422 Fitzhugh Turn372-378 Sutton St15 Cannonball Tr2444 Alan Dale Ln579 Kendall DrAll Vacant Lots 509 Morgan St121 Strawberry Ln706 Heustis St684 W Veterans Pkwy684 W Veterans Pkwy1304, 1228 & Page: 1 of 6 20200328 7/24/2020 Watering Lawn Outside of Permitted Hours of Water UseCLOSED COMPLIANT20200327 7/24/2020 Weeds CLOSED COMPLIANT 7/24/202020200326 7/24/2020 Weeds CLOSED COMPLIANT 7/24/202020200325 7/23/2020 Weed and Construction DebrisCLOSED COMPLIANT20200324 7/22/2020 Unlicensed VehicleIN VIOLATION7/22/202020200323 7/22/2020 Weeds & Grass CLOSED20200322 7/22/2020 Weeds & Grass CLOSED20200321 7/22/2020 Watering Lawn Outside of Permitted Hours of Water UseIN VIOLATION7/23/2020 8/24/202020200320 7/22/2020 Junk, Trash & RefuseIN VIOLATION7/22/202020200319 7/22/2020 Weeds IN VIOLATION7/22/202020200318 7/22/2020 Weeds IN VIOLATION7/22/202020200317 7/21/2020 Camper Obstructing Public WalkCLOSED COMPLIANT20200316 7/21/2020 Grass & Weeds CLOSED COMPLIANT 7/21/202020200315 7/21/2020 Grass & Weeds CLOSED COMPLIANT 7/21/202020200314 7/21/2020 Grass & Weeds CLOSED COMPLIANT 7/21/202020200313 7/21/2020 Grass & Weeds IN VIOLATION7/21/202020200312 7/21/2020 Tree/Branches Obstructing Public WalkIN VIOLATION20200311 7/20/2020 Grass & Weeds CLOSED COMPLIANT20200310 7/20/2020 Junk, Trash & RefuseCLOSED20200309 7/20/2020 Bike Path Signage Obstructed ViewCLOSED2422 Fitzhugh Turn2811 Cryder 2896 McLellan 3232 Lauren Dr206-7 River Rd684 W Veterans 599 W Barberry 4100 N Bridge St206-7 River Rd1331 E Spring St1133 Taus Cir853 Prairie Crossing Dr906 N Carly Cir983 S Carly Cir1023 S Carly Cir1162 Taus Cir1610 Cypress LnRedwood DrBerrywood AveRt 34 & Americana WayPage: 2 of 6 20200308 7/20/2020 NOXIOUS ODOR COMING FROM GREEN ORGANICSPENDING20200307 7/17/2020 Watering Lawn Outside of Permitted Hours of Water UseCLOSED COMPLIANT20200306 7/17/2020 Watering Lawn Outside of Permitted Hours of Water UseCLOSED COMPLIANT20200305 7/17/2020 Watering Lawn Outside of Permitted Hours of Water UseCLOSED COMPLIANT20200304 7/17/2020 Watering Lawn Outside of Permitted Hours of Water UseCLOSED COMPLIANT20200303 7/17/2020 Weeds CLOSED COMPLIANT20200302 7/17/2020 Weeds CLOSED COMPLIANT20200301 7/17/2020 Weeds CLOSED COMPLIANT20200300 7/17/2020 Working without a PermitCLOSED COMPLIANT20200299 7/14/2020 Cars Parked on GrassCLOSED COMPLIANT20200298 7/14/2020 Watering Lawn Outside of Permitted Hours of Water UseCLOSED COMPLIANT20200297 7/14/2020 Installing Temp Pool over Electric LinesCLOSED COMPLIANT20200296 7/13/2020 Cigarette butts CLOSED20200295 7/13/2020 Working without a PermitCLOSED COMPLIANT20200294 7/13/2020 Watering Lawn Outside of Permitted Hours of Water UseCLOSED COMPLIANT02081000062311 Prairie Grass Ln2998 Ellsworth Dr2994 Ellsworth Dr4100 N Bridge St1433 Pleasant Ct517 Cheshire Ct4473 Tampa Dr2486 Ellsworth Ct1213 S Bridge St2036 Wren Rd3405 Ryan Dr 212 S Bridge St309 Muhern Ct385 Shadow Wood DrPage: 3 of 6 20200293 7/13/2020 Watering Lawn Outside of Permitted Hours of Water UseCLOSED COMPLIANT20200292 7/13/2020 Grass & Weeds IN VIOLATION20200291 7/13/2020 Watering Lawn Outside of Permitted Hours of Water UseCLOSED COMPLIANT20200290 7/13/2020 Watering Lawn Outside of Permitted Hours of Water UseCLOSED COMPLIANT20200289 7/10/2020 Weeds CLOSED COMPLIANT20200288 7/10/2020 Weeds CLOSED COMPLIANT20200287 7/10/2020 Grass & Weeds CLOSED COMPLIANT 7/10/202020200286 7/10/2020 Adding Fill and Affecting DrainageIN VIOLATION7/20/202020200285 7/8/2020 Watering Lawn Outside of Permitted Hours of Water UseCLOSED COMPLIANT20200284 7/8/2020 Watering Lawn Outside of Permitted Hours of Water UseCLOSED COMPLIANT20200283 7/8/2020 Watering Lawn Outside of Permitted Hours of Water UseCLOSED COMPLIANT20200282 7/8/2020 Watering Lawn Outside of Permitted Hours of Water UseCLOSED COMPLIANT20200281 7/8/2020 Watering Lawn Outside of Permitted Hours of Water UseCLOSED COMPLIANT453 Poplar Dr1962 Meadowlark Ln2036 Wren Rd2001 Wren Rd871 Purcell St847 Greenfield 905 Stony Creek 471 E Kennedy Rd2491 Anna Maria Ln3182 Matlock Dr2481 Anna Maria Ln2461 Anna Maria Ln2451 Anna Maria LnPage: 4 of 6 20200280 7/8/2020 Watering Lawn Outside of Permitted Hours of Water UseCLOSED COMPLIANT20200279 7/8/2020 Watering Lawn Outside of Permitted Hours of Water UseCLOSED COMPLIANT20200278 7/8/2020 Watering Lawn Outside of Permitted Hours of Water UseCLOSED COMPLIANT20200277 7/8/2020 LEAD PAINT TO BE INSPECTED20200276 7/8/2020 ITEMS IN PARKWAYTO BE INSPECTED20200275 7/7/2020 Watering Lawn Outside of Permitted Hours of Water UseCLOSED COMPLIANT20200274 7/7/2020 Watering Lawn Outside of Permitted Hours of Water UseCLOSED COMPLIANT20200273 7/7/2020 Watering Lawn Outside of Permitted Hours of Water UseCLOSED COMPLIANT20200272 7/7/2020 Watering Lawn Outside of Permitted Hours of Water UseCLOSED COMPLIANT20200271 7/7/2020 Watering Lawn Outside of Permitted Hours of Water UseCLOSED COMPLIANT20200270 7/7/2020 Watering Lawn Outside of Permitted Hours of Water UseCLOSED COMPLIANT2796 Gains Ct512 Shadow Wood Dr3252 Lauren Dr111 Madison StMILL ST SIDE OF 2444 Alan Dale Ln1503 Montrose Ct2001 Wren Rd2036 Wren Rd2031 Wren Rd2120 Hearthstone AvePage: 5 of 6 20200269 7/7/2020 Watering Lawn Outside of Permitted Hours of Water UseCLOSED COMPLIANT20200268 7/7/2020 Watering Lawn Outside of Permitted Hours of Water UseCLOSED COMPLIANT20200267 7/7/2020 Weeds CLOSED COMPLIANT20200266 7/7/2020 Watering Lawn Outside of Permitted Hours of Water UseCLOSED COMPLIANT20200265 7/7/2020 Junk, Trash & RefuseCLOSED 7/7/2020 COMPLIANT20200264 7/6/2020 GOATS PENDING20200263 7/6/2020 WEEDS, TRASH, TRUCKS ON SIDEWALKIN VIOLATION2121 Hearthstone Ave599 Parkside Ln752 Kentshire Total Records: 807/31/2020712 Kentshire Dr1297 Chestnut Ln402 710 Heustis StPage: 6 of 6 Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Human Resources Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number New Business #4 Tracking Number EDC 2020-41 Economic Development Report for August 2020 Economic Development Committee – September 1, 2020 N/A See attached. Bart Olson Administration Name Department 651 Prairie Pointe Drive, Suite 102 • Yorkville, Illinois • 60560 Phone 630-553-0843 • FAX 630-553-0889 Monthly Report – for September 2020 EDC Meeting of the United City of Yorkville August 2020 Activity COVID-19: - Continuously working with the Small Business Development Center (SBDC), the State of Illinois (DCEO), the State of Illinois Treasurer’s Office, and the Small Business Administration (SBA); to collect information for the business community on loans, grants and other programs of assistance. The programs rolled out in late June/early July are the State of IL BIG Grant program, and the Childcare Restoration Credit Program. Since these programs focuses on very specific businesses, I have personally reached out to all eligible businesses to provide links and info. Yorkville winners of the BIG Grants include: Stephen Alan Salon, Venus Nails, LA Tan, Grace Coffee & Wine, Lakeview Grille, Sunfield’s Restaurant. Wings Etc. Grill & Pub, and Taekwondo Korea Center. The BIG grants totaled $130,000. Yorkville winners of the Childcare Restoration Credit Program are The Heartland School, We Grow Kids, Little Learners Academy, and Lighthouse Academy. - The Downstate Small Business Stabilization Program (DSBSP) has offered a unique opportunity to our business community through the State of Illinois. That application, and overall process is quite lengthy. We have a total of 28 businesses who have moved forward in applying for this grant, which could result in up to $25,000 for the awardee. We are waiting to learn how our businesses have done. At the time of this writing, we do NOT have any results on awards for our businesses from the State of Illinois. - Phase 4 of Reopening Illinois, allows our restaurants to open with both indoor and outdoor seating. Continue to work with all of our local restaurants and businesses as they pivot, to open under current guidelines. I am also working with restaurants to begin to plan for the colder weather, and uncover ways the City can help these businesses to be as successful as possible. - The PPP Program is now moving into the “Loan Forgiveness” application. This process is even more complex that the application process was. Also, the rules of the program have changed significantly. I am working with individuals from government, banks, and other resources to assist businesses begin to complete the next application. - Continue to work with the Yorkville Chamber to drive information about our local business and the Phase 4 opening of businesses. - Locate other grant programs through associations and other organizations, that may assist employees of certain business, and assist in getting information out to these businesses and their employees. - Personally, spoke with other businesses owners to collect data to assist in City of Yorkville for planning purposes, as requested. - Participate in weekly tele-conferences with my colleagues from the SBDC, other municipalities of our County, and Kendall County representative to discuss programs, challenges, best practices, and general information. - Identified, promoted and participated in a variety of Webinars that provided information on various assistance programs, at all levels. New Development: - Kendall Marketplace: Verizon… Construction complete, building turned over to Verizon for final preparation and September opening. - Kendall Marketplace: Smoothie King… Construction is underway. Owner, Yonas Hagos, hopes to open in late fall 2020. - Kendall Marketplace: Signature Fitness…Owner remains committed to Yorkville location. Opening will take place in late fall/early winter 2020. - Yorkville Crossing: Popeye’s…Construction is complete. Hiring being wrapped up. Waiting for Nicor to bring natural gas to the restaurant. That should happen on Friday, August 28th. Opening in early September. - Gas N Wash: Opened as planned on July 18th. While the Gas N Wash opened, Dunkin was not able to open, at that time. They plan to open around September 1st. Full store Ribbon cutting is scheduled for September 25th. - Raging Waves Waterpark: Park is now open on weekends only, and will close for the season after Labor Day. - Fountain Village: The new restaurant called Cocina Madre (which means Mom’s kitchen) in the former Subway space is open. - Yorkville Marketplace: Owner of Pho Shack, TJ Nguyen, remains committed to the restaurant location in Yorkville. Opening will take place by the end of summer 2020. - Taekwondo Korea Center has relocated to 288 E. Veterans Parkway. This is the building with Maciano’s Pizza, directly in front of Jewel/Osco. Lynn Dubajic 651 Prairie Pointe Drive, Suite 102 Yorkville, IL 60560 lynn@dlkllc.com 630-209-7151 cell Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/gov_officials.php Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: See attached memo. Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Human Resources Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number New Business #5 Tracking Number EDC 2020-42 Limited Manufacturing Uses in Residence District Economic Development Committee – September 1, 2020 Direction Discussion regarding permitting limited manufacturing uses, specifically firearm manufacturing, in residentially zoned districts. Krysti Barksdale-Noble, AICP Community Development Name Department Summary: Staff is seeking direction from the Economic Development Committee regarding a request by Alderman Funkhouser to amend the City’s Zoning Ordinance to permit limited manufacturing uses in residentially zoned districts, specifically the ability to allow the manufacturing of firearms for owners with a Type 7 Federal Firearms License. Background: In June, staff was contacted by a resident who owns a local gun manufacturing business located in the Yorkville Business Center on a property zoned as M-1 Limited Manufacturing District. The resident is looking to relocate his operation into his home garage to reduce the overhead of leasing space. Due to the nature of the work conducted as part of the business, the owner has a Type 7 Federal Firearms License (FFL) which is for manufacturers of firearms. Staff informed the businessowner that the current zoning ordinance only permits the manufacturing of firearms in the M-1 and M-2 districts, per an ordinance passed in 2012. Alderman Funkhouser has asked that the City Council consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow home operations for FFL holders who manufacture firearms. Manufacturing of Firearms & Ammunition in M-1 & M-2 Districts: Currently, the City’s zoning ordinance defines and identifies “manufacturing of firearms and ammunition” as a permitted use only with the M-1 Limited Manufacturing and M-2 General Manufacturing Districts for the purposes of allowing the transport, shipping and receiving firearms and ammunition, as well as the repairing, making or fitting special barrels, stocks or trigger mechanisms to firearms. A Manufacturer of Firearms and Ammunition is defined as “Any person or entity engaged in (A) the business of transporting, shipping and receiving firearms and ammunition for the purpose of sale or distribution (B) selling firearms at wholesale or retail, (C) repairing firearms or of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms and operating under the provisions of the applicable local, state and federal licenses.” As with any manufacturer of firearms and/or ammunition, a federal license issued by the U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is required. A copy of application information for Federal Firearms License (FFL) has been attached for your reference. According to the ATF, a Type 7 Federal Firearms License allows for the manufacturing of firearms, other than destructive devises. According to the ATF Federal Firearms Reference Guide, a Type 7 Federal Firearms License allows for pawnbroker’s sale and the sale of firearms and ammunition at retail. This was discussed by the then Planning Commission and City Council in 2012 and the ability to manufacture firearms in residential districts was recommended against after staff recommendation and brief discussion. Staff occasionally Memorandum To: Economic Development Committee From: Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director CC: Jason Engberg, Senior Planner Bart Olson, City Administrator Date: August 25, 2020 Subject: Limited Manufacturing Uses permitted in Residential Districts Request to allow gun manufacturing as a permitted or special use in residentially zoned districts. receives calls from the local ATF field office to confirm if a location listed in an FFL application permits the type of use per our zoning ordinance. Staff Comments: Staff is concerned this use would be similar to a “home occupation” with the potential for selling firearms within a residential setting. Additionally, there is the possibility that the manufacturing use would require special equipment not customary in a residence and/or the need to operate in a space separate from the main residence (i.e., garage, detached shed/accessory structure). All of which is contrary to the provisions for a permitted home occupation in the Zoning Ordinance. Additional research of area municipalities and their zoning regulations of firearm manufacturing is currently underway by staff, and additional information will be provided at the EDC meeting. We have also reached out to the Police Department for their input. Feedback from Police staff should also be available at Tuesday night’s meeting. However, if the Committee were to consider such a use in the residential district, staff’s initial recommendation would be to require Special Use authorization. We are seeking formal direction from the Economic Development Committee (EDC) to pursue a text amendment to permit limited manufacturing uses, specifically firearm manufacturing, in residentially zoned districts. If it is the concurrence of the Committee to amend, staff and the City Attorney will prepare the appropriate ordinance language per your direction and bring back to the Committee prior to presenting at a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Attachments 1. Staff memorandum to Planning Commission dated May 3, 2012 for the June 13, 2012 Plan Commission meeting re: Text Amendment to the M-1 & M-2 Manufacturing Districts to identify Indoor Shooting Gallery/Range as a Special Use and allow as a permitted use the Manufacturing of Firearms and Ammunition. 2. Public Hearing transcript and minutes from the June 13, 2012 Plan Commission meeting. 3. Ordinance 2012-22 approving text amendment to the M-1 and M-2 Manufacturing Districts to identify Indoor Shooting Gallery/Range as a Special Use and allow as a permitted use the Manufacturing of Firearms and Ammunition. 4. ATF Federal Firearms License Infographics 5. ATF Application Form ` Special Use for Indoor Shooting Gallery/Range Request: As proposed, the operation of an indoor shooting gallery/gun range would be allowed as a special use within both the M-1 Limited Manufacturing and M-2 General Manufacturing Districts. This would include the indoor practicing of target shooting open to the public within an enclosed building and offer ancillary retail sales of firearms and associated products. Currently, indoor shooting galleries are not permitted within any district of the City; however, the sale of firearms is permissible within sporting goods stores and pawn shops. The zoning ordinance would be amended to define an “indoor shooting gallery/gun range” as follows: Shooting Gallery/Gun Range, Indoor: an enclosed facility, public or private, specifically for the purpose of providing a place in which to discharge various types of firearms, shoot air guns and/or archery equipment at designated targets and designed to contain all projectiles fired within t he confines of the building. Auxiliary training and instructional classroom facilities may also be provided, as well as ancillary retail sales of firearms, ammunition and associated products upon proof of applicable local, state and federal licensure.1 The M-1 and M-2 Manufacturing districts in the city’s zoning ordinance are intended to regulate the production, processing, cleaning, servicing, testing or repair of products , as well as the storage of materials, goods or products which conforms to the performance standards established for the districts. Although an indoor shooting gallery/gun range may broadly fall under the “testing of products” use, identifying and defining it as a special use in the manufacturing districts allows the city more discretion on a case -by-case basis of where each facility will be located and operated. Zoning/Land Use The bulk requirements for the M-1 and M-2 Manufacturing Districts are as follows: Yard Areas Lot Coverage Floor Area Ratio M-1 Limited Manufacturing District Front: Min. 25 ft.2 Max. 60% of the lot area Max. 0.8 Side: Min. 10% of lot width/Max. 20 ft. M-2 General Manufacturing District Front: Min. 25 ft.2 Max. 60% of the lot area Max. 0.85 Side: Min. 10% of lot width/Max. 20 ft. Currently, there are nearly 100 parcels within the M-1 and M-2 zoning districts within the City of Yorkville, a majority of which are located in the Fox Industrial Park and the Yorkville Business 1 Definition derived, in part, from the National Rifle Association (NRA) The Range Source Book – A Guide to Planning and Construction and the U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide 2005. 2 However, where lots within the same block and comprising 40% of frontage on the same street are already developed with an ave rage depth of less than 25 feet, then such average depth shall be the required front yard depth for such frontage in said block (Section 10-8A-4 of the Yorkville Zoning Ordinance). Memorandum To: Plan Commission From: Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator Date: May 3, 2012 Subject: Text Amendment to the M-1 & M-2 Manufacturing Districts to indentify Indoor Shooting Gallery/Range as a Special Use and allow as a permitted use the Manufacturing of Firearms and Ammunition. Center. The attached map illustrates the M-1 and M-2 districts within the City that may be affected by the proposed text amendment. Aside from the required yard setbacks, there are no provisions within the zoning code regulating the minimum distance between an enclosed building in a manufacturing district and a residentially zoned property. Therefore, staff is also proposing to establish a minimum building setback of fifty (50) feet from any property line for indoor shoot gallery/gun range facilities which abuts a residentially zoned property. This restriction with regards to proximity of adjacent homes will provide an appropriate buffer between the differing land uses and address any perceived noise and safety (i.e. projectiles penetrating walls) concerns. Facility Design Considerations According to the National Rifle Association (NRA), a typical indoor shooting gallery is designed with four (4) main construction considerations: shooter needs, type of shooting activity to be conducted, number of firing points and the number of users anticipated. Building design industry standards estimate an indoor firing range consisting of eight (8) firing lanes will utilize approximately 6,000 square feet of tenant space. The following diagrams are representative of typical tenant plans for an indoor gun range .3 Parking Regulations Off-street parking requirements should also be considered for indoor shooting gallery/gun range facilities, as they are a unique user category and may not be adequately addressed in Section 10-11-4 Schedule of Parking Requirements in the City’s Zoning Ordinance. According to staff research and the American Planning Association (APA) Planning Advisory Service 2002 Parking Standards manual, an indoor shooting range should have a minimum of one (1) parking space per firing lane and one (1) space per staff member. These parking standards are in addition to any required parking for auxiliary training classrooms and ancillary retail area. 3Source: Whole Building Design Guide (WBDG) a program of the National Institute of Building Sciences www.wbdg.org/design/firing_range.php. Based upon the APA’s recommendation and discussions with other area planners regarding the popularity of such uses, staff recommends a minimum of two (2) parking spaces per firing lane; one (1) parking space per staff member; eight (8) parking spaces for each instructional classroom, if any; plus all other parking requirements for any associated office and/or retail use within or on the premises of an indoor shooting gallery/gun range. Other Departmental/Agency Considerations Police The proposed text amendment is not contradictory to Section 5-3-6: Weapons; Air Rifles under Police Regulations of the City Code which states “[n]o person shall fire or discharge any gun, pistol or other firearm within the limits of the city except upon the premises used by a duly a licensed shooting gallery, a gun club or a rifle club, or upon prior application to the chief of police on the city and prior written approval by the said chief of police; and provided further, that the provisions of thi s section shall not apply to the discharge of firearms by police or other officers in the discharge of their duties.” Building Any proposed shooting gallery/gun range will need to meet the current building code standards adopted by the city. The 2009 International Building Code (IBC) would classify this type of use as a Storage Group S and an incidental use in the Assembly (A), Business (B), Educational (E), Industrial (I), Manufacturing (M) or Residential (R) occupancy groups requiring fire sprinklers and separation from other occupancies by a minimum 2-hour fire wall (partition). Particular consideration will be given to the following operational systems: (1) ventilation – indoor ranges may contain elevated levels of airborne lead which can be a pot ential threat to the health of those working in or patronizing the facility. Specific guidelines for supply and exhaust systems for indoor ranges are provided for in the 2009 IBC; (2) construction – specific materials are required in the construction of si de walls, baffles, bullet traps, overhead containment and other areas where a projectile can impact or ricochet in an indoor shooting range; (3) noise – recommended maximum noise levels permitted for an indoor shooting range is 85 decibels to ensure the ab ility for communication between the shooters and range officials, as well as mitigate excessive noise to surrounding properties; and finally (4) lighting – special energy efficient fluorescent light fixtures are required to be used in indoor shooting ranges to create ambient and targeted lighting, minimizing glare on wall surfaces. Fire District The Bristol Kendall Fire District will enforce the city’s adopted 2009 International Fire Code (IFC) when reviewing plans and inspecting any proposed indoor shooting gallery/gun range facilities, should the text amendment be approved. As mentioned previously, all such uses will be required to be fire sprinkled and provide a fire detection device. Manufacturing of Firearms & Ammunition in M-1 & M-2 Districts: For the purposes of allowing the transport, shipping and receiving firearms and ammunition as well as the repairing, making or fitting special barrels, stocks or trigger mechanisms to firearms within the manufacturing districts, staff proposes to amend the City’s zoning ordinance to define and identify “manufacturing of firearms and ammunition” as a permitted use with the M-1 Limited Manufacturing and M-2 General Manufacturing Districts. The following proposed new definition would also be added in the zoning ordinance: Manufacturer, Firearms and Ammunition: Any person or entity engaged in (A) the business of transporting, shipping and receiving firearms and ammunition for the purpose of sale or distribution (B) selling firearms at wholesale or retail, (C) repairing firearms or of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms and operating under the provisions of the applicable local, state and federal licenses.4 As with any manufacturer of firearms and/or ammunition, a federal license issued by the U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is required. A copy of application information for Federal Firearms License (FFL) has been attached for your reference. Finally, since it is envisioned that sale of firearms and ammunition will be ancillary to the indoor shooting gallery/gun range use, staff proposes that the retail component of the facility be no more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the total floor area. This will ensure that the majority of the space is used for manufacturing purposes and not merely as a gun shop. Other Communities: Staff has queried local communities to determine if and how shooting galleries/gun ranges or similar type uses are permitted and regulated within their respective zoning ordinances . The following table provides information about how each surveyed community identifies shooting galleries and/or gun ranges, how they are classified, and the zoning district which they are allowed. This should serve as a guide for the Plan Commission as to how Yorkville’s proposed text amendment to allow indoor shooting galleries/gun ranges in the manufacturing districts might compare to nearby communities. Community Identified Use(s) Permitted or Special Use Zoning District(s) Allowed Kendall County Indoor Target Practice Special Use A-1, B-Districts, M-1, M-2 Outdoor Target Practice Special Use M-1, M-2 Outdoor Commercial Sporting Activities Special Use A-1 North Aurora Unspecified Uses Special Use I-2 Montgomery Indoor Gun Range Special Use M-1 Manufacturing of Ammunition Permitted M-1, M-2 Sugar Grove Practice Pistol & Rifle Ranges, Skeet or Trap Shooting Special Use A-1 Gun Assembly Permitted Use M-1 Oswego Recreational/Training Use Special Use B-2, B-3, M-1, M-2 Production of Firearms and Equipment Permitted Use M-1 Staff Recommendation Summary: 1. Amend Title 10-8A-3 to identify “indoor shooting gallery/gun range” as a special use within the M-1 Limited Manufacturing District and Title 10-8B-3 of the M-2 General Manufacturing District. 2. Amend Title 10-2-3 of the Zoning Ordinance to include the following definition: Shooting Gallery/Gun Range, Indoor: an enclosed facility, public or private, specifically fo r the purpose of providing a place in which to discharge various types of firearms, shoot air guns and/or archery equipment at designated targets and designed to contain all projectiles fired within the confines of the building. Auxiliary training and inst ructional classroom facilities may 4 Definition derived, in part, from Section 478.41 (B) of th e United States Gun Control Act. http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf also be provided, as well as ancillary retail sales of firearms, ammunition and associated products upon proof of applicable local, state and federal licensure . 3. Require a minimum building setback of fifty (50) feet from any property line for indoor shoot gallery/gun range facilities which abuts a residentially zoned property. 4. Require a minimum of two (2) parking spaces per firing lane; one (1) parking space per staff member; eight (8) parking spaces for each instructional classroom, if any; plus all other parking requirements for any associated office and/or retail use within or on the premises of an indoor shooting gallery/gun range. 5. Amend Titles 10-8A-1 and 10-8B-1 to identify “manufacturing of firearms and ammunition” as a permitted use within the M-1 Limited Manufacturing and M-2 General Manufacturing Districts. 6. Amend Title 10-2-3 of the Zoning Ordinance to include the following definitions: Manufacturer, Firearms and Ammunition: Any person or entity engaged in (A) the business of transporting, shipping and receiving firearms and ammunition for the purpose of sale or distribution (B) selling firearms at wholesale or retail, (C) repairing firearms or of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms and operating under the provisions of the applicable local, state and federal licenses. 7. Require that retail operations be ancillary to an indoor shooting gallery/gun range facility with no more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the total floor area. Staff will be available to answer any questions the Plan Commission may have regarding the proposed text amendment. Should the Plan Commission decide to recommend approval of the proposed text amendment , draft motion language has been prepared below for your convenience. Proposed Motion: In consideration of testimony presented during a Public Hearing on May 9, 2012 and approval of the amended findings of fact, the Plan Commission recommends approval to the City Council of a request for text amendment to Title 10, Chapter 8, Article A M-1 Limited Manufacturing District and Article B M-2 General Manufacturing District of the United City of Yorkville’s City Code, as presented by staff in a memorandum dated May 3, 2012, and further subject to {insert any additional conditions of the Plan Commission}… Attachments: 1. Current Title 10, Chapter 8, Article A. M-1 Limited Manufacturing District of the United City of Yorkville’s Municipal Zoning Ordinance. 2. Current Title 10, Chapter 8, Article B. M-2 General Manufacturing District of the United City of Yorkville’s Municipal Zoning Ordinance. 3. M-1 and M-2 Zoning District Maps. 4. Federal Firearms License (FFL) application information (U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives). 5. Copy of Public Notice. 1 APPROVED W/ CORRECTIONS 7/11/12 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PLAN COMMISSION City Council Chambers Wednesday, June 13, 2012 7:00pm Commission Members in Attendance: Chairman Tom Lindblom Sandra Adams James Weaver Charles Kraupner Art Prochaska Jack Jones Absent: Michael Crouch, Jeff Baker, Jane Winninger Other City Staff Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director Other Guests – Angie Phipps, Depo Court Meeting Called to Order Chairman Tom Lindblom called the meeting to order at 7pm. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. Previous Meeting Minutes April 11, 2012 The minutes were approved as read on a motion by Adams and Kraupner. Voice vote approval. Citizen’s Comments None Public Hearings 1. PC 2012-03 United City of Yorkville is proposing to amend Title 10, Chapter 8, Article A the M-1 Limited Manufacturing District and Article B the M-2 General Manufacturing District, of the Yorkville Zoning Ordinance to permit as a special use and provide regulations for indoor shooting galleries/ranges; and to also add as a permitted use the manufacturing of firearms and ammunition within those Manufacturing Districts. A motion was made by Jones and seconded by Prochaska to enter into Public Hearing. Voice vote approval. Chairman Lindblom read the proposal aloud. Since no one from the public was in attendance for the Public Hearing, a motion was made by Prochaska and seconded by Jones to close the Public Hearing. Voice vote approval. 2 Old Business none New Business 1. PC 2012-03 (same as above) Ms. Barksdale-Noble said this case is a text amendment and accomplishes 2 things: 1. Amends the M1 and M2 districts to permit indoor shooting galleries/ranges as a special use. 2. Amends the same manufacturing districts to allow the manufacture of firearms and ammunition as a permitted use. Staff members, the police and other towns provided feedback and staff members provided 7 recommendations: 1. To amend the title to identify indoor shooting galleries, gun ranges as a special use within the M1 and M2 manufacturing districts. 2. To incorporate new definition for shooting gallery or range indoor as follows: enclosed facility, public or private, specifically to provide a place to discharge various types of firearms, air guns or archery equipment at designated targets and designed to contain all projectiles fired. Auxiliary training and classroom facilities may also be provided and allow ancillary retail sales of firearms, ammunition and associated products upon proof of all licensing. 3. Require a minimum building setback of 50 feet from any property line or indoor shooting gallery gun range facilities. 4. Require minimum of 2 parking spaces per fire lane, 1 per staff member, 8 spaces for each instructional classroom, plus all other applicable parking requirements 5. Amend both titles to identify manufacture of firearms as a permitted use and to add a definition for manufacture of firearms and ammunition 6. Amend Title 10-2-3 of the Zoning Ordinance to include the following definitions: Manufacturer, Firearms and Ammunition: Any person or entity engaged in (A) the business of transporting, shipping and receiving firearms and ammunition for the purpose of sale or distribution (B) selling firearms at wholesale or retail, (C) repairing firearms or of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms and operating under the provisions of the applicable local, state and federal licenses. 7. Require retail operation be ancillary to the indoor gun range with no more than 25% of the floor area. The floor was then opened for questions. Commissioner Prochaska asked why this matter was being relegated to manufacturing district in view of the manufacturing definition. Since the sale of ammunition is reserved for manufacturing, he asked how any store could open anywhere else. Ms. Barksdale-Noble said the sale is not being restricted to manufacturing, rather it allows sales to occur there. The sales are also allowed in the business district. Krysti said she was approached by a local business last year about obtaining their Federal Firearms License (FFL) for a shooting gallery/instructional area and there was no mechanism in place. Another resident requested the same operation in a residential area, however, the City does not want this use tied to a residence. The licenses also have various levels. Mr. Prochaska asked if there is a benefit to prevent someone in this type 3 of business, from being in the business district. Krysti said she could add business district as being allowed to have a shooting gallery, to the text amendment if the Commissioners wished. Chairman Lindblom agreed with this. It was decided to continue this matter to the next meeting to allow for the revisions to be made. Mr. Prochaska moved and Mr. Jones seconded the motion to continue PC 2012-03 to the July meeting. Voice vote approval. 2. Development Applications and Plan Commission Procedures for Findings of Fact Krysti said there were discussions in the past to amend the development forms. These revisions would allow petitioners to write their answers to the standards for variations and special uses which would provide a written record. Staff will revise all the applications. The Commission agreed this would be beneficial. Mr. Prochaska said it allows the petitioner to know upfront what is needed and Chairman Lindblom said it places the responsibility on the petitioner. Additional Business Ms. Barksdale-Noble will provide Rt. 47 updates in an email and IDOT will provide updates as the project moves along farther. Adjournment There was no further business and Prochaska moved and Jones seconded the motion to adjourn. Meeting adjourned at 7:20pm Respectfully submitted by Marlys Young, Minute Taker UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS ORDINANCE NO. 2012-22 AN ORDINANCE OF THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS, APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE YORKVILLE ZONING ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR INDOOR SHOOTING RANGES AS SPECIAL USES AND FOR THE MANUFACTURING OF FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION AS A PERMITTED USE Passed by the City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois This 24"'day of July, 2012 Published in pamphlet form by the authority of the Mayor and City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois on July 27,2012. Ordinance No. 2012- AN ORDINANCE OF THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS, APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE YORKVILLE ZONING ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR INDOOR SHOOTING RANGES AS SPECIAL USES AND FOR THE MANUFACTURING OF FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION AS A PERMITTED USE WHEREAS, the United City of Yorkville (the "City") is a duly organized and validly existing non home-rule municipality created in accordance with the Constitution of the State of Illinois of 1970 and the laws of the State; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 10-14-7 of the Yorkville Zoning Code the City may initiate amendments to the Yorkville Zoning Ordinance; and, WHEREAS, the City filed seeking an amendment to the Yorkville Zoning Code to allow as special uses in the M-1 Limited Manufacturing District and the M-2 General Manufacturing District indoor shooting gallery/gun ranges and the manufacturing of firearms and ammunition as a permitted use and to allow indoor shooting gallery/gun ranges as a special use in the B-1, B-2, B-3 and B-4 Business Districts; and, WHEREAS, the Plan Commission convened and held a public hearing on the 13th day of June 2012, to consider the request to amend the Yorkville Zoning Ordinance adding the special use and permitted use as described above; and WHEREAS, the Plan Commission reviewed the standards as required in Section 10-14-7 of the Yorkville Zoning Code, , and made a recommendation to approve the proposed amendments to the Yorkville Zoning Ordinance; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Plan Commission's recommendations and hereby approves said amendments to the Yorkville Zoning Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, as follows: Section 1. The above recitals are incorporated and made a part of this Ordinance. Section 2. That Section 10-2-3, entitled "DEFINITIONS" of the Yorkville City Code, as amended, be and is hereby amended by adding the following definitions to read as follows: SHOOTING GALLERY/GUN RANGE, INDOOR: an enclosed facility, public or private, specifically for the purpose of providing a place in which to discharge various types of firearms, shoot air guns and/or archery equipment at designated targets and designed to contain all projectiles fired within the confines of the building. Auxiliary training and instructional classroom facilities may also be provided, as well as ancillary retail sales of firearms, ammunition and associated products upon proof of applicable local, state and federal licensure. Ordinance No. 2012-Jq Page 2 MANUFACTURER, FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION: Any person or entity in (A) the business of transporting, shipping and receiving firearms and ammunition for the purpose of sale or distribution (B) selling firearms at wholesale or retail, (C) repairing firearms or making or fitting special barrels, stocks or trigger mechanisms to firearms and operating under the provisions of the applicable local, state and federal licenses." Section 3. That Section 10-8A-3 and Section 10-813-3 of the Yorkville City Code, as amended, be and is hereby amended by adding the following special use to read as follows: Indoor shooting gallery/gun range with any accessory retail operations to occupy not more than twenty-five percent(25%) of the total floor area." Section 4. That Section 10-8A-4 of the Yorkville City Code, as amended, be and is hereby amended by adding subsection C. read as follows: C. The minimum building setback for indoor shooting gallery/gun range facilities shall be fifty (50) feet from any property line that abuts a residentially zoned property." Section 5. That Section 10-11-4, entitled "Schedule of Parking Requirements" of the Yorkville City Code, as amended, be and is hereby amended by adding subsection L. to read as follows: L. Indoor shooting gallery/gun range. Two (2) parking spaces per firing lane; one (1) parking space per staff member; eight (8) parking spaces for each instructional classroom, if any; plus all other parking requirements for any associated office and/or retail use within or on the premises." Section 6. That Section 10-713-2, Section 10-7C-2, Section 10-7D-2 and Section 10-7E-2 of the Yorkville City Code, as amended, be and is hereby amended by adding the following special use to read as follows: Indoor shooting gallery/gun range that when located in a multiple tenant building shall only be located in an end-unit and with the gallery/range not adjacent to an adjoining unit." Section 7. That Section 10-713-4 of the Yorkville City Code, as amended, be and is hereby amended by adding subsection E. read as follows: E. The minimum building setback for indoor shooting gallery/gun range facilities shall be fifty (50) feet from any property line that abuts a residentially zoned property." Section 8. That Section 10-7C-4 of the Yorkville City Code, as amended, be and is hereby amended by adding subsection E. read as follows: E. The minimum building setback for indoor shooting gallery/gun range facilities shall be fifty (50) feet from any property line that abuts a residentially zoned property." Ordinance No. 2012- c3 Page 3 Section 9. That Section 10-7D-4 of the Yorkville City Code, as amended, be and is hereby amended by adding subsection F. read as follows: F. The minimum building setback for indoor shooting gallery/gun range facilities shall be fifty (50) feet from any property line that abuts a residentially zoned property." Section 10. That Section 10-8A-1 and Section 10-8B-1 of the Yorkville City Code, as amended, be and is hereby amended by adding the following permitted use to read as follows: Manufacturer, firearms and ammunition" Section 11. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval, and publication as provided by law. Passed by the City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois this day of Aj A.D. 2012. j Lf CITY CLERK ROSE ANN SPEARS DIANE TEELING N GEORGE GILSON JR. JACKIE MILSCHEWSKI I CARLO COLOSIMO MARTY MUNNS NIC CHRIS FUNKHOUSER LARRY KOT Approved by me, as Mayor of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, this day-of JULY 2012. MA OR Ordinance No. 2012-eRol Page 4 Types of FederalFirearms Licenses (FFLs)WHAT IS AN FFL?Anindividualwhoislicensedtoengageinthebusinessofmanufacturing,importingand/ordealinginfirearms.PersonsmustbelicensedbyATFtoengageinthebusinessoffirearms. TYPES OF FFLs Manufacturer Importer Importeroffirearms orammunitionfor firearmsotherthan destructivedevices orammunitionother thanarmorpiercing ammunition Manufacturerof destructivedevices, ammunitionfor destructivedevices orarmorpiercing ammunition Importerof destructivedevices, ammunitionfor destructivedevices orarmorpiercing ammunition Manufacturerof ammunitionforfirearms otherthanammunition fordestructivedevices orarmorpiercing ammunition Manufacturerof firearmsotherthan destructivedevices PublishedByATF-June2018 Instagram: @ATFHQ | Twitter: @ATFHQ | Facebook: facebook.com/HQATF | www.atf.gov Dealer Dealerinfirearms otherthan destructive devices Pawnbrokerin firearmsotherthan destructivedevices Dealerin destructivedevices Collectorof curiosandrelics Other Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/gov_officials.php Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: See attached memo. Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Human Resources Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number Old Business #1 Tracking Number EDC 2020-32 Urban (Domesticated) Chickens Economic Development Committee – September 1, 2020 Discussion regarding permitting and regulating urban (domesticated) chickens in residentially zoned districts. Krysti Barksdale-Noble, AICP Community Development Name Department Summary: At the July Economic Development Committee (EDC) meeting, it was recommended that staff move forward with preparing policy options for permitting “urban/domesticated” chickens in single-family residentially zoned districts within the city. Since the communities’ staff researched regulate urban/domesticated chickens to varying degrees, we are offering three (3) policy options: (1) permitted with limited regulation; (2) permitted with moderate regulation; and (3) permitted with substantial regulations. Research: In staff’s research of the decades old movement toward bringing agricultural practices into city/suburban lifestyles, the raising of non-traditional domesticated animals, such as chickens, has risen in popularity. Cities have generally responded to this trend by either banning such practices outright or permitting the practice with a wide range of regulations. Those municipalities that chose to permit the practice of raising chickens in non-agriculturally zoned districts typically focused on the following regulations: Regulation Best Practice Reasoning Permitted Zoning Districts Single-Family Zoning Districts x Generally, single-family dwelling units are located on larger lots, able to accommodate needed setbacks to house a coop. x Multi-family dwelling units are limited in lot size to permit every unit to have the opportunity to keep a chicken coop. Maximum number of chickens Typically permits a maximum of six (6) chickens. x Chickens are stock animals which do not thrive alone, so most owners have a minimum of four (4) to maintain a proper “social order”. x Allows for owners to have hens that still produce eggs and keep those hens that are still valued by the owner but can no longer lay eggs. x Capping the number of hens to less than six (6) may lead owners who raise chickens for eggs to limit their flock to only egg producers and burden animal shelters with cast-off older hens. Minimum lot size requirement If specified, varies depending on Zoning Ordinance requirements (typically 2,500 - 8,000 sq. ft.). x Generally, the requirement of a minimum lot size reduces the number of residentially zoning districts allowable for urban/backyard chickens (i.e., only permit in E-1 and R-1 districts and not in R-2) x Needlessly creates obstacles to raising chickens in residential districts otherwise suited for the use. Memorandum To: Economic Development Committee From: Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director CC: Jason Engberg, Senior Planner Peter Ratos, Building Code Official Bart Olson, City Administrator Date: July 20, 2020 Subject: Urban (Domesticated) Chickens Location and/or Setback Requirements Located only in rear yards. Minimum of 25 ft. from any side/rear property line. x Typically seen as an “accessory use” to the primary residential land use, the location is most appropriate in rear yards. x Minimum 25 ft. setback is far enough to reduces nuisance of noise and odor, but also allows smaller properties to meet the standard. Sanitation Requirements (i.e. Performance Standards) Requires coop and outdoor enclosure must be kept in a sanitary condition and free from offensive odors and accumulation of waste. Prohibit feed from being scattered on the ground and requiring chickens to be fed from a trough. x Typically, can be enforced through existing performance standards in Zoning Ordinance and Property Maintenance Code. x Goal is to reduce odor, rodent and accumulation of waste without implementing stringent cleaning requirements which would be impossible to enforce. Enclosure/Coop Construction Constructed with a covered, predator-proof roof which allows for two (2) square feet per hen. Some ordinances provide sample construction diagram of wall/roof section and allowed materials. Typically requires a fenced “chicken run” area or located in a fenced yard. x Ensures adequate protection from natural predators (e.g. foxes, dogs, coyotes, etc.) and designed for easy access for cleaning. x Proposed size of 2 sq. ft. per hen provides adequate space for movement but small enough to keep birds warm in winter. x Fencing is required to allow birds to roam during cleaning but precludes chickens from running at large. Slaughtering Prohibited x Intent of ordinance is for chickens as pets or for raising of hens for eggs, not for meat. x Addresses concerns of health/hygiene concerns related to backyard slaughtering/butchering of chickens. Roosters Prohibited or only permitted under four (4) months of age. x Addresses concerns of noise (crowing) and are not needed for hens to produce eggs for feeding. Permit Required Varies by community. Those that require a permit ($0 - $50), city inspection and an annual renewal requirement. Recommended not to permit, but establish regulations, similar to regulating home occupations. x Inefficient use of City staff time to require a permit/license, review plans and maintain records. x Permit fees, especially if annual, could prove cost prohibitive for chicken owner. x Enforcement of regulations can still occur through the property maintenance process on a complaint basis. Policy Proposals: In consideration of a policy permitting urban/domesticated chickens, staff took into account the above referenced best practices from research gathered in planning related studies, model ordinances and surrounding community zoning codes to create a tier of three (3) options with varying degrees of regulations: LIMITED REGULATION MODERATE REGULATION SUBSTANTIAL REGULATION PERMITTED ZONING x E-1 (4 parcels) x R-1 (264 parcels) Total 268 parcels x E-1 (4 parcels) x R-1 (264 parcels) x R-2 (6,358 parcels) Total 6,626 parcels x E-1 (4 parcels) x R-1 (264 parcels) x R-2 (6,358 parcels) x R-2D (207 parcels) Total 6,833 parcels MAX. NUMBER Max. 8 chickens Max. 6 chickens Max. 4 chickens MIN. LOT SIZE N/A 12,000 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. LOCATION/SETBACK Rear/Side Yard Rear/Side Yard 25 ft. setback Rear Yard Only 25 ft. setback SANITATION Performance Standards & Property Maintenance Code applies. Performance Standards & Property Maintenance Code applies. Prohibit feed from being scattered on the ground. Performance Standards & Property Maintenance Code applies Prohibit feed from being scattered on the ground and requiring chickens to be fed from a trough. ENCLOSURE/COOP Enclosure Required. No specifications. Enclosure constructed with a covered, predator- proof roof which allows for two (2) square feet per hen. Chicken run and/or yard fence required. Enclosure constructed with a covered, predator-proof roof which allows for two (2) square feet per hen. Built per sample construction diagram of wall/roof section and allowed materials. Chicken run and/or yard fence required. SLAUGHTERING Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited ROOSTERS Permitted Permitted up to 4 months of age Prohibited PERMIT REQUIRED Not Required Required w/o Inspection ($25.00 one-time fee) Required w/Inspection ($50.00 one-time fee) Examples of a “Limited Regulation”, “Moderate Regulation” and ‘Substantial Regulation” ordinances are attached to this memo. Potential Code Amendments: Current sections of the City Code would be impacted and require amending if any measure permitting domesticated chickens and backyard coops/enclosures are allowed as accessory uses/structure. These include Chapter 2: Animals of Title 5: Police Regulations; Chapter 3: General Zoning Provisions of Title 10: Zoning; and Title 8: Building Regulations. However, staff recommends amending the Zoning Ordinance only if the City Council decides to implement the “Limited Regulations” which does not require a building permit for approval. Otherwise, we recommend amendments only to the Police and Building titles of the City Code if the “moderate” and “substantial” regulations are adopted, as this in consistent with how the Beekeeping Regulations were approved. The following are areas in each aforementioned section which would require amending, text in red is proposed to be added: Title 5: Police Regulations, Chapter 2: Animals “Agricultural Animal” definition in Section 5-2-1: Definitions will need to be amended to read as follows: “AGRICULTURAL ANIMAL: Livestock, poultry with the exception of domesticated chickens as regulated in (insert section), and other farm animals.” “Domestic Animal” definition in Section 5-2-1: Definitions will need to be amended to read as follows: “DOMESTIC ANIMAL: Dogs, cats and any other types of animals or fowl, including domesticated chickens as regulated in (insert section), normally maintained as a household pet or guardian.” Creation of a new definition in Section 5-2-1: Definitions for “domesticated chickens” to read as follows: “DOMESTICATED CHICKENS: A subspecies of the species Gallus Domesticus which are kept in an enclosure in the rear or side yard of a residentially zoned property as permitted and regulated in (insert section).” Title 5: Police Regulations, Section 5-2-5: Agricultural Animals Section 5-2-5: Agricultural Animals will need to be amended to read as follows: “Agricultural animals are prohibited within the corporate limits of the city, unless they are domesticated chickens regulated in (insert section) or are confined within an enclosure on land zoned A-1 agricultural zoning district, in accordance with title 10, chapter 9 of this code.” Title 8: Building Regulations Should the City Council pursue the moderate or substantial regulations, staff recommends creating a new chapter, Chapter 19: Domesticated Chickens, which will provide all regulatory requirements for permitting chickens in designated residential districts. Title 10: Zoning, Chapter 3: General Zoning Provisions Should the City Council pursue the limited regulations, staff recommends creating a new section in the General Zoning Provisions, Section 10-3-15: Domesticated Chickens, which will provide all regulatory requirements for permitting chickens in designated residential districts. Creation of a new definition in Section 10-2-3: Definitions for “domesticated chickens” to read as follows: “DOMESTICATED CHICKENS: A subspecies of the species Gallus Domesticus which are kept in an enclosure in the rear or side yard of a residentially zoned property as permitted and regulated in (insert section).” Potential Enforcement Options: In regard to potential enforcement options, the following options exist: 1. Property Maintenance Code – existing provisions within the 2018 International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) allows for the enforcement of public nuisances such as rodent harborage, maintenance of accessory structures, and proper rubbish and garbage containment, all which may result from unkept chicken coops. 2. Animals At Large – existing provisions within 5-2-4: Domestic Animals, prohibits domestic animals from running at large, with or without a tag fastened to its collar, within the corporate limits of the city. When any domestic animal is found on any public street, sidewalk, alley or any unenclosed place it is deemed to be running at large unless firmly held on a leash or is in an enclosed vehicle. This can be an issue if chickens are let loose in a backyard without secure fencing. 3. Performance Standards – located in the Zoning Ordinance, performance standards regulate noise (also regulated in Public Health and Safety ordinance the City Code) and odor which are also concerns related to permitting domestic chickens in residential districts. 4. Permit Revocation – the Building Code Official has the ability to revoke any valid permit if a violation is found and not corrected. All of the above provisions would require processing through the City’s Administration Adjudication procedures which, in addition, can lead to forced compliance, but fines and/or fees. Additionally, staff has received feedback from the Police Department which expressed concerned regarding nuisance and noise complaints, as well as conflicts between this ordinance and HOA regulations. While the proposed enforcement options address the noise and nuisance complaints, the City has no authority to enforce HOA regulations. To ensure communication between residents and their homeowners association is made prior to application submittal, staff can require a letter or approval from the HOA board as part of the permitting process. The attached permit example from the City of Batavia is provided for reference. Municipalities with Similar Ordinance Feedback Staff has reached out to four (4) area municipalities with existing urban (domesticated) chicken ordinances to seek their experiences administering and enforcing those regulations to share with the committee. Those communities were the cities of Naperville, Evanston, Batavia and the Village of Plainfield. Most of the communities adopted their regulations within the last 10 years and on average have had approximately twelve (12) applications during that time. None have reported any major complaints and administration of the regulations a non-issue. Staff Comments: Staff is seeking formal direction from the Economic Development Committee (EDC) to permit, define and regulate urban/domestic chickens within the city, and to what degree. If it is the concurrence of the Committee to amend, staff and the City Attorney will prepare the appropriate ordinance language per your direction and present it to the appropriate committees and/or commission at a future meeting with a recommendation to the City Council for final approval. Attachments 1. Illegal Fowl: A Survey of Municipal Laws Relating to Backyard Poultry and a Model Ordinance for Regulating City Chickens, Jamie Bouvier, Environmental Law Institute, 2012. 2. Feeding the Locavores, One Chicken at a Time: Regulating Backyard Chickens, Patricia Salkin, Zoning and Planning Law report, Vol. 34, No. 3, p. 1, March 2011. 3. City of Batavia – Chicken and Coop Requirements (Permit Application example) 4. Village of Plainfield – Keeping of Chickens regulations (Limited Regulation example) 5. City of Naperville – Urban Livestock Ordinance (Moderate Regulation example) 6. City of Evanston – Urban Livestock Ordinance (Substantial Regulation example) 7. Emails from residents regarding chickens 42 ELR 10888 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 Illegal Fowl: A Survey of Municipal Laws Relating to Backyard Poultry and a Model Ordinance for Regulating City Chickens by Jaime Bouvier Jaime Bouvier is Visiting Legal Writing Professor, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law . Summary As the movement toward keeping backyard chickens continues to grow, many cities are facing the decision of whether to allow residents to keep chickens and, if so, how to effectively regulate the practice . A survey of municipal ordinances in the top 100 most popu- lous cities in the United States that concern keeping and raising chickens offers lessons that may be applied to designing a model ordinance . This survey reveals that chickens are, perhaps surprisingly, legal in the vast majority of large cities . The survey also identifies regulatory norms and some effective and less effective ways to regulate the keeping of chickens . A proposed model ordinance, based on the background informa- tion and survey results, could be adopted by a city or easily modified to fit a city’s unique needs . So much depends upon a red wheel barrow glazed with rain water beside the white chickens . William Carlos Williams, 1923 . The movement toward bringing agricultural practices into the city has continued to expand during the last decade .1 As we learn more about the problems with our modern commercial agricultural practices—like keeping large numbers of animals crowded in small indoor facilities with little or no access to fresh air or sunlight and growing vast amounts of corn and soy in a monoculture environment to feed those animals2—many city-dwellers are taking it into their own hands to provide solutions .3 Community gardens are increasing in cities across the country .4 Mar- ket farms and even full-scale urban farms are popping up both in cities where the foreclosure epidemic has caused an abundance of abandoned properties and in cities where property has maintained or even increased in value .5 And, farmer’s markets have increased exponentially across the country—allowing smaller scale local farmers to directly link to consumers and sell their produce for far above the wholesale amounts they could get from selling through 1 . Kimberly Hodgson et al ., UrbanAgriculture:GrowingHealthySustainable Places, American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service, Report No . 563 (Jan . 2011); Janine de la Salle & Mark Holland, Agricul- tural Urbanism, Handbook for Building Sustainable Food & Agri- cultural Systems in 21st Century Cities, 9-12 (2010) . 2 . E.g., Food, Inc . (Magnolia Pictures 2009); Michael Pollan, The Om- nivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals (2006); Eric Schlosser, Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All American Meal (2002); Marion Nestle, Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health (2002) . 3 . E.g., Lisa Taylor, Your Farm in the City: An Urban Dweller’s Guide to Growing Food and Raising Livestock (2011); Thomas J . Fox, Ur- ban Farming: Sustainable City Living in Your Backyard, in Your Community, and in the World (2011); Kelly Coyne & Erik Knutzen, The Urban Homestead: Your Guide to Self-Sufficient Living in the Heart of the City (2010); Kurt B . Reighley, The United States of Americana: Backyard Chickens, Burlesque Beauties, and Homemade Bitters (2010) . 4 . Jane E . Schukoske, CommunityDevelopmentThroughGardening:Stateand LocalPoliciesTransformingUrbanOpenSpace, 3 N .Y .U . J . Legis . & Pub . Pol’y 315, 354 (1999-2000) . 5 . Hodgson, supra note 1, at 3-4 . Author’sNote:IwouldliketothankmyresearchassistantHannah Markel.IwouldalsoliketothankHeidiGorovitzRobertsonand CarolynBroering-Jacobsfortheirsupportandmentorship. Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10889 more established channels like supermarkets and conve- nience stores .6 Part of the greater urban agriculture movement involves urban animal husbandry—raising livestock in an urban setting .7 While many cities have allowed for bees, goats, and other livestock in the city,8 this Article will focus on how cities regulate chickens .9 Many people in urban envi- ronments are seeking to raise chickens to assert control over their food . This may be in reaction to increasing reports of how large industrial farms raise chickens in abusive and unsanitary settings—settings that not only are unhealthy for the chickens but negatively affect the health of people who live near such farms, as well as anyone who eats the eggs or meat from those chickens .10 Many people view rais- ing chickens and other urban agricultural practices as a way to combat a broken food system and a way to assert individual political power against the large corporations that control much of our food .11 In response to a growing demand from city-dwellers to raise their own chickens, either as part of a community 6 . Patricia E . Salkin & Amy Lavine, RegionalFoodsheds:AreOurLocalZoning andLandUseRegulationsHealthy?, 22 Fordham Envtl . L . Rev . 599, 617 (2011); Brandon Baird, ThePendingFarmer’sMarketFiasco:Small-Time Farmers,Part-TimeShoppers,andaBig-TimeProblem, 1 KYJEANRL 49, 49- 50 (2008-2009) . Seealso Kirk Johnson, SmallFarmersCreatingaNewBusi- nessModelasAgricultureGoesLocal, N .Y .Times, July 1, 2012, http://www . nytimes .com/2012/07/02/us/small-scale-farmers-creating-a-new-profit- model .html?_r=1&ref=agriculture . 7 . Hogdson, supra note 1, at 17 . See,e.g ., Robert & Hannah Litt, A Chick- en in Every Yard (2011); Harvey Ussery, The Small-Scale Poultry Flock: An All-Natural Approach to Raising Backyard and Urban Chickens (2011); Andy Schneider, The Chicken Whisperer’s Guide to Keeping Chickens, Everything You Need to Know . . . and Didn’t Know You Needed to Know About Raising Chickens (2011); Tara Layman Williams, The Complete Guide to Raising Chickens: Ev- erything You Need to Know Explained Simply (2010); Jerome D . Belanger, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Raising Chickens (2010); Carlee Madigan, The Backyard Homestead (2009); Kimberly Willis & Rob Ludlow, Raising Chickens for Dummies (2009) . 8 . E.g ., Heather Wooten & Amy Ackerman, SeedingtheCity:LandUsePoli- ciestoPromoteUrbanAgricultural, National Policy & Legal Analysis Network to Prevent Childhood Obesity, 34 (2011); Kailee Neuner et al ., PlanningtoEat:InnovativeLocalGovernmentPlansandPoliciestoBuild HealthyFoodSystemsintheUnitedStates, Food Systems Planning and Healthy Communities Lab, University of Buffalo, The State Univer- sity of New York, 17 (2011) . 9 . Seealso Patricia Salkin, FeedingtheLocavores,OneChickenataTime:Regu- latingBackyardChickens, 34:3 Zoning & Plan . L . Rep . 1 (2011) (briefly surveying chicken laws); Mary Wood et al ., PromotingtheUrbanHomestead: ReformofLocalLandUseLawstoAllowMicroLivestockonResidentialLots, 37 Ecology L . Currents 68 (2010) . 10 . See,e.g., Nicholas D . Kristof, IsanEggforBreakfastWorthThis?, N .Y . Times, Apr . 11, 2012, http://www .nytimes .com/2012/04/12/opinion/kristof-is- an-egg-for-breakfast-worth-this .html; Nicholas D . Kristof, ArsenicinOur Chicken, N .Y . Times, Apr . 4, 2012, http://www .nytimes .com/2012/04/05/ opinion/kristof-arsenic-in-our-chicken .html . 11 . Hugh Bartling, AChickenAin’tNothingbutaBird:LocalFoodProduc- tionandthePoliticsofLand-UseChange, Local Environment 17(a) (Jan . 2012) . For a different take on the political reasons behind backyard chick- ens, see Shannon Hayes, RadicalHomemakers:ReclaimingDomesticityFrom aConsumerCulture (2005) (asserting that urban farming can be a feminist response to modern urbanization) . garden, urban farm, or just in their own backyard, cities across the country are amending their ordinances to allow for and regulate backyard chickens .12 This Article will first provide a primer on what a city-dweller should know about chickens . This is especially targeted to city-dwellers who serve as councilpersons, mayors, or law directors and know little or nothing about chickens . Because many municipal officials lack agricultural knowledge, they lack a basis for understanding whether chickens can peacefully co-exist with their constituents in a cosmopolitan area . And, even if officials believe that residents should be able to keep chick- ens, they may still feel unequipped to figure out how to properly regulate chickens to head off practical concerns with noise, odor, and nuisance . Many people may be surprised to learn that even in cities where raising chickens is illegal, many people are doing so anyway .13 For instance, in a suburb of Cleve- land, Jennifer,14 a young mother of two boys, built a coop in her backyard and bought four chicks .15 These chicks grew up to be egg-laying hens and family pets before she learned that her city outlawed chickens . The city told her that if she did not get rid of the chickens, she would be subject to continuing expensive citations for violating the city’s ordinance . Because both she and her children 12 . Sarah Grieco, BackyardBees,Chickens,andGoatsApproved, NBCSanDi- ego, Feb . 1, 2012 http://www .nbcsandiego .com/news/local/Backyard- Bees-Chickens-Goats-Approved-138507104 .html; Michael Cass, Backyard ChickensMakeGainsinNashville, The Tennessean, Jan . 5, 2012, http:// www .healthynashville .org/modules .php?op=modload&name=News&file=a rticle&sid=20163; Peter Applebome, EnvisioningtheEndof“Don’tCluck, Don’tTell, N .Y . Times, Apr . 30, 2009, http://www .nytimes .com/2009/4/30/ nyregions/30town??; Jessica Bennet, TheNewCoopdeVille,theCrazefor UrbanPoultryFarming, Newsweek, Nov . 16, 2008, http://www .thedaily- beast .com/newsweek/2008/11/16/the-new-coop-de-ville .img .jpg . And this movement is not just in the United States; Australia, Canada, and Europe also are experiencing a surge in the number of people keeping backyard hens . See,e.g ., SurgeinBackyardPoultryNumbers, British Free Range Egg Producers Association (Jan . 9, 2011), http://www .theranger .co .uk/ news/Surge-in-backyard-poultry-numbers_21660 .html (last visited Feb . 24, 2012); Backyard Chickens in Toronto, Ontario, http://torontoch- ickens .com/Toronto_Chickens/Blog/Blog .html (last visited Feb . 22, 2012) (advocacy group seeking to legalize chickens in Toronto); Chris Mayberry & Peter Thomson, KeepingChickensintheBackyard, Department of Ag- riculture and Food, Government of Western Australia (Aug . 2004), http://www .agric .wa .gov .au/content/aap/pou/man/gn2004_022 .pdf (last visited Feb . 22, 2012); Andrea Gaynor, Harvest of the Suburbs: An Environmental History of Growing Food in Australian Cities (2006); Catharine Higginson, LivinginFrance-KeepingChickens, Living France, http://www .livingfrance .com/real-life-living-and-working-living- in-france-keeping-chickens–94936 (last visited Feb . 22, 2012) . 13 . See,e.g., WhereChickensAreOutlawedOnlyOutlawsWillHaveChickens, BackyardChickens .com,http://www .backyardchickens .com/t/616955/ where-chickens-are-outlawed-only-outlaws-will-have-chickens-t-shirt (last visited Feb . 15, 2012) (forum for people who own chickens illegally); Heather Cann et al ., UrbanLivestock:BarriersandOpportunitiesFacesby HomesteadersintheCityofWaterloo, Dec . 6, 2011, http://www .wrfoodsys- tem .ca/studentresearch (last visited Feb . 22, 2012) (interviewing several people who own chickens illegally in the Waterloo region of Canada) . 14 . Not her real name . 15 . Interview with Jennifer, July 18, 2011 (on file with author) . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 42 ELR 10890 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 had grown close to the hens, they did not want to sim- ply dispose of them or give them away . Instead, Jennifer moved to a neighboring city that had recently passed an ordinance legalizing backyard hens and started a chicken cooperative .16 Now, a group of neighbors take turns car- ing for the chickens and share the eggs . Neither in the suburb where she started raising the chicks nor in the city where she started the cooperative did neighbors complain about odor, noise, or any other potential nuisance . And the suburb, by prohibiting chickens, lost the opportunity Jennifer was willing to provide to build strong commu- nity ties with her neighbors .17 Instead of moving away, others are seeking to change the law to raise chickens in the city where they already live . For instance, Cherise Walker has been advocating for a new ordinance in her community .18 Ms . Walker is a veteran of the Iraq war who became interested in hens when she read that keeping chickens can help relieve post-traumatic stress disorder .19 She subscribes to Back- yardPoultry —a magazine dedicated to backyard chick- ens20; she became certified in hen-keeping by the Ohio State University Extension; and, she began assembling the materials to build a coop in her yard . But, she soon learned that her city outlaws hens as dangerous animals, placing them in the same category as lions, tigers, bears, and sharks .21 Unwilling to become an outlaw hen-keeper, she, like countless others across the country, is attempt- ing to lobby her mayor and city council-people to edu- cate them about chickens and encourage them to adopt a more chicken-friendly ordinance .22 Because of the growing popularity of keeping backyard chickens, cities can benefit from well-thought-out ordi- nances that avert possible nuisance and make it easy and clear for would-be chicken owners to find out what they need to do to comply with the law . Changing these ordinances, however, is often a conten- tious issue .23 It has caused one mayor in Minnesota to say, “there is a lot of anger around this issue for some reason . 16 . Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §§205 .04, 347 .02 (2011) . 17 . Seeinfra Part I .E . (discussing how participating in urban agriculture can increase social connections and civic responsibility) . 18 . Interview with Jennifer, July 18, 2011 (on file with author) . 19 . Megan Zotterelli, VeteransFarming, The Leaflet: Newsletter of the Central Coast Chapter of California Rare Fruit Growers (July/ Aug . 2011), http://centralcoastfoodie .com/2011/08/veterans-farming/ (noting that the Farmer Veterans Coalition that seeks to link veterans with farming has done so not only to provide veterans with economic opportunities, but because “the nurturing environment of a greenhouse or a hatchery has helped these veterans make impressive strides in their recovery and transition”) . 20 . BackyardPoultryMagazine has been published since 2006 by Countryside Publications, Inc . It currently has a circulation of approximately 75,000 readers . See Advertising Information for Backyard Poultry, http:// www .backyardpoultrymag .com/advertise .html (last visited Feb . 22, 2012) . 21 . Lakewood Mun . Ordinance §505 .18 . 22 . Interview with Cherise Walker, Mar . 18, 2012 (on file with author) . 23 . Barak Y . Orbach & Frances R . Sjoberg, DebatingOverBackyardChickens, Arizona Legal Studies, Discussion Paper No . 11-02 (Feb . 2012) (listing con- flicts in dozens of cities where people were seeking to change ordinances to either legalize or ban chickens); seealso Salkin, supra note 9, at 1 (describing criticism of efforts to allow chickens in neighborhoods as including “worry that property values will plummet, that chickens will create foul odors and noise, and that they will attract coyotes, foxes, and other pests”) . More so than the war by far .”24 City leaders are understand- ably concerned that chickens may cause nuisances .25 They have raised such concerns as decreasing property values26 and increasing greenhouse emissions,27 as well as concerns about excessive clucking and overwhelming odors bother- ing the neighbors .28 Some express the belief that chickens, and other agricultural practices, simply do not belong in cities .29 The controversy over backyard chicken regulation has been so contentious that at least one law review article uses it as a case study for the Coase theorem to illustrate how we unnecessarily inflate the costs of processes related to legal change .30 In Part I, this Article will discuss the benefits of back- yard chickens . Part II will investigate concerns that many people have with keeping chickens in the city . Part III will provide some background about chickens and chicken behavior that municipalities should understand before crafting any ordinance . Part IV will survey ordinances related to keeping chickens in the 100 most populous cit- ies in the United States, identifying regulatory norms and particularly effective and ineffective means of regulation . Finally, Part V will put forward a model ordinance that regulates keeping chickens in an urban setting while pro- viding sufficient regulation to abate nuisance concerns . 24 . Orbach & Sjoberg, supra note 23, at 24 . 25 . P .J . Huffstutter, BackyardChickensontheRise,DespitetheNeighbor’sClucks, L .A . Times, June 15, 2009, http://articles .latimes .com/2009/jun/15/ nation/na-chicken-economy15 . 26 . Tiara Hodges, Cary:NoChickensYet, IndyWeek .com, Feb . 10, 2012, http://www .indyweek .com/BigBite/archives/2012/02/10/cary-no-chickens yet (last visited Feb . 17, 2012); BackyardChickens:GoodorBadIdea, KVAL . com, Mar . 3, 2009, http://www .kval .com/news/40648802 .html (last vis- ited Feb . 17, 2012) . 27 . Valerie Taylor, ChickensforMontgomery (2009), http://www .scribd .com/ doc/16509728/Changing-Your-Citys-Chicken-Laws (last visited Feb . 17, 2012) (addressing a concern that Montgomery council people voiced about greenhouse gases) . 28 . Josie Garthwaite, UrbanGarden?Check.Now,Chickens, N .Y . Times, Feb . 7, 2012, http://green .blogs .nytimes .com/2012/02/07/urban-garden-check- now-chickens/ . 29 . Orbach & Sjoberg, supra note 23, at 19 (citing one mayor from Frankling- ton, Louisiana, as stating the “city has changed and grown so much since the original ordinance . We are trying to look to the future . You can’t raise animals or livestock (in the city) .”); Barry Y . Orbach & Frances R . Sjoberg, ExcessiveSpeech,CivilityNorms,andtheCluckingTheorem, 44 Conn . L . Rev . 1 (2011) (stating that an alderman in Chicago was seeking to ban chickens in part because, “[a]ll things considered, I think chickens should be raised on a farm”); Jerry Kaufman & Martin Bailkey, FarmingInsideCities, 13 Landlines 1 (2001) . 30 . See Orbach & Sjoberg, supra note 29 . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10891 I. The Benefits of Backyard Chickens In 1920, an elementary school textbook recommended that every family in America keep a small flock of back- yard chickens .31 The textbook provided that “every family is better off for having a few chickens, provided they are kept out of the garden and at a suitable distance from any house .”32 It noted that of the millions of dollars worth of eggs that were sold each year at that time, comparatively lit- tle came from large poultry farms, but came instead “from the hundreds and thousands of farms and town lots where a few chickens and other fowls are kept in order that they may turn to profit food materials that otherwise would be wasted .”33 The textbook asserted that chickens were a good value because, as scavengers and omnivores, it was relatively cheap to feed them scraps and receive in return fresh eggs . Also, the textbook championed city flocks because chickens eat insects and thus prevent the increase of insect pests .34 The U .S . government was in agreement with the text- book’s advice . During World War I, the United States exhorted every person in America to raise chickens . The U .S . Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued posters with titles like “Uncle Sam Expects You to Keep Hens and Raise Chickens .”35 One such poster encourages chicken ownership by exhorting that “even the smallest backyard has room for a flock large enough to supply the house with eggs .”36 The poster goes on to say that because chickens eat table scraps and require little care, every household should contribute to a bumper crop of poultry and eggs in 1918 .37 These recommendations are still valid today, as many are reevaluating the suburbanization of America that occurred after World War II and reincorporating agricultural prac- tices into daily life .38 Keeping domesticated fowl has been a part of human existence for millennia,39 and only in the last century has been seen as something that should be kept separate from the family and the home .40 While humanity has long understood the benefits of keeping domesticated chickens, many city-dwellers have lost touch with what 31 . William Thompson Skilling, Nature-Study Agriculture (World Book Co . 1920) . 32 . Id . at 296 . 33 . Id . 34 . Id . 35 . Scott Doyon, Chickens:WWISolutiontoAlmostEverything, Better Cities & Towns, Nov . 4, 2011, http://bettercities .net/news-opinion/blogs/scott- doyon/15562/backyard-chickens-wwi-era-solution-almost-everything (last visited Feb . 15, 2012) . 36 . Id. 37 . Id . 38 . Hodgson, supra note 1, at 11-12 . See,e.g ., Robert M . Fogelson, Bour- geois Nightmares 168-81 (2005) (noting that backyard poultry-keeping went from being universal and encouraged to being banned as a nuisance when newly developed suburbs aimed toward attracting wealthy residents began instituting policies to ban all household pets in an effort to distin- guish themselves from both the urban and rural lower class) . 39 . Barbara West & Ben-Xiong Zhou, DidChickensGoNorth?NewEvidence forDomestication, 44 World’s Poultry Sci . J . 205-18 (1999) . Christine Heinrichs, How to Raise Chickens: Everything You Need to Know (2007) . 40 . See,e.g., Andrea Gaynor, Harvest of the Suburbs 133 (2006); Janine De La Salle & Mark Holland, Agricultural Urbanism: Handbook for Building Sustainable Food & Agriculture Systems in 21st Cen- tury Cities 23 (2010) . chickens have to offer . There continue to be many benefits to raising hens . Some of the benefits are apparent—like getting fresh free eggs . Some are less apparent—like hen manure being a surprisingly pricey and effective fertilizer and research findings that urban agricultural practices in general raise property values and strengthen the social fab- ric of a community . The benefits of keeping hens will be discussed more thoroughly below . A. Chickens Are a Source of Fresh Nutritious Eggs The most obvious benefit of keeping chickens in the back- yard is the eggs . A hen will generally lay eggs for the first five to six years of her life, with peak production in the first two years .41 Hens lay more during the spring and summer months when they are exposed to more light because of the longer days .42 Hens also lay far more eggs when they are younger, starting off with between 150 to 300 eggs per year depending on the breed and dwindling down by about 20% each year .43 Young hens or pullets often start out lay- 41 . Litt, supranote 7, at 168-69 . 42 . Id . at 169 . 43 . Id. USDA Poster from Scott Doyon, Chickens: WWI Solution to Almost Everything, Better Cities & Towns, Nov. 4, 2011, http://bettercities.net/ news-opinion/blogs/scott-doyon/15562/backyard-chickens-wwi-era- solution-almost-everything (last visited Feb. 15, 2012). Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 42 ELR 10892 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 they are kept in a more natural environment with exposure to sun, weather, and adequate companionship .57 Scientific nutritional analyses have proven that eggs from hens that are kept in small flocks and allowed to forage, when com- pared with store-bought eggs, have • 1/3 less cholesterol • 1/4 less saturated fat • 2/3 more vitamin A • 2 times more omega-3 fatty acids • 3 times more vitamin E • 7 times more beta-carotene .58 Thus, four to six hens can easily provide enough eggs for a typical household and sometimes enough for the neigh- bors as well . And, the eggs are more nutritious, fresher, and tastier than those available in stores . B. Chickens Provide Companionship as Pets Many people who own a small flock of chickens consider their chickens to be pets and a part of their family—just like a dog or a cat .59 Chickens have personalities, and many people and children bond with them just like any other pet .60 Several forums exist on the Internet where people can trade stories about hen antics61 or debate what breed of chicken is best for children .62 Chicken owners tend to name their hens, and many can easily describe each hen’s temperament and personality .63 Perhaps recognizing this, many cities, as shown below, actually regulate chickens as pets—and place no further burden on chicken owners than it would on dog or cat owners .64 C. Chicken Manure Is a Surprisingly Valuable Fertilizer Chicken manure is an excellent and surprisingly valuable fertilizer . Currently, 20-pound bags of organic chicken manure fertilizer can fetch a price of between $10 and 57 . Id. 58 . Litt, supra note 7, at 179 . 59 . Id. at 4-10 . 60 . See,e.g ., Carolyn Bush, AChickenChristmasTale, Backyard Poultry Mag ., Jan . 2010, http://www .backyardpoultrymag .com/issues/5/5-6/a_chicken_ christmas_tale .html (describing her pet chickens and mourning one of their deaths); Chickenvideo .com, http://www .chickenvideo .com/outlawchick- ens .html (last visited July 2, 2012) (collecting stories from people who keep chickens as pets despite their illegality) . 61 . Funny,FunnyChickenAntics, Backyardchickens .com, http://www .back- yardchickens .com/forum/viewtopic .php?id=380593 (last visited July 2, 2012) . 62 . WhatBreedsAreBestforChildrentoShowin4-H?, Backyardchickens .com, http://www .backyardchickens .com/forum/viewtopic .php?pid=5726813 (last visited July 2, 2012) . 63 . Litt, supra note 7, at 4 . 64 . See infra Part IV .C .1 . ing abnormal-looking or even double-yolked eggs, but as they mature begin laying more uniform eggs .44 Although hens can live up to 15 or even 20 years, the average hen’s lifespan is between four to eight years, so most hens will lay eggs during most of their life—but production will drop off considerably as they age .45 Although some have argued that raising backyard chick- ens will save money that would have been used to buy eggs over time, this claim is dubious .46 It would take many years to recoup the cost of the chickens, the chicken feed, and the coops .47 But cost is only part of the equation . Eggs from backyard hens have been scientifically shown to taste better .48 First, they taste better because they are fresher .49 Most eggs bought in a grocery store are weeks if not months old before they reach the point of sale .50 Recent studies in agriculture science, moreover, demon- strate that if a chicken is allowed to forage for fresh clover and grass, eat insects, and is fed oyster shells for calcium, her eggs will have a deeper colored yolk, ranging from rich gold to bright orange, and the taste of the egg will be significantly fresher .51 Next, eggs from backyard hens are more nutritious .52 Poultry scientists have long known that a hen’s diet will affect the nutrient value of her eggs .53 Thus, most commer- cial hens are subjected to a standardized diet that provides essential nutrients; but even with this knowledge, large- scale operations cannot provide chickens with an optimal diet under optimal conditions .54 Tests have found that eggs from small-flock pasture-raised hens actually have a remarkably different nutritional content than your typical store-bought egg—even those certified organic .55 This is because backyard chickens can forage for fresh grass and other greens and get access to insects and other more nat- ural chicken food .56 The nutritional differences may also be attributed to the fact that hens are less stressed because 44 . Bernal R . Weimer, APeculiarEggAbnormality, 2-4:10 Poultry Sci . 78-79 (July 1918) . 45 . Litt, supra note 7, at 173 . 46 . Gail Damerow, Backyard Homestead Guide to Raising Chickens (2011) . 47 . Litt, supra note 7, at 16 . William Neuman, KeepingTheirEggsin TheirBackyardNests, N .Y . Times, Aug . 3, 2009, http://www .nytimes . com/2009/08/04/business/04chickens .html?pagewanted=all (acknowledg- ing that backyard chicken enthusiasts do not typically save money by not buying eggs) . 48 . Klaus Horsted et al ., EffectofGrassCloverForageandWhole-WheatFeeding ontheSensoryQualityofEggs, 90:2 J . Sci . Food & Agric . 343-48 (Jan . 2010) . 49 . Litt, supra note 7, at 17 . 50 . Id . 51 . Horsted et al ., supra note 48 . 52 . Litt, supra note 7, at 179 (citing Cheryl Long & Tabitha Alterman, Meet RealFree-RangeEggs, Mother Earth News, Oct ./Nov . 2007, http://www . motherearthnews .com/Real-Food/2007-10-01/Tests-Reveal-Healthier-Eggs . aspx; Artemis P . Simopoulos & Norman Salem Jr ., EggYolk:ASourceof Long-ChainPolyunsaturatedFatsinInfantFeeding, 4 Am . J . Clinical Nu- trition 411 (1992) (finding a significant increase in nutrition and signifi- cant decrease in harmful fats in small-flock free-range eggs) . 53 . William J . Stadelman & Owen J . Cotterill, Egg Science & Technol- ogy 185 (1995) . 54 . Id . 55 . Litt, supra note 7, at 17 . 56 . Id .; Simopoulos & Salem Jr ., supra note 52 . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10893 $20 .65 Poultry waste has long been used as a fertilizer—it provides necessary nutrients for plants and works well as an addition to compost .66 Large amounts of uncomposted chicken manure applied directly to a garden will over- whelm or burn the plants, because its nitrogen content is too high .67 But, the amount of manure that a backyard flock of four to six hens would produce is not enough to harm the plants and can be beneficial to a home garden, even without first being composted .68 A small flock of chickens, moreover, does not actually produce much manure . A fully grown four-pound laying hen produces approximately a quarter-pound of manure per day .69 In comparison, an average dog produces three- quarters of a pound per day, or three times as much waste as one hen .70 As cities have been able to deal with waste from other pets like dogs and cats with proper regulation, even though there is no market for their waste, cities should be confident that the city and chicken owners can properly manage chicken waste . D. Chickens Eat Insects Chickens, like other birds, eat insects such as ants, spiders, ticks, fleas, slugs, roaches, and beetles .71 Chickens also occasionally eat worms, small snakes, and small mice .72 Insects provide protein that the chickens need to lay nutri- tionally dense eggs .73 Small flocks of chickens are recom- mended as a way to eliminate weeds, although a chicken does not discriminate between weeds and plants and, if left in a garden for too long, will eat the garden plants as well .74 But, because chickens like to eat insects and other garden pests, allowing the chicken occasional and limited access 65 . Black Gold Compost Chicken Fertilizer sold for $13 .43 for 20 pounds on Amazon . Amazon .com, http://www .amazon .com/Black-Compost-Chick- Manure-60217/dp/B00292YAQC (last visited July 2, 2012) . Chickety- doo-doo sold for $47 .75 for 40 pounds on EBay . Ebay, http://www .ebay . com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI .dll?ViewItem&item=260889160166&hlp=false (last visited Jan . 6, 2012) . 66 . Adam A . Hady & Ron Kean, PoultryforSmallFarmsandBackyard, UW Cooperative Extension, http://learning store .uwex .edu/assets/pdfs/ A3908-03 . 67 . Litt, supra note 7, at 9 . 68 . Id . 69 . OhioLivestockManureManagementGuide, Ohio State University Ex- tension, Bulletin 604-06, p . 3, T . 1 2006, http://ohioline .osu .edu/b604/ (providing that a four-pound laying hen produces 0 .26 of a pound per day of manure) . 70 . Leah Nemiroff & Judith Patterson, Design,TestingandImplementationof aLarge-ScaleUrbanDogWasteCompostingProgram, 15:4 Compost Sci . & Utilization 237-42 (2007) (“On average, a dog produces 0 .34 [kilograms (kg)] (0 .75 lbs) of feces per day .”) . 71 . Simopoulos & Salem Jr ., supra note 52, at 412 . Schneider, supra note 8, at 15 . 72 . Id . 73 . Id . 74 . John P . Bishop, Chickens:ImprovingSmall-ScaleProduction, Echo technical note, echo .net, 1995, http://www .google .com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s &source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww . echocommunity .org%2Fresource%2Fcollection%2FE66CDFDB-0A0D- 4DDE-8AB1-74D9D8C3EDD4%2FChickens .pdf&ei=39zxT41Sh7etAd SUmY8C&usg=AFQjCNHh0_bkG_5sVmlovgngOXD53AJagA&sig2=_ cgyLnv7jDV7hGIVZty89g (last visited July 2, 2012) . to a garden can eliminate a need to use chemicals or other insecticides and prevent insect infestations .75 E. Chickens Help Build Community Several studies have found that urban agriculture can increase social connections and civic engagement in the community .76 Agricultural projects can provide a center- piece around which communities can organize and, by doing so, become more resilient .77 Building a sense of com- munity is often especially valuable for more marginalized groups—like recent immigrants and impoverished inner- city areas .78 Keeping chickens easily fits into the community- building benefit of urban agriculture . Because chickens lay more eggs in the spring and summer, an owner often has more eggs than he can use: neighbors, thus, become the beneficiaries of the excess eggs . Because chickens are still seen as a novelty in many communities, many chicken owners help to educate their neighbors and their communities by inviting them over for a visit and let- ting neighbors see the coops and interact with the chick- ens .79 Finally, like the example of Jennifer above, keeping chickens can become a community endeavor; many peo- ple have formed chicken cooperatives where neighbors band together to share in the work of tending the hens and also share in the eggs .80 II. Cities’ Concerns With Backyard Hens Never mind what you think . The old man did not rush Recklessly into the coop at the last minute . The chickens hardly stirred For the easy way he sang to them . Bruce Weigl, KillingChickens, 1999 . 75 . Tara Layman Williams, The Complete Guide to Raising Chickens: Everything You Need to Know 95 (2011) . 76 . Hodgson, supra note 1, at 3 (citing Lorraine Johnson, City Farmer: Adventures in Urban Food Growing (2010), and Patricia Hynes, A Patch of Eden: America’s Inner City Gardeners (1996)) . 77 . Hodgson, supra note 1, at 94 . 78 . Id . SeealsoIowaConcentratedAnimalFeedingOperationsAirQualityStudy, FinalReport, Iowa State University and the University of Iowa Study Group 148, Feb . 2002, http://www .ehsrc .uiowa .edu/cafo_air_qual- ity_study .html (finding that in rural areas communities where farms were smaller, were owner-operated, and used the labor of the operating family, the community “had a richer civic and social fabric: residents of all social classes were more involved in community affairs, more community organi- zations served people of both middle and working class background, and there were more local businesses and more retail activity”) . 79 . Litt, supra note 7, at 12-13 . See,e.g ., Jeff S . Sharp & Molly B . Smith, Social CapitalandFarmingattheRural-UrbanInterface:TheImportanceofNon- farmerandFarmerRelations, 76 Agric . Sys . 913-27 (2003) (finding that communities benefit and agricultural uses have more support when farmers develop social relationships with non-farmers) . 80 . E.g ., Abby Quillen, HowtoShareaChickenorTwo, Shareable: Cities (Nov . 22, 2009), http://shareable .net/blog/how-to-share-a-chicken (last vis- ited Feb . 12, 2012) . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 42 ELR 10894 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 A. Noise The most frequently expressed concern is that hens will be noisy . This may come from associating roosters with hens . Roosters are noisy .81 Hens are not particularly noisy . While they will cluck, the clucking is neither loud nor frequent .82 The clucking of hens is commonly compared to human conversation—both register around 65 decibels .83 By con- trast, the barking of a single dog can reach levels well over 100 decibels .84 It should also be noted that chickens have a homing instinct to roost and sleep at night . A hen will return to her coop at night and generally fall asleep before or at sun- down .85 Thus, there should be little concern with clucking hens disturbing a neighborhood at night . B. Odor Many people are concerned that chicken droppings will cause odors that reach neighbors and perhaps even affect the neighborhood . These concerns may stem from pub- licized reports of odors from large poultry operations .86 While it is no doubt true that the odors coming from these intensive commercial-scale chicken farms is overwhelming and harmful,87 these operations often have hundreds of thousands of chickens in very small spaces .88 Most of the odor that people may associate with poul- try is actually ammonia . Ammonia, however, is a product of a poorly ventilated and moist coop .89 Coop designs for backyard hens should take this into account and allow for proper ventilation . And, if coops are regularly cleaned, there should be little to no odor associated with the hens .90 81 . ManagementofNoiseonPoultryFarms, Poultry Fact Sheet, British Colum- bia, Ministry of Agriculture and Food (Aug . 1999), http://www .agf . gov .bc .ca/poultry/publications/documents/noise .pdf . 82 . Id . 83 . ProtectingAgainstNoise, National Ag Safety Database, The Ohio State University Extension, http://nasdonline .org/document/1744/d001721/ protecting-against-noise .html (last visited Feb . 22, 2012) (explaining that a chicken coop and human conversation are both about 65 decibels) . 84 . Crista L . Coppola et al ., NoiseintheAnimalShelterEnvironment:Building DesignandtheEffectsofDailyNoiseExposure, 9(l) J . applied Animal Wel- fare Sci . 1-7 (2006) . 85 . Williams, supra note 75, at 92 . Robert Plamondon, RangePoultryHousing, ATTRA 11 (June 2003) . 86 . E.g., William Neuman, CleanLivingintheHenhouse, N .Y . Times, Oct . 6, 2010, http://www .nytimes .com/2010/10/07/business/07eggfarm .html? scp=2&sq=large%20chicken%20farms%20and%20odor&st=cse . 87 . Doug Gurian Sherman, CAFOSUncovered,TheUntoldCostsofAnimal FeedingOperations, Union of Concerned Scientists, Apr . 2008, http:// www .ucsusa .org/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/cafos-uncovered . pdf; IowaConcentratedAnimalFeedingOperationsandAirQualityStudy, Final Report, Iowa State University and the University of Iowa Study Group (Feb . 2002) (finding extensive literature documenting acute and chronic respiratory diseases and dysfunction among poultry work- ers exposed to complex mixtures of particulates, gases, and vapors within CAFO units) . 88 . Id . 89 . Id . 90 . Gail Damerow, The Backyard Homestead Guide to Raising Farm An- imals 35 (2011) (“A chicken coop that smells like manure or has the pun- gent odor of ammonia is mismanaged . These problems are easily avoided by keeping litter dry, adding fresh litter as needed to absorb droppings, and periodically removing the old litter and replacing it with a fresh batch .”) . C. Diseases Two diseases are frequently raised in discussions of back- yard hens: avian flu and salmonella . For different reasons, neither justifies a ban on backyard hens .91 First, with the attention that avian flu has received in the past few years, some have expressed a concern that allow- ing backyard chickens could provide a transition point for an avian virus to infect humans .92 While no one can pre- dict whether this virus will cross over to cause widespread illness or how it might do so, it is important to note that avian flu, right now, would have to mutate for it to become an illness that can spread from person to person .93 Even the H5N1 strain of the virus, a highly pathogenic form that garnered news in the early 2000s because it infected humans, is very difficult for humans to catch and has not been shown to spread from person to person .94 And that strain of the virus does not exist in the United States—it has not been found in birds, wild or domestic, in North or South America .95 Encouraging a return to more small-scale agriculture, moreover, may prevent such a mutation from occurring . Many world and national governmental health organi- zations that are concerned with the possible mutation of avian flu link the increased risks of disease to the intensi- fication of the processes for raising animals for food—in other words, large-scale factory farms .96 For instance, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) blamed “the intensification of food-animal production” in part on the increasing threat .97 The Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, an industry-funded group, cre- ated a task force including experts from the World Health Organization, the World Organization for Animal Health, and the USDA, and issued a report in 2006 finding that modern intensive animal farming techniques increase the risk of new virulent diseases .98 The report stated “a major impact of modern intensive production systems is that they allow the rapid selection and amplification of patho- gens that arise from a virulent ancestor (frequently by 91 . Sue L . Pollock et al ., RaisingChickensinCityBackyards:ThePublicHealth Role, J . Community Health, DOI: 10 .1007/s10900-011-9504-1 (2011) (finding that public health concerns about infectious diseases and other nui- sances that might be caused by keeping hens in an urban setting cannot be supported by literature specific to the urban agriculture context and recom- mending that public health practitioners approach this issue in a manner analogous to concerns over keeping domestic pets) . 92 . E.g., Orbach & Sjoberg, supranote 23, at 29 . 93 . AvianInfluenza, USDA, http://www .ars .usda .gov/News/docs .htm?docid= 11244 (last visited July 2, 2012) . 94 . AvianInfluenza,Questions&Answers, Food and Agric . Org . of the United Nations, http://www .fao .org/avianflu/en/qanda .html (last visited July 26, 2012) . 95 . Id . 96 . Michael Greger, BirdFlu, AVirusofOurOwnHatching, BirdFluBook . Com (2006-2008), http://birdflubook .com/a .php?id=50 (last visited Feb . 21, 2012) (finding that the Food and Agriculture Organization of the Unit- ed Nations, the World Health Organization, and the World Organization for Animal Health attribute risk factors for the emergence of new diseases from animals to the increasing demand for animal protein) . 97 . Id . 98 . Id . (citing GlobalRisksofInfectiousAnimalDiseases, Council for Agric . Sci . and Tech ., Issue Paper No . 28, 2005) . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10895 subtle mutation), thus, there is increasing risk for disease entrance and/or dissemination .”99 The report concludes by stating, “because of the Livestock Revolution, global risks of disease are increasing .”100 It is for this reason that many believe that the movement toward backyard chick- ens and diverse small-scale poultry farming, rather than being a problem, is a solution to concerns about mutating avian viruses .101 Another theory for how an avian flu mutation may occur is that it will first occur in wild birds that could pass it on to domesticated birds .102 In this case, backyard hens could provide a transition point . For this reason the USDA, rather than advocating a ban on backyard hens, has instead offered some simple-to-follow precautionary procedures for small flock owners: the USDA counsels backyard bird enthusiasts to separate domesticated birds from other birds by enclosing coops and runs, to clean the coops regularly, and to wash their hands before and after touching the birds .103 Another illness that causes concern because it can be transferred to humans is salmonella .104 Chickens, like other common household pets—including dogs, turtles, and caged birds—can carry salmonella .105 For this reason, the CDC counsels that people should wash their hands after touching poultry, should supervise young children around poultry, and make sure that young children wash their hands after touching chicks or other live poultry .106 Chickens, like other pets, can get sick and carry dis- ease . But public health scholars have found that there is no evidence that the incidence of disease in small flocks of backyard hens merits banning hens in the city and counsel city officials to regulate backyard hens like they would any other pet .107 99 . Id . 100 . Id . 101 . Ben Block, U.S.CityDwellersFlocktoRaisingChickens, WorldWatch Insti- tute, http://www .worldwatch .org/node/5900 (last visited Feb . 22, 2012); FowlPlay,thePoultryIndustry’sCentralRoleintheBirdFluCrisis, GRAIN, http://www .grain .org/article/entries/22-fowl-play-the-poultry-industry-s- central-role-in-the-bird-flu-crisis (last visited Feb . 22, 2012); PuttingMeat ontheTable:IndustrialFarmAnimalProductioninAmerica, A Report of the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production (2006), http://www .ncifap .org/ (last visited Feb . 21, 2012) . 102 . Rachel Dennis, CAFOsandPublicHealth:RisksAssociatedWithWelfare FriendlyFarming, Purdue Univ . Extension, Aug . 2007, https://mdc .itap . purdue .edu/item .asp?itemID=18335# .T_Hjd3CZOOU . 103 . BackyardBiosecurity,6WaystoPreventPoultryDisease, USDA, May 2004, http://www .aphis .usda .gov/animal_health/birdbiosecurity/biosecurity/ba- sicspoultry .htm (last visited Feb . 21, 2012) . 104 . KeepingLivePoultry, CDC, http://www .cdc .gov/features/SalmonellaPoul- try/ (last visited Feb . 21, 2012) . 105 . See Shaohua Zhao, CharacterizationofSalmonellaEntericaSerotypeNewport IsolatedFromHumansandFoodAnimals, 41 J . Clinical Microbiology, No . 12, 5367 (2003) (stating that dogs and pigeons, as well as chickens, can carry salmonella); J . Hidalgo-Villa, SalmonellainFreeLivingTerrestrialand AquaticTurtles, 119:2-4 Veterinary Microbiology 311-15 (Jan . 2007) . 106 . KeepingLivePoultry, CDC, http://www .cdc .gov/features/SalmonellaPoul- try/ (last visited Feb . 21, 2012) . 107 . Sue L . Pollock et al ., RaisingChickensinCityBackyards:ThePublicHealth Role, J . Community Health, DOI: 10 .1007/s10900-011-9504-1 (2011) . D. Property Values Another common concern is that keeping backyard chick- ens will reduce surrounding property values .108 Several studies, however, have found that agricultural uses within the city actually increase property values .109 Community gardens increase neighboring property values by as much as 9 .4% when the garden is first implemented .110 The property value continues to increase as the gardens become more integrated into the neighborhood .111 The poorest neighbor- hoods, moreover, showed the greatest increase in property values .112 Studies have also found that rent increased and the rates of home ownership increased in areas surround- ing a newly opened community garden .113 Studies concerning pets, moreover, find that apart- ment owners can charge higher rent for concessions such as allowing pets .114 Thus, accommodating pets has been shown to raise property values . As of yet, no studies have been done on how backyard chickens in particular affect property values, but given that communities express little concern that other pets, such as dogs or cats, reduce property values, and given research showing that pets and urban agricultural practices can increase them, there is little reason to believe that allowing backyard chickens will negatively affect them .115 E. Slaughter Some people are concerned that chicken owners will kill chickens in the backyard .116 People are concerned that it may be harmful to children in the neighborhood to watch a chicken being killed and prepared for a meal .117 Others are concerned that backyard slaughtering may be unsanitary .118 First, many who raise chickens keep the hens only for the eggs .119 Most egg-laying breeds do not make for tasty meat .120 Many people become attached to their chickens, as they would a cat or a dog, and treat a death 108 . Salkin, supra note 9, at 1 . 109 . Hodgson, supra note 1, at 21 . 110 . Id . 111 . Id . 112 . Id . 113 . Id . 114 . G . Stacy Sirmans & C .F . Sirmans, RentalConcessionsandPropertyValues, 5:1 J . Real Estate Res . 141-51(1990); C .A . Smith, ApartmentRents—Is Therea“Complex”Effect, 66:3 Appraisal J . (1998) (finding that average apartment unit commands $50 more rent per unit by allowing pets) . 115 . Michael Broadway, GrowingUrbanAgricultureinNorthAmericanCities: TheExampleofMilwaukee, 52:3-4 Focus on Geography 23-30 (Dec . 2009) . 116 . Neighbors Opposed to Backyard Slaughter, http://noslaughter .org (last visited Feb . 22, 2012) . 117 . Id . 118 . Id . 119 . Litt, supra note 7, at 3 (stating that “the vast majority of backyard chicken keepers regard their chickens as pets and find it unsettling—if not outright upsetting—to consider eating them”) . 120 . Jay Rossier, Living With Chickens: Everything You Need to Know to Raise Your Own Backyard Flock 4 (2002) . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 42 ELR 10896 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 similarly .121 Veterinarians, moreover, have avenues for disposing of dead animals that are generally accepted in most communities .122 But, if a person did want to use her chickens for meat, there are other methods for butchering a chicken rather than doing so in the backyard . As part of the local food movement, small-scale butchers have made a comeback in the last few years, and many are particularly interested in locally raised animals .123 Thus, legalizing backyard chick- ens does not necessarily mean that a city must also legalize backyard chicken slaughtering .124 F. Greenhouse Gases Although worries that chickens will increase greenhouse gases appears to be a bit over the top, at least one city raised this as a concern when contemplating allowing chickens . In Montgomery, Ohio, at least one city council member was fearful that allowing chickens to be raised in the city might contribute to global warming .125 While chickens do produce methane as a natural byproduct of digestion just like any other animal (includ- ing humans), the amount they produce is negligible in comparison to other livestock . Methane production is a concern largely confined to ruminant animals, such as cows, goats, and buffaloes .126 These animals produce a large amount of methane every year because of the way in which they digest carbohydrates .127 Cows produce an average of 55 kilograms (kg) per year per cow .128 A goat will produce 5 kg per year, a pig 1 .5, and a human 0 .05 .129 Chickens, because they are nonruminant animals, and because they are much smaller than humans, produce less than 0 .05 kg per year per chicken .130 Finally, there is no reason to believe that an urban chicken would cause a net increase in the production of methane . A person who gets her eggs from her pet hen will likely be buying fewer eggs from the supermarket . Thus, there is unlikely to be a net increase in egg consumption, so there is unlikely to be a net increase in chickens . Thus, any 121 . Jose Linares, UrbanChickens, Am . Veterinary Med . Ass’n Welfare Fo- cus, Apr . 2011, http://www .avma .org/issues/animal_welfare/AWFocus/ 110404/urban_chickens .asp . 122 . Id . 123 . Elizabeth Keyser, TheButcher’sBack, Conn . Mag ., Apr . 2011, http:// www .connecticutmag .com/Connecticut-Magazine/April-2011/The-Butcher- 039s-Back/ . 124 . Butsee Simon v . Cleveland Heights, 188 N .E . 308, 310 (Ohio Ct . App . 1933) (holding that a ban on poultry slaughtering applied to a small busi- ness butcher violated the Ohio Constitution because it prohibited the con- duct of a lawful business) . 125 . Valerie Taylor, Chickens for Montgomery (June 2009) http://www . scribd .com/doc/16509728/Changing-Your-Citys-Chicken-Laws (last vis- ited July 2, 2012) (responding to city’s concerns about increase in green- house gases) . 126 . See Methane,Sources,andEmissions, U .S . EPA, http://www .epa .gov/meth- ane/sources .html (last visited July 2, 2012) . 127 . Id . 128 . Paul J . Crutzen et al ., MethaneProductionbyDomesticAnimals,WildRumi- nants,OtherHerbivorousFaunaandHumans, 38B Tellus B . 271-74 (July- Sept . 1986) . 129 . Id . 130 . Id . increase in methane production caused by urban chickens is not only negligible, but also likely offset by a decrease in rural chickens .131 G. Winter Weather Northern cities may be concerned that their climate is not suitable for chickens . Chickens, however, were bred to thrive in certain climates . There are breeds of chicken that are more suited to warm or even hot cli- mates . And, there are chickens that were bred specifi- cally to thrive in colder weather, such as Rhode Island Reds or Plymouth Rocks .132 While even cold-hardy breeds can be susceptible to frostbite in extreme winter weather, a sturdy coop with some extra insulation and perhaps a hot water bottle on frigid nights can protect the birds from harm .133 H. Running Wild Of all of the chicken ordinances that this Article will later discuss, it appears that one of the most popular regula- tions is to prohibit chickens running wild in the streets .134 Chickens, like dogs and cats, sometimes escape their enclo- sures . While it would be irresponsible to presume that no chicken will ever escape its enclosure, city officials can rest assured that chicken keepers do not want to see their hens escape any more than city officials want to see hens run- ning loose on the streets . For this reason, and also to protect against predators, cities should ensure that chickens are kept in an enclosure at all times . III. Some Necessar y Background on Hens for Developing Urban Hen-Keeping Ordinances His comb was finest coral red and tall, And battlemented like a castle wall . His bill was black and like the jet it glowed, His legs and toes like azure when he strode . His nails were whiter than the lilies bloom, Like burnished gold the color of his plume . Geoffrey Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales, The Nun’s Priest’s Tale135 131 . Letter from Brian Woodruff, Environmental Planner Department of Natu- ral Resources, to Cameron Gloss (June 12, 2008), http://www .scribd .com/ doc/16509728/Changing-Your-Citys-Chicken-Laws . 132 . Litt, supra note 7, at 119 . 133 . Id . 134 . Seeinfra Part IV .C .5 .a . 135 . Ronald Ecker trans ., Hodge & Braddock Publishers 1993 . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10897 A. Hens Are Social Animals Chickens are social animals and do better if they are kept in flocks .136 Chickens can recognize one another and can remember up to 50 or 60 other chickens .137 Because of this, large flocks of chickens, like those found in most inten- sive farming operations, are socially unstable and can cause aggressive behavior .138 In the wild, most flocks form sub- groups of between four to six chickens .139 Chickens show affiliative behavior, eating together, preening together, gathering together in small groups if they are given space to do so, and sleeping at the same time .140 Chickens also learn behaviors from one another— for instance, chickens that watch another trained chicken peck a key to obtain food will learn this task more quickly than other chickens that are not exposed to the behavior .141 Because chickens are flock animals, a chicken left alone generally will not thrive .142 An isolated hen will often exhibit disturbed and self-destructive behaviors, like chas- ing its own tail and exhibiting excessive aggression .143 Because eating is social behavior, there are some reports that single chickens stop eating or eat less .144 While scien- tific studies have yet to prove that a hen feels loneliness,145 backyard hen enthusiasts are well aware that an isolated hen will often appear depressed or ill .146 B. The Pecking Order We often use the term pecking order to describe a hierar- chy in a community . The term comes from the tendency for chickens to peck at one another and display aggressive behavior until a hierarchy is established .147 Once the hier- 136 . Michael C . Appleby et al ., Poultry Behavior and Welfare 35, 77-82 (2004); Heinrichs, supranote 39, at 11 (2007) . 137 . Nicolas Lampkin, OrganicPoultryProduction, Welsh Inst . of Rural Studies 20 (Mar . 1997), available at http://orgprints .org/9975/1/Organic_Poulty_ Production .pdf . 138 . Appleby et al ., supra note 136 (noting that chickens have increased ag- gression and increased growth of adrenal glands when they come in contact with other chickens they do not know and also noting that chickens are stressed by being kept in large flocks because it is unlikely that birds in large flocks can form a hierarchy: they are instead “in a constant state of trying to establish a hierarchy but never achieving it”) . 139 . Id . at 71; Lampkin, supra note 137, at 20 . 140 . Appleby et al ., supra note 136, at 77-79 . 141 . Id . at 79 . 142 . Ian J .H . Duncan & Penny Hawkins, The Welfare of Domestic Fowl & Other Captive Birds 68-69 (2010) . 143 . D .G .M . Wood-Gush, The Behavior of the Domestic Fowl 124 (1971) . 144 . D .W . Rajecki et al ., SocialFactorsintheFacilitationofFeedinginChick- ens:EffectsofImitation,Arousal,orDisinhibition?, 32 J . Personality & Soc . Psychol . 510-18 (Sept . 1975) . Martine Adret-Hausberger & Robin B . Cumming, SocialExperienceandSelectionofDietinDomesticChickens, 7 Bird Behavior 37-43 (1987) (finding that isolated young broilers had lower growth rates than those placed with other birds) . 145 . Appleby et al ., supra note 136, at 142 (suggesting that poultry may suf- fer from loneliness and boredom and that “[c]onsidering the barrenness of many husbandry systems, boredom would seem to be a good candidate for further studies”) 146 . See,e.g., DoChickensGetLonely, Backyard Poultry Forum (Friday, Feb . 13, 2009), http://forum .backyardpoultry .com/viewtopic .php?f=5&t= 7970419&start=0 (last visited Mar . 4, 2012) . 147 . Alphaeus M . Guhl, SocialBehavioroftheDomesticFowl, 71 Transactions Kan . Acad . Sci . (1968) . Gladwyn K . Noble, TheRoleofDominanceinthe archy is established, the aggressive behavior will lessen or even abate until new birds are added to the flock or until a hen mounts a challenge to someone above her in the peck- ing order .148 Studies have shown, however, that incidence of pecking is greatly reduced when hens are kept in lower densities .149 (Feather pecking is often a problem in large-scale chicken farms .)150 When densities were approximately six or fewer birds per 10 square feet, pecking behaviors abated or were significantly reduced .151 Because a new introduction into the flock will upset the pecking order, some farmers advocate for introducing at least two chicks at a time .152 This will help spread out the abuse that could be laid on a solitary young hen . It will also more fully upset the pecking order, so that the birds are forced to find a new hierarchy that will include the new birds instead of leaving one isolated hen at the bottom of the flock .153 For these reasons, chicken owners should always be allowed to keep, at a minimum, four chickens . This ensures that city regulations do not stand in the way of good flock management: if any hens are lost through injury, illness, or old age, the chicken owner can ensure that the flock never goes below two hens before seeking to add new hens . This will also allow the owner to introduce new hens into the flock two at a time . C. Chickens and Predators Backyard hens in a metropolitan area may, in some ways, be better protected from predators than their rural coun- terparts, because there are fewer predators in the city . The more prevalent chicken predators in the United States— foxes, coyotes, and bobcats—are found less often in the city than they are in more rural areas .154 Other predators, however, such as hawks and raccoons, are frequently found in the city .155 These predators are one reason why chickens must have sturdy coops that are designed to protect hens from assault . Chickens have an instinct to return to their coop each night .156 And most predators are more active at night when SocialLifeofBirds, 56 The Auk 263 (July 1939) . 148 . Litt, supra note 7, at 122 . Alphaeus M . Guhl et al ., MatingBehaviorand theSocialHierarchyinSmallFlocksofWhiteLeghorns, 18 Physiological Zoology 365-68 (Oct . 1945) . 149 . B . Huber-Eicher & L . Audigé, AnalysisofRiskFactorsfortheOccurrenceof FeatherPeckingAmongLayingHenGrowers, 40 British Poultry Sci . 599- 604 (1999) (demonstrating through a study of commercial hen farms in Switzerland that hens were far less likely to feather peck if they were kept in low-density environments and if they had access to elevated perches) . 150 . Id . 151 . Id . 152 . Litt, supra note 7, at 122-23 . 153 . Id . 154 . See,e.g., Stanley D . Gehrt et al ., HomeRangeandLandscapeUseofCoyotesin aMetropolitanLandscape:ConflictorCoexistence, J . Mammalogy, 1053-55 (2009); Seth P .D . Riley, SpatialEcologyofBobcatsandGrayFoxesinUrban andRuralZonesofaNationalPark, 70(5) J . Wildlife Mgmt . 1425-35 (2006) . 155 . Williams, supra note 75, at 88-89 . 156 . Litt, supra note 7, at 71 . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 42 ELR 10898 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 the chickens are sleeping in their coops .157 While there is no guarantee that predators will not find a way to prey on chickens, ensuring that coops are sturdily built with the intention to keep out predators can help ameliorate con- cerns with predators .158 D. Roosters Like to Crow Even city-dwellers who have never met a rooster know that roosters crow . But the popular belief, passed on in chil- dren’s cartoons, that roosters crow in the morning like an alarm clock to welcome the rising sun is largely a myth . Roosters may crow in the morning, but they also crow in the afternoon or evening or, basically, whenever they feel like it .159 While the frequency of crowing depends on the breed and the individual rooster, many roosters crow a lot .160 In fact, because domestic roosters crow so much more frequently than their wild kin, one theory postulates that they were bred over many centuries for loud, long, and frequent crowing because such crowing played an impor- tant role in Zoroastrian religious ceremonies .161 Because roosters are noisy and frequently so, cities that have more dense urban environments should consider ban- ning them—at least on smaller lot sizes . Some cities have allowed an exception for “decrowed” roosters162: some veterinarians used to offer a “decrowing” procedure that would remove the rooster’s voicebox . Because of its high mortality rate—over 50%—veterinarians no longer offer this procedure .163 Because this procedure is dangerous and cruel to the rooster, cities that have such an exception should consider amending it so as not to encourage mis- treatment of roosters . E. Hens Don’t Need Roosters to Lay Eggs A common myth is that hens will not lay eggs without a rooster around . This is simply not true; hens do not need roosters to lay eggs .164 In fact, it is likely that every egg you have ever eaten was produced by a hen that never met a rooster .165 The only reason that hens require roosters is to fertil- ize the eggs, so that the eggs will hatch chicks .166 Because this can be an easier way to propagate a flock, rather than sending away for mail-order chicks, some chicken own- ers would like to keep a rooster around or at least allow it to visit . To address this concern, at least one city that bans roosters allows “conjugal visits .” Hopewell Town- 157 . Gehrt, supra note 154, at 1053 . 158 . Williams, supra note 75, at 88-89 . 159 . Heinrichs, supra note 39, at 16 . 160 . Id . 161 . Appleby et al ., supra note 136, at 36-37 . 162 . See,e.g ., Phoenix, Ariz ., City Code §8-7(c) (2011) . 163 . SmallandBackyardFlocks, Ky . U . Ext ., http://www .ca .uky .edu/smallflocks/ faq .html#Q31 (last visited Feb . 17, 2012) . 164 . SmallandBackyardFlocks, Ky . U . Ext ., http://www .ca .uky .edu/smallflocks/ faq .html#Q11 (last visited Feb . 17, 2012) . 165 . Id . 166 . Id . ship, New Jersey, allows roosters that are certified disease- free to visit a hen flock for 10 days out of every year .167 Although news about the township’s policy garnered national attention for its quirkiness, it may work as a solu- tion for hen owners seeking to add to their flock without having to buy new chicks .168 IV. The Current State of Municipal Ordinances Governing Backyard Chickens Such a fine pullet ought to go All coiffured to a winter show, And be exhibited, and win . The answer is this one has been— And come with all her honors home . Her golden leg, her coral comb, Her fluff of plumage, white as chalk, Her style, were all the fancy’s talk Robert Frost, ABlueRibbonatAmesbury (1916) . A. Introduction To determine the current state of chicken legislation in the United States, the laws of the top 100 cities by population, according to the 2000 census are surveyed in this Article .169 Currently, 94% of these cities allow for chickens in some manner .170 While many cities impose various restrictions 167 . NJTownLimitsConjugalVisitsBetweenRoosters&Hens, Huffington Post, Apr . 27, 2011, http://www .huffingtonpost .com/2011/04/28/nj-limits-chicken- mating_n_854404 .html . 168 . Because chick hatcheries have been a source of salmonella, some backyard hen keepers may prefer to propagate their own flock . See,e.g., Serena Gordon, They’reCute,ButBabyChicksCanHarborSalmonella, U .S . News & World Re- port, May 30, 2012, http://health .usnews .com/health-news/news/articles/ 2012/05/30/theyre-cute-but-baby-chicks-can-harbor-salmonella . 169 . CitiesWith100,000orMorePopulationin2000RankedbyPopulation,2000 inRankOrder, U .S . Census, http://www .census .gov/statab/ccdb/cit1020r . txt (last visited Jan . 26, 2012) . 170 . Akron, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §92-18 (2011); Albuquerque, N .M ., Code of Ordinances §9-2-4-3 (2011); Anaheim, Cal ., Mun . Code §18 .38 .030 (2011); Anchorage, Alaska, Code of Ordinances tit . 17, 21 (2011); Arlington, Tex ., Ordinances Governing Animals §5 .02 (2010); Atlanta, Ga ., Code of Ordinances §18-7 (2011); Augus- ta-Richmond, Ga ., Code of Ordinances tit . 4, art . 2 (2007); Aurora, Colo ., Code of Ordinances §14-8 (2011); Austin, Tex ., Code of Ordi- nances tit . III, ch . 3 .1 .1 (2011); Baltimore, Md ., Health Code §10-312 (2011); Bakersfield, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .08 .10 (2011); Baton Rouge, La ., Code of Ordinances §14:224 (2011); Birmingham, Ala ., Zoning Ordinance §2 .4 .1 (2007); Bos ., Mass ., Code of Ordinances §16-1 .8A (2010); Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 (2009); Charlotte, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §3-102 (2010); Chesapeake, Va ., Code of Ordi- nances ch . 10 (2011); id. Zoning art . 3; Chi ., ill ., Code of Ordinances §17-12-300 (2011); Cincinnati, Ohio, Code of Ordinances ch . 701 (2011); Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §205 .04, 347 .02 (2011); Colorado Springs, Colo ., City Code §6 .7 .106(D) (2011); Co- lumbus, Ohio, City Code tit . III, ch . 221 (2011); Corpus Christi, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §§6-153, 6-154 (2011); Dallas, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §7-1 .1 (2011); Denver, Colo ., Mun . Code §8-91 (2011); Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-4 (2011); El Paso, Tex ., Mun . Code §7 .24 .020 (2011); Fort Worth, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §11A-22 (2011); Fremont, Cal ., Mun . Code §3-5803 (2011); Fresno, Cal ., Mun . Code §§10 .201-10 .205 (2011); Garland, Tex ., Code of Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10899 on keeping chickens through zoning, setbacks, and per- mitting requirements, only three of the top 100 cities have ordinances that clearly ban the keeping of chickens within city limits: Detroit, Aurora, and Yonkers .171 Three others have unclear ordinances that city officials have interpreted as banning backyard chickens: Grand Rapids, Fort Wayne, and Lubbock .172 An additional 10 cities, while allowing for chickens, restrict them to either very large lots or only to Ordinances §22 .14 (2011); Glendale, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances pt . II, art . 5 (2010); Glendale, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .130 (2011); Greens- boro, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §30-8-11 .3 (2011); Hialeah, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §§10 .1, 10 .2 (2011); Honolulu, Haw ., Rev . Or- dinances §7-2 .5(d) (1990); Houston, Tex ., Code of Ordinances ch . 6, art . II (2010); Indianapolis, Ind ., Rev . Code tit . III, ch . 531 (2011); Irving, Tex ., Code of Ordinances 6-1 (2011) (not regulating chickens at all); Jacksonville, Fla ., Ordinance Code tit . XIII, ch . 462, tit . XVII, ch . 656 (2011); Jersey City, N .J ., Code of Ordinances §90-6 (2011); Kan- sas City, Mont ., Code of Ordinances §14-15 (2011); Las Vegas, Nev ., Mun . Code §7 .38 .050 (2011); Lexington-Fayette, Ky ., Code of Or- dinances §4-10 (2011); Lincoln, Neb ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .040 (2011); Long Beach, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .20 .020 (2011); L .A ., Cal ., Mun . Code §§12 .01, 12 .05-12 .09 (2011); Louisville, Ky ., Metro Code ch . 91 (2011); Madison, Wis ., Code of Ordinances ch . 28 (no date listed); id. §7 .29; id. §9 .52; Memphis, Tenn ., Code of Ordinances §8-8-1 (2009); Mesa, Ariz ., City Code §8-6-21 (2011); Miami, Fla ., Code of Ordi- nances §6-1(b) (2011); Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §78- 6 .5 (2011); Minneapolis, Minn ., Code of Ordinances §70 .10 (2011); Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §7-102 (2011); Montgomery, Ala ., Code of Ordinances ch . 4, art . I (2011); id. app . C, art . VII; Nashville- Davidson, Tenn ., Mun . Code §§8-12-020, 17-16-330 (2011); New Or- leans, La ., Code of Ordinances pt . II, ch . 18, art . VI (2011); N .Y .C ., Mun . Code §65-23 (1990); Newark, N .J ., General Ordinances §6:2- 30 (2010); Norfolk, Va ., Code of Ordinances §§4-05, 6 .1-7 (2011); Oakland, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §6-04-320 (2011); Oklahoma City, Okla ., Mun . Code tit . 8, 59 (2011); Omaha, Neb ., Code of Or- dinances §6-266 (2011); Phila ., Pa ., Code §10-112 (2011); Phoenix, Ariz ., City Code §§8-7, 8-10 (2011); Pittsburgh, Pa ., Code of Ordi- nances §§635 .02, 911 .04 .A .2 (2011); Plano, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §4-184 (2011); Portland, Or ., City Code §13 .05 .015 (2011); Raleigh, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §§12-3001, 12-3004 (2011); Richmond, Va ., Code of Ordinances §10-88 (2011); Riverside, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .20 (2011); id. tit . 17; Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordi- nances §§30-12, 30-19 (no date listed); Sacremento, Cal ., City Code §9-44-340 (2011); St . Louis, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §10 .20 .015 (2010); St . Paul, Minn ., §198 .02 (2011); St . Petersburg, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §4-31 (2011); San Antonio, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §5-109 (2011); San Diego, Cal ., Mun . Code §42 .0709 (2011); San Francisco, Cal ., Health Code §37 (2011); San Jose, Cal ., Code of Ordinances tit . 7 (2007); Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §5 .6 (2011); Scottsdale, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances §4-17 (2011); Seattle, Wash ., Mun . Code §23 .42 .052 (2011); Shreveport, La ., Code of Ordi- nances ch . 106 (2011); Spokane, Wash ., Mun . Code §17C .310 .010 (no date listed); Stockton, Cal ., Mun . Code §§6 .04 .420, 16 .80 .060 (2011); Tacoma, Wash ., Mun . Code §5 .30 .010 (2011); Tampa, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §19 .76 (2008); Tucson, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances ch . 4, art . VI (2011); Toledo, Ohio, Mun . Code §§505 .07(a)(4), 1705 .07 (2011); Tulsa, Okla ., Code of Ordinances §200(d)(e) (2011); Wash ., D .C ., Mun . Regulations for Animal Control §902 .1 (no date listed); Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .157 (2011) . 171 . Aurora, Colo ., Code of Ordinances §14-8 (2011); Detroit, Mich ., City Code §6-1-3 (2010); Yonkers, N .Y .C ., Mun . Code §65-23 (1990) . 172 . Fort Wayne, Ind ., Code of Ordinances §157 .104 (2011) (banning live- stock within the city, even though chickens are not listed in the definition of livestock, the animal control department says that the city interprets chicken as livestock); Grand Rapids, Mich ., Code of Ordinances §8 .582 (2010) (“No farm animal shall be kept or allowed to be kept within any dwelling or dwelling unit or within one hundred (100) feet of any dwelling, dwell- ing unit, well, spring, stream, drainage ditch or drain .”); Lubbock, Tex ., City Ordinance §4 .07 .001 (2011) (permitting chickens “in those areas appropriately permitted by the zoning ordinances of the city” when zoning ordinances are silent) . agriculturally zoned land .173 Because such restrictions will exclude most people within the city from being able to keep hens, if such restrictions are interpreted to be a ban on chickens, then 84% of cities can be considered to allow for chickens . Within that 84%, there is a wide range of how cities reg- ulate chickens—ranging from no regulation174 to a great deal of very specific ordinances governing where chickens can be located,175 how coops must be built,176 and how often chickens must be fed and coops must be cleaned .177 Some of these cities also have restrictive setbacks or other regulations that will prohibit some residents from owning chickens—especially residents in multi-family dwellings or who live on small lots in a dense area of the city .178 As described more fully below, there is no uniformity in the ways that cities regulate chickens; each city’s ordinance is unique . Regulations are placed in different areas of a city’s codified ordinances . Some regulations are spread through- out the code, making it difficult for a chicken owner to determine how to comply with the city’s ordinances . Some cities regulate through zoning, others through animal regulations, and others through the health code .179 Some cities simply define chickens as pets and provide no regula- tions at all .180 Each of these methods of regulation will be explored in more detail below . Although other surveys of urban chicken laws have been done, no basis was given for the choice of the cities sur- 173 . Birmingham, Ala ., Zoning Ordinance §2 .4 .1 (2007) (restricting chick- ens to land zoned for agricultural use); Chesapeake, Va ., Code of Ordi- nances ch . 10 (2011); id. Zoning art . 3 (restricting to low-density zones and restricting to properties of one acre or more); Hialeah, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §§10 .1, 10 .2 (2011) (restricting chickens to land zoned for agricultural use); Jacksonville, Fla ., Ordinance Code tit . XIII, ch . 462, tit . XVII, ch . 656 (2011) (restricting chickens to agricultural or low- density residential zones); Montgomery, Ala ., Code of Ordinances ch . 4 art . I (2011); id. app . C, art . VII (restricting chickens to agricultural or low-density residential zones); Norfolk, Va ., Code of Ordinances, app . A, art . II, §4-0 .5 (2011) (restricting chickens to properties of five acres or more); Oklahoma City,Okla ., Mun . Code tit . 8, 59 (2011) (restricting chickens to properties with one acre or more); Phila ., Pa ., Code of Ordi- nances §10-112 (2011) (restricting chickens to properties with three acres or more); Richmond, Va ., Code of Ordinances §10-88 (2011) (restrict- ing chickens to properties with one acre or more); Virginia Beach, Va ., City Code §5-545, app . A (2011) (restricting chickens to land zoned for agricultural use) . 174 . E.g., N .Y .C ., Mun . Code §65-23 (1990) (only regulating chickens if they are kept for sale: “A person who holds a permit to keep for sale or sell live rabbits or poultry shall keep them in coops and runwasy and prevent them from being at large .”); Chi ., ill ., Code of Ordinances §17-12-300 (2011) (“No person shall own keep, or otherwise possess, or slaughter any . . . poultry, rabbit, dog, cat, or any other animal intending to use such ani- mal for food purposes .”) Chicago’s ordinance has been interpreted to allow keeping chickens for eggs . Kara Spak, RaisingChickensLegalinChicago,and PeopleAreCrowingAboutIt, Chi . Sun Times, Aug . 13, 2011, http://www . suntimes .com/news/metro/6942644-418/city-of-chicken-coops .html; Ir- ving, Tex ., Code of Ordinances 6-1 (2011) (not regulating chickens) . 175 . Seeinfra V .C .2 176 . Seeinfra V .C .5 .c . 177 . Seeinfra V .C .5 .b . 178 . Seeinfra V .C .4 . 179 . Seeinfra V .B . 180 . Seeinfra V .A . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 42 ELR 10900 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 veyed181 and the survey sizes were far smaller .182 By choos- ing the largest cities in the United States by population, this survey is meant to give a snapshot of what kind of laws govern the most densely populated urban areas . An understanding of how large cosmopolitan areas approach backyard chickens can help smaller cities determine the best way to fashion an ordinance .183 Several aspects of these ordinances will be examined . First, the area within the codified ordinances that the city chooses to regulate chickens will be discussed .184 Next, regulations based on space requirements, zoning require- ments, and setbacks will be examined .185 After that, the different sorts of sanitation requirements that cities impose will be examined, including looking at how specific or gen- eral those requirements are .186 Then, the coop construction requirements, including how much space a city requires per chicken, will be examined .187 Next, cities’ use of per- mits to regulate chickens will be evaluated .188 The Article will then discuss anti-slaughter laws .189 Finally, the preva- lence of banning roosters will be discussed, while noting 181 . See Orbach & Sjoberg, DebatingBackyardChickens; Sarah Schindler, Of BackyardChickensandFrontYardGarden:TheConflictBetweenLocalGov- ernmentandLocavores, 87 Tul . L . Rev . (forthcoming Nov . 2, 2012); Patricia Salkin, FeedingtheLocavores,OneChickenataTime:RegulatingBackyard Chickens, 34:3 Zoning & Plan . L . Rep . 1 (Mar . 2011); Kieran Miller, BackyardChickenPolicy:LessonsFromVancouver,Seattle,andNiagaraFalls, QSPACE at Queens U . (2011), http://qspace .library .queensu .ca/han- dle/1974/6521; Katherine T . Labadie, ResidentialUrbanKeeping:AnExam- inationof25Cities, U .N .M . Research Paper (2008) http://www .google . com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CE0QFjAA &url=http%3A%2F%2F66 .147 .242 .185%2F~urbanch5%2Fwp-content %2Fuploads%2F2012%2F02%2FOrdinance-research-paper .pdf&ei=f_ T5T8jOLcrjqgGP5NGKCQ&usg=AFQjCNE-ArE_uYe4XcKDfhMrwS a4mOLfQw&sig2=UcWfdU1smpoifnqTiE_wvA; Jennifer Blecha, Urban LifeWithLivestock:PerformingAlternativeImaginariesThroughSmallStock UrbanLivestockAgricultureintheUnitedStates, Proquest Information and Learning Company (2007) . Seealso ChickenL.O.R.EProject:Chicken LawsandOrdinancesandYourRightsandEntitlements, Backyard Chick- ens .com, http://www .backyardchickens .com/t/310268/chicken-lore- project-find-submit-local-chicken-laws-ordinances (last visited Feb . 20, 2012) (providing an extensive community-created database of municipal chicken laws) . 182 . Poultry2010,ReferenceoftheHealthandManagementofChickenStocksin UrbanSettingsinFourU.S.Cities, USDA, May 2011 (studying the urban chicken population in Denver, Los Angeles, Miami, and New York City) . 183 . Also, this survey is necessarily frozen in time for publicly accessible ordi- nances as of December of 2011 . This is because at least two cities have already changed their ordinances to allow for more comprehensive and permissive livestock regulations—Pittsburgh and San Diego . Diana Nel- son-Jones, PittsburghUrbanChickenCoopTourtoBeHeldonSunday, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, June 9, 2011, http://www .post-gazette .com/ pg/11160/1152234-34 .stm (stating that Pittsburgh had amended its ordi- nances to allow for 3 chickens for every 2,000 square feet of property); Adrian Florino, SanDiegoCityCouncilApprovesBackyardChickens,Goats, andBees, KPBS, Feb . 1, 2012, http://www .kpbs .org/news/2012/feb/01/ san-diego-city-council-approves-backyard-chickens-/ . These ordinances, however, have not yet been codified within the cities code and, thus, are not yet publicly accessible . Although this Article intends to use the most recent ordinances, because of the size of the sample, and because of the scattered news coverage and the significant lag time in updating city codes, the author cannot be sure that other cities have not amended their ordinances . Thus, this study can do no more than provide a snapshot in time for these ordinances . 184 . Infra V .B . 185 . Infra V .C .1-4 . 186 . Infra V .C .5 187 . Infra V .C .5 188 . Infra V .C .6 . 189 . Infra V .C .7 . that quite a few cities do expressly allow roosters .190 Exam- ining each aspect of the ordinance piecemeal is designed to provide a thorough overview of ordinances regulating backyard chickens and classification of common concerns . Through this review, regulatory norms will be identified and especially effective, novel, or eccentric regulations will be noted . Norms and effective regulations will be taken into account in constructing a model ordinance . The most thoughtful, effective, and popular regulations from each of these ordinances will be incorporated into these recom- mendations . Also, data discussed in the first part of this Article about chickens, chicken behavior, and chicken- keeping will inform the model ordinance . But, before delving into each of these aspects of the ordinances, some more general impressions from this anal- ysis will be discussed . These more general impressions will include identifying some themes in these regulations based on population size and region . 1. The More Populous the City, the More Likely It Is to Allow for Backyard Chickens When reviewing the overall results of the survey concern- ing whether a city allows chickens or bans them, a pat- tern emerges based on population size . At least among the top 100 cities by population, the smaller the city, the greater the chance that the city will ban chickens . Of the top 10 cities by population, all of them allow for chickens in some way .191 Of those top 10 cities, however, Philadel- phia has fairly strict zoning restrictions that only allows chickens in lots of three acres or larger .192 And, of the top 50 cities by population, only one city bans chickens outright: Detroit .193 But in the last 20 of the top 100 cities, four of them ban chickens: Yonkers, Grand Rapids, Fort Wayne, and Lubbock .194 So, within that subset, only 80% of the cit- 190 . Infra V .C .8 . 191 . The top 10 cities by population from most populous to least populous: N .Y .C ., Mun . Code §65-23 (1990); L .A ., Cal ., Mun . Code §§12 .01, 12 .05-12 .09 (2011); Phila ., Pa ., Code §10-112 (2011); Chi ., ill ., Code of Ordinances §17-12-300 (2011); Phoenix, Ariz ., City Code §8-7, 8-10 (2011); San Diego, Cal ., Mun . Code §42 .0709 (2011); Dallas, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §7-1 .1 (2011); San Antonio, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §5-109 (2011); Houston, Tex ., Code of Ordinances ch . 6, art . II (2010) . 192 . Phila ., Pa ., Code §10-112 (2011) . 193 . Detroit, Mich ., City Code §6-1-3 (2010) . 194 . The last 20 of the top 100 cities from most populous to least populous: Glendale, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances pt . II, art . 5 (2010); Akron, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §92-18 (2011); Garland, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §22 .14 (2011); Madison, Wis ., Code of Ordinances ch . 28 (no date listed); id. §7 .29; id. §9 .52; Fort Wayne, Ind ., Code of Or- dinances §157 .104 (2011); Fremont, Cal ., Mun . Code §3-5803 (2011); Scottsdale, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances §4-17 (2011); Montgom- ery, Ala ., Code of Ordinances ch . 4 art . I (2011); id. app . C, art . VII; Shreveport, La ., Code of Ordinances ch . 106 (2011); Lubbock, Tex ., City Code §4 .07 .001 (2011); Chesapeake, Va ., Code of Ordinances ch . 10 (2011); id. Zoning art . 3; Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §7-102 (2011); Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-4 (2011); Grand Rapids, Mich ., Code of Ordinances §8 .582 (2010); Richmond, Va ., Code of Ordinances §10-88 (2011); Yonkers, N .Y ., §65-23 (1990); Spokane, Wash ., Mun . Code §17C .310 .100 (no date listed); Augusta- Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10901 ies allow for chickens . This may go against popular belief that chickens would be more prevalent in bucolic sub- urbs and less popular in densely populated cosmopoli- tan areas . Because this survey only includes large urban areas, the percentage of smaller cities, suburbs, and exurbs that allow for chickens is not known . But, based on this limited survey, it appears that more populous cities have largely accepted chickens, and the pursuit of more chicken-friendly legislation has moved to smaller cities and the suburbs . 2. Some Regional Observations Although it is difficult to draw regional distinctions from a limited set of data, it does appear that the states in what is colloquially called the Rustbelt are more likely to ban chickens . In Michigan, both cities within the top 100, Detroit and Grand Rapids, ban chickens .195 And in Pennsylvania, similarly, both of its most populated cit- ies, for the most part, ban chickens .196 Philadelphia only allows chickens on lots of three acres or more—far more than the average lot size in Philadelphia .197 Pittsburgh, although it recently amended its ordinances,198 used to allow chickens only on parcels of five acres or more .199 In either event, in both cities, keeping chickens is limited to property sizes that are far larger than the average for an urban area . Within the Rustbelt states, Ohio stands out for legaliz- ing chickens . All five of its major cities currently allow for chickens: Akron, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, and Toledo .200 Columbus and Akron have far more restrictive Richmond, Ga ., Code of Ordinances tit . 4, art . 2 (2007); Glendale, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .04 (2011); Tacoma, Wash ., Mun . Code §5 .30 .010 (2011); Irving, Tex ., Code of Ordinances pt . II, ch . 6 (2011) . 195 . Detroit, Mich ., City Code §6-1-3 (2010) (prohibits owning farm ani- mals and defines chickens as farm animals); Grand Rapids, Mich ., Code of Ordinances §8 .582 (2010) (prohibiting farm animals within 100 ft . of any dwelling unit, well, spring, stream, drainage ditch, or drain . City officials have interpreted this to ban chickens .); butsee Ann Arbor, Mich ., Code of Ordinances tit . IX, ch . 107, §9:42 (allowing up to four chickens in single-family or two-family dwellings if a permit is secured and regula- tions are followed) . 196 . Phila . §10-112; Pittsburgh, Pa ., Code of Ordinances §§635 .02, 911 .04 .A .2 (2011) . 197 . Susan Wachter, TheDeterminantsofNeighborhoodTransformationsin PhiladelphiaIdentificationandAnalysis:TheNewKensingtonPilotStudy, Spring 2005, The Wharton School, http://www .google .com/url?sa=t &rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCMQFjAA&url=http %3A%2F%2Fkabaffiliates .org%2FuploadedFiles%2FKAB_Affiliates .org %2FWharton%2520Study%2520NK%2520final .pdf&ei=X40hT56_ OOjCsQLogpyhCQ&usg=AFQjCNH-DYO3ImfVNsESWy6QZ9-79aW 87A&sig2=C2IvyXmR7twhy4K5RZYk-A (last visited Jan . 26, 2012) (find- ing that the average lot size within the New Kensington area of Philadelphia was just over 1,000 square feet) . 198 . Diana Nelson-Jones, PittsburghUrbanChickenCoopTourtoBeHeldon Sunday, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, June 9, 2011, http://www .post- gazette .com/pg/11160/1152234-34 .stm (stating that Pittsburgh had amended its ordinances to allow for three chickens for every 2,000 square feet of property) . 199 . Pittsburgh, Pa ., Code of Ordinances §911 .04(A)(2) (2011) . 200 . Akron, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §92-18 (2011); Cincinnati, Ohio, Code of Ordinances ch . 701 (2011); Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Or- dinances §§205 .04, 347 .02 (2011); Columbus, Ohio, City Code tit . III, ch . 221 (2011); Toledo, Ohio, Mun . Code §§505 .07(a)(4), 1705 .07 (2011) . ordinances, however . Columbus requires a permit to keep chickens and allows its Health Commissioner discretion over granting and revoking that permit .201 Akron requires chickens to be kept at least 100 feet from any dwelling, which will restrict owners of small parcels in densely popu- lated areas from raising chickens .202 In 2009, Cleveland passed a comprehensive ordinance legalizing chickens and bees .203 Cleveland allows for one chicken per 800 square feet, which would allow up to six chickens on a standard residential lot .204 Cleveland also has minimal setbacks and detailed coop requirements .205 And Cincinnati and Toledo have even more liberal ordi- nances, allowing for chickens as long as they do not create a nuisance .206 Virginia also stands out for restricting chickens . All four of Virginia’s cities within the top 100 cities by population—Chesapeake, Norfolk, Richmond, and Vir- ginia Beach—restrict chickens to large lots or to lands zoned agricultural .207 B. Where Regulations Concerning Chickens Are Placed Within a City’s Codified Ordinances The survey reveals that there is little consistency in where cities choose to locate chicken regulations within their cod- ified ordinances . Most cities regulate chickens in sections devoted to animals, zoning, health, or nuisances . Each method of regulation will be examined for how often it is used and how effective it is . 201 . Columbus §221 .05: The Health Commissioner may grant permission only after it is determined that the keeping of such animals: (1) creates no adverse environmental or health effects; (2) is in compliance with all other sections of this chapter; and (3) in the judgment of the Health Commissioner, after consultation with the staff of the Health De- partment and with the surrounding occupants of the place of keep- ing such animals, and considering the nature of the community (i .e ., residential or commercial single or multiple dwellings, etc . ), is reasonably inoffensive . The health commissioner may revoke such permission at any time for violation of this chapter or nay other just cause . 202 . Akron §92-18 . 203 . Cleveland §§347 .02 & 205 .04 . 204 . Id . 205 . Id . 206 . Cincinnati §701-17; id. §00053-11 (“No live geese, hens, chickens, pi- geons, ducks, hogs, goats, cows, mules, horses, dogs, cats, other fowl or any other domestic or non-domestic animals shall be kept in the city so as to create a nuisance, foul odors, or be a menace to the health of occupants or neighboring individuals .”); Toledo §§1705 .05 & 505 .07 (“No person shall keep or harbor any animal or fowl in the City so as to create noxious or offensive odors or unsanitary conditions which are a menace to the health, comfort or safety of the public .”) . 207 . Chesapeake, Va ., Code of Ordinances ch . 10 (2011); id. Zoning art . 3 (restricting to low-density zones and restricting to properties of one acre or more); Norfolk, Va ., Code of Ordinances, app . A, art . II §4-0 .5 (2011) (restricting chickens to properties of five acres or more); Richmond, Va ., Code of Ordinances §10-88 (2011) (restricting chickens to properties with one acre or more); Virginia Beach, Va ., City Code §5-545, app . A (2011) (restricting chickens to land zoned for agricultural use) . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 42 ELR 10902 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 1. Animal Control Regulations Seventy-one of the cities regulate chickens under their ani- mal control ordinances .208 This makes sense, because chick- ens are animals and this is the natural place for would-be chicken owners to look to make sure that they won’t get into legal trouble . Regulating chickens under animal con- trol also leads to fairly easy-to-follow ordinances . Chickens are either allowed, or they are not . And, if there are further regulations concerning lot size, setbacks, or coop require- ments, they are usually all in one place . 208 . Akron, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §92-18 (2011); Anchorage, Alaska, Code of Ordinances tit . 17, 21 (2011); Augusta-Richmond, Ga ., Code of Ordinances tit . 4, art . 2 (2007); Aurora, Colo ., Code of Ordinances §14-8 (2011); Austin, Tex ., Code of Ordinances tit . III, ch . 3 .1 .1 (2011); Atlanta, Ga ., Code of Ordinances §18-7 (2011); Ba- kersfield, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .08 .10 (2011); Baltimore, Md ., Health Code §10-312 (2011); Baton Rouge, La ., Code of Ordinances §14:224 (2011); Charlotte, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §3-102 (2010); Cincin- nati, Ohio, Code of Ordinances ch . 701 (2011); Colorado Springs, Colo ., City Code §6 .7 .106(D) (2011); Corpus Christi, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §§6-153, 6-154 (2011); Dallas, Tex ., Code of Ordi- nances §7-1 .1 (2011); Denver, Colo ., Mun . Code §8-91 (2011); Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-4 (2011); Detroit, Mich ., City Code §6-1-3 (2010); El Paso, Tex ., Mun . Code §7 .24 .020 (2011); Fremont, Cal ., Mun . Code §3-5803 (2011); Garland, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §22 .14 (2011); Glendale, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances pt . II, art . 5 (2010); Glendale, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .04 (2011); Grand Rapids, Mich ., Code of Ordinances §8 .582 (2010); Hialeah, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §§10 .1, 10 .2 (2011); Honolulu, Haw ., Rev . Or- dinances §7-2 .5(d) (1990); Houston, Tex ., Code of Ordinances ch . 6, art . II (2010); Indianapolis, Ind ., Rev . Code tit . III, ch . 531 (2011); Irving, Tex ., Code of Ordinances 6-1 (2011); Jersey City, N .J ., Code of Ordinances §90-6 (2011); Kansas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15 (2011); Las Vegas, Nev ., Mun . Code §7 .38 .050 (2011); Lex- ington-Fayette, Ky ., Code of Ordinances §4-10 (2011); Lincoln, Neb ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .040 (2011); Long Beach, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .20 .020 (2011); Louisville, Ky ., Metro Code ch . 91 (2011); Mem- phis, Tenn ., Code of Ordinances §8-8-1 (2009); Miami, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §6-1(b) (2011); Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §78-6 .5 (2011); Minneapolis, Minn ., Code of Ordinances §70 .10 (2011); Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §7-102 (2011); Mont- gomery, Ala ., Code of Ordinances ch . 4, art . I (2011); id. app . C, art . VII; Newark, N .J ., Gen . Ordinances §6:2-29 (2010); New Orleans, La ., Code of Ordinances pt . II, ch . 18, art . VI (2011); N .Y .C ., Mun . Code §65-23 (1990); Norfolk, Va ., Code of Ordinances §§4-05, 6 .1-7 (2011); Oakland, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §6-04-320 (2011); Okla- homa City, Okla ., Mun . Code tit . 8, 59 (2011); Omaha, Neb ., Code of Ordinances §6-266 (2011); Phila ., Pa ., Code §10-112 (2011); Phoenix, Ariz ., City Code §§8-7, 8-10 (2011); Pittsburgh, Pa ., Code of Ordi- nances §§635 .02, 911 .04 .A .2 (2011); Plano, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §4-184 (2011); Portland, Or ., City Code §13 .05 .015 (2011); Raleigh, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §§12-3001, 12-3004 (2011); Richmond, Va ., Code of Ordinances §10-88 (2011); Rochester, N .Y ., City Or- dinances §30-12, 30-19 (no date listed); Sacremento, Cal ., City Code §9-44-340 (2011); St . Louis, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §10 .20 .015 (2010); St . Petersburg, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §4-31 (2011); St . Paul, Minn ., §198 .02 (2011); San Antonio, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §5-109 (2011); San Jose, Cal ., Code of Ordinances tit . 7 (2007); Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §5 .6 (2011); Scottsdale, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances §4-17 (2011); Stockton, Cal ., Mun . Code §§6 .04 .420, 16 .80 .060 (2011); Toledo, Ohio, Mun . Code §505 .07(a)(4); Tucson, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances ch . 4, art . VI (2011); Tulsa, Okla ., Code of Ordinances §200(d)(e) (2011); Virginia Beach, Va ., City Code §5-545, app . A (2011); Wash ., D .C ., Mun . Regulations for Animal Control §902 .1 (no date listed); Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .157 (2011); Yonkers, N .Y ., §65-23 (1990) . 2. Zoning Regulations Fourteen cities regulate chickens primarily under their zoning laws .209 These cities are much more likely to sub- stantially restrict raising hens .210 It also makes it much more difficult for a resident to determine whether he can legally raise chickens . Such a resident must not only determine in what zone chickens may be raised, but he must also determine whether his property falls within that zone . These laws also tend to sow unnecessary confusion . For instance, Lubbock Texas’ law on paper would seem to allow for hens, but the city has exploited its vagaries to ban backyard chickens . Lubbock creates a loop within its ordinances by providing within the animal section of its code that chickens are allowed if the zoning ordinance permits it,211 and then providing in its zoning ordinance that chickens are allowed if the animal code permits it .212 The Lubbock city clerk resolved the loop by stating that the city interprets these provisions to entirely ban chickens within the city .213 Finally, cities that regulate chickens primarily through zoning laws do so, presumptively, because they want to restrict raising chickens to certain zones . This, however, can cause unnecessary complications . Raising chickens is not only for residential backyards . Because of declining population and urban renewal projects in many cities, urban farms, market gardens, and community gardens are located in other zones, including business, commer- cial, and even industrial zones . Each time these farms or gardens would like to add a few chickens, they would have to petition the city for a zoning variance or seek a change in the law . This is not an efficient use of a city’s limited resources .214 In addition, other regulations pertaining to chickens, such as setbacks, coop construction, or sanitary require- ments, can get lost among the many building regulations within the zoning code . Zoning codes are generally written for an expert audience of businesses, builders, and devel- opers, and not for the lay audience that would comprise 209 . Anaheim, Cal ., Mun . Code §18 .38 .030 (2011); Birmingham, Ala ., Zoning Ordinance §2 .4 .1 (2007); Chesapeake, Va ., Code of Or- dinances ch . 10 (2011); id. Zoning art . 3; Fresno, Cal ., Mun . Code §§12-205 .1-12-207 .5 (2011); Glendale, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .04 (2011); Greensboro, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §30-8-11 .3 (2011); Jackson- ville, Fla ., Ordinance Code tit . XIII, ch . 462, tit . XVII, ch . 656 (2011); L .A ., Cal ., Mun . Code §§12 .01, 12 .05-12 .09 (2011); Lubbock, Tex ., City Code §4 .07 .001 (2011); Madison, Wis ., Code of Ordinances ch . 28 (no date listed); id. §7 .29; Seattle, Wash ., Mun . Code §23 .42 .052; Wash ., Mun . Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .20 (2011); id. tit . 17; id. §9 .52; Shreveport, La ., Code of Ordinances ch . 106 (2011); Spokane, Wash ., Mun . Code §17C .310 .100 . 210 . Anaheim, Birmingham, Jacksonville, and Lubbock either ban hens alto- gether or restrict hens to certain zones . See Anaheim §18 .38 .030; Birming- ham §2 .4 .1; Jacksonville tit . XVIII, ch . 462, tit . XVII, ch . 656; Lubbock §4 .07 .001 . 211 . Lubbock §4 .07 .001 . 212 . Id . §40 .03 .3103 . 213 . See Interview with Lubbock city clerk (on file with author) . 214 . E.g ., Schindler, supra note 181, 68-71 (arguing that the movement toward urban agriculture should cause cities to reconsider Euclidean zoning because such zoning no longer serves the needs of the cities and its residents) . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10903 chicken owners .215 If cities are concerned about raising chickens too near businesses or neighbors, other regula- tions like setbacks from the street and neighboring proper- ties can ameliorate this concern without having to include the regulation in the zoning code . Regulations placed within the animal code, as described above, are generally in one place and often within a single ordinance . This leads to a better understanding of the law for chicken owners and, thus, easier enforcement for city officials . Unless the zoning regulations have a subsection devoted specifically to animals, like the ones in Spokane216 or Greensboro,217 the most sensible place for regulating chickens is within the animal code . 3. Health Code Another popular place within a municipality’s code to regulate chickens is within the health code . Seven cit- ies regulate chickens primarily within the health code .218 Many of these, however, have a separate section concern- ing animals or animal-related businesses within the health code .219 Again, unless the code has such a separate section concerning animals, the better place to regulate is within the animal code . 4. Other Of the remaining cities, there is very little uniformity . Two, Boston and Columbus, regulate through permit sections within their codified ordinances .220 Because these cities require permits to keep chickens and give a great deal of discretion to city officials to grant or deny permits on a case-by-case basis, locating a chicken regulation within the permit section of the codified ordinance makes sense for those cities . But, as argued later, allowing such discretion is neither a good use of city resources nor a fair and consistent way to regulate chickens . The only other pattern within these ordinances is that two other cities—Buffalo and Tampa—regulate chickens 215 . See Lea S . VanderVelde, LocalKnowledge,LegalKnowledge,andZoningLaw, Iowa L . Rev ., May 1990, at 1057 (describing zoning law as “arcane”) . Also, the sheer number of law treatises for zoning laws demonstrates that zoning laws require expertise to navigate . E.g., Patricia Salkin, American Law of Zoning (5th ed . 2012); Julian Conrad Juergensmeyer & Thomas E . Roberts, Land Use Planning and Development Regulation Law (2d ed . 2003); Edward H . Ziegler Jr ., Rathkopf’s the Law of Zoning and Planning (4th ed . 2012) . 216 . Spokane, Wash ., Mun . Code tit . 17C Land Use Standards, ch . 17C .310 Animal Keeping (no date listed) . 217 . Greensboro, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §30-8-11 .3 (2011) . 218 . Albuquerque, N .M ., Code of Ordinances §9-2-4-3 (2011); Cleve- land, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §§205 .04, 347 .02 (2011); Co- lumbus, Ohio, City Code tit . III, ch . 221 (2011); Mesa, Ariz ., City Code §8-6-21 (2011); San Diego, Cal ., Mun . Code §42 .0709 (2011); San Francisco, Cal ., Health Code §37 (2011); Tacoma, Wash ., Mun . Code §5 .30 .010 (2011) . 219 . E.g., San Diego §42 .0709; Cleveland §§204 .04, 347 .02; Tacoma §5 .3 .010 . 220 . Bos ., Mass ., Code of Ordinances §16-1 .8A (2010); Columbus tit . III, ch, 221 . under the property maintenance area of the code .221 This is not an ideal place to locate such an ordinance, because potential chicken owners are unlikely to look for chicken regulations there . Finally, one city—Arlington, Texas—places its chicken regulations in a section of the code entitled sale and breed- ing of animals .222 Because backyard chicken owners gener- ally do not raise their chickens for sale, and also likely do not consider themselves to be breeders, this area of the code is not well-suited to this regulation . C. How Cities Regulate Chickens 1. Chickens Are Defined as Pets or Domestic Animals Seven cities—Dallas, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, New Orleans, Plano, Raleigh, and Spokane—define chickens as domestic animals or pets, and thus subject them to the same enclosure and nuisance regulations as other domes- tic animals like cats and dogs .223 These cities’ ordinances appear to be long-standing and were not recently modified in response to the backyard chicken movement .224 While many cities may want to more explicitly regulate chickens, this is a workable approach . General nuisance laws already regulate things like odor and noise .225 While many regula- tions particular to chickens duplicate nuisance ordinances, it is unclear whether such duplication actually reduces nui- sances . More precise requirements on sanitation, coop stan- dards, setbacks, and permits may signal to chicken owners that the city is serious about regulating chickens, protect- ing neighbors, and protecting the health and well-being of chickens . But, as chickens regain prevalence in urban areas, cities that regulate chickens as pets or domestic ani- mals may find that—through inertia—they have taken the most efficient approach, both in terms of preserving city resources and curbing potential nuisances . 2. Space Requirements Of the 94 cities that allow for raising chickens, 31 of them impose restrictions based upon how big the property is, either explicitly through lot size requirements, or implicitly through zoning requirements .226 Of those, 16 cities restrict 221 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 (2009); Tampa, Fla ., Code of Ordi- nances §19 .76 (2008) . 222 . Arlington, Tex ., Ordinances Governing Animals §5 .02 (2010) . 223 . Dallas, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §7-1 .1 (2011); Indianapolis, Ind ., Rev . Code tit . III, ch . 531 .101 (2011); Jacksonville, Fla ., Ordinance Code §656 .1601 (2011); New Orleans, La ., Code of Ordinances §18- 2 .1 (2011); Raleigh, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §12-3001 (2011); Pla- no, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §4-184 (2011); Spokane, Wash ., Mun . Code §17C .310 .100 (no date listed) . 224 . Supra note 223. 225 . Every city surveyed had general nuisance provisions in its code regulating odor and noise . 226 . Cities that impose lot size requirements: Anaheim, Cleveland, Fort Wayne, Fremont, Garland, Greensboro, Nashville, Norfolk, Oklahoma, Philadel- phia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, Richmond, Rochester, Stockton, and Tampa . Anaheim, Cal ., Mun . Code §18 .38 .030 (2011); Cleveland, Ohio, Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 42 ELR 10904 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 based on lot size and 17 restrict based on zoning . This adds up to 33, rather than 31, because two cities restrict based on both lot size and zoning .227 These restrictions range from draconian, practically banning chickens in most of the city by restricting chickens to extremely large lots,228 to extremely liberal, allowing up to 30 chickens per 240 square feet—or 30 chickens in an area approximately the size of a large bedroom .229 As discussed below, an addi- tional 10 cities should be considered unfriendly to keep- ing hens because, while they do allow chickens under some circumstances, those circumstances are restricted to very large lots or agriculturally zoned land .230 a. Lot Size Requirements Of the 15 cities that restrict based on lot size only, six of them restrict chickens to property that is one acre or more: Nashville, Norfolk, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Richmond .231 Nashville, Norfolk, and Pittsburgh appear to limit chickens to property of more than five acres, which in any urban area is a practical ban . Codified Ordinances §347 .02 (2011); Fort Wayne, Ind ., Code of Ordinances §157 .104 (2011); Fremont, Cal ., Mun . Code §3-5803 (2011); Garland, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §22 .14 (2011); Greens- boro, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §30-8-11 .3 (2011); Nashville-Da- vidson, Tenn ., Mun . Code §17-16-330 (2011); Norfolk, Va ., Code of Ordinances §§4-05, 6 .1-7 (2011); Oklahoma City, Okla ., Mun . Code §59-9350(c) (2011); Phila ., Pa ., Code §10-112 (2011); Phoenix, Ariz ., City Code §8-10 (2011); Pittsburgh, Pa ., Code of Ordinances §§635 .02, 911 .04 .A .2 (2011); Richmond, Va ., Code of Ordinances §10-88 (2011); Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §§30-12, 30-19 (no date listed); Stockton, Cal ., Mun . Code §16 .80 .060 (2011); Tampa, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §19 .76 (2008) . Cities that impose zoning re- strictions: Bakersfield, Birmingham, Chesapeake, Dallas, Fresno, Glendale, Arizona, Greensboro, Hialeah, Jacksonville, Los Angeles, Madison, Mem- phis, Montgomery, San Diego, Shreveport, Stockton, and Virginia Beach . Bakersfield, Cal ., Mun . Code tit . 17 (2011); Birmingham, Ala ., Zon- ing Ordinance §2 .4 .1 (2007); Chesapeake, Va ., Code of Ordinances Zoning art . 3 (2011); Dallas, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §7-1 .1 (2011); Fresno, Cal ., Mun . Code ch . 12 (2011); Glendale, Ariz ., Code of Or- dinances §§5 .132 & 5 .212 (2011); Greensboro, N .C ., Code of Ordi- nances §30-8-11 .3 (2011); Hialeah, Fla ., Code of Ordinances ch . 98 (2011); Jacksonville, Fla ., Ordinance Code ch . 656 (2011); L .A ., Cal ., Mun . Code §§12 .01, 12 .05-12 .09 (2011); Madison, Wis ., Code of Or- dinances ch . 28 (no date listed); Memphis, Tenn ., Code of Ordinances tit . 16 (2009); Montgomery, Ala ., Code of Ordinances, app . C, art . VII (2011); San Diego, Cal ., Mun . Code §42 .0709 (2011); Shreveport, La ., Code of Ordinances ch . 106 (2011); Stockton, Cal ., Mun . Code §§6 .04 .420, 16 .80 .060 (2011); Virginia Beach, Va ., City Code §5-545, app . A (2011) . 227 . Greensboro, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §30-8-11 .3 (2011); Stock- ton, Cal ., Mun . Code §§6 .04 .420 & 16 .80 .060 (2011) . 228 . E.g., Nashville-Davidson, Tenn ., Mun . Code §§8-12-020, 17-16-330 (2011); Phila ., Pa ., Code §10-112 (2011) . 229 . See Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §§30-12, 30-19 (no date listed) . 230 . Birmingham, Ala ., Zoning Ordinance §2 .4 .1 (2007); Chesapeake, Va ., Code of Ordinances ch . 10 (2011); Hialeah, Fla ., Code of Or- dinances §§10 .1, 10 .2 (2011); Jacksonville, Fla ., Ordinance Code §656 .331(2011); Montgomery, Ala ., Code of Ordinances ch . 4, art . I (2011); id. app . C, art . VII; Norfolk, Va ., Code of Ordinances, app . A, art . II §4-0 .5 (2011); Oklahoma City, Okla ., Mun . Code §59-9350 (2011); Phila ., Pa ., Code §10-112 (2011); Richmond, Va ., Code of Or- dinances §10-88 (2011); Virginia Beach, Va ., City Code §5-545, app . A (2011) . 231 . Nashville-Davidson, Tenn ., Mun . Code §17-16-330(b) (2011); Pitts- burgh, Pa ., Code of Ordinances §§635 .02, 911 .04 .A .2 (2011); Phila ., Pa ., Code §10-112 (2011); Oklahoma City, Okla ., Mun . Code §59- 9350 (2011); Richmond, Va ., Code of Ordinances §10-88 (2011) . Norfolk appears to allow for an exception to the five-acre minimum232 by allowing a would-be chicken owner to procure a permit to keep hens,233 but in practice, the city will not issue this permit to chicken hobbyists .234 But, as discussed below, Nashville and Pittsburgh have interpreted their restrictive ordinances to allow for chickens on much smaller parcels of property . In Nashville, the zoning code conflicts with the health code, and the health code apparently won out . The zoning ordinance limits “common domestic farm animals” to a lot size of five acres or more, but the ordinance does not define what qualifies as a common domestic farm animal .235 Nash- ville’s health code, by contrast, specifically allows for chick- ens, as long as they do not create a nuisance .236 Nashville issued a memorandum in 2009 providing that the Board of Zoning Appeals held that the health code takes precedence over the zoning code .237 In so holding, the Board allowed a property owner to keep her chickens, because their owner considered them to be pets and the chickens did not create a nuisance .238 In Pittsburgh, while agricultural uses were limited to property of five acres or more, like Nashville, the code did not specifically define whether raising chickens was considered an agricultural use .239 Pittsburgh, thus, would allow chicken keepers to seek a variance for raising chick- ens on property of less than five acres .240 Apparently, though it is not yet codified, Pittsburgh recently made it much easier to raise chickens, and also bees, by allowing up to three hens and two beehives on property of 2,000 square feet or more .241 So, both Nashville and Pittsburgh, while appearing to ban chickens, have become chicken-friendly . The next most restrictive ordinance is in Philadelphia . Philadelphia restricts chickens to property of three acres or more . Philadelphia, however, apparently means it . In Philadelphia, the code specifically defines poultry as a farm animal,242 and only allows farm animals on a parcel of property of three acres or more .243 232 . Norfolk, Va ., Code of Ordinances, Zoning Ordinance, app . A, §4-05 (2011) (“Except as otherwise noted, there shall be no raising or keeping of . . . poultry, fowl, . . . on less than five acres .”) . 233 . Norfolk, Va ., Code of Ordinances §6 .1-7 (2011) (allowing for a person wishing to raise poultry to procure a permit issued by the department of public health) . 234 . Amelia Baker, BackyardChickens:NowYou’reClucking, AltDaily, June 2, 2010, http://www .altdaily .com/features/food/backyard-chickens-now- youre-clucking .html (providing that the city will only issue permits for sentinel chickens that the city has on surveillance to check for mosquito- borne diseases) . 235 . Nashville-Davidson §17 .16 .330(b) . 236 . Id. §8 .12 .020 . 237 . Memo from John Cooper, Director Metropolitan Council Office, to All Members of Metropolitan Council (Sept . 1, 2009) (on file with author) . 238 . Id . 239 . Pittsburgh §911 .04 . 240 . Diana Nelson Jones, OrdinanceChangesBotherKeepersofBeesandChickens, Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Feb . 8, 2010, http://www .post-gazette .com/ pg/10039/1034293-53 .stm . 241 . Diana Nelson Jones, PittsburghUrbanCoopTourtoBeHeldSunday, Pittsburgh Post Gazette, June 9, 2011, http://www .post-gazette .com/ pg/11160/1152234-34 .stm . 242 . Phila . §10-100 . 243 . Id. §10-112 . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10905 Oklahoma City and Richmond both require at least one acre . Oklahoma City restricts raising chickens to prop- erty that is at least one acre, but apparently if the property owner has one acre, there is no restriction on how many chickens can be kept on that acre .244 Richmond requires 50,000 square feet, or slightly more square footage than the 43,560 square feet in an acre .245 After these, the lot sizes are far more lenient . Two cities, Garland and Stockton, require at least ½ acre .246 Three cities, Fremont, Greensboro, and Phoenix, require between 6,000 and 10,000 square feet, or between a little less than 1/8 to a little less than 1/4 acre .247 And four cit- ies, Anaheim, Cleveland, Rochester, and Tampa, require between 240 to 1,800 square feet, or from not much larger than a shed to about the size of a modern master bedroom .248 So, out of the 15 cities that restrict based on lot size, the majority of them allow most residents to raise backyard chickens . b. Zoning Requirements Seventeen cities restrict chickens to certain zones . Of these, three of the cities restrict chickens only to land zoned for agricultural use: Birmingham, Hialeah, and Virginia Beach .249 Three more cities restrict chickens to agricultural or very low-density residential zones: Chesapeake, Jackson- ville, and Montgomery .250 Thus, six of the 17 cities confine chickens to so few zones that it excludes the possibility of raising chickens for most families . The remaining eleven cities, however, while still restrict- ing chickens to certain zones, allow chickens in many or most residential zones .251 Dallas only applies zoning 244 . Oklahoma City §59-8150 (definitions); id. §59-9350 (confining to one acre) . 245 . Richmond, Va ., Code of Ordinances §10-88(b) (2011) . 246 . Garland, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §22 .14 (2011); Stockton, Cal ., Mun . Code §16 .80 .060 (2011) . 247 . Fremont, Cal ., Mun . Code §3-5803 (2011) (6,000 sq . ft .); Greensboro, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §30-8-11 .3 (2011) (7,000 sq . ft .); Phoenix, Ariz ., City Code §8-7(b) (2011) (10,000 sq . ft .) . 248 . Anaheim, Cal ., Mun . Code §18 .38 .030 (2011) (1,800 sq . ft); Cleve- land, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02 (2011) (800 sq . ft . for resi- dential, and 400 for commercial); Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §30-12, 30-19 (no date listed) (240 sq . ft .); Tampa, Fla ., Code of Ordi- nances §19 .76 (2008) (1,000 sq . ft .) . 249 . Birmingham, Ala ., Zoning Ordinance §2 .4 .1 (2007); Hialeah, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §§10 .1 & 10 .2 (2011); Virginia Beach, Va ., City Code §5-545 app . A (2011) . 250 . Chesapeake, Va ., Code of Ordinances ch . 10 (2011); id. Zoning art . 3; Jacksonville, Fla ., Ordinance Code tit . XIII, ch . 462, tit . XVII, ch . 656 (2011); Montgomery, Ala ., Code of Ordinances app . C, art . VII (2011) . 251 . Bakersfield, Cal ., Mun . Code §§17 .12 .010-RS & 17 .32 .020 (2011) (permitting chickens in agriculture and residential suburban areas); Dal- las, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §7-1 .1 (2011) (requiring chickens that are raised for commercial purposes to be on agriculturally zoned land, otherwise chickens are regulated as pets); Fresno, Cal ., Mun . Code §§12-204 .11-12-207 .5 (2011) (providing different setbacks depending on zone); Glendale, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances §§5 .132 & 5 .212 (2011) (restricting poultry to rural residential and suburban residential zones); Greensboro, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §30-8-11 .3 (2011) (allowing chickens as an accessory on single-family detached dwellings on R-3, E-5, R-7, RM-9, RM-12, and RM-18 districts); L .A ., Cal ., Mun . Code §§12 .01, 12 .05-12 .09 (2011) (allowing chickens in agricultural and requirements if chickens are being raised for commercial purposes .252 Memphis merely applies different building restrictions for coops depending on the zone .253 And two cities employ zoning laws to augment the area where chick- ens are allowed: Cleveland and Stockton specifically allow raising chickens in industrially zoned areas .254 c. Multi-Family Units Two cities, Minneapolis and Newark, specifically regulate multi-family dwellings such as apartments . Both of these cities require permits, but will not grant one to certain multi-family dwellings . Minneapolis will not grant a per- mit to someone who lives in a multi-family home with four or more dwelling units .255 Newark will not grant one to anyone living in any multi-family home .256 d. Using Lot Size to Determine the Number of Chickens Many other cities do not restrict chickens to certain lot sizes, but use lot size to determine how many chickens a property can have . There is no uniformity to these ordi- nances . Some ordinances set a maximum number of chickens for property of a certain size and under, and then allow for more chickens as the property size increases . For instance, Seattle allows up to eight chickens for lots under 10,000 square, and one more chicken for each additional 1,000 square feet .257 Fremont has an intricate step system, with four chickens for at least 6,000 square feet, six for at least 8,000 square feet, 10 for at least 10,000, 20 for at least ½ acre, and 25 for more than one acre .258 Riverside allows for up to four chickens on property between 7,200 and 40,000 square feet and up to 12 on property 40,000 square feet or more in residentially zoned areas .259 Some cities decide the number of chickens based on zoning . El Paso allows for up to six chickens on land not zoned agricultural .260 Tulsa allows up to six adults and 14 chicks under eight weeks of age on land not zoned agricul- residential districts including districts zoned A1, A2, RA, RE, RS R1, and RMP); Madison, Wis ., Code of Ordinances ch . 28 (no date listed); id. §7 .29; id. §9 .52 (allowing chickens in both residential and commer- cial districts); Memphis, Tenn ., Code of Ordinances tit . 16, app . A (2009) (applying complex zoning requirements for outbuildings to chicken coops); San Diego, Cal ., Mun . Code §42 .0709 (2011) (using zoning to define different kinds of setbacks, but allowing chickens in most zones); Shreveport, La ., Code of Ordinances ch . 106 (2011) (allowing poultry raising in residential and agricultural districts by right, and in most other zones through a special exception from the zoning board) Stockton, Cal ., Mun . Code §§6 .04 .420, 16 .80 .060 (2011) (allowing chickens in residen- tial and industrially zoned areas) . 252 . Dallas, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §7-1 .1 (2011) . 253 . Memphis, Tenn ., Code of Ordinances tit . 16 (2009) . 254 . Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02 (2011); Stockton, Cal ., Mun . Code §16 .80 .060 (2011) . 255 . Minneapolis, Minn ., Code of Ordinances §70 .10(c) (2011) . 256 . Newark, N .J ., General Ordinances §6:2-33 (2010) . 257 . Seattle, Wash ., Mun . Code §23 .42 .052(C) (2011) . 258 . Fremont, Cal ., Mun . Code §3-5803 (2011) . 259 . Riverside, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §17 .24 (2011) . 260 . El Paso, Tex ., Mun . Code §7 .24 .020(B) (2011) . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 42 ELR 10906 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 tural .261 Neither city restricts the amount of chickens on agriculturally zoned land .262 Instead of using square footage or zoning, many cities divide by acre . These ordinances range between four to 12 chickens for property under ½ acre . For instance, Fort Worth allows for no more than 12 chickens on lots under ½ acre, no more than 20 on lots between ½ and one acre, and no more than 50 on lots of one acre or more .263 Mesa City allows for 10 rodents or fowl on ½ acre or less, and an additional 10 for each ½ acre, but no longer limits the number of chickens after 2 ½ acres .264 Louisville allows for five chickens on property of less than ½ acre, and no limit above that .265 Arlington provides for four on less than ½ acre, 10 for lots between ½ and one acre, and 25 for lots over one acre .266 And, Charlotte requires a permit and restricts chickens to 20 per acre .267 Des Moines’ ordinance employs a similar step system but provides for a mix of other livestock . It allows for no more than 30 of any two species for property less than one acre . For property greater than one acre, one can have a total of 50 animals divided among up to six species .268 Lincoln, Nebraska, has one of the more unique chicken ordinances when it comes to limiting the number, in that it not only provides for a maximum number of chickens, but also a minimum . It also specifies the weight of the chick- ens . So, for property under one acre, with a permit, a person can have seven to 30 chickens under three pounds, three to 20 chickens between three and five pounds, and two to five chickens between five and 20 pounds .269 It allows chicken owners to double the number for each additional acre . Lincoln’s ordinance should be applauded for recog- nizing that chickens are flock animals and thus require, at least, a minimum of two . It should also be applauded for not penalizing an owner for keeping less than two and only making it unlawful to keep numbers greater than the maximum .270 After all, if it penalized keeping less than a minimum number of chickens, Lincoln might be unique among cities for making it unlawful not to keep chickens . More problematic are cities that do not allow owners to own a minimum number of four chickens . Several cities allow one chicken per a certain square footage area . Greens- boro provides for one chicken for every 3,000 square feet, as long as the area is greater than 7,000 square feet .271 Ana- heim allows one chicken for each 1,800 square feet, but it does provide that if the calculation results in more than half an animal, the owner can round up to the next whole 261 . Tulsa, Okla ., Code of Ordinances §200(E) (2011) . 262 . El Paso, Tex ., Mun . Code §7 .24 .020(B); Tulsa, Okla ., Code of Ordi- nances §200(A) . 263 . Fort Worth, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §11A-22(c), (d), (e) (2011) . 264 . Mesa, Ariz ., City Code §8-6-21(A) (2011) . 265 . Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Code §91 .011 Restraint (8) (2011) . 266 . Arlington, Tex ., Ordinances Governing Animals §5 .02 (2010) . 267 . Charlotte, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §3-102(c)(1), (g) (2010) . 268 . Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-4 (2011) . Des Moines also allows up to two fowl to be kept as pets . Id. §18-136 . 269 . Lincoln, Neb ., Mun . Code tbl . 6 .04 .040 (2011) . 270 . Id. §6 .04 .040(b)(1) . 271 . Greensboro, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §30-8-11 .3(B) (2011) . animal .272 Tampa provides five per 5,000 square feet . And, Cleveland allows for one chicken for each 800 square feet if residential and each 400 square feet if commercial or industrial .273 Cleveland, at least, has stated in its ordinance that these square feet requirements are meant to allow six chickens on an average-sized Cleveland lot . While many of these cities provide a small enough chicken to square foot ratio that the average single-family home should be able to accommodate four or more chickens, this method still leaves open the possibility that a chicken owner would be restricted to one or two chickens . An ordinance that allows only one chicken per a certain area does not take into account that chickens are flock animals that do not thrive when left alone . 3. Limit Number of Chickens Many other cities limit the number of chickens any house- hold can keep, no matter the size of the property . Thirty cities place a simple limit on the number of chickens .274 Of those cities that simply limit the number of chickens, the average number they allow is 12, the median number is nine, and the most popular number is a tie between four and 25 .275 The lowest number is Garland and Honolulu with two .276 Somewhat surprisingly, the highest number comes from Jersey City—with 50 .277 Jersey City collapses ducks and pigeons within the restriction of 50 fowl .278 Jer- sey City also requires a permit to keep chickens .279 At least four cities set a maximum number of chickens that can be owned before it is necessary to procure a per- 272 . Anaheim, Cal ., Mun . Code §18 .38 .030 .050 (2011) . 273 . Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02(b)(2) (2011) . 274 . From lowest to highest: Honolulu, Haw ., Rev . Ordinances §7-2 .5(d) (1990) (two); Garland, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §22 .14 (2011) (two); Portland, Or ., City Code §13 .05 .015(b) & (e) (2011) (three); Sacramento, Cal ., City Code §9 .44 .860(A)(1) (2011) (three); Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .157 (2011) (three); San Francisco, Cal ., Health Code §37 (2011) (four); Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordi- nances §78-6 .5(3) (2011) (four); St . Louis, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §10 .20 .015 (2010) (four); Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §5 .6 (2011) (four); Madison, Wis ., Code of Ordinances ch . 28 (no date listed); id. §7 .29; id. §9 .52 (four); Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 (2009) (five); San Jose, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §7 .60 .815 (2007) (six); El Paso, Tex ., Mun . Code §7 .24 .020 (2011) (six); Corpus Christi, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-154 (2011) (six); Houston, Tex ., Code of Ordinances ch . 6, art . II (2010) (seven); Austin, Tex ., Code of Ordi- nances tit . III, ch . 3 .1 .1 (2011) (nine); Colorado Springs, Colo ., City Code §6 .7 .106(D) (2011) (10); Plano, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §4- 184 (2011) (10); Glendale, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .130 (2011) (12); Albuquerque, N .M ., Code of Ordinances §9-2-4-3 (2011) (15); Kan- sas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15(f) (2011) (15); Miami, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §6-1(b) (2011) (15); Long Beach, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .20 .020 (2011) (20); Tucson, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances §4- 56 (2011) (24); Fremont, Cal ., Mun . Code §3-5803 (2011) (25); San Diego, Cal ., Mun . Code §42 .0708 (2011) (25); Bos ., Mass ., Code of Ordinances §16-1 .8A (2010) (25); Birmingham, Ala ., Zoning Ordi- nance §2 .4 .1 (2007) (25); Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §7-103 (2011) (25); Jersey City, N .J ., Code of Ordinances §90-6 (2011) (50) . 275 . Supra note 274 and accompanying text . 276 . Garland, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §22 .14 (2011) (two); Honolulu, Haw ., Rev . Ordinances §7-2 .5(d) (1990) (two) . 277 . Jersey City, N .J ., Code of Ordinances §90-6 (2011) . 278 . Id . 279 . Id . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10907 mit .280 Wichita allows three chickens, Santa Ana allows four, and San Jose and El Paso both allow up to six .281 This appears to be the most workable system, because it takes into account that there are different levels of chicken-keep- ing in an urban agriculture context . It provides a bright- line rule for people who want small backyard flocks, while still allowing owners of market gardens, urban farms, or chicken cooperatives the opportunity to expand their operations without seeking to change the ordinance . It also conserves city resources by not forcing every would-be chicken owner to procure a permit . Finally, because there is no permit, it saves the city from any obligations to monitor the backyard operation . If any problem arises with a small backyard flock, the city can rely on its nuisance laws, or other setback or coop requirements within the statute to resolve the problem . Some cities always require a permit, but set a relatively high number of chickens allowed . As noted earlier, with a permit, Jersey City allows up to 50,282 and Boston and Mobile allow up to 25 .283 According to several Bostonians who want chickens, however, Boston does not easily grant this permit .284 Miami allows up to 15 hens with a permit .285 Some cities take a belt-and-suspenders approach and require both a permit and restrict hens to a small number . With a permit, Milwaukee only allows four,286 and Sacra- mento, three .287 Several other cities, perhaps understanding that the hens may occasionally be used to produce more chickens, allow considerably more chicks than full-grown chickens . Both Miami and Kansas City allow only 15 grown hens, but Miami allows 30 chicks,288 and Kansas City allows 50 .289 Tulsa allows seven adults and 14 chicks .290 Colo- rado Springs allows 10 hens and an unlimited number of chicks .291 And Garland, even though it allows only two hens, does not limit the number of chicks less than one- month old .292 And for pure eccentricity, Houston has the most inter- esting restriction on the number of chickens . Houston allows up to seven hens if a person can present a written certification from a licensed physician that the person needs “fresh unfertilized chicken eggs for serious reasons 280 . Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .157(a) (2011); Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §5 .6 (2011); San Jose, Cal ., Code of Ordi- nances tit . 7 (2007); El Paso, Tex ., Mun . Code §7 .24 .020 (2011) . 281 . Seesupranote 280 . 282 . Jersey City, N .J ., Code of Ordinances §90-7 (2011) . 283 . Bos ., Mass ., Code of Ordinances §16-1 .8A, Zoning art . 8 No . 75 (2010); Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §7-103 (2011) . 284 . See,e.g., Legalize Chickens in Boston, http://legalizechickensinboston . org/ (last visited July 5, 2012) (stating that the city of Boston denies chicken permits and seeking a more reasonable legislative solution to regulate chick- ens in Boston) . 285 . Miami, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §6-1(b) (2011) . 286 . Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §78-6 .5 (2011) . 287 . Sacramento, Cal ., City Code §9 .44 .860(a)(1) (2011) . 288 . Miami, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §6-1(b) (2011) . 289 . Kansas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15(f) (2011) . 290 . Tulsa, Okla ., Code of Ordinances §200(d), (e) (2011) . 291 . Colorado Springs, Colo ., City Code §6 .7 .106(D) (2011) . 292 . Garland, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §22 .14 (2011) . pertaining to said person’s health .”293 This ordinance was passed in 2010,294 presumably because Houstonites were able to show that fresh eggs help alleviate certain medi- cal ailments . 4. Setbacks Setbacks are, by far, the most popular way to regulate chickens . Sixty-three cities have some sort of setback requirement in their ordinances . The most popular setback is a setback from a neighboring dwelling: 56 cities require that chickens and chickens coops be kept a certain distance from other residences .295 The next most popular is a setback 293 . Houston, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-38 (2010) . 294 . Id. 295 . Akron, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §92-18 (2011) (100 ft .); Anaheim, Cal ., Mun . Code §18 .38 .030 .0202 (2011) (50 ft .); Anchorage, Alaska, Code of Ordinances §§21 .40 .060 & 21 .40 .080 (2011) (25-100 ft); Arlington, Tex ., Ordinances Governing Animals §5 .02 (2010) (50 ft .); Atlanta, Ga ., Code of Ordinances §18-7 (2011) (50 ft .); Aus- tin, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §3 .2 .16 (2011) (50 ft .); Bakersfield, Cal ., Mun . Code §17 .12 .010 R-S (2011) (50 ft .); Baton Rouge, La ., Code of Ordinances §14-224 (c)(1)(b) (2011) (50 ft .); Birmingham, Ala ., Zoning Ordinance §2 .4 .1 (2007) (300 ft . from residence or 100 ft . from any residential structure); Bos ., Mass ., Code of Ordinances §16-1 .8A, Zoning, art . 8, No . 75 (2010) (100 ft .); Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3 (2009) (20 ft . from door or window); Corpus Christi, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-154 (2011) (100 ft . if not enclosed); Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-4 (2011) (25 ft .); El Paso, Tex ., Mun . Code §7 .24 .030 (2011) (30 ft .); Fort Worth, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §11A-22(b) & (f) (2011) (50 ft .); Fresno, Cal ., Mun . Code §12 .207 .5 (2011) (40 ft .); Garland, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §22 .14 (2011) (30 ft .); Glendale, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .030 (2011) (50 ft . from dwelling or 100 ft . from school or hospital); Glendale, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances pt . II, art . 5 (2010) (100 ft .); Grand Rapids, Mich ., Code of Ordinances §8 .582 (2010) (100 ft . from any dwelling unit, well, spring, stream, drainage ditch, or drain); Greensboro, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §30-8-11 .3(B) (2011) (50 ft .); Hialeah, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §10 .4 (2011) (100 ft .); Honolulu, Haw ., Rev . Ordinances §7-2 .5(d) (1990) (300 ft .); Houston, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-31 (2010) (100 ft .); Jersey City, N .J ., Code of Ordinances §90-6 (2011) (25 ft .); Kansas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15 (2011) (100 ft .); Lincoln, Neb ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .040 (2011) (50 ft .); Long Beach, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .20 .030 (2011) (50 ft .); L .A ., Cal ., Mun . Code §§53 .58 & 53 .59 (2011) (Department of Animal Services promulgated regulations that require chicken coops to be 35 ft . from neighbor’s dwelling and 20 ft . from owner’s dwelling); Madison, Wis ., Code of Ordinances ch . 28 (no date listed) (25 ft .); Mesa, Ariz ., City Code §8-6-21(g) & (h) (2011) (40 ft .); Miami, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §6-1(b) (2011) (100 ft .); Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §78-6 .5(3)(g)-(j) (2011) (25 ft .); Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §§7-88 & 7-103 (2011) (150 ft . if not grandfathered in); Nashville-Davidson, Tenn ., Mun . Code §17-16-330(B) (2011) (250 ft .); N .Y .C ., Mun . Code §161 .09 (1990) (25 ft .); Newark, N .J ., General Ordinances §6:2-35 (2010) (20 ft .); Oak- land, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §6-04-320 (2011) (20 ft .); Oklahoma City, Okla ., Mun . Code 59-9350 (2011) (200 ft .); Phoenix, Ariz ., City Code §8-7 (2011) (80 ft .); Richmond, Va ., Code of Ordinances §10-88 (2011) (500 ft .); Riverside, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .20 (2011); id. tit . 17 (50 ft .); Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §30-19(H) (no date listed) (25 ft .); Sacramento, Cal ., City Code §9 .44 .860 (2011) (20 ft .); San Antonio, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §5-109(c) (2011) (100 ft . or 50 ft . with permit); San Diego, Cal ., Mun . Code §42 .0709 (2011) (50 ft .); San Francisco, Cal ., Health Code §37(b) (2011) (20 ft . from door or window); San Jose, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §7 .60 .815 (2007) (20 ft . but more if have more chickens); Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordinanc- es §5-18 (2011) (100 ft .); Seattle, Wash ., Mun . Code §23 .42 .052(c)(3) (2011) (10 ft .); St . Petersburg, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §4-31 (2011) (100 ft . unless have permission from neighbors); Stockton, Cal ., Mun . Code §§6 .04 .420, 16 .80 .060 (2011) (50 ft .); Tacoma, Wash ., Mun . Code §5 .30 .010 (2011) (50 ft . unless have permission from neighbors); Tampa, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §19 .76 (2008) (200 ft .); Tucson, Ariz ., Code Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 42 ELR 10908 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 from the property line: 20 cities require chickens to be kept away from the neighbor’s property, even if the neighbor’s actual house is much further away .296 Three cities require a setback from the street .297 Six cities ban chickens from the front yard .298 This adds up to more than 63, because sev- eral cities employ more than one kind of setback . Finally, several cities have unique setback requirements that will be discussed later . a. Setbacks From Neighboring Buildings Of the 56 cities that require that chickens be kept a cer- tain distance away from neighboring residences,299 the set- backs range from 10300 to 500 feet .301 The average of all of the setbacks is 80 feet,302 although only one city, Phoenix, actually has a setback of 80 feet .303 The median and the mode are both 50 feet .304 The average is higher than both the median and the mode, because several cities that also require large lots, or agriculturally zoned land, also have very large setbacks .305 The mode, the most common set- of Ordinances §4-57 (2011) (50 ft .); Wash ., D .C ., Mun . Regulations for Animal Control §902 .7(a) & (b) (no date listed) (50 ft .) . 296 . Anaheim, Cal ., Mun . Code §18 .38 .030 .0202 (2011) (20 ft . from property line); Baton Rouge, La ., Code of Ordinances §14-224(c)(1)(b) (2011) (10 ft . from property line); Birmingham, Ala ., Zoning Ordinance §2 .4 .1 (2007) (100 ft . from property line); Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3 (2009) (18 inches from rear lot); Charlotte, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §3-102(c) (2010) (25 ft . from property line); Chesapeake, Va ., Code of Ordinances ch . 10 (2011) (20 ft . from property line); Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02(b)(1)(B) (2011) (5 ft . from side yard and 18 inches from rear yard); Fresno, Cal ., Mun . Code §12-206 .1 (2011) (100 ft . from property line); Greensboro, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §30-8-11 .3 (2011) (25 ft . from property line); Jacksonville, Fla ., Ordi- nance Code §656 .401 (2011) (50 ft . from property line); Kansas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15(f) (2011) (25 ft . from property line); Montgomery, Ala ., Code of Ordinances ch . 4 art . I (2011); id. app . C, art . VII (200 ft . from property line); Plano, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §3-204 (2011) (5 ft . from property line); Portland, Or ., City Code §13 .05 .015(b) & (e) (2011) (50 ft . from residence or business where food is prepared); Riverside, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .20 (2011) (20 ft . from property line); Seattle, Wash ., Mun . Code §23 .42 .052(c)(3) (2011) (10 ft . from property line); Tampa, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §19 .76 (2008) (200 ft . from property line); Tulsa, Okla ., Code of Ordinances §200(d) & (e) (2011) (50 ft ., but 100 ft . if zoned agricultural); Wash ., D .C ., Mun . Regulations for Animal Control §902 .7(a) & (b) (no date listed) (250 ft . unless have neighbor’s consent) . 297 . Bakersfield, Cal ., Mun . Code §17 .12 .010-RS (2011) (100 ft .); Bir- mingham, Ala ., Zoning Ordinance §2 .4 .1 (2007) (300 ft .); Bos ., Mass ., Code of Ordinances §16-1 .8A, Zoning, art . 8, No . 75 (2010) (100 ft .) . 298 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3 (2009); Cleveland, Ohio, Codi- fied Ordinances §347 .02(b)(1)(B) (2011); Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-4 (2011); Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §78-6 .5(3)(g)-(j) (2011); Phoenix, Ariz ., City Code §8-7 (2011); Sacra- mento, Cal ., City Code §9 .44 .860 (2011) . 299 . Seesupranote 295 . 300 . Seattle, Wash ., Mun . Code §23 .42 .052(c)(3) (2011) . 301 . Richmond, Va ., Code of Ordinances §10-88 (2011) . Since Richmond also requires an acre of land to even own chickens, this setback doesn’t ex- clude any additional would-be chicken owners . 302 . Seesupra note 295 . 303 . Phoenix, Ariz ., City Code §8-10 (2011) (80 ft . unless have permission from neighbor) . 304 . Seesupra note 295 . 305 . Birmingham, Ala ., Zoning Ordinance §2 .4 .1 (2007) (300 ft .); Hono- lulu, Haw ., Rev . Ordinances §7-2 .5(d) (1990) (300 ft .); and Richmond, Va ., Code of Ordinances §10-88 (2011) (500 ft .) . back, comprises 17 cities .306 After that, the most popular setbacks are the following: • Fifteen cities have setbacks of less than 30 feet, with two at 30 feet,307 seven at 25 feet,308 six at 20 feet,309 and one at 10 feet .310 • Thirteen cities have setbacks of 100 feet .311 Of those, three of them allow for smaller setback under certain conditions: St . Petersburg will allow for a smaller set- back if the owner seeks permission from neighboring property owners; San Antonio will allow for a smaller setback with a permit; and Corpus Christi will allow for a smaller setback if the coop is enclosed .312 • Seven cities have setbacks of more than 100 feet .313 Of those, Mobile, Alabama, has a 150-foot setback, but allows chicken coops that were built before the ordi- nance passed to be grandfathered in .314 Oklahoma City has a 200-foot setback and, puzzlingly, will waive these setbacks from horses, mules, donkeys, and pigs, but not for chickens .315 Oklahoma City also has an additional 400-foot setback for roosters .316 Several cities will shrink their setbacks under certain conditions . In what appears to be a thoughtful approach to requiring a neighbor’s consent, four cities provide a standard setback, but provide relief from the setback if the owner gets permission from his neighbors to keep chickens .317 And one city, San Antonio, as mentioned 306 . Anaheim; Arlington; Austin; Bakersfield; Baton Rouge; Fort Worth; Glendale, California; Greensboro; Lincoln; Long Beach (but 20 if just had one chicken); Portland; Riverside; San Diego; Stockton; Tacoma; Tucson; Washington . 307 . El Paso, Tex ., Mun . Code §7 .24 .030 (2011) (30 ft ., but only 20 ft . if separated by a fence that is at least six ft .); Garland, Tex ., Code of Ordi- nances §22 .14(A) (2011) . 308 . Anchorage, Alaska, Code of Ordinances §§21 .40 .060 & 21 .40 .080 (2011); Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-4(h)(1) (2011); Jersey City, N .J ., Code of Ordinances §90-6 (2011); Madison, Wis ., Code of Ordinances ch . 28 (no date listed); Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §78-6 .5 (2011); N .Y .C ., Mun . Code §161 .09 (1990) (for poultry market coops only—poultry not intended for sale is not regulated); Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §30-19(H) (no date listed) . 309 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3 (2009); Newark, N .J ., General Ordinances §6:2-35 (2010); Oakland, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §6- 04-320 (2011); Sacramento, Cal ., City Code §9 .44 .860 (2011); San Francisco, Cal ., Health Code §37 (2011); San Jose, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §7 .60 .815 (2007) (applying setback to all small animals, not just chickens) . 310 . Seattle, Wash ., Mun . Code §23 .42 .052(C) (2011) . 311 . Akron, Atlanta, Boston, Corpus Christi, Glendale, Grand Rapids, Hialeah, Houston, Kansas City, Miami, San Antonio, Santa Ana, St . Petersburg . 312 . St . Petersburg, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §4-31 (2011) (100 ft . un- less have permission from neighbors); San Antonio, Tex ., Code of Ordi- nances §5-109(c) (2011) (100 ft . or 50 ft . with permit); Corpus Christi, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-154 (2011) (100 ft . if not enclosed) . 313 . Mobile, Oklahoma, Tampa, Nashville, Birmingham, Honolulu, Richmond . 314 . Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §7-88(d) (2011) (150 ft . if not grandfathered in), butseeid. §7-103(d) (allowing for 20 ft . from the prop- erty line in a residential area) . 315 . Oklahoma City, Okla ., Mun . Code §59-9350(F) & (I) (2011) . 316 . Id. §59-9350(H) . 317 . Las Vegas, Nev ., Mun . Code §7 .38 .050 (2011) (300 ft . without per- mission); Phoenix, Ariz ., City Code §8-10 (2011) (80 ft . without per- mission); St . Petersburg, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §4-31(d) (2011) (100 ft . without permission); Tacoma, Wash ., Mun . Code §§5 .30 .010 & 5 .30 .030 (2011) (50 ft . without permission) . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10909 above, will shrink its 100-foot setback to 50 feet if a per- mit is secured .318 Two cities do not frame the setback as from a neighbor- ing residence or building, but more specifically to a door or a window of the building . Both Buffalo and San Fran- cisco have a 20-foot setback from any door or window of a building .319 Several cities define the setback more broadly than a neighboring dwelling, and include schools, hospitals, and other businesses within the setback .320 Grand Rapids, Michigan, however, goes further; it has a 100-foot setback from any “dwelling unit, well, spring, stream, drainage ditch or drain .”321 This, in effect, bans all chickens within the city . b. Setbacks From Property Line Twenty cities mandate setbacks from the property line;322 those setbacks range from 18 inches323 to 250 feet .324 The average setback is 59 feet, but no city actually has such a setback . The closest are Jacksonville and Tulsa, which both have a setback of 50 feet .325 Again, a few cities with very large setbacks are raising the average .326 The median set- 318 . San Antonio, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §5-109 (2011) . 319 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 (2009); San Francisco, Cal ., Health Code §37 (2011) . 320 . E.g., Fort Worth, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §11A-22 (2011); Glen- dale, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .130 (2011) . 321 . Grand Rapids, Mich ., Code of Ordinances §8 .582(2) (2010) . 322 . Anaheim, Cal ., Mun . Code §18 .38 .030 .0202 (2011) (20 ft . from property line); Baton Rouge, La ., Code of Ordinances §14-224(c)(1)(b) (2011) (10 ft . from property line); Birmingham, Ala ., Zoning Ordinance §2 .4 .1 (2007) (100 ft . from property line); Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3 (2009) (18 inches from rear lot); Charlotte, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §3-102(c) (2010) (25 ft . from property line); Chesapeake, Va ., Code of Ordinances ch . 10 (2011) (20 ft . from property line); Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02(b)(1)(B) (2011) (5 ft . from side yard and 18 inches from rear yard); Fresno, Cal ., Mun . Code §12-206 .1 (2011) (100 ft . from property line); Greensboro, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §30-8-11 .3 (2011) (25 ft . from property line); Jacksonville, Fla ., Ordi- nance Code §656 .401 (2011) (50 ft . from property line); Kansas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15(f) (2011) (25 ft . from property line); Montgomery, Ala ., Code of Ordinances ch . 4 art . I (2011); id. at app . C, art . VII (200 ft . from property line); Plano, Tex ., Code of Ordinanc- es §3-204 (2011) (5 ft . from property line); Portland, Or ., City Code §13 .05 .015(b) & (e) (2011) (50 ft . from residence or business where food is prepared); Riverside, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .20 (2011) (20 ft . from property line); Seattle, Wash ., Mun . Code §23 .42 .052(c)(3) (2011) (10 ft . from property line); Tampa, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §19 .76 (2008) (200 ft . from property line); Tulsa, Okla ., Code of Ordinances §200(d) & (e) (2011) (50 ft ., but 100 ft . if zoned agricultural); Wash ., D .C ., Mun . Regulations for Animal Control §902 .7(a) & (b) (no date listed) (250 ft . unless have neighbor’s consent) . 323 . Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02 (2011); Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3 (2009) . 324 . Wash ., D .C ., Mun . Regulations for Animal Control §902 .7 (no date listed) (250 ft . setback without consent of neighbors) . 325 . Jacksonville, Fla ., Ordinance Code §656 .401 (2011) (50 ft . from prop- erty line); Tulsa, Okla ., Code of Ordinances §200(d), (e) (2011) . 326 . Tulsa, Okla ., Code of Ordinances §200(d), (e) (2011) (200 ft .); Tam- pa, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §19 .76 (2008) (200 ft .); Wash ., D .C ., Mun . Regulations for Animal Control §902 .7(a) & (b) (no date listed) (250 ft .) . back is 25 feet .327 And the mode, or most popular, setback is tied at either 20328 or 25 feet .329 Washington, D .C ., which has the largest setback at 250 feet, allows relief from this setback if the owner has his neighbor’s consent to keep chickens .330 c. Setbacks From the Street Three cities require chickens to be kept away from the street: Bakersfield, Birmingham, and Boston .331 All of these setbacks are relatively large, ranging from 100 to 300 feet . Presumably, this is to stop chickens from being kept in the front yard or on a corner lot from a vantage point where passersby can easily see the coop . Bakersfield, provides a specific setback for corner lots, requiring that chicken coops be kept at least 10 feet away from the street side of a corner lot .332 Another way that cities do this, perhaps more effectively, is by simply barring chickens from front yards, as six cities do .333 d. Other Kinds of Setbacks While many ordinances exclude the owner’s house from the definition of a dwelling,334 two cities provide a sepa- rate setback requirement for an owner’s own dwelling . Atlanta requires chickens to be kept at least five feet away from an owner’s own house,335 and Los Angeles requires that the chickens be kept at least 20 feet away from the owner’s house .336 Three cities do not provide for explicit setbacks, but leave each setback up to some city official’s discretion . In Wichita, the chief of police can examine the property and determine the setback .337 In St . Paul, it is up to the Health Inspector’s discretion .338 And, in Fremont, it is the Animal Services Supervisor who has discretion .339 327 . Charlotte, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §3-102(c)(1), (f) (2010); Greensboro, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §30-8-11 .3 (2011); Kansas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15 (2011) . 328 . Anaheim, Cal ., Mun . Code §18 .38 .030 .0202 (2011); Chesapeake, Va ., Code of Ordinances ch . 10 (2011); Riverside, Cal ., Code of Ordi- nances §6 .04 .20 & tit . 17(2011) . 329 . Seesupra note 327 . 330 . Wash ., D .C ., Mun . Regulations for Animal Control §902 .7(b) (no date listed) . 331 . Bos ., Mass ., Code of Ordinances §16-1 .8A, Zoning, art . 8, No . 75 (2010); Bakersfield, Cal ., Mun . Code §17 .12 .010-RS (2011); Birming- ham, Ala ., Zoning Ordinance §2 .4 .1 (2007) . 332 . Bakersfield, Cal ., Mun . Code §17 .12 .010-RS (2011) . 333 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3 (2009); Cleveland, Ohio, Codi- fied Ordinances §347 .02(b)(1)(B) (2011); Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-4 (2011); Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §78- 6 .5(3)(i) (2011); Phoenix, Ariz ., City Code §8-7 (2011); Sacramento, Cal ., City Code §9 .44 .860 (2011) . 334 . E.g., Austin, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §3 .2 .16 (2011) (50 ft); Ana- heim, Cal ., Mun . Code §18 .38 .030 .0202 (2011) . 335 . Atlanta, Ga ., Code of Ordinances §18-7 (2011) . 336 . L .A ., Cal ., Mun . Code §§53 .58 & 53 .59 (2011) (Department of Ani- mal Services promulgated regulations requiring coops to be 20 ft . from owner’s dwelling) . 337 . Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .173(c) (2011) . 338 . St . Paul, Minn ., §198 .05 (2011) . 339 . Fremont, Cal ., Mun . Code §3-5803 (2011) . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 42 ELR 10910 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 Finally, St . Louis wins for the most eccentric setback . It doesn’t have any setbacks for neighboring buildings, or the property line, but it does require that chickens be kept out of the milking barn .340 5. Coop Requirements Many cities regulate how the chicken coop should be built and maintained . There is a broad range in these reg- ulations, and no two ordinances are alike . Some simply decree that it is unlawful for chickens to run at large, and thus implicitly mandate that the coop be constructed in a secure enough way so that chickens can’t easily escape . Some appear to look out for animal welfare by decreeing that chickens should be provided adequate food, water, and shelter in sanitary conditions . And, some appear to try to proactively head off any potential problems by regulat- ing the dimensions of the coop, how it must be built, and exactly how often it must be cleaned . First, some of the more common elements in these statutes will be explored . Then, more unique elements will be discussed . a. No Running at Large First, 33 cities prohibit chickens particularly or animals in general from running at large .341 Most of those cit- ies simply prohibit chickens from running at large, but some provide for a little more nuance . For instance, Cincinnati does not allow chickens to run at large “so as to do damage to gardens, lawns, shrubbery or other private property .”342 So, presumably, a chicken could run free, as long as it didn’t damage anything . Five cities, instead of making it unlawful to run at large, provide that the chicken must be kept enclosed in the coop and 340 . St . Louis, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §11 .46 .410 (2010) . 341 . Akron, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §92 .01 (2011); Albuquerque, N .M ., Code of Ordinances §9-2-4-3(D) (2011); Arlington, Tex ., Ordinances Governing Animals §5 .02(e) (2010); Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3 (2009); Cincinnati, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §701- 33 (2011); Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §603 .01 (2011); Fort Worth, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §11A-22(c)(3) (2011); Fresno, Cal ., Mun . Code §10 .205 (2011); Garland, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §22 .03 (2011); Indianapolis, Ind ., Rev . Code §531 .102 (2011); Irving, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-2 (2011); Las Vegas, Nev ., Mun . Code §7 .36 .030 (2011); Lexington-Fayette, Ky ., Code of Ordinances §4- 10 (2011); Long Beach, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .20 .080 (2011); Louis- ville, Ky ., Metro Code ch . 91 .001 Nuisance (2011); Memphis, Tenn ., Code of Ordinances §8-8-2 (2009); Mesa, Ariz ., City Code §8-6- 21(I) (2011); Miami, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §6-2 (2011); Newark, N .J ., General Ordinances §6:2-34 (2010); Oakland, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §6-04-200 (2011); Norfolk, Va ., Code of Ordinances §6 .1-7 (2011); Omaha, Neb ., Code of Ordinances §6-263 (2011); Pittsburgh, Pa ., Code of Ordinances §635 .02 (2011); Raleigh, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §12-3004 (2011); Richmond, Va ., Code of Or- dinances §10-88 (2011); St . Petersburg, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §4-31(b) (2011); San Jose, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §7 .60 .750 (2007); Spokane, Wash ., Mun . Code §10 .24 (no date listed); Stockton, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .130 (2011); Tacoma, Wash ., Mun . Code §5 .30 .020 (2011); Toledo, Ohio, Mun . Code §505 .10 (2011); Tucson, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances §4-55 (2011); Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordi- nances §6 .04 .173 (2011) . 342 . Cincinnati, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §701-33 (2011) . not allowed to escape .343 And two cities, Richmond and Stockton, frame it in terms of trespass and do not allow chicken trespassers .344 In any event, all of these statutes imply that a coop, minimally, must be constructed so that the birds cannot escape . b. Coops Must Be Clean and Sanitary Forty-six cities impose some sort of cleaning requirements on chicken owners .345 While many cities have cleaning requirements that apply to any animal,346 these cities ordi- nances are, for the most part, specific to chickens . Nearly all of these ordinances mandate that the chicken coop be kept in a clean and sanitary condition and free from offensive odors . The degree to which each city reg- ulates this, however, varies . Most cities have a variation on a general requirement that the coop be clean or sani- 343 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3 (2009); Cleveland, Ohio, Codi- fied Ordinances §603 .01 (2011); Fort Worth, Tex ., Code of Or- dinances §11A-22(c)(3) (2011); Fresno, Cal ., Mun . Code §10 .205 (2011); Louisville, Ky ., Metro Code §91 .001 Nuisance (2011) . 344 . Richmond, Va ., Code of Ordinances §10-88 (2011) (providing that fowl may not trespass); Stockton, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .130 (2011) (fowl [shall not] to run or go upon the public or private premises of any other person, firm, or corporation; or upon any park or public street or highway within the city) . 345 . Albuquerque, N .M ., Code of Ordinances §9-2-2-2 (2011); Austin, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §10-5-21 (2011); Baton Rouge, La ., Code of Ordinances §14:224(c)(1)(c) & (d) (2011); Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3(C) (2009); Charlotte, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §3-102 (2010); Chicago, Ill ., Code of Ordinances §7-12-290(b) (2011); Cin- cinnati, Ohio, Code of Ordinances ch . 701-35 (2011); Dallas, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §7-3 .2 (2011); Denver, Colo ., Mun . Code §8-92 (2011); Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-4(h) (2011); El Paso, Tex ., Mun . Code §7 .24 .030 (2011); Fort Wayne, Ind ., Code of Ordinances §91 .017 (2011); Fort Worth, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §11A-22(h) (2011); Fresno, Cal ., Mun . Code §10 .203 (2011); Gar- land, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §22 .17 (2011); Glendale, Ariz . Mun . Code §25-24 (2010); Glendale, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .020 (2011); Houston, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-36 (2010); Irving, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-6 (2011); Jersey City, N .J ., Code of Ordinances §90-8 (2011); Kansas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §§14-18 & 14-19 (2011); Las Vegas, Nev ., Mun . Code §7 .36 .050 (2011); Lin- coln, Neb ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .050 (2011); Long Beach, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .20 .070 (2011); Memphis, Tenn ., Code of Ordinances §8-8-1 (2009); Mesa, Ariz ., City Code §8-6-22 (2011); Miami, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §6-1 (2011); Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §78- 6 .5 (2011); Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §7-103 (2011); New Orleans, La ., Code of Ordinances §18-2 .1 (2011); Newark, N .J ., Gen- eral Ordinances §6:2-35 (2010); Omaha, Neb ., Code of Ordinances §6-261 (2011); Phoenix, Ariz ., City Code §8-7(d) (2011); Richmond, Va ., Code of Ordinances §10-88(d) (2011); San Antonio, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §5-109 (2011); San Diego, Cal ., Mun . Code §42 .0709 (2011); San Jose, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §7 .60 .755 (2007); Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §5 .6(b) (2011); Scottsdale, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances §4-18 (2011); St . Paul, Minn ., §198 .04-05 (2011); St . Petersburg, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §4-31(c) (2011); To- ledo, Ohio, Mun . Code §1705 .07 (2011); Tucson, Ariz ., Code of Or- dinances §4-58 (2011); Tulsa, Okla ., Code of Ordinances §§200(d), (e) & 406 (2011); Wash ., D .C ., Mun . Regulations for Animal Con- trol §902 .10-13 (no date listed); Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .174 (2011) . 346 . E.g ., Anchorage, Alaska, Code of Ordinances §17 .10 .030 (2011); At- lanta, Ga ., Code of Ordinances §18-8 (2011); Fremont, Cal ., Mun . Code §3-5600 (2011); Montgomery, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §4-3 (2011); Norfolk, Va ., Code of Ordinances §6 .1-2 Adequate Shelter (2011); Plano, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §4-51 (2011); Tampa, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §19 .77 (2008) . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10911 tary .347 Most cities also expressly prohibit odors or offen- sive odors .348 Some cities are a little more explicit and require that the coop be cleaned regularly or routinely .349 Some cities go further and require the coop to be clean at all times .350 And some cities regulate precisely how often the coop must be cleaned . Houston is the most fastidious . In Houston, the coop must be cleaned once per day, limed once every other day, and all containers containing chicken manure must be properly disposed of once per week .351 Milwaukee also requires coops to be cleaned daily and additionally “as is necessary .”352 The next two most fastidious cities, Des Moines and Santa Ana, require that the coop be cleaned at least every other day .353 Seven cities require that the coop be cleaned at least twice a week .354 And another four cities require that the coop be cleaned at least once a week .355 And, splitting the difference, Jersey City requires the coop to be cleaned once a week from November to May, and twice a week from May to November .356 Many cities also have a particular concern with either flies or rodents . Fourteen cities specify that attracting flies will be a nuisance .357 Cities that specifically mention flies 347 . E.g ., Austin, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §10-5-21 (2011); Fresno, Cal ., Mun . Code §10 .203 (2011); Long Beach, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .20 .070 (2011); Omaha, Neb ., Code of Ordinances §6-261 (2011); San Anto- nio, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §5-109 (2011); San Jose, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §7 .60 .755 (2007); Toledo, Ohio, Mun . Code §1706 .07 (2011); Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .174 (2011) . 348 . E.g., Austin, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §10-5-21 (2011); Cincinnati, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §701-35 (2011); Dallas, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §7-3 .2 (2011); Fort Wayne, Ind ., Code of Ordinances §91 .017 (2011); Fresno, Cal ., Mun . Code §10 .203 (2011); Garland, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §22 .17 (2011); Kansas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §§14-18 & 14-19 (2011); Las Vegas, Nev ., Mun . Code §7 .36 .050 (2011); Lincoln, Neb ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .050 (2011); Miami, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §6-1 (2011); New Orleans, La ., Code of Ordinances §18-2 .1 (2011); Omaha, Neb ., Code of Ordinances §6- 261 (2011); St . Petersburg, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §4-31(c) (2011); Toledo, Ohio, Mun . Code §1705 .07 (2011); Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .174 (2011) . 349 . E.g., Baton Rouge, La ., Code of Ordinances §14:224(c)(1)(c) & (d) (2011); New Orleans, La ., Code of Ordinances §18-2 .1 (2011); Tulsa, Okla ., Code of Ordinances §§200(d), (e) & 406 (2011) . 350 . E.g., Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3 (2009); Charlotte, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §3-102(c) (2010) . 351 . Houston, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-36 (2010) . 352 . Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §78-6 .5 (2011) . 353 . Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-137 (2011); Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §5 .6(b) (2011) . 354 . Garland, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §22 .17 (2011); Glendale, Ariz . Mun . Code §25-24(h) (2010); Irving, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-6 (2011); Mesa, Ariz ., City Code §8-6-22 (2011); Miami, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §6-1 (2011); Phoenix, Ariz ., City Code §8-7(d) (2011); Scottsdale, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances §4-18 (2011) . 355 . Albuquerque, N .M ., Code of Ordinances §9-2-2-2(B)(1) (2011); Lincoln, Neb ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .050 (2011); Newark, N .J ., General Ordinances §6:2-35 (2010); San Diego, Cal ., Mun . Code §42 .0709 (2011) . 356 . Jersey City, N .J ., Code of Ordinances §90-8(C) (2011) . 357 . Austin, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §10-5-21 (2011); Fort Worth, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §11A-22(h) (2011); Garland, Tex ., Code of Or- dinances §22 .17 (2011); Glendale, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .040 (2011); Houston, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-36 (2010); Kansas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-19 (2011); Las Vegas, Nev ., Mun . Code §7 .36 .050 (2011); Lincoln, Neb ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .050 (2011); Mesa, Ariz ., City Code §8-6-23 (2011); Miami, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §6-1 (2011); San Jose, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §7 .60 .755 (2007); Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §5 .6(b) (2011); Scottsdale, within their ordinances are congregated mostly in the South or the Southwest .358 Several mandate that chicken feed or chicken waste be kept in fly-tight containers .359 Miami requires that a chicken’s droppings be treated to destroy fly maggots before it can be used as fertilizer .360 Mesa has four cleaning requirements all designed to keep flies away: (1) droppings must be removed twice weekly; (2) “fowl excreta” must be stored in fly-tight containers; (3) water and feed troughs must be kept sanitary; and (4) food and food waste must be kept in a fly-proof con- tainer—all explicitly “to prevent the breeding of flies .”361 Kansas City’s concern with flies will stand in the way of keeping hens for eggs that would meet organic standards; it mandates the use of insecticide by providing that “all struc- tures, pens or coops wherein fowl are kept or permitted to be shall be sprayed with such substances as will eliminate such insects .”362 Because chickens eat insects, and because the protein they gain from eating those insects has a ben- eficial effect on the nutritional value of their eggs, this regulation stands at odds with a reason many people are interested in keeping backyard hens . Glendale, California, appears to be the most concerned about flies, going so far as to mandate that the owner adhere to impossible building requirements . Glendale requires chickens to be kept in a fly-proof enclosure; it defines fly- proof quite specifically as “a structure or cage of a design which prevents the entry therein or the escape therefrom of any bee, moth or fly .”363 Because a chicken must enter into and exit from its enclosure, and because one would want the chicken to have access to fresh air and sunlight, such a structure presents itself as an architectural impossibility . Ten cities are particularly concerned with rats .364 Of these cities, several are concerned about both flies and rats .365 Most of these cities simply mandate that the coop be free of rats,366 but three cities require that food be kept Ariz ., Code of Ordinances §§4-17 & 4-18 (2011); Wash ., D .C ., Mun . Regulations for Animal Control §902 .11-13 (no date listed) . 358 . Seesupra note 357 . 359 . Houston, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-36 (2010); Mesa, Ariz ., City Code §8-6-23 (2011); Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §5 .6(b) (2011) . 360 . Miami, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §6-1 (2011) . 361 . Mesa, Ariz ., City Code §8-6-23 (2011) . 362 . Kansas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15(d) (2011) . 363 . Glendale, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .040 (2011) . 364 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .13(B)(8) (2009); Cincinnati, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §§604 .17 & 00053-11 (2011); Denver, Colo ., Mun . Code §8-92 (2011); Fort Worth, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §11A-22(h) (2011); Kansas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15 (2011); Las Vegas, Nev ., Mun . Code §7 .36 .050 (2011); Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §7-103 (2011); New Orleans, La ., Code of Or- dinances §18-2 .1 (2011); Richmond, Va ., Code of Ordinances §10-88 (2011); Scottsdale, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances §4-17 (2011); Wash ., D .C ., Mun . Regulations for Animal Control §§902 .12 & 902 .13 (no date listed) . 365 . E.g., Cincinnati, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §§604 .17 & 00053-11 (2011); Kansas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15 (2011); Las Ve- gas, Nev ., Mun . Code §7 .36 .050 (2011); Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordi- nances §7-102 (2011); Scottsdale, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances §§4-17 & 4-18 (2011); Wash ., D .C ., Mun . Regulations for Animal Control §902 .12 (no date listed) . 366 . Cincinnati, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §00053-11 (2011); Fort Worth, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §11A-22(d) (2011); Kansas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15 (2011); Las Vegas, Nev ., Mun . Code Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 42 ELR 10912 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 within a rat-proof container .367 Denver appears to have the same antipathy toward rats as Glendale does toward flies . Denver requires that chickens be kept in a rat-proof building . A rat-proof building is one that is made with no “potential openings that rats could exploit and built with “material impervious to rat-gnawing .”368 While an open- ing for a rat would necessarily be bigger than an opening for a fly, because chickens will still have to enter and exit the structure, Denver appears to demand similarly impos- sible architecture . c. Coop Construction Requirements Thirty-seven cities regulate the construction of the chicken coop .369 Like the cleaning regulations, many of these cities’ ordinances are not particular to chickens, but cover any structure meant to house an animal .370 But, as demonstrated below, most specifically regulate chicken coops . Most of these ordinances require that chickens be kept within an enclosure, and many add that the enclosure must §7 .36 .050 (2011); New Orleans, La ., Code of Ordinances §18-2 .1 (2011); Scottsdale, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances §4-17 (2011); Wash ., D .C ., Mun . Regulations for Animal Control §§902 .12 & 902 .13 (no date listed) . 367 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3 (2009); Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-4(h) (2011); Richmond, Va ., Code of Ordinances §10-88 (2011) . 368 . Denver, Colo ., Mun . Code §§40 .41 & 40 .51 (2011) . 369 . Albuquerque, N .M ., Code of Ordinances §9-2-2-2 (2011); Anchor- age, Alaska, Code of Ordinances §17 .05 .010 (2011); Arlington, Tex ., Ordinances Governing Animals §1 .01 Secure Enclosure (2010); At- lanta, Ga ., Code of Ordinances §18-7 (2011); Austin, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §3-2-11 (2011); Baltimore, Md ., Health Code §10-409 (2011); Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3 (2009); Charlotte, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §3-102(c) (2010); Cincinnati, Ohio, Code of Or- dinances §00053-11 (2011); Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02(a)(1)(D) & (E) (2011); Colorado Springs, Colo ., City Code §6 .7 .106(D) (2011); Corpus Christi, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6- 154 (2011); Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-3(h) (2011); Fresno, Cal ., Mun . Code §10 .205 (2011); Glendale, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .040 (2011); Houston, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-36 (2010); Irving, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-1 Shelter (2011); Jersey City, N .J ., Code of Ordinances §90-8 (2011); Kansas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15 (2011); Lincoln, Neb ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .050 (2011); Long Beach, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .20 .100 (2011); Louisville, Ky ., Metro Code §91 .001 Restraint (2011); Madison, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §28 .08 (no date listed); Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §7-88 (2011); Montgomery, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §4-161 (2011); New Orleans, La ., Code of Ordinances §18-2 .1 (2011); Norfolk, Va ., Code of Ordinances §6 .1-2 (2011); Oklahoma City, Okla ., Mun . Code §8-96(c) & (e) (2011); Plano, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §4-1 Se- cure Enclosure & Shelter (2011); Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §30-19 (no date listed); San Antonio, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §5-9 (2011); San Jose, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §§7 .20 .020 & 7 .60 .760 (2007); Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §5 .6(b) (2011); Seattle, Wash ., Mun . Code §23 .42 .052(c)(3) (2011); Tacoma, Wash ., Mun . Code §17 .01 .010 (2011); Tucson, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances §4-3(2) (c) (2011); Tulsa, Okla ., Code of Ordinances §406 (2011) . 370 . Albuquerque, N .M ., Code of Ordinances §9-2-2-2 (2011); Anchor- age, Alaska, Code of Ordinances §17 .05 .010 (2011); Arlington, Tex ., Ordinances Governing Animals §1 .01 Secure Enclosures (2010); Baltimore, Md ., Health Code §10-409 (2011); Irving, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-1 (2011); Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §7- 15 (2011); Montgomery, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §4-161 (2011); New Orleans, La ., Code of Ordinances §18-2 .1 (2011); Norfolk, Va ., Code of Ordinances §6 .1-2 (2011); Plano, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §4-1 (2011); Tucson, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances §4-3(2)(c) (2011) . be secure .371 Some further require that the enclosure keep animals protected from inclement weather .372 Outside of this, however, there is no consistency to these statutes . Of the cities that have promulgated shelter require- ments specific to chickens, nine of them mandate that each chicken be given a specific amount of space .373 Of these cities, the average amount of space per chicken is five square feet, although no city actually mandates that .374 The median amount of space per chicken is four square feet . The mode, or most popular amount, is also four square feet .375 The next most popular is between two and two- and-one-half square feet .376 Cleveland requires 10 square feet per chicken, but specifies that this is for the outdoor run, not for the enclosed coop .377 Rochester also takes the difference between a chicken coop and a chicken run into account and requires at least four square feet per chicken in both the coop and the run .378 Long Beach does not give a particular square footage per chicken, but requires that each coop be at least twice as big as the bird .379 Instead of regulating coop size so specifically, some cit- ies require that the coops not be cramped or overcrowd- ed .380 Others state that the coop should be big enough for the chicken to move about freely,381 or have space to stand, 371 . E.g., Albuquerque, N .M ., Code of Ordinances §9-2-2-2 (2011); An- chorage, Alaska, Code of Ordinances §17 .05 .010 (2011); Arling- ton, Tex ., Ordinances Governing Animals §1 .01 Secure Enclosures (2010); Atlanta, Ga ., Code of Ordinances §18-7 (2011); Austin, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §3-2-11 (2011); Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341- 11 .3 (2009); Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-3(h) (2011); Glendale, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .040 (2011); Irving, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-1 (2011); Kansas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15 (2011); Louisville, Ky ., Metro Code §91 .001 (2011); Madi- son, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §28 .08 (no date listed); Montgomery, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §4-161 (2011); Norfolk, Va ., Code of Or- dinances §6 .1-2 (2011); Plano, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §4-1 (2011); Tacoma, Wash ., Mun . Code §17 .01 .010 (2011) . 372 . E.g., Norfolk, Va ., Code of Ordinances §6 .1-2 (2011) (providing that a shelter must protect “each animal from injury, rain, sleet, snow, hail, direct sunlight”); Plano, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §4-1 (2011) (providing that fowl should be housed in a “structure that is capable of providing cover and protection from the weather”); Tulsa, Okla ., Code of Ordinances §406 (2011) (“Natural or artificial shelters appropriate to the local climactic conditions for the particular species of animal or fowl shall be provided for all animals or fowl kept outdoors .”) . 373 . Atlanta, Ga ., Code of Ordinances §18-7(1)(d) (2011) (2 sq . ft .); Buf- falo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3(B)(3) (2009) (2 sq . ft .); Charlotte, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §3-102(c) (2010) (4 sq . ft .); Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02(b)(1)(D) & (E) (2011) (10 sq . ft .); Colorado Springs, Colo ., City Code §6 .7 .106(D) (2011) (4 sq . ft .); Long Beach, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .20 .100 (2011) (twice the size of the fowl); Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §7-88 (2011) (15 sq . ft .); Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §30-19 (no date listed) (4 sq . ft .); Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §5 .6(b)(3) (2011) (2 .5 sq . ft .) . 374 . Seesupra note 373 . 375 . Charlotte, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §3-102(c) (2010); Colorado Springs, Colo ., City Code §6 .7 .106(D) (2011); Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §30-19 (no date listed) . 376 . Atlanta, Ga ., Code of Ordinances §18-7(1)(d) (2011); Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3(B)(3) (2009); Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordi- nances §5 .6(b)(3) (2011) . 377 . Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02(b)(1)(D) & (E) (2011) . 378 . Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §30-19 (no date listed) . 379 . Long Beach, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .20 .100 (2011) . 380 . E.g., Cincinnati, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §701-35 (2011) . 381 . Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02(b)(1)(D) (2011) . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10913 turn around, and lie down .382 Des Moines is unique, in that it looks to state or national standards for the coop size, providing that “such enclosures shall be of sufficient size to house the number of animals or fowl permitted by state or national standards .”383 Some cities also mandate how large the coop can be . The coop sizes also lack uniformity—both Buffalo and Cleveland provide that the coop can be no larger than 32 square feet, but Cleveland will allow the coop to be up to 15 feet high, while Buffalo caps height at seven feet .384 Seattle allows for up to 1,000 square feet and caps the height at 12 feet .385 Finally, Charlotte is the only city that provides for a minimum height by requiring the coops to be at least 18 inches high .386 Other requirements that turn up in more than one city is that the coop’s floor be impervious,387 the coop be ade- quately ventilated,388and the coop be kept dry or allow for drainage .389 Some cities mandate that the enclosure protect the chickens from predators .390 And, Buffalo, Cleveland, and Colorado Springs require that the chickens have access to an outdoor run .391 Two cities stand at odds on the issue of keeping chickens within solid walls . Baltimore prohibits chickens from being confined in a cage entirely of solid walls,392 while Corpus Christi, to avoid large setbacks, requires that chickens be confined entirely within solid walls .393 And some cities have entirely unique ordinances . Irving is concerned with protecting chickens from inclement weather; it requires protection from the direct rays of the 382 . Long Beach, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .20 .100 (2011) (providing that ani- mals must have enough space to stand in a naturally erect position); New Orleans, La ., Code of Ordinances §18-2 .1(a)(2) (2011); Plano, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §4-1 Secure Enclosure & Shelter (2011); Tuc- son, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances §4-3(2)(c) (2011) . 383 . Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-3(h) (2011) . 384 . Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02(b)(1)(D) (2011); Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3(B)(7) (2009) . 385 . Seattle, Wash ., Mun . Code §23 .42 .052(c)(3) (2011) . 386 . Charlotte, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §3-102(c) (2010) . 387 . E.g., Arlington, Tex ., Ordinances Governing Animals §1 .01 Secure Enclosure (2010); Glendale, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .040 (2011); Lin- coln, Neb ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .050 (2011) (requiring that, if a coop is less than 7,500 square feet, that the flooring be made of hard surface material); New Orleans, La ., Code of Ordinances §18-2 .1(a)(1) (2011); Plano, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §4-1 Secure Enclosure & Shelter (2011); Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §5 .6(b)(2) (2010) (providing that the “floors of every such building shall be smooth and tight”) . 388 . E.g., Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3(B)(7) (2009); Charlotte, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §3-102(c) (2010); Jersey City, N .J ., Code of Ordinances §90-8 (2011); New Orleans, La ., Code of Ordinances §18-2 .1(a)(1) (2011); Plano, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §4-1 Secure Enclosure & Shelter (2011) . 389 . E.g., Jersey City, N .J ., Code of Ordinances §90-8 (2011); New Or- leans, La ., Code of Ordinances §18-2 .1(a)(1) (2011); Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §5 .6(b)(2) (2011) . 390 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3(B)(3) & (4) (2009); Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02(b)(1)(D) . Seealso Nashville-David- son, Memo from John Cooper, Director Metropolitan Council Office, to All Members of Metropolitan Council (Sept . 1, 2009) (on file with author) (providing that coops must be kept in a predator-proof enclosure) . 391 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3(B)(1) (2009); Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02(b)(1)(D) & (E) (2011); Colorado Springs, Colo ., City Code §6 .7 .106(D) (2011) . 392 . Baltimore, Md ., Health Code §10-409 (2011) . 393 . Corpus Christi, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-154 (2011) . sun when the temperature is over 90 degrees and protec- tion from direct exposure to wind when the temperature is below 50 degrees .394 Jersey City’s ordinance stands out for its thoughtfulness .395 It requires that the coop contain win- dows if possible, that the coop be white-washed or painted, and that the coop contain removable perches and nests, so that they can be cleaned on a regular basis .396 Rochester does not allow fowl to be kept in a cellar .397 And San Anto- nio requires that the coop be built so that the chicken’s feet do not fall through the floor .398 d. Giving Authority Over Coop Requirements to a City Official Instead of legislating coop requirements through City Council, four cities delegate to some other city official . San Francisco requires the coop structure to be approved by the Department of Health399; Washington, D .C ., assigns it to the Director of the Department of Human Services .400 Columbus requires its Health Commissioner to approve the structure .401 St . Louis allows its Animal Health Com- missioner to set standards for coop construction .402 And finally, Rochester mandates that the coop will, at all times, be subject to inspection and subject to the orders of its Chief of Police .403 e. Feed and Water Requirements Eleven cities are concerned that chickens receive enough food and water .404 Most of these simply mandate that chickens receive adequate or sanitary food and water, but three of the cities show special concern with the chicken’s welfare . Long Beach and Los Angeles require chickens to be given water every 12 hours .405 Memphis and Omaha require that the chickens not only be given sufficient food but also “wholesome” food and water .406 And Buffalo requires that chickens be fed only through an approved 394 . Irving, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-1 Shelter (2011) . 395 . Jersey City, N .J ., Code of Ordinances §90-8 (2011) . 396 . Id. 397 . Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §30-19 (no date listed) . 398 . San Antonio, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §5-9 (2011) . 399 . San Francisco, Cal ., Health Code §37(b) (2011) . 400 . Wash ., D .C ., Mun . Regulations for Animal Control §902 .7(c) (no date listed) . 401 . Columbus, Ohio, City Code §221 .05(b) (2011) . 402 . St . Louis, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §10 .20 .016 (2010) . 403 . Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §30-19 (no date listed) . 404 . Baton Rouge, La ., Code of Ordinances §14:224(c)(1)(d) (2011); Buf- falo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3(B)(9) (2009); Chicago, Ill ., Code of Ordinances §7-12-290(b) (2011); Cincinnati, Ohio, Code of Or- dinances §701-35 (2011); Long Beach, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .20 .090 (2011); L .A ., Cal ., Mun . Code §53 .46 (2011); Memphis, Tenn ., Code of Ordinances §8-8-1 (2009); Mesa, Ariz ., City Code §8-6-23(C) (2011); Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §78-6 .5 (2011); Mont- gomery, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §4-161 (2011); Omaha, Neb ., Code of Ordinances §6-261 (2011) . 405 . Long Beach, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .20 .090 (2011); L .A ., Cal ., Mun . Code §53 .46 (2011) . 406 . Memphis, Tenn ., Code of Ordinances §8-8-1 (2009); Omaha, Neb ., Code of Ordinances §6-261 (2011) . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 42 ELR 10914 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 trough and prohibits feeding them through scattering food on the ground .407 6. Permit Requirements Thirty-eight cities require a permit to keep chickens under certain circumstances .408 Like all of the other regulations, there is very little consistency . Eleven cities require permits for more than a maximum number of chickens .409 The average number the city allows before requiring a permit is seven . The average is high because San Diego allows up to 20 chickens before seeking a permit .410 The median is five and the mode, with three cities, Saint Louis, Santa Ana and Spokane, is four . Two cities, El Paso and San Jose, allow for six .411 And, two cities, Portland and Witchita allow for three .412 Two cities require a permit if one seeks 407 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3(B)(9) (2009) . 408 . Baltimore, Md ., Health Code §10-312 (2011); Bos ., Mass ., Code of Ordinances §16-1 .8A (2010); Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .4 (2009); Charlotte, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §3-102 (2010); Cleve- land, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02(i) & (j) (2011); Columbus, Ohio, City Code §221 .05 (2011); Denver, Colo ., Mun . Code §8-91 (2011); Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-4(i), (j) (2011); El Paso, Tex ., Mun . Code §§7 .24 .020 & 7 .24 .050 (2011); Fremont, Cal ., Mun . Code §3-5803 (2011); Houston, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6- 38 (2010); Jersey City, N .J ., Code of Ordinances §90-7 (2011); Kan- sas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15(h) (2011); Lincoln, Neb ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .070 (2011); Madison, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §9 .52 (no date listed); Miami, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §6-1(b) (2011); Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §78-6 .5 (2011); Minneapolis, Minn ., Code of Ordinances §70 .10 (2011); Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §7-102 (2011); Newark, N .J ., General Ordinances §6:2- 30 (2010); Norfolk, Va ., Code of Ordinances §6 .1-7 (2011); Omaha, Neb ., Code of Ordinances §6-266 (2011); Phila Plano, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §4-81 (2011); Portland, Or ., City Code §13 .05 .015 (2011); Riverside, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §17 .206 .020 (2011); Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §§30-12 & 30-15 (no date listed); Sacramento, Cal ., City Code §§9 .44 .870 & 9 .44 .880 (2011); San An- tonio, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §5-109(c) (2011); San Diego, Cal ., Mun . Code §42 .0713 (2011); San Francisco, Cal ., Health Code §37(d) (2011); San Jose, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §7 .60 .700 (2007); Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §§5 .6 & 23 .42 .051(B) (2011); Spokane, Wash ., Mun . Code §17C .310 .100 (no date listed); St . Lou- is, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §10 .20 .015(c) (2010); St . Paul, Minn ., §198 .02 (2011); Tacoma, Wash ., Mun . Code §5 .30 .010 (2011); Wash ., D .C ., Mun . Regulations for Animal Control §§902 .1 & 902 .3-4 (no date listed); Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .157 (2011) . 409 . El Paso, Tex ., Mun . Code §7 .24 .020 (2011) (requiring permit if more than six); Lincoln, Neb ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .040 (2011) (requiring permit if more than 5, if fowl weigh over five pounds and more than 20 for fowl between three and five pounds); Plano, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §4-81 (2011) (requiring permit if more than 10); Portland, Or ., City Code §13 .05 .015(E) (2011) (requiring permit if more than three); San Antonio, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §5-109(c) (2011) (requiring permit if more than five); San Diego, Cal ., Mun . Code §42 .0713 (2011) (requiring per- mit if more than 25); San Jose, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §7 .60 .700(A) (2007) (requiring permit if more than six); Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §5 .6 (2011) (requiring permit if more than four); Spokane, Wash ., Mun . Code §§17C .310 .100 & 10 .20 .015(c) (no date listed) (re- quiring permit if more than four); St . Louis, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §10 .20 .015(c) (2010) (requiring permit if more than four ); Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .157 (2011) (requiring permit if more than three) . 410 . San Diego, Cal ., Mun . Code §42 .0713 (2011) . 411 . El Paso, Tex ., Mun . Code §7 .24 .020 (2011); San Jose, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §7 .60 .700(A) (2007) . 412 . Portland, Or ., City Code §13 .05 .015(E) (2011); Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .157 (2011) . to place the chickens within the legislated setbacks .413 And one city, Riverside, only requires a permit if one wants to keep roosters .414 The remaining 24 cities require a permit to keep chick- ens under all circumstances .415 Permit renewal periods and fees also differ substantially among cities . Of the cities that require permits to keep chickens in all circumstances, there is little agreement for how long these permits should last or how much they should cost . At least 10 of them require permit holders to renew annually .416 Two have an initial term of one year, but then either allow or require five-year permits after that .417 Cleveland has a biennial permit .418 Mobile allows for the permit to remain valid until revoked by the health officer .419 And several simply don’t specify how long the permit will last .420 There is also a lot of variety among cities in where to go to get the permit . Cleveland, Columbus, Omaha, and Norfolk grant the public health departments the authority to grant permits421; Newark gives it to the Director of the Department of Child and Family Well-Being422; Sacra- mento to the Animal Care Services Operator423; Tacoma 413 . Kansas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15(h) (2011) (requir- ing permit if want to be within setback); Tacoma, Wash ., Mun . Code §5 .30 .010 (2011) (requiring permission from city clerk to put coop with- in setback) . 414 . Riverside, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §17 .206 .020 (2011) . 415 . Baltimore, Md ., Health Code §10-312 (2011); Bos ., Mass ., Code of Ordinances §16-1 .8A (2010); Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .4 (2009); Charlotte, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §3-102 (2010); Cleve- land, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02(i) & (j) (2011); Columbus, Ohio, City Code §221 .05 (2011); Denver, Colo ., Mun . Code §8-91 (2011); Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-4(i), (j) (2011); Fremont, Cal ., Mun . Code §3-5803 (2011); Houston, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-38 (2010); Jersey City, N .J ., Code of Ordinances §90- 7 (2011); Madison, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §9 .52 (no date listed); Miami, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §6-1(b) (2011); Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §78-6 .5 (2011); Minneapolis, Minn ., Code of Ordinances §70 .10 (2011); Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §7-102 (2011); Newark, N .J ., General Ordinances §6:2-30 (2010); Norfolk, Va ., Code of Ordinances §6 .1-7 (2011); Omaha, Neb ., Code of Or- dinances §6-266 (2011); Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §§30-12 & 30-15 (no date listed); Sacramento, Cal ., City Code §§9 .44 .870 & 9 .44 .880 (2011); San Francisco, Cal ., Health Code §37(d) (2011); St . Paul, Minn ., §198 .02 (2011); Wash ., D .C ., Mun . Regulations for Ani- mal Control §§902 .1 & 902 .3-4 (no date listed) . 416 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .4 (2009); Charlotte, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §3-102(a) (2010); Fremont, Cal ., Mun . Code §3-5906 (2011); Jersey City, N .J ., Code of Ordinances §90-7 (2011); Lincoln, Neb ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .110 (2011); Madison, Wis ., Code of Ordi- nances §9 .52 (no date listed); Newark, N .J ., General Ordinances §6:2- 30 (2010); Omaha, Neb ., Code of Ordinances §6-271 (2011); Roch- ester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §30-15 (no date listed); St . Paul, Minn ., §198 .04 (2011); Wash ., D .C ., Mun . Regulations for Animal Control §902 .3 (no date listed) . 417 . Kansas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15(h) (2011); Minneapo- lis, Minn ., Code of Ordinances §70 .10 (2011) (five-year period offered as a choice) . 418 . Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §205 .04 (2011) . 419 . Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §7-102 (2011) . 420 . E.g., Norfolk, Va ., Code of Ordinances §6 .1-7 (2011); Plano, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §4-81 (2011); Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordi- nances §5 .6 (2011); Tacoma, Wash ., Mun . Code §5 .30 .010 (2011) . 421 . Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §205 .04 (2011); Columbus, Ohio, City Code §221 .05 (2011); Omaha, Neb ., Code of Ordinances §6-266 (2011); Norfolk, Va ., Code of Ordinances §6 .1-7 (2011) . 422 . Newark, N .J ., General Ordinances §6:2-30 (2010) . 423 . Sacramento, Cal ., City Code §9-44-870 (2011) . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10915 to the City Clerk424; and Boston to the Inspectional Ser- vices Department .425 Most cities, however, do not state in the ordinance by what means a person actually procures a permit .426 Three cities use the permit process to make sure that would-be chicken owners have the consent of their neigh- bors . St . Paul, Minnesota, requires that an applicant show, through written consent, that 75% of the owners or occu- pants of property within 150 feet have given permission for the chickens .427 Las Vegas requires written consent of neighbors within 350 feet .428 Buffalo and Milwaukee also requires written consent from adjacent landowners to secure a permit .429 Riverside, California, allows residents to keep hens without a permit, but requires a permit, with written permission from the neighbors, to keep more than six roosters .430 Finally, some cities use the permitting schemes to ensure that chicken owners comply with a long list of regulations . For instance, Buffalo has set forth a labyrinthine process for securing a “chicken license .”431 It requires the license seeker to provide his name, address, number of chickens sought, and the location of the coop . The city then notifies neighboring landowners with property within 50 feet of the applicant’s property of the application and allows them to provide written comments . The city also notifies the mayor and City Council . If the city clerk does not receive any comments, the clerk can issue a license for up to five hens . But if anyone lodges a negative comment, then the permit goes to City Council and Council must determine, after taking in the entire record before it, if the city will grant the license . If the Council approves it, it goes to the mayor, who has the power to veto it; if he does so—it would require a 2/3 majority at the following Council meeting to 424 . Tacoma, Wash ., Mun . Code §5 .30 .010 (2011) . 425 . Bos ., Mass ., Code of Ordinances §16-1 .8A (2010) . 426 . E.g., Charlotte, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §3-102(a) (2010) (provid- ing that the “bureau” will issue the permit .); Jersey City, N .J ., Code of Ordinances §90-7 (2011) (providing that the “licensing issuing authority” will grant the permit) . 427 . St . Paul, Minn ., §198 .04(b) (2011): The applicant for any permit required under the provisions of sec- tion 198 .02 shall provide with the application the written consent of seventy-five (75) percent of the owners or occupants of privately or publicly owned real estate within one hundred fifty (150) feet of the outer boundaries of the premises for which the permit is be- ing requested or, in the alternative, proof that applicant’s property lines are one hundred fifty (150) feet or more from any structure . However, where a street separates the premises for which the permit is being requested from other neighboring property, no consent is required from the owners or occupants of property located on the opposite side of the street . Where a property within one hundred fifty (150) feet consists of a multiple dwelling, the applicant need obtain only the written consent of the owner or manager, or other person in charge of the building . 428 . Las Vegas, Nev ., Mun . Code §7 .38 .050 (2011) . 429 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .2 (2009) (“No chicken hens shall be allowed without the express written consent of all residents residing on property adjacent to that of the applicant .”); Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §78-6 .5 (2011) (Before a permit is issued for the keeping of chickens, the applicant shall obtain the written consent of the owner of the property where the chickens shall be kept and owners of all directly or diagonally abutting properties, including those across an alley .”) 430 . Riverside, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §6 .05 .020 (2011) . 431 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .4 (2009) . pass .432 If the permit is granted, then the Animal Control Officer must inspect the coop before the licensee is actu- ally allowed to get chickens .433 Then, the licensee has to procure a separate license from the building department to build the chicken coop .434 And then Buffalo requires similar procedures for renew- ing the license each year . Each license automatically expires on June 1 . From May 1 to June 1, the city opens up a com- ment period for anyone to complain about licensed chick- ens . The City Council is to consider all of these comments and any rebuttals to them before deciding whether to renew the license . The City Council can also revoke the license at any time if it hears any complaints about the licensee .435 This licensing scheme appears designed to ameliorate concerns that the city will be overwhelmed with com- plaints . But the resources the city puts into this process and the time it is requiring councilmembers and the mayor to put into it if a single person registers a negative comment must far outweigh any resources the city would be using to prosecute rogue chickens owners . Many cities also charge fees for these permits . Because many cities do not list their fees on any publicly accessible website, it is difficult to draw strong conclusions on the norm for how much a city charges . But, 14 cities’ fees were identified .436 Three of the 14 charged an initial fee, Mil- waukee charged a $25 initial fee, Minneapolis $50, and St . Paul $72 .437 Thirteen cities, including Minneapolis and St . Paul, charged annual fees .438 The fees ranged from specifying that the permit would be free to $50 per year . The average annual fee was $29, although no city charged that amount . The median fee and the mode are both $25 per year . Two cities legislated late charges into the statute, Lincoln has a $25 late fee,439 and Madison charges $5 if a permit is renewed late .440 Finally, Minneapolis gives a $50 discount from the annual fee if a licensee renews for five years, instead of paying $40 a year, one can pay $150 for a five-year period .441 432 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Charter §3-19 . 433 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .4 (2009) . 434 . Id. 435 . Id . 436 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .1(G) (2009) ($25 annual fee); Char- lotte, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §3-102(a) (2010) ($50 annual fee); Denver, Colo ., Mun . Code §8-91 (2011) ($50 annual fees as listed on city website at http://www .denvergov .org/FrequentlyAskedQuestionsan- dRelatedLinks/tabid/434759/Default .aspx); Jersey City, N .J ., Code of Ordinances §90-7 (2011) ($25 annual fee); Lincoln, Neb ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .090 (2011) ($50 annual fee with a $25 late fee); Madison, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §9 .52 (no date listed) ($10 annual fee with a $5 late fee); Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §60-7 (2011) ($35 ini- tial fee); Minneapolis, Minn ., Code of Ordinances §70 .10(f) (2011) ($50 initial fee and $40 annual fee); Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §7-102 (2011) (specifies that permits are free); Newark, N .J ., General Ordinances §6:2-31 (2010) ($10 annual fee); Rochester, N .Y ., City Or- dinances §30-16 (no date listed) ($37 annual fee); St . Louis, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §10 .20 .013(f) (2010) ($40 annual fee); St . Paul, Minn ., §198 .04(c) (2011) ($72 initial fee and $25 annual fee); Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .157 (2011) ($25 annual fee) . 437 . Supranote 436 and accompanying text . 438 . Id. 439 . Lincoln, Neb ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .090 (2011) . 440 . Madison, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §9 .52 (no date listed) . 441 . Minneapolis, Minn ., Code of Ordinances §70 .10(g) (2011) . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 42 ELR 10916 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 7. Slaughtering Thirteen cities regulate slaughtering442; however, of those, only six ban slaughtering altogether .443 Three cities, Buffalo, Charlotte, and Pittsburgh, allow chickens to be slaugh- tered, but require that it not occur outdoors or in a public place .444 Cleveland allows a chicken to be slaughtered on site, but only if it is meant to be consumed on the occu- pant’s premises .445 San Francisco requires that any slaugh- ter occur in an “entirely separate” room than the one that fowl occupy .446 Rochester requires a poulterer’s license to both keep chickens and slaughter them .447 And, Glendale, in keeping with its aversion to rats described above, only allows for slaughter if it occurs in a rat-proof structure .448 Several other cities only ban slaughter if a person is kill- ing another’s chickens without permission .449 Chesapeake is particularly concerned with dogs killing chickens . Ches- apeake mandates compensation of no more than $10 per fowl, if a dog or hybrid dog kills a chicken .450 Finally, several cities stand directly opposed concern- ing the killing of chickens for animal sacrifice . Chicago’s ordinance banning the slaughter of chickens is directed toward chickens killed for animal sacrifice; it provides in the ordinance that this “section is applicable to any cult that kills (sacrifices) animals for any type of ritual, regard- 442 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3(d) (2009); Charlotte, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §3-102(c)(4) (2010); Chi ., ill ., Code of Ordi- nances §17-12-300 (2011); Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02(h) (2011); Glendale, Cal ., Mun . Code §8 .48 .020 (2011); Madison, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §2809(9)(b)(6) (no date listed); Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §78-6 .5(3)(b) (2011); Nashville- Davidson, Tenn . Memo from John Cooper, Director Metropolitan Coun- cil Office, to All Members of Metropolitan Council (Sept . 1, 2009) (on file with author); Pittsburgh, Pa ., Code of Ordinances §911 .04 .A .2 (2011); Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §30-12 (no date listed); Sacramento, Cal ., City Code §9 .44 .860 (2011); San Francisco, Cal ., Health Code §37(d)(5) (2011); Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .175(p) (2011) . 443 . Chi ., ill ., Code of Ordinances §17-12-300 (2011) (“No person shall own, keep or otherwise possess, or slaughter any sheep, goat, pig, cow or the young of such species, poultry, rabbit, dog, cat, or any other animal, intending to use such animal for food purposes .”); Madison, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §2809(9)(b)(6) (no date listed) (“No person shall slaughter any chickens .”); Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §78-6 .5(3)(b) (2011); (“No person shall slaughter any chickens .”); Nashville-Davidson, Tenn . Memo from John Cooper, Director Metropolitan Council Office, to All Members of Metropolitan Council (Sept . 1, 2009) (on file with author); Sacramento, Cal ., City Code §9 .44 .860 (2011) (“No hen chickens shall be slaughtered on any developed lot used exclusively for resi- dential purposes .”); Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .175(p) (2011) (prohibiting slaughtering “on residentially zoned lots or lots utilized for residential purposes”) . 444 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3(d) (2009) (“There shall be no out- door slaughtering of chicken hens .”); Charlotte, N .C ., Code of Ordi- nances §3-102(c)(4) (2010); (providing that any slaughter “shall be done only in a humane and sanitary manner and shall not be done open to the view of any public area or adjacent property owned by another”); Pitts- burgh, Pa ., Code of Ordinances §911 .04 .A .2 (2011) (“Killing or dress- ing of poultry raised on the premises shall be permitted if conducted entirely within an enclosed building .”) . 445 . Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02(h) (2011) . 446 . San Francisco, Cal ., Health Code §37(d)(5) (2011) . 447 . Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §30-12 (no date listed) . 448 . Glendale, Cal ., Mun . Code §8 .48 .020 (2011) . 449 . Akron, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §92 .03 (2011); Austin, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §3-2-61 (2011); Phoenix, Ariz ., City Code §8-3 (2011) . 450 . Chesapeake, Va ., Code of Ordinances §10-19 (2011) . less of whether or not the flesh or blood of the animal is to be consumed .”451 Witchita, however, while banning the slaughter of chickens, states that the ordinance does not apply “to the slaughter of animals as part of religious practices .”452 And, Los Angeles expressly allows slaughter both for food and religious purposes .453 8. Roosters Many cities that allow for hens ban roosters . Twenty-six cities prohibit roosters .454 Of these cities, four have excep- tions: Phoenix will allow a rooster only if it is incapable of making vocal noises455; Rochester and San Jose will allow roosters under four months of age456; and Sacramento only prohibits roosters on developed lots used exclusively for residential purposes .457 Fort Wayne does not say anything about roosters, but its ordinance effectively bans them by defining poultry only as “laying hens .”458 Many cities, instead of banning roosters altogether impose very large setbacks for roosters, require a larger property size for roosters, or relegate roosters to agricul- turally zoned land . Four cities require relatively large set- backs for roosters: Cleveland requires 100-foot setbacks459; Kansas City, 300 feet460; Oklahoma City, 400 feet461; and Glendale, California, requires 500 feet .462 Wichita will also allow for roosters if they are more than 500 feet from any residentially zoned lot .463 Three cities require greater 451 . Chi ., ill ., Code of Ordinances §17-12-300 (2011) (but exempting Ko- sher slaughtering from this ordinance) . 452 . Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .175(p) (2011) . 453 . L .A ., Cal ., Mun . Code §53 .67 (2011) . 454 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .1(d) (2009); Colorado Springs, Colo ., City Code §6 .7 .110(A) (2011); Fort Wayne, Ind ., Code of Ordinances ch . 157 (2011); Fresno, Cal ., Mun . Code §§12-204 .11 & 12-205 .1 & 12-206 .1 (2011); Garland, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §22 .14 (2011); Las Vegas, Nev ., Mun . Code §7 .38 .050(a)(2) (2011); Lincoln, Neb ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .041 (2011); Long Beach, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .20 .050 (2011); Miami, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §6-1(b)(2) (2011); Madison, Wis ., Code of Ordinances ch . 28 (no date listed); Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §78-6 .5(3)(a) (2011); N .Y .C ., Health Code §§161 .19(a) & 161 .01(b)(11) (1990); Newark, N .J ., Gen- eral Ordinances §6:2-36 (2010); Oakland, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .320 (2011); Phoenix, Ariz ., City Code §8-7(c) (2011); Portland, Or ., City Code §13 .10 .010 (2011); Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §30-19 (no date listed); Sacramento, Cal ., City Code §9 .44 .860(B) (2011); St . Paul, Minn ., §198 .03 (2011); St . Petersburg, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §4-31(e) (2011); San Jose, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §7 .60 .820 (2007); Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §5-6 .5 (2011); Seattle, Wash ., Mun . Code §23 .42 .052(c)(2) (2011); Stockton, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .440 (2011); Tucson, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances §4- 59 (2011); Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .171 (2011) . 455 . Phoenix, Ariz ., City Code §8-7(c) (2011) . Removing a roosters vocal chords was routinely done by vets many years ago . But because of the ex- tremely high mortality rate (over 50%) most vets will no longer perform this procedure . See SmallandBackyardFlocks, Ky . U . Ext ., http://www .ca .uky . edu/smallflocks/faq .html#Q31 (last visited July 8, 2012) . 456 . Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §30-19 (no date listed); San Jose, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §7 .60 .820 (2007) . 457 . Sacramento, Cal ., City Code §9 .44 .860(B) (2011) . 458 . Fort Wayne, Ind ., Code of Ordinances ch . 157 (2011) . 459 . Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02(b)(1)(c) (2011) . 460 . Kansas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15(f) (2011) . 461 . Oklahoma City, Okla ., Mun . Code §59-9350(c), (d) (2011) . 462 . Glendale, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances pt . II, art . 5 (2010) (multiple provisions in zoning code relating to roosters) . 463 . Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .171 (2011) . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10917 acreage for roosters: Cleveland requires at least one acre464; Baton Rouge requires two acres465; and Fremont California allows one rooster for ½ acre, and two roosters for more than one acre .466 Three cities, Anaheim, Arlington, and Dallas, relegate roosters to agriculturally zoned land .467 Many cities do not ban roosters but have noise regula- tions that would effectively cause any rooster to be a nui- sance, at least a rooster that crows .468 Finally, nine cities expressly allow for roosters .469 Most of these cities, however, limit the number of roosters allowed . Three cities allow for only one rooster .470 Two cit- ies allow for two roosters .471 El Paso allows for up to three roosters with a permit .472 And Riverside allows up to six and only requires a permit to keep seven or more roost- ers .473 San Diego and San Francisco allow for unlimited roosters; however, San Francisco animal control authorities stated that they do not recommend that San Franciscans keep roosters due to the number of complaints they have received concerning roosters .474 And, winning the award for most eccentric rooster ordi- nance is the city that allows roosters conjugal visits . While this city is not within the top 100 surveyed, Hopewell Township, New Jersey, as discussed above, allows roosters that are certified disease-free to visit a hen flock for 10 days out of every year .475 464 . Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02(b)(1)(c) (2011) . 465 . Baton Rouge, La ., Code of Ordinances §14-224(b) (2011) . 466 . Fremont, Cal ., Mun . Code §3-5803 (2011) . 467 . Anaheim, Cal ., Mun . Code §18 .38 .030 .050 (2011); Arlington, Tex ., Ordinances Governing Animals §5 .02(f) (2010); Dallas, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §7-7 .3 (2011) . 468 . E.g., Anchorage, Alaska, Code of Ordinances §17 .10 .015 (2011); Ba- kersfield, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .230 (2011); Columbus, Ohio, City Code §2327 .14(A) (2011) (“No person shall keep or harbor any animal which howls, barks, or emits audible sounds that are unreasonably loud or disturbing and which are of such character, intensity and duration as to disturb the peace and quiet of the neighborhood or to be detrimental to life and health of any individual .”); Corpus Christi, Tex ., Code of Ordi- nances §31-2 (2011); Greensboro, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §30-8- 11 .3(B) (2011) (“No poultry animals that make sounds clearly audible off- site are permitted .”); Lexington-Fayette, Ky ., Code of Ordinances §4- 12 (2011); Nashville-Davidson, Tenn ., Mun . Code §8 .12 .010 (2011) (“It is unlawful for any person to keep any animal, dog, bird or fowl which, by causing frequent or loud continued noise, disturbs the comfort or repose of any person in the vicinity .”); Raleigh, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §12- 5007 (2011); St . Louis, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §15 .50 .040 (2010) . 469 . Albuquerque, N .M ., Code of Ordinances §9-2-4-3 (2011); Birming- ham, Ala ., Zoning Ordinance §2 .4 .1 (2007); El Paso, Tex ., Mun . Code §7 .24 .020(B)(1) (2011); Fort Worth, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §11A- 22(c)(2) (2011); L .A ., Cal ., Mun . Code §53 .71 (2011); Louisville, Ky ., Metro Code §91 .001 (2011); Riverside, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §6 .05 .010 (2011); San Diego, Cal ., Mun . Code §42 .0708 (2011); San Francisco, Cal ., Health Code §37 (2011) . 470 . Albuquerque, N .M ., Code of Ordinances §9-2-4-3 (2011); L .A ., Cal ., Mun . Code §53 .71 (2011); Louisville, Ky ., Metro Code §91 .001 (2011) . 471 . Fort Worth, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §11A-22(c)(2) (2011); Bir- mingham, Ala ., Zoning Ordinance §2 .4 .1 (2007) . 472 . El Paso, Tex ., Mun . Code §7 .24 .020(B)(1) (2011) . 473 . Riverside, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §§6 .05 .010 & 6 .05 .020 (2011) . 474 . San Diego, Cal ., Mun . Code §42 .0708 (2011); San Francisco, Cal ., Health Code §37 (2011); Interview with San Francisco animal control (on file with author) . 475 . NJTownLimitsConjugalVisitsBetweenRoosters&Hens, Huffington Post, Apr . 27, 2011, http://www .huffingtonpost .com/2011/04/28/nj-limits-chicken- mating_n_854404 .html (last visited July 8, 2012) . V. Model Ordinance A. Reasons Behind the Choices in the Model Ordinance Because many cities are recognizing that keeping chick- ens in the city should be allowed, but would like to regu- late it properly so that the city can stop any nuisances before they arise, a model ordinance is provided below . Through surveying the ordinances of the most populous American cities, many types of regulatory schemes have already been identified and discussed . While different regulatory schemes may work better for different kinds of cities, depending on the density and variety of their residential, commercial, and industrial neighborhoods, the model ordinance provided should be easy to adapt to any city . First, each section of the model ordinance will be described and the reasons for choosing the regulation will be set out . Then, the model ordinance will be set out in full . 1. Chickens Should Be Regulated in a Unified Ordinance Within the Section Concerning Animals Most cities regulate chickens within the animal code . This also appears to be the best option for where to place regula- tions affecting chickens within a city’s codified ordinances . This is the natural place for a person to look to see if the city allows chickens . By placing the regulation within the animal code, it also allows for all of the regulations affect- ing chickens to be in one place . This will help a chicken owner to more easily find and follow the city’s law . If a city still wishes to incorporate zoning restrictions within a chicken ordinance, the city can easily do so within the unified ordinance located within the animal section by restricting chickens to certain zones . And if a city wishes to require a permit to keep chickens, the permit requirement may also easily be placed in a unified ordinance . 2. Chickens Should Be Limited to a Small Flock A chicken ordinance should allow for at least four chick- ens . Because chickens are flock animals, they do not thrive when left alone . And, because chickens enforce a domi- nant social order by harassing new chicks, it is always best to introduce at least two chicks to a new flock . By allow- ing a minimum of four chickens, the city does not leave a chicken owner in a position of having to leave a hen in a solitary environment if another chicken dies . It also allows the chicken owner to introduce at least two new chicks to an existing flock of two . The model ordinance sets out a maximum of six chick- ens . This number is still below the average number of chickens allowed in most cities, but is sufficient to keep a balanced backyard flock . Six hens will allow plenty of eggs for the hen-keepers, while still allowing an owner to keep Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 42 ELR 10918 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 hens that no longer produce many eggs but are still valued by the owner for their companionship . Cities may want to consider allowing even more chick- ens . Allowing more chickens will allow owners to keep chickens that are no longer producing eggs . Chicken own- ers who raise hens for eggs may feel pressured to rid them- selves of older hens when they are faced with limitations on their flock .476 This has raised concerns in some areas that those chickens will burden animal shelters .477 Allowing a slightly larger flock may help to alleviate any burden . 3. Lot Size Should Not Be Restricted The majority of cities do not require a specific lot size before a person can keep chickens . Lot size restrictions, moreover, often do little more than prohibit the majority of city residents from keeping hens . The concern that cities are mainly addressing through lot size, that of making sure that chickens are not located too close to neighbors, can better be addressed through setbacks . For this reason, the model ordinance does not restrict through lot size . If a city has a wide variety of lot sizes, however, a city may wish to allow more hens for larger lot sizes . The city, for instance, can legislate a maximum num- ber of chickens for lot sizes of ½ acre or below, and then increase the number of chickens for larger lot sizes . 4. Setbacks Because there is a universal concern with keeping chickens too close to neighbors, a setback, rather than lot size, pro- vides the best solution for this concern . A setback actually ensures that the chickens will be kept at an appropriate distance from neighbors without unduly restricting people who own smaller properties from owning chickens . The model ordinance proposes a setback of 25 feet from the doors or windows of any dwelling or occupied structure other than the owner’s dwelling . This setback is less than the median setback of 80 feet and the most popular setback of 50 feet, but is in line with the setbacks of many cities that have recently amended their ordinances . A setback of 25 feet is far enough that any noise or odor from the hens should not cause nuisance to the neighbors, while allowing homeowners in smaller properties to keep hens . The addi- tion of requiring the setback to be from doors or windows also allows more flexibility for where a coop can be placed, while still ensuring that it will not annoy neighbors . Setbacks from a neighboring residence make sense because it can be assumed that no one wants someone keep- ing any pet, including chickens, very close to their house . A setback from the property line, however, may make less sense depending on where on the property chickens are kept . While a neighbor may be concerned that his neigh- 476 . E.g., Kim Severson, WhentheProblemsComeHometoRoost, N .Y . Times, Oct . 22, 2009, http://www .nytimes .com/2009/10/23/dining/23sfdine . html . 477 . Id . bor does not build a coop abutting his property that is also right next to a frequently used patio or deck, these sorts of setbacks may also overreach . For instance, these setbacks may require a coop to be located far from a little-used or overgrown part of a neighbor’s property . It may also require the coop to be located far from an area of the neighbor’s property where a garage or shed already provides a bar- rier . For these reasons, setbacks from property lines should be employed with care . But, it is understandable that a neighbor would not want a coop built directly next to a frequently used area of the yard, nor does a neighbor want to be responsible for cleaning errant droppings . For this reason, the model ordinance proposes minimal setbacks from property lines along the lines of the newly passed ordinances in Cleveland and Buffalo, of five feet from the side yard and 18 inches from the rear yard line . Finally, the model ordinance provides that chickens may not be kept in the front yard . Because most cities are justifiably concerned that easily accessible chickens will attract vandalism, theft, or pranks, or possibly cause neighborhood dogs to behave in a predatory manner, instead of setting elaborate setbacks from the street, it is more efficient and more clear to simply ban chickens from the front yard . 5. Sanitation Requirements The model ordinance requires that the coop and outdoor enclosure be kept in a sanitary condition and free from offensive odors . It also requires that the coop and out- door enclosure be cleaned on a regular basis to prevent the accumulation of animal waste . The model ordinance does not go into further detail because more stringent cleaning requirements will be difficult to police and impossible to enforce . A city inspector will be able to tell if a coop is clean and odor-free when inspecting the coop . Unless the city inspector monitors a coop closely with daily visits, the inspector will be unable to tell if an owner cleaned it daily, or every other day, or weekly . It is unlikely that any city inspector would want to devote that much time to surveil- lance of chicken coops . Also, because there are several different methods for cleaning a coop, and there continue to be new innovations in chicken-keeping and maintenance (witness the evolu- tion of cat litter over the past few decades), legislating one particular method of cleaning might foreclose more effi- cient, more sanitary, and more attractive cleaning options . The city’s concern is with sanitation and odor . Thus, the city should address its regulations to these concerns, rather than to more specific cleaning methods . Concerns with flies will also be taken care of through requiring clean and odor-free coops and enclosures . As flies are attracted to waste, any problem with flies should be eliminated through requiring a sanitary coop . Rats are attracted to easily procured food . If the city is particu- larly concerned with rats, it may add that chicken feed be kept in a rat-proof container . But this regulation appears Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10919 unnecessary in light of the fact that many people keep dog and cat food in bulk, as well as food for their own consumption, without regulations that the food be kept in a rat-proof container . There is no logical basis for the belief that rats will be more attracted to chicken feed than other food . If a city is concerned that feed scattered on the ground will attract rats, instead of legislating a rat-proof container for keeping the feed, a city may be better off following Buffalo’s lead by prohibiting feed from being scattered on the ground and requiring chickens to be fed from a trough . 6. Enclosures The model ordinance provides specific requirements for coops and outdoor runs . It also requires that hens should remain in the coop or outdoor run at all times, except when an adult is directly supervising the hen . First, the model ordinance requires a covered, predator- proof coop or cage that is well-ventilated and designed to be easily accessed for cleaning . It also requires that the coop provide at least two square feet per hen . Finally, it requires that the birds have access to an outdoor run that is adequately fenced to contain the birds on the property and prevent predators from access to the birds . This ordinance is designed to address the city’s concerns with odor, with the chicken’s well-being, and with not attracting predators looking for an easy meal . The ordinance allows for only two square feet per hen to give each hen adequate space, but also to allow for a smaller coop size that can help to keep birds warm in the winter . The ordinance avoids giv- ing too many instructions on building a coop that could preclude future innovations in coop design .478 If the city, however, wants to prohibit coops over a specific dimension, or will waive a building permit for coops under a specific dimension that are not permanent structures, the city can easily insert such a provision here . The model ordinance also provides that chickens should not be allowed out of their coops, except when supervised by an adult . This addresses a city’s concern with chickens running free on the streets while also recognizing that own- ers will need to remove hens from the coop and run occa- sionally to clean the areas, to inspect a bird more closely, or to allow a chicken to briefly roam the yard or garden to forage for fresh greens . 478 . Many companies sell commercially made coops, runs, and chicken tractors (portable enclosed structures that allow the owner to move the chickens around the yard) with novel designs . See,e.g., SayHellototheBrandNew EgluGo, Omlet, http://www .omlet .us/products_services/products_services . php?cat=Eglu+Go (last visted July 25, 2012) (offering a plastic portable chick- en coop and run designed for two chickens); ChickenCoops, Sheds Unlim ited, http://www .shedsunlimited .net/portable-chicken-runs-and-coops-for- sale .html?gclid=CKXzvd2ruLECFeEDQAodcCIAkw (last visited July 25, 2012) (offering Amish-built chicken coops and runs); ChickenSaloon . com, http://chickensaloon .com/?gclid=COLs7qysuLECFYS6KgodGBAAsw (last visited July 25, 2012); The Green Chicken Coop, http://www .gre- enchickencoop .com/ (last visited July 25, 2012) . 7. Slaughtering The model ordinance prohibits slaughtering chickens out- doors . Because many people are concerned that neighbors or neighbors’ children will accidentally witness a bird being killed and are also concerned with the lack of hygiene in backyard butchering, this regulation is included in the ordinance . Also, because most backyard hen enthusiasts are raising hens for eggs and companionship, and not for meat, most will not object to this regulation . 8. Roosters The model ordinance prohibits roosters . It does so because roosters are noisy and are much more likely to bother neighbors than hens . Because, as discussed above, most backyard hen enthusiasts are interested in eggs, and roost- ers are not necessary to egg production, prohibiting roost- ers will not likely meet with much objection . Because bringing in a rooster on occasion can help to cheaply and easily propagate a flock, cities may explore rooster “conjugal visits,” like Hopewell township has done . While the township’s regulation attracted press because of its eccentricity, it was a thoughtful solution to the practical effects of banning roosters . Most hen owners, however, are willing to add to their flocks through other means where they can be better assured of procuring only female fowl . 9. Permits The model ordinance, following the ordinances of many other cities, does not require a permit, as long as the ordi- nance is followed . Because chickens are novel to many com- munities, city officials naturally want to closely monitor how well owners are maintaining their flocks . But, regulat- ing through a permitting or licensing process, dedicating a city official to overseeing it, and maintaining the records that such a process will require appears to be an inefficient use of city resources . It is also expensive for owners to pay permitting fees on an annual basis and is a barrier to entry to keeping chickens to those with low or modest incomes . The fees that some cities charge, over $50 annually, effec- tively prohibit poorer people from owning chickens . The permitting process, moreover, does not necessarily give the city more control . If the city prohibits hens unless its ordinance is followed, it can enforce its laws in the same way that it enforces its laws against errant dog, cat, or bird owners . Requiring a permit, thus, appears to provide an unnecessary, inefficient, and expensive layer to the process of legalizing hens . The model ordinance does require a permit, however, if the chicken owner puts forth a proposal for why she should not have to comply with the city’s regulations—for instance if the owner wishes to keep more than the maxi- mum amount of hens, wishes to keep hens in a multi-fam- ily dwelling, wishes to keep hens on a parcel of land that is unconnected to a dwelling, or wishes to keep a rooster . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 42 ELR 10920 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 This permit is set up to allow people to keep chickens within setbacks, or to allow for more intensive chicken- keeping for urban agricultural uses, perhaps on an urban farm or market garden . As urban agriculture gains support and becomes more prevalent in the city, this will allow for people who wish to keep more chickens, or keep a rooster, as part of a market garden a set path for doing so with- out seeking to amend the ordinance . The permit process is designed to allow for more flexibility within the ordinance, while still laying down firm standards that all chicken owners must follow . B. Model Ordinance Below is a model ordinance designed for a city to either adopt or use as a starting point when deciding whether to allow hens in the city and how to regulate them: (a) Purpose . The following regulations will govern the keeping of chickens and are designed to prevent nui- sances and prevent conditions that are unsanitary or unsafe . No person shall keep chickens unless the fol- lowing regulations are followed: a. Number . No more than six (6) hens shall be allowed for each single-family dwelling . b. Setbacks . Coops or cages housing chickens shall be kept at least twenty-five (25) feet from the door or window of any dwelling or occupied structure other than the owner’s dwelling . Coops and cages shall not be located within five (5) feet of a side- yard lot line, nor within eighteen (18) inches of a rear-yard lot line . Coops and cages shall not be located in the front yard . c. Enclosure . Hens shall be provided with a cov- ered, predator-proof coop or cage that is well- ventilated and designed to be easily accessed for cleaning . The coop shall allow at least two square feet per hen . Hens shall have access to an outdoor enclosure that is adequately fenced to contain the birds on the property and to prevent preda- tors from access to the birds . Hens shall not be allowed out of these enclosures unless a respon- sible individual, over 18 years of age, is directly monitoring the hens and able to immediately return the hens to the cage or coop if necessary . d. Sanitation . The coop and outdoor enclosure must be kept in a sanitary condition and free from offensive odors . The coop and outdoor enclosure must be cleaned on a regular basis to prevent the accumulation of waste . e. Slaughtering . There shall be no outdoor slaugh- tering of chickens . f. Roosters . It is unlawful for any person to keep roosters . (b) Permit . A permit shall not be required if the above regulations are followed . If a person wishes to keep more than the maximum allowed number of hens, wishes to keep hens within the setback required, wishes to keep hens in a multi-family dwelling, wishes to keep hens on a parcel of land that is uncon- nected to a dwelling, or wishes to keep a rooster, a permit will be required . An application for a permit must contain the following items: a. The name, phone number, and address of the applicant . b. The size and location of the subject property . c. A proposal containing the following information . i. The number of hens the applicant seeks to keep on the property . ii. A description of any coops or cages or out- door enclosures providing precise dimen- sions and the precise location of these enclosures in relation to property lines and adjacent properties . iii. The number of roosters the applicant seeks to keep on the property . d. If the applicant proposes to keep chickens in the yard of a multi-family dwelling, the applicant must present a signed statement from any and all owners or tenants of the multi-family dwelling consenting to the applicant’s proposal for keeping chickens on the premises . e. If the applicant proposes to keep more chickens than allowed in the above ordinance or wishes to keep a rooster, the applicant must present a signed statement from all residents of property adjacent to or within 50 feet of the applicant’s property consenting to the applicant’s proposal for keeping chickens on the premises . If the applicant proposes to keep chickens within a required setback, the applicant must present a signed statement from all residents of the prop- erty affected by that setback . (c) Permit Renewal . Permits will be granted on an annual basis . If the city receives no complaints regarding the permit holder’s keeping of chickens, the permit will be presumptively renewed and the applicant may continue to keep chickens under the terms and condition of the initial permit . The city may revoke the permit at any time if the per- mittee does not follow the terms of the permit, if the city receives complaints regarding the permit holder’s keeping of chickens, or the city finds that the permit holder has not maintained the chickens, coops, or outdoor enclosures in a clean and sani- tary condition . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1774023 Legal Studies Research Paper Series Feeding the Locavores, One Chicken at a Time: Regulating Backyard Chickens Zoning and Planning Law Report, Vol. 34, No. 3, p. 1, March 2011 Patricia Salkin Dean and Professor of Law Copyright © 2009. Posted with permission of the author. Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1774023 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1774023Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1774023Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1774023 Feeding the Locavores, One Chicken at a Time: Regulating Backyard Chickens Patricia E. Salkin Patricia E. Salkin is the Raymond & Ella Smith Distinguished Professor of Law at Albany Law School, where she also serves as Associate Dean and Director of the Government Law Center. The author appreciates the research assistance of Albany Law School students Laura Bomyea (‘13) and Katie Valder (‘13), and the assistance of Amy Lavine, staff attorney at the Government Law Center. 41048326 MARCH 2011 | Vol. 34 | No. 3 “A nuisance may be merely a right thing in the wrong place, like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard.” Village of Euclid, Ohio v Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 388, 47 S.Ct. 114, 118 (1926). I. Introduction The clucking sound of chickens, once only heard on farms across the rural countryside, is becoming more commonplace in suburban and urban backyards as lo- cavores1 search for more “green living” and a diet of fresh, locally grown and raised food.2 In addition to producing eggs and meat, chickens provide the valu- able service of eating garden pests and kitchen scraps.3 They are relatively inexpensive, and do not need a particularly large area of space.4 Some people have also started to welcome chickens into their homes and yards as domesticated pets.5 Longmont, Colorado of- fers a good illustration of the growing interest in rais- ing backyard chickens, as the municipality has issued 72 permits to keep them, and maintains a waiting list of 100 more requests.6 Hundreds of other cities across the country, including Austin, Nashville, St. Louis, Tulsa, New York, Seattle, Portland, Houston and San Francisco, as well as smaller towns and villages, have permitted the keeping of chickens in residential neighborhoods,7 and changes have been proposed in other cities, including Lafayette, Colorado;8 Batavia, Illinois;9 Albany, New York;10 and North Salt Lake, Utah.11 Although some communities have welcomed backyard chickens, others have expressed overwhelm- ing opposition.12 People who criticize efforts to allow chickens in neighborhoods worry that property values will plummet,13 that chickens will create foul odors and noise, and that they will attract coyotes, foxes, and other pests.14 Efforts to allow chickens have re- cently been defeated in Springville, Utah,15 and Grand Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1774023 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1774023Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1774023 MARCH 2011 | Vol. 34 | No. 3 Zoning and Planning Law Report 2 © 2011 Thomson Reuters Rapids, Michigan,16 and in February of this year, of- ficials in Ludlow, Kentucky have bucked the trend as they announced efforts to amend their local laws to effectively prohibit the keeping of backyard chick- ens.17 Although some communities have welcomed backyard chickens, others have expressed overwhelming opposition. Favoring locally grown foods, while popular to- day, is not new. Early settlers were self-sustaining farmers, and while the era of industrialization may have altered farming patterns, Americans tried to re- claim some self-sufficiency during both World War I and World War II, with the implementation of vic- tory gardens.18 The federal government encouraged these efforts to reduce food shortages, and by 1943 the country’s 20 million victory gardens reportedly produced eight million tons of food.19 Food gardens surged in popularity again in the 1960s and 1970s through the “back to the land” movement, as envi- ronmentally conscientious consumers became aware of the pesticides, fertilizers, and other potentially dangerous chemicals used for industrial agricultural production.20 Economic, environmental, and philo- sophical issues have recently renewed the public’s interest in home-based food production, commu- nity gardens, and local sourcing.21 With respect to chickens, the zoning ordinance of Cherokee County, Georgia explains that “[t]he keeping of hens sup- ports a local, sustainable food system by providing an affordable, nutritious food source of fresh eggs. The keeping of hens also provides free nitrogen-rich fertilizer; chemical-free pest control; animal com- panionship and pleasure; and weed control, among other notable benefits.”22 While it is true that the im- petus for the growing backyard chicken movement is owing primarily to the local and regional foodshed movement, the internet and the newspapers boast stories and posts about urban dwellers who simply enjoy keeping chickens as pets, and others who have taken an interest in raising chickens specifically for 4-H showings and other agricultural competitions. Editorial Director Tim Thomas, Esq. Contributing Editors Patricia E. Salkin, Esq. Lora Lucero, Esq. Publishing Specialist Robert Schantz Electronic Composition Specialty Composition/Rochester Desktop Publishing Zoning and Planning Law Report (USPS# pending) is issued monthly, ex- cept in August, 11 times per year; published and copyrighted by Thomson Reuters, 610 Opperman Drive, P.O. Box 64526, St. Paul, MN 55164-0526. Application to mail at Periodical rate is pending at St. Paul, MN. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Zoning and Planning Law Report, 610 Opperman Drive, P.O. Box 64526, St. Paul MN 55164-0526. © 2011 Thomson Reuters ISSN 0161-8113 Editorial Offices: 50 Broad Street East, Rochester, NY 14694 Tel.: 585-546-5530 Fax: 585-258-3774 Customer Service: 610 Opperman Drive, Eagan, MN 55123 Tel.: 800-328-4880 Fax: 612-340-9378 This publication was created to provide you with accurate and authoritative information concerning the subject matter covered; however, this publication was not necessarily prepared by persons licensed to practice law in a particular jurisdiction. The publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or other professional advice and this publication is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. If you require legal or other expert advice, you should seek the services of a competent attorney or other professional. Feeding the Locavores, One Chicken at a Time: Regulating Backyard Chickens .................................1 I. Introduction ...................................................................1 II. Federal and State Government Regulation ......................3 III. Nuisance Law and Restrictive Covenants .......................3 IV. Using Zoning and Other Local Controls to Regulate Backyard Chickens.............................................................4 V. Conclusion ....................................................................7 Of Related Interest .................................................12 3 Zoning and Planning Law Report MARCH 2011 | Vol. 34 | No. 3 © 2011 Thomson Reuters This is no “Chicken Little” story; if chicken lovers are not present in your community today, chances are they are coming soon. II. Federal and State Government Regulation Although backyard chickens are primarily regu- lated at the local level, a number of federal and state health and food safety laws apply to egg and poultry production. For example, the United States Depart- ment of Agriculture (USDA) takes an active role in disease prevention23 and regulates various aspects re- garding the sale, transport and slaughter of chicken and egg products under the Poultry Products Inspec- tion Act24 and the Egg Products Inspection Act.25 Although most people who own only a few birds are exempt from the regulations,26 these laws still prohibit the adulteration and misbranding of poul- try and egg products, regardless of exemption sta- tus.27 Therefore, those who raise chickens in order to sell eggs and poultry at local farmers’ markets must comply with the federal regulations. Additionally, while the Center for Disease Control has no direct regulatory authority over backyard chicken farmers, the agency provides safety tips to prevent exposure to salmonella or campylobacter, bacteria that cause mild to severe gastrointestinal illness in humans and are associated with chickens.28 People who own chickens for personal use are often exempted from state licensing and inspec- tion requirements as well.29 However, state regula- tions regarding avian diseases usually apply to all chicken owners, regardless of the size of their flocks and whether the birds are kept for food or as pets.30 Additionally, health and safety statutes often apply to egg sales and may cover people who own small flocks and wish to sell eggs at farmers’ markets or to local restaurants. In Texas, for example, “A vendor must obtain a permit . . . to sell yard eggs at a farm- ers market. The eggs must be stored at a temperature of 45º Fahrenheit or less. The egg cartons or other containers must be labeled as ‘ungraded’ and provide the producer’s . . . name and address.”31 Kentucky requires retail and wholesale egg sellers to obtain a license, but exempts producers who sell directly to consumers and sell no more than 60 dozen eggs per week.32 Chicken owners in Alabama who sell eggs from their homes or farms are not required to obtain a license, but if they transport their eggs to farmers’ markets, then they must follow the Alabama Shell Egg Law.33 Other states exempt small-scale egg sell- ers from licensing regulations and handling require- ments. In Michigan, for example, the egg law does not apply to people who sell eggs of their own pro- duction directly to consumers or first receivers,34 and in Oregon, “eggs may be sold at farmers’ markets or roadside stands without an egg handler’s license and without labeling.”35 Sales of poultry from small-scale producers may also be subject to health and safety regulations re- garding slaughter and handling. In Michigan, poul- try producers who sell fewer than 20,000 poultry per year must have their birds processed at a plant inspected by either the USDA or the state department of agriculture,36 while in Oregon, all poultry must be USDA inspected and slaughtered at a USDA plant. The Oregon Department of Agriculture also licens- es custom slaughter and processing operations, but these licenses do not allow retail sales and are pri- marily intended to allow persons to consume home- raised meat.37 Various other regulations may affect backyard chicken owners. In New York, it is illegal to keep chickens and other livestock on apartment building premises unless the use is specifically permitting by local regulations.38 A similar law in Michigan pro- hibits the keeping of chickens on any dwelling lot, except under appropriate regulations, in cities and villages with more than 10,000 residents.39 Addition- ally, all states prohibit or criminalize chicken fight- ing,40 and some prohibit chicken owners from using dye to change the birds’ colors,41 a practice that is apparently popular to produce multi-colored chicks for Easter.42 III. Nuisance Law and Restrictive Covenants Over the years, courts have had the opportunity to determine whether various impacts associated with the keeping of chickens can constitute a nui- sance. In an early case decided in Louisiana, it was held that rooster crowing is not a nuisance per se.43 The neighbor in the case cited a loss of sleep and physical discomfort caused by early morning crow- ing, which produced nervousness and potential MARCH 2011 | Vol. 34 | No. 3 Zoning and Planning Law Report 4 © 2011 Thomson Reuters physical and mental disorders. In applying the rea- sonable person test, the court asked whether “such a condition . . . in the judgment of reasonable men is naturally producing of actual physical discomfort to normal persons of ordinary sensibilities and of ordi- nary tastes and habits,” and found that the crowing was not a nuisance, but rather a symbol of “good cheer and happiness.”44 However, keeping an exces- sive number of chickens may be deemed a nuisance if the noise or odors would offend persons of ordi- nary sensibility.45 Where neighbors were inundated by noise from a rooster farm, an Ohio appeals court remarked that the noise—which disrupted the plain- tiffs’ sleep, forced them to keep their windows sealed at all times, and prevented them from inviting guests to their home—could be distinguished from “typi- cal sounds of the country[.]”46 The court concluded that the amount of noise created by the roosters was greater than that which is reasonably anticipated in the countryside and ordered the defendants to keep less than six roosters.47 Even a small number of chickens or roosters may be considered a nuisance, depending on the character of the neighborhood and the amount of noise they produce. Even a small number of chickens or roosters may be considered a nuisance, depending on the char- acter of the neighborhood and the amount of noise they produce. St. Louis, Missouri, has designated the keeping of more than four chickens within city limits a public nuisance.48 Roosters are especially likely to create nuisances. In a Minnesota case, a woman liv- ing in St. Paul was convicted for keeping a rooster in her house without the requisite municipal permit. The court found that the health officer was justified in denying her permit request and upheld the convic- tion, as the numerous complaints from neighbors re- garding the bird’s frequent crowing at inconvenient hours demonstrated that it was a nuisance.49 The same woman was cited again several years later for keeping her rooster in a St. Paul suburb. The ordi- nance under which she was charged prohibited the “raising or handling of livestock or animals causing a nuisance,” but the court reversed her conviction because it determined that a rooster was not live- stock.50 In a Hawaii case, the court reversed on pro- cedural grounds three convictions sustained by the defendant for keeping a rooster in violation of an animal nuisance ordinance.51 Because chickens tend to create odors and noise, even if these do not rise to the level of a nuisance, the keeping of chickens is often prohibited by restric- tive covenants and homeowners’ associations. In one case, homeowners who raised chickens on their property were found to be in violation of covenants prohibiting poultry and poultry houses. Because the covenant clearly prohibited “poultry of any kind,” the court rejected the homeowners’ contention that their birds were “pets” and not “poultry.”52 In a similar case, it was explained that “the clear intent expressed in the covenants as a whole is to create a desirable, pleasant residential area. It is clear that the exception as to pets was intended to limit the ownership of animals upon the property to that nor- mally associated with residential, family living. We do not consider it in character with a planned resi- dential community for a person to maintain a flock of 21 assorted poultry on his property.”53 The city of Homewood, Alabama recently amended its code to provide, “It shall be unlawful for any person to keep, harbor, or possess any chicken, duck, goose, turkey, guineas or other fowl within the city, except . . . [u] nder circumstances where no noise, odor, or pollu- tion violation or nuisance is occasioned thereby,”54 perhaps leaving it open to interpretation as to what exactly would constitute a nuisance with backyard chickens. IV. Using Zoning and Other Local Controls to Regulate Backyard Chickens State and federal statutes regulating chicken rais- ing focus mainly on food safety and disease preven- tion, leaving local governments the ability to regulate the location and intensity of residential chicken rais- ing, as well as the physical aspects of chicken coops. Many communities across the country have enacted zoning and land use measures to effectively balance the desire to maintain small numbers of poultry for food or pets against concerns relating to noise and odors. Some of the common issues covered by local ordinances include limits on the number of birds, set- backs for coops and pens, requirements for neighbor consent, restrictions against roosters, requirements for proper feed storage, and pest control provisions. 5 Zoning and Planning Law Report MARCH 2011 | Vol. 34 | No. 3 © 2011 Thomson Reuters Structures constructed for the housing of chickens, such as coops or fences, are also subject to zoning rules pertaining to cage size, height, and materials. Local laws may also include requirements for inspec- tions by code enforcement officers, especially in the event of a complaint, as well as penalties for viola- tions. Because of their noisy habits, roosters are prohibited under many residential chicken laws. Because of their noisy habits, roosters are prohib- ited under some residential chicken laws.55 In Stam- ford, Connecticut, residents may keep roosters, but only so long as their crowing is not “annoying to any person occupying premises in the vicinity.” It is clear that local ordinances vary widely in approach to meet the particular challenges of a given commu- nity. What follows are examples of specific existing local approaches to regulating urban chickens. A. Permits It is not uncommon for municipalities to regulate residential chicken raising through licensing and per- mitting laws. An ordinance in Ann Arbor, Michigan, allows residents to apply for a permit to keep up to four “backyard chickens.” The permit costs $20 and requires proof of consent by adjacent neighbors.56 Similarly, residents of Charlotte, North Carolina, may apply for a permit to have “chickens, turkeys, ducks, guineas, geese, pheasants, pigeons or other do- mestic fowl[.]” Before a permit may be issued, a city employee must inspect the premises and determine that keeping the desired fowl will not “endanger the health, safety, peace, quiet, comfort, enjoyment of or otherwise become a public nuisance to nearby resi- dents or occupants or places of business.”57 In Knox- ville, Tennessee, city residents may apply for an an- nual permit to keep up to six hens on their property. They must also obtain a building permit for any hen- house or chicken pen.58 In Salem, Oregon, residents are required to obtain a license, valid for up to three years, at a cost of $50 per year.59 The City of Adair Village, Oregon, which charges $10 for a permit, re- quires applicants to initial on the application that the space intended to house backyard chickens is cur- rently in accordance with sight-obscuring fence and setback requirements, and that the chicken coop and fenced chicken area enclosure is in accordance with the square footage size and sanitation maintenance standards associated with backyard chickens. Appli- cants also have to acknowledge the requirement that chickens must be shut into their coops from sunset to sunrise, and otherwise remain protected from natu- ral predators, and they must attest to having read the backyard chicken information sheet provided by the city.60 B. Neighbor Consent A number of municipalities require consent of neighbors before permits will be issued for backyard chickens. For example, in Ann Arbor, Michigan, neighbors are asked to complete the Adjacent Neigh- bor Consent Form, and “[n]o permit shall be issued . . . and no chickens shall be allowed to be kept unless the owners of all residentially zoned adjacent proper- ties . . . consent in writing to the permit.”61 Similar consent requirements have been enacted in Brainerd, Minnesota.62 In Mankato, Minnesota, consent is re- quired not only from abutting owners, but also from three-fourths of the residents living within 300 feet of the proposed chicken coop.63 Under the regulations enacted in Durham, North Carolina, a neighbor’s objection can warrant an administrative review.64 And in Longmont, Colorado, nonconforming coops located six feet from the property line must obtain the neighbors’ approval. Longmont also requires neighbors’ consent for free-ranging chickens.65 C. Keeping Chickens for Personal Use Backyard chicken ordinances often limit residents to keeping chickens for personal use, and prohibit them from selling eggs or poultry on-site. For exam- ple, the zoning regulation in Portland, Maine, pro- vides that its purpose is “to enable residents to keep a small number of female chickens on a non-com- mercial basis while creating standards and require- ments that ensure that domesticated chickens do not adversely impact the neighborhood surrounding the property on which the chickens are kept.”66 In San Francisco, residents are also prohibited from raising or breeding chickens for commercial purposes, and chicken operations that qualify as commercial are subject to different regulations.67 In addition to al- MARCH 2011 | Vol. 34 | No. 3 Zoning and Planning Law Report 6 © 2011 Thomson Reuters lowing up to seven backyard chickens for personal egg consumption, Houston allows residents to keep show chickens intended purely for public exhibi- tion.68 In Windsor Heights, Iowa, no more than two chickens are allowed and they must be kept in a pen or coop at all times.69 D. Backyard Chickens Permitted as Accessory Uses In Larimer County, Colorado, up to six backyard chickens are permitted as a residential accessory use. They must be provided with appropriate shelter and have access to a fenced outdoor enclosure no larg- er than 120 square feet.70 Seattle, Washington also allows chickens in residential districts as accessory uses.71 If chickens are not specifically permitted in a residential district, a homeowner can also try to receive approval for them as an accessory use.72 This tactic has been successful in some cases involving farm animals and agricultural structures,73 but the courts have not tended to accept chickens as residen- tial accessory uses.74 As backyard chickens become more commonplace, however, they may be more likely to be treated as a use customarily found in con- nection with residential uses. E. Minimum Lot Size and Setback Requirements Rather than setting a limit on the number of chick- ens allowed, a number of municipalities set mini- mum lot size and setback requirements for keeping chickens in the backyard. This approach can serve a number of purposes: it can bar chickens from partic- ularly dense neighborhoods, prevent residents from keeping large flocks, and ensure that chickens have enough space to live comfortably. However, if such requirements are too restrictive, they may create ob- stacles to chicken raising in neighborhoods otherwise suited for that use. The 150-foot setback required in Concord, New Hampshire, for example, effective- ly limits backyard chicken raising to single-family homes on large lots.75 Minimum lot size require- ments for chickens vary. In Grand Rapids, Minne- sota, only one chicken is permitted per 2,500 square feet of lot size,76 while in Pima County, Arizona, 24 chickens may be kept per 8,000 square feet of lot space in single-family zones.77 In Hayden, Idaho, up to ten chickens “may be kept on premises contain- ing a minimum of three-fourths (3/4) acre of securely fenced, irrigated open space, exclusive of a homesite, and containing at least one acre in total[.]”78 Setbacks also vary. Little Rock, Arkansas has a 25-foot setback requirement,79 while Topeka, Kan- sas,80 and Stamford, Connecticut,81 have 50-foot setback requirements. Setbacks are often measured from other residential uses or districts, or uses that could be sensitive to nearby chickens. In Sacramen- to, for example, a chicken coop may not be located “nearer than seventy-five (75) feet to any building or structure on adjacent property used for dwelling pur- poses, food preparation, food service, school, hotel or as a place of public assembly.”82 In Lenexa, Kan- sas, chickens are subject to minimum lot size require- ments and coops must also be set back at least 100 feet from any adjacent building (except the owner’s), 100 feet from any front lot line, and 25 feet from any side or rear lot line.83 Chicken coops in Atlanta, in addition to being set back at least 50 feet from any neighboring residence or business, must also be set back at least five feet from the owner’s residence.84 F. Chicken Coop Design, Site Placement, Materials and Maintenance Local laws permitting backyard chickens of- ten regulate the size, height, and site placement of chicken coops and pens, as well as requiring them to be adequately cleaned and safeguarded from preda- tors. For example, the city of Knoxville, Tennessee, requires that hens be kept inside a fenced enclosure at all times during the day and secured inside a coop during non-daylight hours. If the fenced enclosure is not covered, then it must be at least 42 inches high and the hens’ wings must be clipped. A building per- mit is required for construction of a coop, which must be made of uniform materials, have a roof and doors that can be tightly secured, be properly ventilated, and have adequate sunlight.85 In Atlanta, Georgia, chicken coops must have solid floors made out of cement or another washable material, unless the enclosure is more than 75 feet away from the nearest neighbor’s residence or business.86 The size of coops and fenced enclosures is often determined by the number of hens kept in the flock. In Knoxville87 and Atlanta,88 coops must give each chicken at least two square feet of space. Mobile, Alabama, requires four feet of space per chicken in chicken houses,89 7 Zoning and Planning Law Report MARCH 2011 | Vol. 34 | No. 3 © 2011 Thomson Reuters while at least six square feet of space per chicken is required in Concord, New Hampshire coops.90 Maintenance laws are also common. In Baton Rouge, for example, “[a]ll enclosures shall be cleaned regularly to prevent an accumulation of food, fecal matter, or nesting material from creating a nuisance or unsanitary condition due to odor, vermin, debris, or decay.”91 The New York City Health Code re- quires coops to be “whitewashed or otherwise treat- ed in a manner approved by the Department at least once a year . . . in order to keep them clean.”92 G. Special Use Permits Some communities allow for the keeping of ur- ban chickens subject to a special use permit. This permits the municipality to assess the particular im- pacts of a given application on the character of the neighborhood. The zoning ordinance for Overland Park, Kansas requires that people wishing to keep chickens on less than three acres must apply for a special use permit.93 Recently, in Jamestown, New York, the zoning board of appeals approved a spe- cial use permit based on the following conditions and restrictions: No more than ten hens would be housed on the property at any one time; no roosters would be housed on the property; a fence would be placed around the border on the property line; no slaughtering of chickens would be permitted; chick- ens would be in the coops from approximately dusk to dawn; and no storage of chicken manure would occur within 20 feet of the property line.94 The per- mit was granted for one year, at the end of which time the property owners would be required to ap- pear before the board for review and potential re- newal of the permit.95 In Leadville, Colorado, the Council recently issued a conditional use permit for the keeping of six chickens on residential property with the following conditions imposed: the special use shall not run with the land, but will sunset when the applicant no longer occupies the premises; that fresh water will be available for the chickens at all times; and that all representations made by the ap- plicant and relied upon by the Planning and Zoning Commission and/or the City Council in evaluating the Conditional Use Permit shall be deemed a part of the application and binding upon the applicant.96 H. Slaughter Abattoirs and slaughtering are restricted or pro- hibited in many cities, and they may also be subject to federal and state regulations, as discussed above. Some cities, such as Rogers, Arkansas,97 and Buffalo, New York,98 prohibit slaughtering outside. Madi- son, Wisconsin,99 and Knoxville, Tennessee,100 pro- hibits chicken slaughtering in residential districts, while Chicago allows slaughtering only by licensed slaughtering establishments.101 In San Francisco, slaughtering must be carried out in a separate room, away from any chickens.102 Most of the ordinances and zoning provisions addressing the slaughtering of chickens apply to larger commercial operations, and ordinances relating to urban chickens are quiet on this matter. V. Conclusion The bottom line is that this is no “Chicken Lit- tle” story, and if chicken lovers are not present in your community today, chances are they are coming soon. In addition to significant websites and blogs103 that boast thousands of active members and read- ers, a quick search on Amazon.com reveals dozens of books about how to raise urban and backyard chick- ens, and magazines are on the market catering to this growing interest. Municipalities would be wise to proactively address these issues now, by reviewing the experience in other communities and by studying the various methods for most effectively regulating the keeping of hens and roosters in non-rural resi- dential neighborhoods. Notes 1. “Locavore” was chosen as the Oxford American Dictionary’s 2007 word of the year. As the dic- tionary explained, “The ‘locavore’ movement en- courages consumers to buy from farmers’ markets or even grow or pick their own food, arguing that fresh, local products are more nutritious and taste better. Locavores also shun supermarket offerings as an environmentally friendly measure, since shipping food over long distances often requires more fuel for transportation.” Oxford University Press Blog, Ox- ford Word of The Year: Locavore, Nov. 12, 2007, http://blog.oup.com/2007/11/locavore/ (visited Feb- ruary 2011). 2. See, e.g., Adrian Higgins, Hot Chicks: Legal or Not, Chickens Are the Chic New Backyard Addition, The MARCH 2011 | Vol. 34 | No. 3 Zoning and Planning Law Report 8 © 2011 Thomson Reuters Washington Post, May 14, 2009, http://www.wash- ingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/13/ AR2009051301051.html (visited February 2011); William Neuman, Keeping Their Eggs in Their Back- yard Nests, The New York Times, Aug. 3, 2009, available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/04/ business/04chickens.html?_r=1 (visited February 2011); Katherine Houstoun, The Backyard Chick- en Movement, Richmond.com, http://www2.rich- mond.com/lifestyles/2010/jun/16/backyard-chick- en-movement-ar-592398 (visited February 2011). There has been some skepticism, however, over the booming popularity of backyard chickens. Jack Shafer, Bogus Trend of the Week: Raising Backyard Chickens, Slate, May 14, 2009, http://www.slate. com/id/2218390/ (visited February 2011). 3. Mary MacVean, Victory Gardens Sprout Up Again, Los Angeles Times (January 10, 2009), available at: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/10/home/hm- victory10/2 (visited February 2011). 4. Amy Eddings, What the Cluck?! Backyard Chick- en-Keeping Booming in New York City, WNYC, Jul. 8, 2010, http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc- news/2010/jul/08/what-the-cluck-backyard-chick- en-keeping-booming-in-new-york-city/ (visited Feb- ruary 2011). 5. Although he admits to considering whether to eat it, food writer Jonathan Gold tells the story of how he came to have a pet chicken in This American Life Episode 343: Poultry Slam 2007, available to stream or download at http://www.thisamericanlife.org/ radio-archives/episode/343/poultry-slam-2007 (vis- ited Feburary 2011). In Cambridge, Massachusetts, residents attempted to seek approval for five chick- ens and ducks as residential accessory uses, arguing that the birds were pets. Xi Yu, Chicken and Duck Owners in Cambridge Lose Appeal, The Harvard Crimson, Feb. 12, 2010. 6. Monte Whaley, Backyard-Chickens Just Cage Rat- tling Longmont Learns, Denverpost.com (Nov. 2, 2010), available at: http://www.denverpost.com/ news/ci_16496049 (visited February 2011). 7. Dan Flynn, Nations’ Cities Debate Backyard Chick- ens, Food Safety News, http://www.foodsafetynews. com/2010/06/nations-cities-debate-backyard-chick- ens (visited February 2011); Amy Eddings, What the Cluck?! Backyard Chicken-Keeping Booming in New York City, WNYC, Jul. 8, 2010, http://www. wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2010/jul/08/what-the- cluck-backyard-chicken-keeping-booming-in-new- york-city/; Carol Lloyd, Urban Farming: Back to the land in your tiny backyard, San Francisco Chronicle, Jun. 27, 2008, http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-06- 27/entertainment/17120257_1_pot-bellied-pigs-ani- mal-care-and-control-horses-and-goats (visited Feb- ruary 2011); Catherine Price, A Chicken on Every Plot, a Coop in Every Backyard, New York Times (Sept. 19, 2007), available at http://www.nytimes. com/2007/09/19/dining/19yard.html (visited Febru- ary 2011). 8. John Aguilar, Lafayette Gives Initial OK to Back- yard Chickens, Daily Camera (February 1, 2011), available at: http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ ci_17262635 (visited February 2011). 9. Linda Girardi, Batavia Resumes Chicken Debate, Beacon News (Jan. 24, 2011), available at: http:// beaconnews.suntimes.com/news/3426295-418/ story.html (visited February 2011); Linda Girardi, March Hearing Set on Batavia’s Chicken Issue, The Courier News (February 7, 2011), available at: http://couriernews.suntimes.com/news/3671554- 418/chickens-issue-batavia-committee-residents. html (visited February 2011). 10. http://www.scribd.com/doc/44855544/Proposed- Albany-Chicken-Law-Amendment (visited February 2011). 11. Jennifer Wardell, NSL Pecks at Backyard Chicken Idea, Davis County Clipper (Jan. 24, 2011), avail- able at: http://www.clippertoday.com/view/full_sto- ry/11112756/article-NSL-pecks-at-backyard-chick- en-idea?instance=secondary_stories_left_column (visited February 2011). 12. For surveys showing different responses to back- yard chickens, see, e.g., Kyle Slavin, Survey Says: Chickens OK in Saanich Backyards, Saanich News (January 16, 2011), available at: http://www.bclo- calnews.com/vancouver_island_south/saanichnews/ news/113846889.html (visited February 2011); Ta- mara Cunningham, Chicken Survey Says: Not In My Backyard, Canada.com (February 4, 2011), avail- able at: http://www.canada.com/Chicken+survey+s ays+backyard/4223769/story.html (visited February 2011). 13. Eggheads Seek to Educate About Backyard Chickens, http://www.wxow.com/Global/story. asp?S=13977512 (visited February 2011). 14. See, e.g., Dan Flynn, Nations’ Cities Debate Back- yard Chickens, Food Safety News, http://www. foodsafetynews.com/2010/06/nations-cities-debate- backyard-chickens (visited February 2011); Jill Richardson, How to get your city to allow backyard chickens, Grist, Jan. 5, 2011, http://www.grist.org/ article/food-2011-01-05-how-to-get-your-city-to- allow-backyard-chickens. 15. No Backyard Chickens for Springville Residents, Daily Herald (January 24, 2011), available at: http://www.heraldextra.com/news/state-and-re - gional/utah/article_2916f1c1-5436-53b3-aea2- c226d175e85e.html (visited February 2011). 16. Jim Harger, City Commissioner James White Says He Agrees With Backyard Chicken Ban For Grand Rapids Though He Missed Vote on Issue, MLive. com (August 24, 2010), available at: http://www. mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2010/08/ 9 Zoning and Planning Law Report MARCH 2011 | Vol. 34 | No. 3 © 2011 Thomson Reuters city_commissioner_james_white.html (visited Feb- ruary 2011). 17. Cindy Schroeder, Cities Cry Fowl Over Residential Chickens, Cincinnati.com (Feb. 12, 2011), available at: http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110212/ NEWS0103/102130335/Cities-cry-fowl-over-resi- dential-chickens?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctex t%7CFRONTPAGE (visited February 2011). 18. Devra First, Back to the Land, Boston Globe (May 27, 2009), available at: http://www.boston.com/ lifestyle/green/articles/2009/05/27/back_to_the_ land/?page=2 (visited February 2011). 19. Mary MacVean, Victory Gardens Sprout Up Again, Los Angeles Times (January 109, 2009), available at: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/10/home/ hm-victory10 (visited February 2011). 20. J.E. Ikerd, Current Status and Future Trends in American Agriculture: Farming with Grass, avail- able at: http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/ Oklahoma%20Farming%20with%20Grass%20 -%20Status%20%20Trends.htm, p.6 (visited Feb- ruary 2011). 21. See Kathryn A. Peters, Creating a Sustainable Urban Agriculture Revolution, 25 Envtl. L. & Litig. 203, 214-215 (2010) (discussing the forces popularizing urban agriculture). 22. http://www.cherokeega.com/departments/plannin- gandzoning/uploads/File/OrdChanges/backyard_ chicken_ord_7.7-9_version_09-16.pdf (visited Feb- ruary 2011). 23. See Sandra B. Eskin, Putting All Your Eggs in One Basket: Egg Safety and the Case for a Single Food- Safety Agency, 59 Food Drug L.J. 441 (2004); http:// www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/birdbiosecurity/ (visited February 2011). 24. 21 U.S.C.A. §§451 et seq. 25. 21 U.S.C.A. §§1031 et seq. 26. 7 C.F.R. § 57.100 (egg products); 9 C.F.R. § 381.10 (poultry products); see also http://www.fsis.usda. gov/oppde/rdad/fsisnotices/poultry_slaughter_ex- emption_0406.pdf at 5 (providing a flow chart to determine whether a poultry producer is exempt). See generally Geoffrey S. Becker, CRS Report for Congress RL32922, Meat and Poultry Inspection: Background and Selected Issues, Mar. 22, 2010, available at http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/as- sets/crs/RL32922.pdf (visited February 2011). 27. http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oppde/rdad/fsisnotices/ poultry_slaughter_exemption_0406.pdf at 2 (visited February 2011). 28. See http://www.cdc.gov/Features/SalmonellaPoultry/ and http://www.cdc.gov/healthypets/pdf/intown_ flocks.pdf. 29. See, e.g., Md. Agriculture Code Ann. § 4-217 (au- thorizing exemptions similar to those under the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act); COMAR § 15.04.01.09(A)(3) (requiring registration of pack- ers who keep fewer than 3,000 chickens but exempt- ing them from registration and inspection fees); N.Y. Agr. & M. § 90-c (requiring domestic animal health permits only for chicken wholesalers and transport- ers). 30. See, e.g., Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-324 (specifically in- cluding poultry kept as pets); N.Y. Ag. & M. § 73. 31. Texas Dept. of State Health Services, Food Establish- ments Group Regulatory Clarifications, http://www. dshs.state.tx.us/foodestablishments/pdf/RegClarifi- cations/E23-13195_FEGRC_9.pdf (revised May 1, 2009). See also http://agr.wa.gov/FoodAnimal/Eggs/ Licensing.aspx (visited February 2011). 32. K.R.S. §§260.540 et seq. See also 2010-2011 Ken- tucky Farmers’ Market Manual, Kentucky Dept. of Agriculture, http://www.kyagr.com/marketing/farm- market/documents/20102011KyFarmersMarketMa nualwCover.pdf 73-75. 33. State of Alabama Farmers Market Authority, Guid- ance re: Sale of Farm Raised Eggs at Farmers Mar- kets, Jan. 27, 2009, http://www.fma.alabama.gov/ PDFs_NEW/Shell_Eggs.pdf. 34. M.C.L. § 289.333. A “first receiver” is a person who receives eggs from a producer at any place of business where such eggs are to be candled, graded, sorted and packed or packaged. M.C.L. § 289.321(d). See also Michigan Department of Agriculture, Operat- ing Policy for Egg Sales at Farmers’ Markets, http:// www.michigan.gov/mda/0,1607,7-125--212367-- ,00.html. 35. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, Farm Direct: Specific commodities: Eggs, http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/ pub_fd_commodities.shtml#Eggs. 36. Michigan Department of Agriculture, Farmers’ Mar- ket FAQ, http://www.michigan.gov/mda/0,1607,7- 125-1568_2387_46671_46672-169336--,00.html. 37. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, Farm Direct: Specific commodities: Meat and poultry, http://www.oregon. gov/ODA/pub_fd_commodities.shtml#Meat_and_ poultry. See also North Carolina Dept. of Agricul- ture & Consumer Services, Meat & Poultry Inspec- tion Information Statement, http://www.ncagr.gov/ meatpoultry/info.htm. 38. N.Y. Mult. D. § 12(2). 39. MCL § 125.479 (prohibited uses); MCL § 125.401 (scope of act). 40. See Humane Society of the United States, Cockfight- ing: State Laws, http://www.humanesociety.org/as- sets/pdfs/animal_fighting/cockfighting_statelaws.pdf (listing statutes) (last updated June 2010); Brandi Grissom, Cockfighting Outfits Evade the Law, and Continue to Prosper, The New York Times, Dec. 23, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/ us/26ttcockfighting.html. (visited February 2011). 41. See, e.g., D.C. Code § 8-1808; Fla. Stat. § 828.161. MARCH 2011 | Vol. 34 | No. 3 Zoning and Planning Law Report 10 © 2011 Thomson Reuters 42. See Multi-coloured chicks for Easter, BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3615191.stm (visited February 2011). 43. Myer v. Minard, 21 So. 2d 72, 74 (La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1945). 44. Myer, supra n. 44, 21 So. 2d at 76. 45. See, e.g., Singer v. James, 130 Md. 382, 100 A. 642 (1917) (finding a nuisance where the defendant kept five hundred chickens, fifty geese, fifty dogs, forty hogs, and various guinea fowl, turkeys, cows, calves, and horses). 46. Forrester v. Webb, 1999 WL 74543 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. Butler County 1999). 47. Forrester, supra n. 46. 48. Laws of the City of St. Louis, Missouri Chapter 10 § 20-015 (http://www.slpl.lib.mo.us/cco/code/data/ t1020p1.htm). See also Code of Ordinances, City of Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Title 10 Chapter 1 § 10-114 (http://www.mtas.utk.edu/public/municodesweb.ns f/5cde681dbdedc10f8525664000615fc4/aa36ab28 994d11e585256faa006a8613/$FILE/Oakridge.t10. pdf) (prohibiting the keeping of any livestock, in- cluding fowl, within city limits, except in areas spe- cifically zoned for that purpose). 49. City of St. Paul v. Nelson, 404 N.W.2d 890 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). 50. State v. Nelson, 499 N.W.2d 512 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993). 51. State v. Nobriga, 81 Haw. 70, 912 P.2d 567 (Ct. App. 1996), as amended, (Mar. 11, 1996) (involving an ordinance that providing that “[i]t is unlawful to be the owner of an animal, farm animal or poultry engaged in animal nuisance” and defining “animal nuisance” as including “any animal, farm animal or poultry which: (a) Makes noise continuously and/or incessantly for a period of 10 minutes or intermit- tently for one-half hour or more to the disturbance of any person”). 52. Buck Hill Falls Co. v. Clifford Press, 2002 PA Su- per 17, 791 A.2d 392 (2002). See also Olsen v. Kil- patrick, 2007 WY 103, 161 P.3d 504 (Wyo. 2007) (holding that pheasants were prohibited by cov- enant). 53. Becker v. Arnfeld, 171 Colo. 256, 466 P.2d 479 (1970). 54. Homewood, Alabama, Code of Ordinances Re- lated to Animal Offenses, Fowl, sec. 4-8. Avail- able at: http://search.municode.com/html/11743/ level3/COOR_CH4ANFO_ARTIIOFREAN. html#COOR_CH4ANFO_ARTIIOFREAN_S4- 8FO (visited February 2011). 55. See, e.g., the codes of Fullerton, California (http:// www.cityoffullerton.com/depts/dev_serv/code_en- forcement/animal_regulations.asp) (visited February 2011); and Portland, Oregon (http://www.portland- online.com/auditor/index.cfm?a=13510&c=28231) (visited February 2011). 56. Ann Arbor Ord. No. 08-19. A copy of the permit application is available at http://www.a2gov.org/ government/city_administration/City_Clerk/Docu- ments/Backyard%20Chickens%20Permit%20 0708.pdf. See also Thelma Guerrero-Huston, After big flap, only five chicken license applied for in Sa- lem, The Statesman Journal, Jan. 29, 2011, http:// www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20110129/ NEWS/101290312/After-big-flap-only-five-chicken- licenses-applied-Salem (visited February 2011; dis- cussing the permit requirement in Salem, Oregon, which is valid for three years and costs $50 per year). 57. Code of Ordinances, City of Charlotte, NC, sec. 3-102, available at http://library1.municode. com:80/default/template.htm?view=browse&doc_ action=setdoc&doc_keytype=tocid&doc_key= 1c56ab278fcac109f43f0a5468a9a640&infoba se=19970. 58. Code of Ordinances, City of Knoxville, Tennes- see, Part 2 Chapter 5 Article IV § 5-107 (http://li- brary.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=11098& stateId=42&stateName=Tennessee&customBann er=11098.jpg&imageclass=L&cl=11098.txt). 59. City of Salem, Oregon, Chicken License Applica- tion, see http://www.cityofsalem.net/Departments/ CommunityDevelopment/BAS/Documents/Chick- en%20License%20Application.pdf (visited Febru- ary 2011). 60. City of Adair Village Backyard Chicken Permit Ap- plication, available at: http://www.cityofadairvil- lage.org/Planning/2010%20Building%20Permits/ Backyard-Chicken-Permit-Application-FINAL.pdf (visited February 2011). 61. City of Ann Arbor Permit to Keep Backyard Chick- ens, http://www.a2gov.org/government/city_ad- ministration/City_Clerk/Documents/Backyard%20 Chickens%20Permit%200708.pdf (visited February 2011). 62. City of Brainerd Permit to Keep Chickens, http:// www.ci.brainerd.mn.us/administration/docs/chick- enpermit.pdf (visited February 2011). 63. Dan Linehan, Mankato Council Approves Chick- en Ordinance, The Free Press (June 14, 2010) available at: http://mankatofreepress.com/local/ x1996924618/Mankato-City-Council-Urban-chick- en-hearing-Live (visited February 2011). 64. http://www.ci.durham.nc.us/departments/planning/ limited_ag_permit.cfm (visited February 2011). 65. http://www.ci.longmont.co.us/planning/permits/ documents/chicken_permit.pdf (visited February 2011). 66. Portland, Maine, Code § 5-403, http://www.port- landmaine.gov/citycode/chapter005.pdf. 11 Zoning and Planning Law Report MARCH 2011 | Vol. 34 | No. 3 © 2011 Thomson Reuters 67. San Francisco Health Code, art. 1, § 37; see http:// library.municode.com/HTML/14136/level1/AR - T1AN.html#ART1AN_S37KEFESMANPOGABI (visited February 2011). 68. Houston, Code §§ 6-34 (show chickens), 6-38 (chicken hens); available at: http://library.municode. com/index.aspx?clientId=10123&stateId=43&state Name=Texas (visited February 2011). 69. Windsor Heights, Iowa, City Code, Section 32.02, available at: http://www.windsorheights.org/ City%20Code/Ch%2032%20Animal%20Control. pdf (visited February 2011). 70. http://www.co.larimer.co.us/planning/planning/ land_use_code/amendmentsadopted111510back - yardchickens.pdf (visited February 2011). 71. Seattle Municipal Code 23.42.052, as amended Aug. 23, 2010, available at http://clerk.ci.seattle. wa.us/%7Escripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=&s3=116907&s 4=&s2=&s5=&Sect4=AND&l=20&Sect2=THESO N&Sect3=PLURON&Sect5=CBORY&Sect6=HIT OFF&d=ORDF&p=1&u=%2F%7Epublic%2Fcbo ry.htm&r=1&f=G (visited February 2011). 72. See, e.g., Xi Yu, Chicken and Duck Owners in Cam- bridge Lose Appeal, The Harvard Crimson, Feb. 12, 2010. 73. See, e.g., Simmons v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of New- buryport, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 5, 798 N.E.2d 1025 (2003) (stabling three horses found not to be “agri- cultural,” but permitted as an accessory residential use); Anderson v. Board of County Com’rs of Teton County, 2009 WY 122, 217 P.3d 401 (Wyo. 2009) (upholding the board’s determination that a barn/ equestrian center was an accessory residential struc- ture). 74. See, e.g., De Benedetti v. River Vale Tp., Bergen County, 21 N.J. Super. 430, 91 A.2d 353 (App. Div. 1952) (“Certainly, chicken houses could not be con- sidered as accessory to, or complementary to, the main building of plaintiffs’ premises, which is the dwelling house.”); Lawrence v. Zoning Bd. of Ap- peals of Town of North Branford, 158 Conn. 509, 264 A.2d 552 (1969) (holding that the board did not act illegally or arbitrarily in determining that the raising of chickens and goats was not an accessory use to residential property located in the center of town under an ordinance permitting accessory uses customarily incidental to uses in rural residential and agricultural districts). 75. Code of Ordinances, City of Concord, New Hamp- shire Title IV Chapter 28(4)(28); see http://library. municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=10210&stateId =29&stateName=New%20Hampshire (visited Feb- ruary 2011). 76. Grand Rapids, MN Code § 10-72; see also http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_ id=134300076826 (visited February 2011). 77. Pima County Code of Ordinances, § 18.25.010; see http://library.municode.com/html/16119/level2/ TIT18ZO_CH18.25SIREZO.html (visited February 2011). 78. http://sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/getBookData. php?section_id=600663 (visited February 2011). 79. Little Rock City Code, Little Rock, Arkansas Chap- ter 6 Article 4(44); see http://library.municode.com/ index.aspx?clientId=11170&stateId=4&stateName =Arkansas (visited February 2011). 80. Municipal Code of Topeka, Kansas Title 6 §40; see http://www.codepublishing.com/KS/Topeka/ (visited February 2011). 81. Code of the City of Stamford, Connecticut §111-6; see http://library2.municode.com/default-test/home. htm?infobase=13324&doc_action=whatsnew (vis- ited February 2011). 82. Sacramento Code §9.44.340, http://www.qcode. us/codes/sacramento/view.php?topic=9-9_44-iii- 9_44_360&frames=on (visited February 2011). 83. Lenexa Code § 3-2-H-1, http://www.ci.lenexa.ks.us/ LenexaCode/codetext.asp?section=003.002.008 (visited February 2011). 84. City of Atlanta, GA Zoning Code, http://library. municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=10376&stateId =10&stateName=Georgia Art. II sec. 18-7 (visited February 2011). 85. Code of Ordinances, City of Knoxville, Tennes- see, Part 2 Chapter 5 Article IV § 5-107 (http://li- brary.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=11098& stateId=42&stateName=Tennessee&customBann er=11098.jpg&imageclass=L&cl=11098.txt). 86. City of Atlanta, GA, Zoning Code, http://library. municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=10376&stateId =10&stateName=Georgia Art. II sec. 18-7 (visited February 2011). 87. Code of Ordinances, City of Knoxville, Tennes- see, Part 2 Chapter 5 Article IV § 5-107 (http://li- brary.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=11098& stateId=42&stateName=Tennessee&customBann er=11098.jpg&imageclass=L&cl=11098.txt) (vis- ited February 2011). 88. City of Atlanta, GA., Zoning Code, http://library. municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=10376&stateId =10&stateName=Georgia Art. II sec. 18-7 (visited February 2011). 89. http://search.municode.com/html/11265/level4/ CICO_CH7ANFO_ARTIVLIPO_DIV2PO.html (visited February 2011). 90. Code of Ordinances, City of Concord, New Hamp- shire Title IV Chapter 28(4)(28) (http://library.mu- nicode.com/index.aspx?clientId=10210&stateId=29 &stateName=New%20Hampshire). 91. Baton Rouge Code §14:224 (c)(1) (http://library. municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=10107&stateId =18&stateName=Louisiana). MARCH 2011 | Vol. 34 | No. 3 Zoning and Planning Law Report 12 © 2011 Thomson Reuters 92. New York City Health Code §161.19, http://www. nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/zoo/zoo-animal- healthcode.pdf (visited February 2011). 93. Unified Development Code, City of Overland Park, KS, Sec. 18.370.020, available at: http://law.opkan- sas.org/lpBin22/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-hit- h.htm&2.0 (visited February 2011). 94. Geoff Campbell, Zoning Board Rejects In-Law Apartment, Approves Chicken Coops, The James- town Press (Nov. 4, 2010), available at: http://www. jamestownpress.com/news/2010-11-04/News/Zon- ing_Board_rejects_inlaw_apartment_approves_chic. html (visited February 2011). 95. Geoff Campbell, Zoning Board Rejects In-Law Apartment, Approves Chicken Coops, The James- town Press (Nov. 4, 2010), available at: http://www. jamestownpress.com/news/2010-11-04/News/Zon- ing_Board_rejects_inlaw_apartment_approves_chic. html (visited February 2011). 96. See, Minutes of the Leadville Planning and Zoning Commission Joint Meeting, July 6, 2010, available at: http://www.cityofleadville.com/reports/PZMinut es/2010PZMinutes/20100706AppMinutes.pdf (vis- ited February 2011). 97. Rogers, Arkansas Ordinance No. 06-100, http:// www.rogersarkansas.com/clerk/chkordinance.asp (visited February 2011). 98. Buffalo Code § 341-11.3(D), http://www.ecode360. com/?custId=BU1237 (visited February 2011). 99. Madison, Wisconsin Code § 28.08(2)(b)8.j.ii), http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=5 0000&stateId=49&stateName=Wisconsin (visited February 2011). 100. Knoxvile Code Art. II § 5-107, http://library.muni- code.com/index.aspx?clientId=11098&stateId=42 &stateName=Tennessee&customBanner=11098. jpg&imageclass=L&cl=11098.txt (visited February 2011). 101. Chicago Code § 7-12-300, http://www.amle- gal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Illinois/chicago_il/mu nicipalcodeofchicago?f=templates$fn=default. htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:chicago_il (visited February 2011). 102. San Francisco Code, http://library.municode.com/ index.aspx?clientId=14136&stateId=5&stateName =California (visited February 2011). 103. See for example, The City Chicken at http://home. centurytel.net/thecitychicken/index.html; and Back- yard Chickens at: http://www.backyardchickens. com (visited February 2011). OF RELATED INTEREST Discussion of matters related to the subject of the above article can be found in: Salkin, American Law of Zoning § 18:10 Zeigler, Rathkopf’s The Law of Zoning and Plan- ning § 33:16 Keeping Poultry as Nuisance, 2 A.L.R.3d 965 CITY OF BATAVIA C HICKEN AND C OOP R EQUIREMENTS  A maximum of eight (8) domestic hens shall be kept on a property that is zoned and occupied for single family residential use, or zoned PFI Public Facilities and Institutional and occupied by Schools, Public and Private only.  The keeping of roosters and the slaughter of any chickens is prohibited.  Hens shall be provided with a covered inside enclosure and adjacent covered outside fenced area. The outside area shall not be less than 32 square feet in area.  For all properties, enclosures and the adjacent occupied fence area shall be setback a minimum of thirty (30) from any adjacent occupied residential structure, other than that of the owner; but not less than the minimum property line setback required for accessory structures in the Zoning District. Additionally for PFI zoned properties, the enclosures and adjacent occupied fenced area shall be set back a minimum of one hundred and fifty feet (150’) from all streets and located not between the principal structures and adjacent streets  All enclosures shall be constructed and maintained in manner to be free of rodent infestation.  A building permit is required for all enclosures. The permit fee is the same as a shed permit. Requirements for the keeping of hens and coops Please direct all questions to the City of Batavia Building Division of the Community Development Department, Monday through Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM at (630) 454-2700. City of Batavia Building Division Community Development Department 100 North Island Avenue Batavia, Illinois 60510 Tel: (630)454-2700 Fax: (630) 454-2775 http://www.cityofbatavia.net This is a summary of the City of Batavia Ordinances allowing chickens and chicken coops. This is intended to interpret and explain the ordinances but does not represent or replace the actual ordinance language. Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and timeliness of this information. 12/04/15 Application Procedure 1. Submit a completed Building Permit Application to the Building Division of the Community Development Department. 2. Pay required minimum submittal fee. 3. Attach two (2) copies of drawings to the application showing the construction details, see attached sample. 1. Attach two (2) copies of the plat of survey showing the location of the coop and outside fenced area, setbacks to property lines, setbacks to any adjacent occupied residential structures, and all utilities (electric, gas, phone, sewer, water, etc.) (sample attached) Survey shall be to scale, not reduced or enlarged when copied. 5. Call J.U.L.I.E (Joint Underground Location for Inspectors and Engineers) at least 48 hours prior to any digging to locate any underground utilities. (Dial 811 or 800-892-0123) 6. Complete the Keeping of Chickens registration form. 7. If property is not owner occupied, Property owner's signature will be required on the building application and chicken and coop registration form. 8. Schedule the required inspections with the City of Batavia Building Division at least 48 hours in advance to insure that we can meet your schedule. City of Batavia, Storage Shed Requirements Page 2  Electric service to enclosures shall not be provided by an extension cord or cords.  Hens shall be kept in the enclosure and fenced area at all times.  All chickens and enclosures shall be kept in the rear yard.  All areas where hens are kept shall be maintained neat and clean and free of undue accumulation of waste such as to cause odors detectable on adjacent property.  No person shall allow chickens to produce noise loud enough to disturb the peace of persons of reasonable sensitivity and shall not allow the nuisance to exist. Requirements for the keeping of hens and coops (Continued) Sample Construction Details City of Batavia Storage Shed Requirements, Page 3 Wall & Roof Section INDICATE DIMENSIONS AND MATERIALS Roof covering Roof sheathing Roof slope / pitch Roof framing Rafter, wall or collar ties Wall framing stud size 1 Braced corner type Wall sheathing 4” concrete with 6 x 6 -10 wire or fiber mesh Building wrap 8” 4” gravel fill Wall finish material 8” Opening header sizes______________  Indicate the location with dimensions of the coop and the run area on the property.  Show the location and distance of all occupied residential structures that surround the property applying for permit. Building Address:________________________________________________________________________ Building Owner:__________________________________________________________________________ Email:_________________________________ Phone:___________________________________________ Responsible Party of Chickens: ______________________________________________________________ Email: _______________________________ Phone:_____________________________________________ Property Owner Occupied: Yes __ No__ If no, Owner Address:____________________________________ PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS REGARDING THE KEEPING OF CHICKENS All persons keeping chickens in the City of Batavia shall keep no more than 8 hens. Roosters shall not be kept anywhere on premise. Slaughter of any chickens shall not be allowed except for humane reasons only. Hens shall be provided with a covered inside enclosure and an adjacent covered outside fence area not less than 32 square feet. All hens will be kept in the enclosures and fenced areas at all times. All hens are kept in the rear yard. All enclosure (s) will remain 30 feet from any adjacent residential structure, other than the owner, but not less than the minimum property line setback required for accessory structures in the Zoning District. PFI zoned properties shall keep enclosures and fenced areas 150 feet from all streets and not between the principal structure and adjacent streets. Electric service to enclosure will not be provided by electrical cord or cords. All enclosures and areas will be kept clean, sanitary and rodent free at all times. All feed shall be contained in containers with tightly fitted lids. Owner will ensure that the hens do not produce unreasonable noise. Owner agrees to allow Building Division staff personnel to access the rear yard of the residence for the purpose of verifying compliance with the above and Title 5, Chapter 4, and 5-4B7 of the Municipal Code. If it has been found that violation exists and correction has not been made within the timeframe given by the Code Compliance Officer, fines in the amount of $100.00 a day, every day the violation exists will be implemented as well as an appearance in front of the Adjudication Hearing Officer. If there have been three documented violations within any twelve month period, there will be a loss of permission to keep chickens on the property. Keeping chickens after permission has been revoked will result in a $750.00 fine a day every day the violation exists and an appearance in front of the Adjudication Hearing Officer. By signing this document, I understand and agree to the conditions set forth. Responsible Party:__________________________________________ Date:_____________________ Property Owner:____________________________________________ Date:____________________ Witness:__________________________________________________ Date: ____________________ Approved: ______Yes _____ No Date:________________ Inspector:___________________________ License #______________________ R City of Batavia Community Development Department 100 North Island Avenue Batavia IL 60510 Phone (630) 454-2000 Fax (630) 454-2775 CHICKEN REGISTRATION APPLICATION Registration number:___-___-___ CITY OF BATAVIA,ILLINOIS ORDINANCE 11-04 AMENDING TITLE 5 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ALLOWING CHICKENS ON CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN THE CITY OF BATAVIA ADOPTED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL THIS 16 TH DAY OF MAY,2011 Published in pamphlet form by authority of the Mayor and City Council of the City of Batavia, Kane &DuPage Counties,Illinois, This 1ih day of May,2011 Prepared by: City of Batavia 100 N.Island Ave. Batavia,IL 60510 Page 1 of 6 total pages (including title page) CITY OF BATAVIA,ILLINOIS ORDINANCE 11-04 AMENDING TITLE 5 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ALLOWING CHICKENS ON CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN THE CITY OF BATAVIA WHEREAS,the City of Batavia's Municipal Code has for many years prohibited the keeping of chickens on residential property in the City limits;and WHEREAS,the City Council has been requested by several residents to change the City Code to permit the keeping of chickens on residential property in the city limits; and WHEREAS,there has been significant public input presented to the City demonstrating that there is substantial community benefit from permitting residents to keep a limited number of chickens for personal use in the residential areas of the City; and WHEREAS,those communities who permit a limited number of chickens to be .kept in residential areas have experienced few problems resulting from that action;and WHEREAS,there are demonstrated health benefits from allowing residents to raise chickens;and WHEREAS,many communities in the region have adopted ordinances permitting residents to keep up to eight hens for personal uses;and WHEREAS,the City Services Committee has studied the issue and held several public meetings where residents were afforded an opportunity to express their opinions about a potential change to the City Code to permit chickens on residential property;and WHEREAS,the County Health Department has noted its approval for the adoption of an ordinance allowing up to eight hens on a residential property;and WHEREAS,the City Services Committee has voted to recommend approval of Ordinance 11-04 to the City Council;and WHEREAS,the City Council has reviewed the recommendation of the City Services Committee for changes to Municipal Code Title 5;and WHEREAS,it is in the best interests of the City of Batavia and its residents that the proposed ordinance be adopted by the City Council of the City of Batavia. Page 2 of 6 total pages (including title page) CITY OF BATAVIA.ILLINOIS ORDINANCE 11-04 NOW THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED,by the City Council of the City of Batavia,Kane and DuPage Counties,Illinois: SECTION 1:That Title 5 of the Municipal Code be revised as follows: Chapter 4 ANIMAL CONTROL,Article 4B ANIMALS 5-4B-l:KEEPING OF ANIMALS RESTRICTED The words "other than eight (8)domestic hens"shall be inserted following the words "fowl and poultry"in sentence one.The last sentence,beginning with the words "In regard to fowl/poultry ...",shall be deleted. Add new Section 5-4B-7:STANDARDS FOR KEEPING OF CHICKENS A.Up to eight domestic hens may be kept on properties zoned and occupied for single family residential use only. B.Roosters are prohibited in the city limits. C.No person shall slaughter any chickens in the city limits,except for humane reasons. D.Hens shall be provided with a covered inside enclosure and an adjacent covered outside fenced area.The outside fenced area shall be no less than 32 square feet in area. E.The enclosures and adjacent fenced area shall be set back: 1.thirty feet from any adjacent occupied residential structure,other than that ofthe owner;but 2.not less than the minimum property line setback required for accessory structures in the Zoning district. F.All enclosures shall be constructed and maintained in such a manner as to be free of rodent infestation. G.A building permit shall be required for all enclosures.The permit fee shall be the same as for a shed. H.Electric service to enclosures shall not be provided by an extension cord or cords. Page 3 of 6 total pages (including title page) CITY OF BATAVIA.ILLINOIS ORDINANCE 11-04 1.Hens shall be kept in the enclosure and fenced area at all times. J.All feed and other items that are associated with the keeping of chickens that are likely to attract or to become infested with rats,mice or other rodents shall be protected in a container with a tightly fitted lid so as to prevent rodents from gaining access to or coming into contact with them. K.All chickens shall be kept in the rear yard. L.All areas where hens are kept shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, free of undue accumulation of waste such as to cause odors detectable on adjacent properties. M.No person shall allow chickens to produce noise loud enough to disturb the peace of persons of reasonable sensitivity,and it is hereby declared a nuisance and shall be unlawful for any person to allow such nuisance to exist. Add new Section 5-4B-8.REGISTRATION AND PENALTIES A.All persons keeping chickens in the City shall register with the Code Compliance officer prior to acquiring the chickens.Registration shall be on a form established by the Community Development Department.Registration forms will not be accepted until the enclosure has passed a final inspection by the Building Division.Persons having chickens as of the effective date of this Ordinance shall have 30 days to bring their property into compliance with this Ordinance. B.The registration form shall include written permission for any Building Division staff member to access the rear yard of the residence for the purpose of verifying compliance with this Code on a periodic basis.The form shall also acknowledge receipt of a copy of the standards set forth in Section 5-4B- 7 above by person registering. C.There shall be no fee charged for registration. D.Failure to notify the Code Compliance Officer in accordance with "A"above or failure to allow an inspection in accordance with "B"above shall constitute a violation of the City Code and shall be punishable by a fine of no more than $100 plus hearing costs,the amount to be established by the Code Hearing Officer. E.Violation of any standard in Section 5-4B-7 above shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed $100 plus court costs,such fine to be established by the Code Hearing Officer.Each day a violation continues shall be considered a separate offense. Page 4 of 6 total pages (including title page) CITY OF BATAVIA.ILLINOIS ORDINANCE 11-04 F.Three violations of this Ordinance on a property within any twelve month period shall result in loss of permission to keep chickens on the property. Keeping of chickens after permission has been revoked shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed $750 plus court costs,such fine to be established by the Code Hearing Officer.Each day a violation continues shall be considered a separate offense. Add new section 5-4B-9.CONFLICT WITH PRIVATE COVENANTS Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to permit the keeping of chickens when such activity is prohibited by private covenants,conditions or restrictions governing the use of property,or by rules,regulations or orders issued by the Illinois Department of Public Health or the Kane County Health Department. SECTION 2:That this Ordinance 11-04 shall be in full force and effect upon its presentation,passage and publication according to the law. Page 5 of 6 total pages (including title page) CITY OF BATAVIA.ILLINOIS ORDINANCE 11-04 PRESENTED to the City Council of the City of Batavia,Illinois,this 16th day of May, 2011. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Batavia,Illinois,this 16th day of May,2011. APPROVED by me as Mayor of said City of Batavia,Illinois,this 16th day of May,2011 Ward Aldermen Ayes Nays Absent Abstain Aldermen Ayes Nays Absent Abstain 1 O'Brien x Sparks x 2 Dietz x Wolff x 3 Jungels x Chanzit x 4 Yolk x Stark x 5 Frydendall x Thelin Atac x 6 Liva x Clark x 7 Tenuta x Brown x Mayor Schielke YOTE:9 Ayes 5 Nays o Absent Abstention(s) Total holding office:Mayor and 14 aldermen ATTEST: 9j ELeL.J U'Cfi:d Heidi Wetzel,City Clerk Page 6 of 6 total pages (including title page) / (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (1) (2) (3) (f) (g) (h) (i) Sec. 6-108. - Keeping of chickens. It shall be unlawful for any person to keep any chickens within the village, on any lot, piece or parcel of land, except as provided in subsections (a) through (i) below. Permitted locations. Domestic hens may be kept within the village only on property zoned and occupied for single family residential use. All hens shall be kept in the rear yard of the permitted location. Maximum number. It shall be unlawful for any person to keep more than eight (8) hens, of any age, on property zoned and occupied for single family residential use within the village. Keeping of roosters. It shall be unlawful for any person to keep a rooster(s) within the village. Slaughtering of chickens. It shall be unlawful for any person to slaughter any chickens within the village, except for a humane reason. Shelter and fenced areas. All hens kept in the village pursuant to this article, shall at all times be provided a shelter and an adjacent covered outside fenced area. All hens shall be kept in a shelter or adjacent outside fenced area at all times. The outside fenced area shall be no less than thirty-two (32) square feet in area and shall be demarcated with a fence constructed of wood or metal, excluding barbed wire or razor wire, of sufficient height to contain the hens. The shelter shall be no less than sixteen (16) square feet in area and no more than six (6) feet in height. The shelter shall contain an independent electric/heat source. Such utilities shall not be maintained with the use of extension cords. The shelter and adjacent outside fenced area shall also be: Thirty (30) feet from any adjacent occupied residential structure other than that of the owner or occupant of the real property on which the shelter and adjacent outside fenced area are located; Not less than the minimum property line setback required for accessory structures in an R-1 zoning district as defined by the village's zoning code; and Constructed in such a manner as to contain the hens to the shelter or the adjacent outside fenced area at all times and to keep the shelter and adjacent outside fenced area free from rodent infestation. Property maintenance. All areas in which hens are kept shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, free from undue accumulation of waste such as to cause odors detectable on adjacent properties. All feed for hens shall, except when placed for consumption by the hens, be kept in containers with tightly fitted lids that are rodent-proof. Permit/inspection required. A permit shall be required for construction of a shelter utilized to contain hens. The permit shall be issued by the village's building department. The fee for the permit for construction of the shelter shall be twenty dollars ($20.00). Two (2) inspections by the village's building department officials shall be required during construction of the shelter. The first shall occur upon installation of the base/floor of the shelter and prior to any further construction of the shelter; and the second shall occur upon completion of the shelter and prior to the owner acquiring hens to occupy the shelter. The inspections are required to confirm compliance with this article and the village's building code. A fee of thirty dollars ($30.00) shall be charged for each inspection. The owner/occupant of the property shall be responsible for contacting the village's building department to schedule each inspection of the shelter. Registration. All persons keeping hens in the village shall register with the village's planning department prior to acquiring the hens. Registration shall be on a form established by the village's planning department and shall include written permission for any village building or code enforcement official to access the rear yard of the property where the hens are located for the purpose of verifying compliance with applicable village Code. Registration shall not be permitted until the shelter has passed final inspection by the village's building department. Compliance. All persons having chickens as of the effective date of this ordinance shall have ninety (90) days to bring their property into compliance with this article. (Ord. No. 3082, § 3, 10-15-12) From:Joel Frieders To:Krysti Barksdale-Noble; Bart Olson; Jackie Milschewski Subject:Fwd: In favor of chickens Date:Tuesday, July 7, 2020 6:33:08 PM ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: a m <> Date: Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 6:30 PM Subject: Re: In favor of chickens To: Joel Frieders <joelfrieders.ward3@gmail.com> Joel, Thank you for asking! I wish more people would be curious about many topics. I appreciate this as a human and a political figure. Yes, as a former agricultural educator, I helped children learn tangible life lessons with chickens. They learned responsibility, economics and husbandry to name a few. I watched as some students who have autism and struggled with social situations "come out of their shell' around chickens. Chickens offer a glimpse into the birdworld that we cant often have with wild animals, they are a domesticated animal but they do have similar behaviours to some of our wild feathered friends. I have friends who live in areas where chickens are allowed and for them its chance to do micro homesteading, earn a small amount of extra income (usually only enough to buy chicken feed) and reduce their food miles. Chickens also are insectivores they can aid in eating ticks, mosquitos and may other pests that annoy us or carry disease. They themselves cannot get lymes disease so it's a win win. Please feel free to ask anymore questions and share this information. April Morris On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 5:47 PM Joel Frieders <joelfrieders.ward3@gmail.com> wrote: any reasons why you support it? On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 5:06 PM a m <> wrote: Hi I am in favor of backyard chickens here in Yorkville! -- Joel Frieders Alderman, Third Ward United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Rd Yorkville, IL 60560 630-992-7516 PLEASE NOTE: I do not email after 5pm CST or on weekends, for the sanctity of my sanity. -- Joel Frieders Alderman, Third Ward United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Rd Yorkville, IL 60560 630-992-7516 PLEASE NOTE: I do not email after 5pm CST or on weekends, for the sanctity of my sanity. Dear Yorkville City Council, I appreciate Alderman Funkhouser’s efforts bringing the topic of Urban Chickens forward to the council. My family lives on a unique piece of property in town. We own ~1.25 acres between two connected parcels on Main Street. Main Street lets people go back in time surrounded by historic homes and the occasional glimpse of the Fox River. Many of these properties would have maintained chickens and other foul to provide for those families. Recently, my son found remnants of an old chicken coop in our back woods. Our property offers a unique habitat for chicken and some would say other animals as well. I had to put some thought into how much I really wanted chickens. Chickens are extra work, the costs take years to recover, and you must take into consideration end of life. We are a busy and expensive family of 7 plus our puppy Leo. However, I know these animals would quickly become family. I think of the unique opportunity it would offer my children and neighboring friends. I think of sustainability in these COVID days. The regular supply of fresh eggs offered by the hens is a great and healthy perk. Chickens also eliminate many nescient pests without spraying chemicals over our properties. They are also substantially quieter than the Route 47 traffic I can hear 4 blocks away. I hope you continue discussions and find an agreement as you did bringing apiaries into town. No matter the decision, I appreciate you taking the time and consideration as many Illinois towns have over recent years. Sincerely, Tim Johnson & Family (DeeDee, Claudia, Dylan, Scarlett, Monreau, Fiona, and Leo)