The URL can be used to link to this page

Economic Development Packet 2021 01-05-21 AGENDA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Tuesday, January 5, 2021 6:00 p.m. City Hall Conference Room 800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville, IL Citizen Comments: Minutes for Correction/Approval: December 1, 2020 New Business: 1. EDC 2021-01 Building Permit Report for November 2020 2. EDC 2021-02 Building Inspection Report November 2020 3. EDC 2021-03 Property Maintenance Report for November 2020 4. EDC 2021-04 Economic Development Report for December 2020 5. EDC 2021-05 Annual Foreclosure Report 6. EDC 2021-06 9261 Kennedy Road (Variance) – 1.5 Mile Review 7. EDC 2021-07 Nonconforming Signs – Text Amendment 8. EDC 2021-08 Sign Code – Discussion 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, January 5, 2021 6:00 PM CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CITIZEN COMMENTS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MINUTES FOR CORRECTION/APPROVAL: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. December 1, 2020 □ Approved __________ □ As presented □ With corrections --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NEW BUSINESS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. EDC 2021-01 Building Permit Report for November 2020 □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. EDC 2021-02 Building Inspection Report for November 2020 □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. EDC 2021-03 Property Maintenance Report for November 2020 □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. EDC 2021-04 Economic Development Report for December 2020 □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. EDC 2021-05 Annual Foreclosure Report □ Moved forward to CC __________ □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. EDC 2021-06 9261 Kennedy Road (Variance) – 1.5 Mile Review □ Moved forward to CC __________ □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. EDC 2021-07 Nonconforming Signs – Text Amendment □ Moved forward to CC __________ □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. EDC 2021-08 Sign Code – Discussion □ Moved forward to CC __________ □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OLD BUSINESS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. EDC 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 Community Development Purchasing Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number Minutes Tracking Number Minutes of the Economic Development Committee – December 1, 2020 Economic Development Committee – January 5, 2021 Majority Committee Approval Minute Taker Name Department Page 1 of 3 DRAFT UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Tuesday, December 1, 2020, 6:00pm City Conference Room Note: This meeting was held 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. Due to the current Covid-19 pandemic, remote attendance is allowed for this meeting to encourage social distancing. All meeting participants attended remotely except City Administrator Bart Olson who was present at City Hall. In Attendance: Committee Members Chairman Jackie Milschewski Alderman Ken Koch Alderman Joel Frieders Alderman Jason Peterson Other City Officials City Administrator Bart Olson, (in-person attendance) Assistant City Administrator Erin Willrett Community Development Director Krysti Barksdale-Noble Senior Planner Jason Engberg Alderman Chris Funkhouser Code Official Pete Ratos Other Guests City Consultant Lynn Dubajic Tim Johnson Ashley Shields Bruce Mellen David Schultz, HR Green Lucas Robinson The meeting was called to order at 6:00pm by Chairman Jackie Milschewski. Citizen Comments & Old Business (out of sequence) 1. EDC 2020-32 Urban Chickens Citizen Tim Johnson, 401 E. Main St., provided input for this topic. He had written a letter to City Council along with information from his daughters. His family is interested in raising chickens in the future and he said they have over 1.25 acres on which to pursue this interest. He said the Batavia ordinance provided some valuable guidance. Page 2 of 3 Ms. Noble said she had provided potential regulations at a prior meeting or a hybrid plan could also be implemented. After discussion, committee members recommended the following requirements: a complaint process needs to be included, the chickens need to be kept in an enclosure since they can fly, a limit of 6 chickens as in the “moderate” plan previously presented by Ms. Noble and a minimum1-acre lot. This matter will come back to the January EDC committee meeting for further review. Minutes for Correction/Approval October 6, 2020 The minutes were approved as presented. New Business 1. EDC 2020-49 Building Permit Report for September and October 2020 Mr. Ratos reported 270 single family permits (includes attached and detached homes) as of the end of October. He anticipates exceeding 300 permits for those categories by the end of this year. 2. EDC 2020-50 Building Inspection Report for September and October 2020 There were 800 inspections in two months with about 100 outsourced. Mr. Ratos said he has outsourced more to allow time for a high volume of plan reviews. 3. EDC 2020-51 Property Maintenance Report for September and October 2020 Mr. Ratos said no cases were heard in October, however, many complaints were issued which were brought into compliance. Staff is addressing ongoing issues, but due to coronavirus, they are trying to avoid person-to-person contact. Door hangers have been left and have been a very effective tool. 4. EDC 2020-52 Economic Development Report for October and November 2020 Lynn Dubajic referred to her written report and added that Smoothie King has opened and is doing very well. The owner is also purchasing Blackstone Restaurant and will remodel and change the name. Alderman Koch inquired about the Martini banquet hall and Ms. Dubajic said they have had only one wedding so far. 5. EDC 2020-53 RENEW Incentive Program Repeal Ms. Noble gave a background of this program which included the B.U.I.L.D. program with incentives for builders and developers to build spec or model homes. The program began in 2014. At that time there was no limit for the program duration and the number of permits and lot purchases were regulated to earn the incentives. She recently spoke with builders and some are not able to purchase the number of lots required while another builder said they would like to see the program continue. She requested committee feedback regarding the staff-recommended repeal of the ordinance. Alderman Frieders said smaller builders may not be able to participate and wondered if the program rules could be changed to not require a 10-lot minimum purchase. Ms. Noble said it could be reduced to 5 lots. She added that homes are still being built without spec/model homes. Alderman Peterson asked if other towns are using this program and Mr. Olson said is not aware of any. The committee also discussed the amount of money waived over 6 years. They decided to recommend repeal of the program and this moves to City Council. Page 3 of 3 6. EDC 2020-54 Kendall Marketplace Lot 52 – Phase 2 and 3 – Final Plat of Resubdivision Mr. Engberg said Abby Properties has filed for a Final Plat for Phases 2 and 3 in Kendall Marketplace which includes 72 more units. A Plan Council meeting was held in November and the developer was asked if they wished to proceed with Phase 4 at the same time, which the developer did not wish to do. Stormwater was also discussed and the developer noted that detention already exists there. This matter goes to Planning and Zoning on January 13th and then to City Council. Models should be ready in January, said Ms. Shields. 7. EDC 2020-55 Grande Reserve – Neighborhood 5 – Units 15 and 22 (Townhomes) – Final Plat Ms. Noble summarized this project and said DR Horton is seeking a Final Plat amendment for the townhome area at Mill and Kennedy. They purchased 17 EBE lots which are exceptions to blanket easements. The developer platted the area according to the shape of the building rather than individual lots. They are creating fee-simple lots in units 15 and 22 to sell them easier. The developer is looking for an amendment to illustrate the townhomes will have their own lots. Ms. Noble said at the Plan Council meeting it was noted this new Final Plat is only referred to as Neighborhood #5. Staff asked the petitioner to revise the Final Plat to refer to a unit number rather than neighborhood number. This will move forward to the January PZC and if no other changes are needed, it will then proceed to City Council. Old Business: None Additional Business: Alderman Frieders stated that when the Council members start discussion on front- funding the grant program in regards to the pandemic, the original idea was $200,000 to match the State, but he said it makes more sense to understand $200,000 would be the smallest amount. He said the dollar amount needs to be increased to help businesses financially. The meeting adjourned at 6:43pm. Minutes respectfully submitted by Marlys Young, Minute Taker (remote attendance) 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 Community Development Purchasing Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number New Business #1 Tracking Number EDC 2021-01 Building Permit Report for November 2020 Economic Development Committee – January 5, 2021 Informational None All permits issued in November 2020. D. Weinert Community Development Name Department C:\Users\JBehland\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\P4YPDUQF\Nov 2020.doc Prepared by: D Weinert UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE BUILDING PERMIT REPORT November 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 November 2020 86 14 0 2 0 5 0 65 3,453,154.00 118,496.64 Calendar Year 2020 1753 192 0 94 0 87 0 1380 54,989,730.00 2,494,231.83 Fiscal Year 2021 1366 147 0 90 0 47 0 1082 43,376,218.00 2,025,389.45 November 2019 129 15 0 16 0 15 0 83 7,099,996.00 231,270.55 Calendar Year 2019 2077 137 0 35 0 111 0 1794 57,029,018.00 1,785,181.17 Fiscal Year 2020 1796 89 0 30 0 68 0 1609 39,559,038.00 1,173,451.45 November 2018 71 28 0 0 0 9 0 35 5,765,268.00 191,641.26 Calendar Year 2018 974 201 14 36 0 125 0 598 53,513,146.00 2,432,439.59 Fiscal Year 2019 667 160 0 0 0 69 0 438 37,277,954.00 1,352,580.48 November 2017 43 1 5 0 0 12 0 25 1,455,763.00 98,737.96 Calendar Year 2017 881 60 84 0 1 145 0 591 67,095,104.00 2,334,457.97 Fiscal Year 2018 648 44 56 0 1 101 0 446 56,431,760.00 1,744,988.44 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 Community Development Purchasing Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number New Business #2 Tracking Number EDC 2021-02 Building Inspection Report for November 2020 Economic Development Committee – January 5, 2021 Informational None All inspections scheduled in November 2020. D. Weinert Community Development Name Department DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 1DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 1TIME: 11:58:32 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 11/01/2020 TO 11/30/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PR _____ 015-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20192094 1115 GOLDFINCH AVE 298-3 11/19/2020PR _____ 016-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 11/19/2020PR _____ 017-FME FINAL MECHANICAL 11/19/2020PR _____ 018-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 11/19/2020BF _____ 015-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20192095 1117 GOLDFINCH AVE 298-4 11/13/2020PBF _____ 016-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 11/13/2020PR _____ 008-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20200025 2086 SQUIRE CIR 180 11/17/2020PR _____ 009-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 11/17/2020PR _____ 010-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 11/17/2020PR _____ 011-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 11/17/2020BC _____ 012-INS INSULATION 11/19/2020BF _____ AM 013-WKS PUBLIC & SERVICE WALKS 11/24/2020 Comments1: CANCELBC _____ 014-WKS PUBLIC & SERVICE WALKS 11/25/2020EEI _____ 015-REI REINSPECTION 20200073 1503 MONTROSE CT 9 11/19/2020BF _____ 015-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200155 2135 BLUEBIRD LN 235-2 11/09/2020 Comments1: 224-358-6669PBF _____ 016-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 11/06/2020 Comments1: 224-358-6669EEI _____ 023-REI REINSPECTION 20200252 2492 ANNA MARIA LN 599 11/04/2020BC _____ AM 015-WK SERVICE WALK 20200253 2508 ANNA MARIA LN 597 11/20/2020BC _____ AM 016-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 11/20/2020BC _____ AM 015-WK SERVICE WALK 20200254 2520 ANNA MARIA LN 596 11/20/2020BC _____ AM 016-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 11/20/2020BC _____ AM 014-WK SERVICE WALK 20200255 2528 ANNA MARIA LN 595 11/20/2020BC _____ AM 015-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 11/20/2020 DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 2DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 2TIME: 11:58:32 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 11/01/2020 TO 11/30/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PR _____ 015-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200257 2828 SHERIDAN CT 198 11/02/2020PR _____ 016-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 11/02/2020PR _____ 017-FME FINAL MECHANICAL 11/02/2020PR _____ 018-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 11/02/2020EEI _____ 019-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 11/02/2020BC _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20200426 2065 SQUIRE CIR 213 11/18/2020 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175PR _____ 011-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200450 941 BLACKBERRY SHORE LN 28 11/02/2020PR _____ 012-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 11/02/2020PR _____ 013-FME FINAL MECHANICAL 11/02/2020PR _____ 014-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 11/02/2020EEI _____ 015-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 11/02/2020PR _____ 017-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200557 906 S CARLY CIR 99 11/17/2020PR _____ 018-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 11/17/2020PR _____ 019-FME FINAL MECHANICAL 11/17/2020PR _____ 020-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 11/17/2020EEI _____ 021-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 11/16/2020PR _____ 017-ABC ABOVE CEILING 20200559 846 EDWARD LN 11/09/2020PR _____ 018-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 11/17/2020PR _____ 019-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 11/17/2020PR _____ 020-FME FINAL MECHANICAL 11/17/2020PR _____ 021-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 11/17/2020BC _____ 002-REI REINSPECTION 20200571 2341 SUMAC DR 17 11/30/2020BC _____ 003-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200611 321 DRAYTON CT 54 11/10/2020EEI _____ 018-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20200693 2155 HARTFIELD AVE 421 11/10/2020 DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 3DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 3TIME: 11:58:32 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 11/01/2020 TO 11/30/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PR _____ 019-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 11/10/2020 Comments1: 847-456-8082PR _____ 020-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 11/10/2020 Comments1: 847-456-8082PR _____ 021-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 11/10/2020PR _____ 022-FME FINAL MECHANICAL 11/10/2020EEI _____ 023-REI REINSPECTION 11/16/2020BC _____ 008-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 20200696 889 GILLESPIE LN 11/12/2020PR _____ 010-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 11/24/2020PR _____ 011-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 11/24/2020PR _____ 012-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 11/24/2020PR _____ 013-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 11/24/2020BC _____ 008-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 20200697 887 GILLESPIE LN 11/12/2020PBF _____ 010-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 11/20/2020 Comments1: LATE AS POSSIBLE PLEASE 630-365-7229BF _____ 011-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 11/20/2020 Comments1: LATE AS POSSIBLE PLEASE 630-365-7229BF _____ 012-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 11/20/2020 Comments1: LATE AS POSSIBLE PLEASE 630-365-7229BF _____ 013-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 11/20/2020 Comments1: LATE AS POSSIBLE PLEASE 630-365-7229BC _____ 014-INS INSULATION 11/24/2020BC _____ 008-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 20200698 885 GILLESPIE LN 11/12/2020PBF _____ 010-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 11/20/2020 Comments1: LATE AS POSSIBLE PLEASE 630-365-7229BF _____ 011-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 11/20/2020 Comments1: LATE AS POSSIBLE PLEASE 630-365-7229BF _____ 012-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 11/20/2020 Comments1: LATE AS POSSIBLE PLEASE 630-365-7229 DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 4DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 4TIME: 11:58:32 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 11/01/2020 TO 11/30/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BF _____ 013-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 11/20/2020 Comments1: LATE AS POSSIBLE PLEASE 630-365-7229BC _____ 014-INS INSULATION 11/24/2020BC _____ 008-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 20200699 883 GILLESPIE LN 11/12/2020BF _____ PM 009-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 11/16/2020BF _____ PM 010-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 11/16/2020 Comments1: 630-365-7229BF _____ PM 011-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 11/16/2020PBF _____ PM 012-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 11/16/2020 Comments1: 630-365-7229BC _____ 014-RST FIRE OR DRAFT STOPPING 11/17/2020 Comments1: RE ROUGHBC _____ 015-INS INSULATION 11/17/2020BC _____ 008-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 20200700 881 GILLESPIE LN 11/12/2020BF _____ PM 009-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 11/16/2020 Comments1: 630-365-7229BF _____ PM 010-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 11/16/2020BF _____ PM 011-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 11/16/2020PBF _____ PM 012-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 11/16/2020 Comments1: 630-365-7229BC _____ 014-RST FIRE OR DRAFT STOPPING 11/17/2020 Comments1: RE ROUGHBC _____ 015-INS INSULATION 11/18/2020BC _____ 008-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 20200701 891 GILLESPIE LN 11/12/2020PR _____ 010-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 11/24/2020PR _____ 011-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 11/24/2020PR _____ 012-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 11/24/2020PR _____ 013-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 11/24/2020 DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 5DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 5TIME: 11:58:32 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 11/01/2020 TO 11/30/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 20200702 890 GILLESPIE LN 11/03/2020BC _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 20200703 888 GILLESPIE LN 11/03/2020BC _____ 004-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 11/19/2020BC _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 20200704 886 GILLESPIE LN 11/03/2020BC _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 20200705 884 GILLESPIE LN 11/03/2020BC _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 20200706 882 GILLESPIE LN 11/03/2020BC _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 20200707 880 GILLESPIE LN 11/03/2020BF _____ 017-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200724 2195 BLUEBIRD LN 240-2 11/05/2020BF _____ 018-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 11/05/2020BF _____ 019-FME FINAL MECHANICAL 11/05/2020PBF _____ 020-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 11/05/2020EEI _____ 021-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 11/05/2020PR _____ 018-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200725 2197 BLUEBIRD LN 240-1 11/12/2020PR _____ 019-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 11/12/2020PR _____ 020-FME FINAL MECHANICAL 11/12/2020PR _____ 021-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 11/12/2020BC _____ 012-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20200729 2010 INGEMUNSON LN 139 11/03/2020 Comments1: SEE INSPECTION TICKETBC _____ 013-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 11/03/2020BC _____ 014-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 11/03/2020 Comments1: SEE INSPECTION TICKETBC _____ 015-INS INSULATION 11/05/2020PBF _____ 016-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 11/03/2020 Comments1: 847-456-8082BF _____ 017-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 11/05/2020 Comments1: 847-551-9066 AM PLEASE DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 6DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 6TIME: 11:58:32 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 11/01/2020 TO 11/30/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ 002-REI REINSPECTION 20200756 533 W BARBERRY CIR 41 11/09/2020PR _____ 018-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200758 2022 INGEMUNSON LN 140 11/10/2020 Comments1: 847-456-8082PR _____ 019-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 11/10/2020 Comments1: 847-456-8082EEI _____ 020-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 11/10/2020PR _____ 021-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 11/10/2020PR _____ 022-FME FINAL MECHANICAL 11/10/2020PR _____ 019-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200760 2161 BLUEBIRD LN 237-1 11/10/2020PR _____ 020-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 11/10/2020PR _____ 021-FME FINAL MECHANICAL 11/10/2020PR _____ 022-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 11/10/2020BC _____ 003-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200785 2881 OLD GLORY DR 245 11/19/2020PR _____ 016-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200799 1120 GOLDFINCH AVE 311-3 11/19/2020PR _____ 017-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 11/19/2020PR _____ 018-FME FINAL MECHANICAL 11/19/2020PR _____ 019-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 11/19/2020BC _____ 018-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 20200823 2192 BLUEBIRD LN 241-1 11/12/2020PR _____ 019-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 11/19/2020PR _____ 020-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 11/19/2020PR _____ 021-FME FINAL MECHANICAL 11/19/2020PR _____ 022-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 11/19/2020EEI _____ 023-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 11/19/2020 Comments1: OK TO TEMPBC _____ 017-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 20200824 2194 BLUEBIRD LN 241-2 11/12/2020PR _____ 018-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 11/19/2020 DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 7DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 7TIME: 11:58:32 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 11/01/2020 TO 11/30/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PR _____ 019-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 11/19/2020PR _____ 020-FME FINAL MECHANICAL 11/19/2020PR _____ 021-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 11/19/2020EEI _____ 022-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 11/19/2020 Comments1: OK TO TEMPBC _____ 013-INS INSULATION 20200844 2046 INGEMUNSON LN 142 11/02/2020BF _____ AM 018-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 11/05/2020 Comments1: 847-551-9066 AM PLEASEPR _____ 016-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200845 1151 BLACKBERRY SHORE LN 49 11/24/2020PR _____ 017-FME FINAL MECHANICAL 11/24/2020PR _____ 018-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 11/24/2020PR _____ 019-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 11/24/2020EEI _____ 020-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 11/25/2020BF _____ 006-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 20200904 803 ALEXANDRA LN 9 11/05/2020 Comments1: 630-977-1868BC _____ 017-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 20200907 2174 BLUEBIRD LN 242 11/12/2020BC _____ AM 018-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 11/23/2020 Comments1: UPLAND 630-330-6705BC _____ 017-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 20200908 2172 BLUEBIRD LN 242 11/12/2020EEI _____ 018-ADA ADA ACCESSIBLE WALK WAY 11/12/2020BC _____ AM 019-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 11/23/2020 Comments1: UPLAND 630-330-6705PR _____ 016-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200912 1109 HAWK HOLLOW DR 310-1 11/16/2020PR _____ 017-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 11/16/2020PR _____ 018-FME FINAL MECHANICAL 11/16/2020PR _____ 019-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 11/16/2020EEI _____ 020-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 11/16/2020 DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 8DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 8TIME: 11:58:32 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 11/01/2020 TO 11/30/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PR _____ 011-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200913 1111 HAWK HOLLOW DR 310-2 11/16/2020PR _____ 012-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 11/16/2020PR _____ 013-FME FINAL MECHANICAL 11/16/2020PR _____ 014-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 11/16/2020EEI _____ 015-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 11/16/2020PR _____ 011-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200914 1121 HAWK HOLLOW DR 310-3 11/16/2020PR _____ 012-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 11/16/2020PR _____ 013-FME FINAL MECHANICAL 11/16/2020PR _____ 014-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 11/16/2020EEI _____ 015-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 11/16/2020EEI _____ 015-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20200915 1123 HAWK HOLLOW DR 310-4 11/16/2020BF _____ 016-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 11/20/2020 Comments1: 847-456-8082PBF _____ 017-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 11/20/2020 Comments1: 847-456-8082BC _____ 014-INS INSULATION 20200917 1054 CANARY AVE 243-1 11/02/2020 Comments1: FOAM COMPLETELY AROUND PATIO. SEAL CRACK Comments2: S AROUND CRIPPLES.BC _____ AM 016-STP STOOP 11/23/2020 Comments1: UPLAND 630-330-6705BC _____ 014-INS INSULATION 20200918 1052 CANARY AVE 243-2 11/03/2020BC _____ 015-INS INSULATION 11/02/2020 Comments1: WORK NOT COMPLETEDBC _____ AM 016-STP STOOP 11/23/2020 Comments1: UPLAND 630-330-6705PR _____ 016-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200935 2803 GAINS CT 183 11/10/2020PR _____ 017-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 11/10/2020PR _____ 016-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200936 2038 SQUIRE CIR 194 11/23/2020 DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 9DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 9TIME: 11:58:32 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 11/01/2020 TO 11/30/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PR _____ 017-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 11/23/2020PR _____ 018-FME FINAL MECHANICAL 11/23/2020PR _____ 019-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 11/23/2020EEI _____ 020-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 11/23/2020BC _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20200944 1064 CANARY AVE 2442 11/04/2020BC _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 11/06/2020 Comments1: 630-330-6705BC _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 11/12/2020PR _____ 004-SEW SEWER INSPECTION 11/16/2020PR _____ PM 005-WAT WATER 11/16/2020PBF _____ 006-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 11/19/2020 Comments1: 224-358-6669BC _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20200945 1062 CANARY AVE 2442 11/04/2020BC _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 11/06/2020 Comments1: 630-330-6705BC _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 11/12/2020PR _____ 004-SEW SEWER INSPECTION 11/16/2020PR _____ 005-WAT WATER 11/16/2020PBF _____ 006-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 11/19/2020 Comments1: 224-358-6669PR _____ 011-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20200975 2548 ANNA MARIA LN 593 11/12/2020PR _____ 012-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 11/12/2020PR _____ 013-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 11/12/2020PR _____ 014-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 11/12/2020BC _____ AM 015-INS INSULATION 11/19/2020BF _____ 008-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20200976 2538 ANNA MARIA LN 594 11/04/2020 Comments1: GEORGE 224-234-3616 DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 10DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 10TIME: 11:58:32 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 11/01/2020 TO 11/30/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BF _____ 009-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 11/04/2020 Comments1: GEORGE 224-234-3616BF _____ 010-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 11/04/2020 Comments1: GEORGE 224-234-3616PBF _____ 011-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 11/04/2020 Comments1: GEORGE 224-234-3616BC _____ 012-INS INSULATION 11/06/2020BF _____ 018-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200992 581 WARBLER LN 352 11/09/2020 Comments1: 847-456-8082PBF _____ 019-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 11/09/2020 Comments1: 847-456-8082EEI _____ 020-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 11/09/2020BF _____ 020-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20200993 656 MANCHESTER LN 381 11/23/2020PBF _____ 023-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 11/23/2020EEI _____ 017-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20200994 632 COACH RD 401 11/09/2020BF _____ 018-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 11/09/2020 Comments1: 847-456-8082PBF _____ 019-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 11/09/2020 Comments1: 847-456-8082GH 12:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20201001 2273 CRYDER CT 434 11/19/2020PR _____ 017-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20201002 1423 WOODSAGE AVE 22 11/09/2020PR _____ 018-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 11/09/2020PR _____ 019-FME FINAL MECHANICAL 11/09/2020PR _____ 020-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 11/09/2020EEI _____ 021-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 11/12/2020BF _____ 020-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20201005 582 COACH RD 404 11/23/2020PBF _____ 021-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 11/23/2020PR _____ 016-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20201006 593 MANCHESTER LN 400 11/16/2020 DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 11DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 11TIME: 11:58:32 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 11/01/2020 TO 11/30/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PR _____ 017-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 11/16/2020PR _____ 018-FME FINAL MECHANICAL 11/16/2020PR _____ 019-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 11/16/2020EEI _____ 020-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 11/16/2020BF _____ 015-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20201007 2112 HARTFIELD AVE 348 11/23/2020PBF _____ 016-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 11/23/2020EEI _____ 017-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 11/25/2020PBF _____ 004-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20201009 1348 HAWK HOLLOW DR 292-1 11/03/2020 Comments1: 847-456-8082BF _____ 005-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 11/13/2020 Comments1: JEFF 630-330-6705BF _____ 006-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 11/13/2020PBF _____ 004-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20201010 1346 HAWK HOLLOW DR 292-2 11/03/2020 Comments1: 847-456-8082BF _____ 005-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 11/13/2020BF _____ 006-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 11/13/2020PBF _____ 004-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20201011 1344 HAWK HOLLOW DR 292-3 11/03/2020 Comments1: 847-456-8082BF _____ 005-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 11/13/2020BF _____ 006-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 11/13/2020PBF _____ 004-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20201012 1342 HAWK HOLLOW DR 292-4 11/03/2020 Comments1: 847-456-8082BF _____ 005-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 11/13/2020BF _____ 006-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 11/13/2020BC _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20201022 1182 MIDNIGHT PL 11/17/2020BC _____ 002-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 11/17/2020PR _____ 017-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20201032 2072 SQUIRE CIR 184 11/23/2020 DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 12DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 12TIME: 11:58:32 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 11/01/2020 TO 11/30/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PR _____ 018-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 11/23/2020PR _____ 019-FME FINAL MECHANICAL 11/23/2020PR _____ 020-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 11/23/2020EEI _____ 021-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 11/23/2020BC _____ AM 001-FOU FOUNDATION 20201050 2002 SQUIRE CIR 202 11/13/2020 Comments1: MIDW 815-839-8175BC _____ PM 002-BKF BACKFILL 11/17/2020PBF 14:00 003-WAT WATER 11/18/2020 Comments1: AL'S FAMILY 630-492-7635PR _____ 004-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 11/23/2020 Comments1: 331-223-6615PBF _____ 005-WAT WATER 11/19/2020 Comments1: 630-492-7635BC _____ PM 006-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 11/30/2020BC _____ PM 007-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 11/30/2020BC _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20201063 922 S CARLY CIR 100 11/16/2020 Comments1: HOMEOWNER CONFIRMED THAT WATER BONDING P Comments2: LATE IS IN A PIPE UNDERGROUNDPR _____ AM 004-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20201088 2073 BLUEBERRY HILL 312-4 11/16/2020PR _____ 004-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20201089 2075 BLUEBERRY HILL 312-3 11/16/2020PR _____ 004-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20201090 2077 BLUEBERRY HILL 312-2 11/16/2020PR _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20201091 2079 BLUEBERRY HILL 312-1 11/16/2020PBF _____ PM 003-SEW SEWER INSPECTION 20201092 2083 BLUEBERRY HILL 313-4 11/05/2020 Comments1: 630-387-2001PBF _____ PM 004-WAT WATER 11/05/2020 Comments1: 630-387-2001BC _____ 005-FOU FOUNDATION 11/06/2020 Comments1: FOUNDATION DOES NOT SIT ON THE FOOTING I Comments2: N SEVERAL LOCATIONS DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 13DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 13TIME: 11:58:32 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 11/01/2020 TO 11/30/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PBF _____ 007-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 10/20/2020 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082PBF _____ PM 003-SEW SEWER INSPECTION 20201093 2085 BLUEBERRY HILL 313-3 11/05/2020 Comments1: 630-387-2001PBF _____ PM 004-WAT WATER 11/05/2020 Comments1: 630-387-2001BC _____ 005-FOU FOUNDATION 11/06/2020 Comments1: FOUNDATION DOES NOT SIT ON THE FOOTING I Comments2: N SEVERAL LOCATIONSPBF _____ 007-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 11/20/2020 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082PBF _____ PM 003-SEW SEWER INSPECTION 20201094 2087 BLUEBERRY HILL 313-2 11/05/2020 Comments1: 630-387-2001PBF _____ PM 004-WAT WATER 11/06/2020 Comments1: 630-387-2001BC _____ 005-FOU FOUNDATION 11/06/2020 Comments1: FOUNDATION DOES NOT SIT ON THE FOOTING I Comments2: N SEVERAL LOCATIONSPBF _____ 007-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 11/20/2020 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082PBF _____ PM 002-SEW SEWER INSPECTION 20201095 2089 BLUEBERRY HILL 313-1 11/05/2020 Comments1: 630-387-2001PBF _____ PM 003-WAT WATER 11/05/2020 Comments1: 630-387-2001BC _____ 004-FOU FOUNDATION 11/06/2020 Comments1: FOUNDATION DOES NOT SIT ON THE FOOTING I Comments2: N SEVERAL LOCATIONSPBF _____ 006-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 11/20/2020 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082BC _____ 013-INS INSULATION 20201140 2032 WHITEKIRK LN 48 11/03/2020 Comments1: WINDOWS & PATIO DOOR NOT SEALEDBC _____ 014-REI REINSPECTION 11/04/2020BF _____ AM 015-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 11/06/2020 Comments1: JEFF 630-330-6705 DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 14DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 14TIME: 11:58:32 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 11/01/2020 TO 11/30/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BF _____ 015-WKS PUBLIC & SERVICE WALKS 20201141 2020 WREN RD 32 11/03/2020 Comments1: 630-330-6705BC _____ 018-WK SERVICE WALK 20201150 358 WESTWIND DR 10 11/02/2020 Comments1: INSTALL REBAR PINS TO STOOP BEFORE POURI Comments2: NGBC _____ 013-INS INSULATION 20201154 2011 SQUIRE CIR 205 11/02/2020BC _____ 014-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 11/04/2020BC _____ 015-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 11/04/2020PR _____ 018-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20201156 2778 GAINS CT 189 11/23/2020PR _____ 019-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 11/23/2020PR _____ 020-FME FINAL MECHANICAL 11/23/2020PR _____ 021-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 11/23/2020EEI _____ 022-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 11/23/2020PR _____ 012-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20201157 2028 SQUIRE CIR 197 11/30/2020PR _____ 013-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 11/30/2020PR _____ 014-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 11/30/2020PR _____ 015-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 11/30/2020PR _____ 018-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20201165 812 BRISTOL AVE 7 11/23/2020PR _____ 019-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 11/23/2020PR _____ 020-FME FINAL MECHANICAL 11/23/2020PR _____ 021-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 11/23/2020EEI _____ 022-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 11/23/2020BF _____ 014-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20201166 801 ALEXANDRA LN 8 11/04/2020 Comments1: 630-977-1868 ADA RAMP ALREADY INSPECTEDBF _____ 015-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 11/05/2020 Comments1: 630-977-1868BF _____ 010-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20201167 2501 ANNA MARIA LN 712 11/04/2020 DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 15DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 15TIME: 11:58:32 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 11/01/2020 TO 11/30/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BF _____ 011-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 11/04/2020BF _____ 012-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 11/04/2020PBF _____ 013-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 11/04/2020BC _____ 014-INS INSULATION 11/06/2020 Comments1: SERV DOOR FROM GAR NOT SEALED, BOTTOM OF Comments2: MIDDLE WINDOW IN MASTER NOT SEALED, 4 O Comments3: THER WINDOWS ON 2 FLOOR NOT PROPERLY SEA Comments4: LED.BC _____ 015-REI REINSPECTION 11/09/2020 Comments1: INSULATIONBC _____ AM 016-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 11/20/2020EEI _____ AM 017-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 11/20/2020BC _____ 007-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 20201168 2511 ANNA MARIA LN 713 11/18/2020BC _____ 008-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 11/18/2020BC _____ 007-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 20201169 2521 ANNA MARIA LN 714 11/18/2020BC _____ 008-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 11/18/2020BC _____ 009-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 11/18/2020 Comments1: CRAWLPR _____ 010-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20201170 2531 ANNA MARIA LN 715 11/24/2020PR _____ 011-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 11/24/2020PR _____ 012-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 11/24/2020PR _____ 013-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 11/24/2020BC _____ 014-INS INSULATION 11/30/2020BC _____ 007-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 20201171 2541 ANNA MARIA LN 716 11/04/2020BC _____ 008-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 11/04/2020BC _____ 007-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 20201172 2551 ANNA MARIA LN 717 11/18/2020BC _____ 008-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 11/18/2020 DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 16DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 16TIME: 11:58:32 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 11/01/2020 TO 11/30/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 20201173 2561 ANNA MARIA LN 718 11/04/2020PR _____ 004-WAT WATER 11/16/2020PR _____ 005-ESS ENGINEERING - STORM 11/16/2020PR _____ 003-WAT WATER 20201174 2571 ANNA MARIA LN 719 11/16/2020PR _____ 004-ESS ENGINEERING - STORM 11/16/2020BF _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 20201175 2581 ANNA MARIA LN 720 11/13/2020 Comments1: 630-453-9281PR _____ 004-WAT WATER 11/16/2020PR _____ 005-ESS ENGINEERING - STORM 11/16/2020BF _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 20201176 2585 ANNA MARIA LN 721 11/12/2020 Comments1: UPLAND 630-453-9281BC _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 11/18/2020PR _____ 004-WAT WATER 11/19/2020PR _____ 005-ESS ENGINEERING - STORM 11/19/2020BF _____ 002-FOU FOUNDATION 20201177 2591 ANNA MARIA LN 722 11/13/2020 Comments1: 630-453-9281BC _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 11/18/2020PR _____ 004-WAT WATER 11/19/2020PR _____ 005-ESS ENGINEERING - STORM 11/19/2020BF _____ 014-WKS PUBLIC & SERVICE WALKS 20201202 576 MANCHESTER LN 385 11/05/2020 Comments1: 847-551-9066 AM PLEASEGH 11:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20201207 1161 BLACKBERRY SHORE LN 50 11/13/2020BF _____ 006-BKF BACKFILL 20201214 2372 WINTERTHUR GREEN 183 11/05/2020 Comments1: 630-364-0224GH 11:30 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20201236 112 CLAREMONT CT 35 11/20/2020BF _____ 008-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20201241 1932 WREN RD 4 11/03/2020 Comments1: 630-330-6705 DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 17DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 17TIME: 11:58:32 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 11/01/2020 TO 11/30/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BF _____ 009-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 11/16/2020 Comments1: 630-546-1085 STEVEBF _____ 010-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 11/16/2020 Comments1: 630-546-1085 STEVEBF _____ 011-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 11/19/2020 Comments1: 630-546-1085 STEVEPBF _____ 012-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 11/16/2020 Comments1: 630-546-1085 STEVEBF _____ AM 013-INS INSULATION 11/19/2020 Comments1: 630-546-1085BC _____ 014-REI REINSPECTION 11/23/2020 Comments1: INSULPR _____ 014-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20201242 1634 SHETLAND LN 45 11/02/2020PR _____ AM 015-SEW SEWER INSPECTION 11/12/2020PR _____ AM 016-WAT WATER 11/12/2020BF _____ 013-INS INSULATION 20201243 1610 SHETLAND LN 43 11/18/2020 Comments1: 630-546-1085BF _____ 012-STP STOOP 20201275 577 MANCHESTER LN 398 11/05/2020 Comments1: 847-551-9066 AM PLEASEPR _____ 013-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 11/17/2020PR _____ 014-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 11/17/2020PR _____ 015-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 11/17/2020PR _____ 016-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 11/17/2020BC _____ 017-INS INSULATION 11/19/2020BF _____ 010-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20201276 2061 SQUIRE CIR 212 11/04/2020 Comments1: JIM 331-223-6615BF _____ 011-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 11/04/2020 Comments1: JIM 331-223-6615BF _____ 012-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 11/04/2020 Comments1: JIM 331-223-6615 DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 18DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 18TIME: 11:58:32 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 11/01/2020 TO 11/30/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PBF _____ 013-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 11/04/2020 Comments1: JIM 331-223-6615BC _____ 014-INS INSULATION 11/06/2020 Comments1: JIM 331-223-6615BC _____ 015-WKS PUBLIC & SERVICE WALKS 11/10/2020BF _____ 010-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20201277 2251 FAIRFAX WAY 376 11/06/2020BF _____ 011-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 11/06/2020 Comments1: 847-456-8082BF _____ 012-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 11/06/2020 Comments1: 847-456-8082PBF _____ 013-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 11/06/2020 Comments1: 847-456-8082BC _____ 014-INS INSULATION 11/10/2020BC _____ 015-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 11/16/2020 Comments1: STEP IS 2" OUR OF LEVEL SIDE TO SIDE. RI Comments2: SER HEIGHT EXCEEDS 7-3/4".BC _____ 016-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 11/16/2020BC _____ 017-REI REINSPECTION 11/16/2020BC _____ 009-STP STOOP 20201278 2154 HARTFIELD AVE 423 11/16/2020 Comments1: X2PR _____ 010-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 11/30/2020PR _____ 011-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 11/30/2020PR _____ 012-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 11/30/2020PR _____ 013-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 11/30/2020BC _____ 011-STP STOOP 20201279 2227 FAIRFAX WAY 379 11/16/2020 Comments1: X2PR _____ 010-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20201280 2243 FAIRFAX WAY 377 11/12/2020 Comments1: 847-456-8082PR _____ 011-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 11/12/2020 Comments1: 847-456-8082 DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 19DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 19TIME: 11:58:32 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 11/01/2020 TO 11/30/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PR _____ 012-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 11/12/2020 Comments1: 847-456-8082PR _____ 013-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 11/12/2020 Comments1: 847-456-8082BF _____ 014-INS INSULATION 11/16/2020 Comments1: 847-456-8082BC _____ AM 015-WKS PUBLIC & SERVICE WALKS 11/20/2020 Comments1: COMEX 847-551-9066BC _____ 007-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 20201282 941 GILLESPIE LN 106 11/12/2020BF _____ 007-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20201283 943 GILLESPIE LN 105 11/13/2020BC _____ 007-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20201284 945 GILLESPIE LN 104 11/12/2020BC _____ 007-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20201285 947 GILLESPIE LN 103 11/12/2020BF _____ 007-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20201286 949 GILLESPIE LN 102 11/13/2020BF _____ 007-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20201287 951 GILLESPIE LN 101 11/13/2020BC _____ 007-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20201288 931 GILLESPIE LN 107 11/12/2020BF _____ 007-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20201289 929 GILLESPIE LN 108 11/13/2020BF _____ 007-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20201290 927 GILLESPIE LN 109 11/13/2020BF _____ 007-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20201291 925 GILLESPIE LN 110 11/13/2020BF _____ 007-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20201292 923 GILLESPIE LN 111 11/13/2020BC _____ 007-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 20201293 921 GILLESPIE LN 112 11/12/2020BC _____ 007-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 20201294 911 GILLESPIE LN 113 11/12/2020BC _____ 007-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 20201295 909 GILLESPIE LN 114 11/12/2020BC _____ 007-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 20201296 907 GILLESPIE LN 115 11/12/2020BC _____ 007-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 20201297 905 GILLESPIE LN 116 11/12/2020BC _____ 007-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 20201298 901 GILLESPIE LN 118 11/12/2020BC _____ 007-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 20201299 903 GILLESPIE LN 117 11/12/2020 DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 20DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 20TIME: 11:58:32 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 11/01/2020 TO 11/30/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20201300 950 GILLESPIE LN 148 11/03/2020BC _____ 002-FOU FOUNDATION 11/06/2020BC _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 11/10/2020PR _____ 004-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 11/19/2020BC _____ 005-BG BASEMENT AND GARAGE FLOOR 11/20/2020BC _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20201301 948 GILLESPIE LN 147 11/03/2020BC _____ 002-FOU FOUNDATION 11/06/2020BC _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 11/10/2020PR _____ 004-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 11/19/2020BC _____ 005-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 11/20/2020BC _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20201302 946 GILLESPIE LN 146 11/03/2020BC _____ 002-FOU FOUNDATION 11/06/2020BC _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 11/10/2020PR _____ 004-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 11/19/2020BC _____ 005-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 11/20/2020BC _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20201303 944 GILLESPIE LN 145 11/03/2020BC _____ 002-FOU FOUNDATION 11/06/2020BC _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 11/10/2020PR _____ 004-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 11/19/2020BC _____ 005-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 11/20/2020BC _____ 001-FOU FOUNDATION 20201304 942 GILLESPIE LN 144 11/06/2020BC _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 11/10/2020PR _____ 004-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 11/19/2020BC _____ 005-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 11/20/2020 DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 21DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 21TIME: 11:58:32 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 11/01/2020 TO 11/30/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20201305 940 GILLESPIE LN 143 11/03/2020BC _____ 002-FOU FOUNDATION 11/06/2020BC _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 11/10/2020PR _____ 004-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 11/19/2020BC _____ 005-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 11/20/2020BC _____ 002-FOU FOUNDATION 20201306 930 GILLESPIE LN 142 11/05/2020BC _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 11/10/2020PR _____ 004-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 11/19/2020BC _____ 005-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 11/20/2020BC _____ 002-FOU FOUNDATION 20201307 928 GILLESPIE LN 141 11/05/2020BC _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 11/10/2020PR _____ 004-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 11/19/2020BC _____ 005-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 11/20/2020BC _____ 002-FOU FOUNDATION 20201308 926 GILLESPIE LN 140 11/05/2020BC _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 11/10/2020PR _____ 004-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 11/19/2020BC _____ 005-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 11/20/2020BC _____ 002-FOU FOUNDATION 20201310 924 GILLESPIE LN 139 11/05/2020BC _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 11/10/2020PR _____ 004-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 11/19/2020BC _____ 005-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 11/20/2020BC _____ 002-FOU FOUNDATION 20201311 922 GILLESPIE LN 138 11/05/2020BC _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 11/10/2020PR _____ 004-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 11/19/2020 DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 22DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 22TIME: 11:58:32 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 11/01/2020 TO 11/30/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ 005-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 11/20/2020BC _____ 002-FOU FOUNDATION 20201312 920 GILLESPIE LN 137 11/05/2020BC _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 11/10/2020PR _____ 004-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 11/19/2020BC _____ 005-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 11/20/2020BC _____ 006-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 11/20/2020BC _____ 002-FOU FOUNDATION 20201313 910 GILLESPIE LN 136 11/03/2020BC _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 11/10/2020BC _____ 004-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 11/17/2020BC _____ 002-FOU FOUNDATION 20201314 908 GILLESPIE LN 135 11/03/2020BC _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 11/10/2020BC _____ 002-FOU FOUNDATION 20201315 906 GILLESPIE LN 134 11/03/2020BC _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 11/10/2020BC _____ 002-FOU FOUNDATION 20201316 904 GILLESPIE LN 133 11/03/2020BC _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 11/10/2020BC _____ 002-FOU FOUNDATION 20201317 902 GILLESPIE LN 132 11/03/2020BC _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 11/10/2020BC _____ 002-FOU FOUNDATION 20201318 900 GILLESPIE LN 131 11/03/2020BC _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 11/10/2020BF _____ 003-ABC ABOVE CEILING 20201322 111 W FOX ST 11/06/2020 Comments1: JEFF 630-200-1351BF _____ 007-FEM ROUGH FRM, ELE, MECH 20201327 2024 WHITEKIRK LN 50 11/19/2020 Comments1: 630-546-1085PBF _____ 008-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 11/19/2020 Comments1: 630-546-1085BC _____ 009-INS INSULATION 11/23/2020 DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 23DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 23TIME: 11:58:32 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 11/01/2020 TO 11/30/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ 010-REI REINSPECTION 11/25/2020BC _____ 011-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 11/25/2020BC _____ 012-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 11/25/2020GH _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20201328 1111 BLACKBERRY SHORE LN 45 11/02/2020GH 11:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20201340 701 N BRIDGE ST 11/16/2020BC _____ 002-BND POOL BONDING 20201345 302 TWINLEAF TR 74 11/04/2020BC _____ 002-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 20201351 308 WALNUT ST 11/02/2020BF _____ 007-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20201354 541 OMAHA DR 5 11/20/2020 Comments1: NORWOOD 630-904-2288PR _____ 009-SUM SUMP 20201357 620 MANCHESTER LN 383 11/09/2020BC _____ 008-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 20201358 544 MANCHESTER LN 388 11/04/2020BC _____ 009-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 11/04/2020PR _____ 010-SUM SUMP 11/09/2020BF _____ AM 005-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20201362 2010 WHITEKIRK LN 52 11/03/2020 Comments1: 630-330-6705PBF _____ 006-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 11/18/2020 Comments1: SERVICE 1ST 815-210-3338BC _____ 009-EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20201363 2028 WHITEKIRK LN 49 11/25/2020BC _____ 010-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 11/25/2020PR _____ 004-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20201364 1912 WREN RD 2 11/02/2020PR _____ 005-SEW SEWER INSPECTION 11/10/2020PR _____ 006-WAT WATER 11/10/2020PR _____ 007-SEW SEWER INSPECTION 20201365 1931 WREN RD 16 11/09/2020PR _____ 008-WAT WATER 11/09/2020BC _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20201372 1109 AUBURN DR 88 11/06/2020PBF _____ AM 003-WAT WATER 20201381 2001 SQUIRE CIR 203 11/03/2020 Comments1: AL'S FAMILY 815-405-3599 DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 24DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 24TIME: 11:58:32 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 11/01/2020 TO 11/30/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PBF _____ PM 004-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 11/05/2020 Comments1: 331-223-6615BF _____ PM 005-BKF BACKFILL 11/03/2020 Comments1: 815-839-8175BC _____ 006-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 11/05/2020BC _____ 007-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 11/05/2020BC _____ 008-STP STOOP 11/05/2020BC _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20201382 1492 WALSH DR 192 11/20/2020BC _____ 002-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 11/20/2020GH 13:30 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20201383 1610 JOHN ST 132 11/30/2020PBF _____ 006-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20201384 602 COACH RD 402 11/03/2020 Comments1: 845-456-8082BC _____ 007-BG BASEMENT AND GARAGE FLOOR 11/04/2020 Comments1: 847-551-9066 AM PLEASEPR _____ PM 008-SUM SUMP 11/16/2020BC _____ AM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20201389 712 KENTSHIRE DR 119 11/09/2020 Comments1: PATIOGH _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20201394 547 BURNING BUSH DR 118 11/16/2020GH 14:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20201406 1450 ASPEN LN 11/30/2020BC _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20201410 1109 AUBURN DR 88 11/06/2020PBF _____ 004-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20201413 562 COACH RD 406 11/05/2020 Comments1: 847-456-8082PBF _____ 006-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20201414 574 COACH RD 405 11/06/2020 Comments1: 847-456-8082BC _____ AM 008-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 20201421 808 ALEXANDRA LN 16 11/13/2020BF _____ 010-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 11/18/2020 Comments1: GARY 630-977-1868BF _____ 011-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 11/18/2020 Comments1: GARY 630-977-1868 DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 25DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 25TIME: 11:58:32 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 11/01/2020 TO 11/30/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BF _____ 012-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 11/18/2020 Comments1: GARY 630-977-1868PBF _____ 013-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 11/18/2020 Comments1: GARY 630-977-1868BC _____ 014-INS INSULATION 11/23/2020GH _____ 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20201424 367 WESTWIND DR 36 11/19/2020GH 10:30 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20201425 1404 VIOLET CT 372 11/19/2020GH 11:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20201430 2481 CATALPA TR 174 11/06/2020PR _____ PM 001-FTG FOOTING 20201439 4477 E MILLBROOK CIR 232 11/04/2020PBF _____ 002-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 11/12/2020 Comments1: JIM 331-223-6615BF _____ PM 003-BKF BACKFILL 11/06/2020 Comments1: 815-839-8175PR 10:30 004-WAT WATER 11/09/2020 Comments1: CANCELPR _____ AM 005-WAT WATER 11/10/2020BC _____ 006-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 11/16/2020BC _____ 007-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 11/16/2020BF _____ AM 008-STP STOOP 11/20/2020 Comments1: 815-839-8175PBF _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20201440 4476 E MILLBROOK CIR 237 11/04/2020 Comments1: 331-223-6615BC _____ 006-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 11/04/2020BC _____ 007-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 11/04/2020PR _____ 010-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 11/30/2020PR _____ 011-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 11/30/2020PR _____ 012-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 11/30/2020PR _____ 013-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 11/30/2020 DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 26DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 26TIME: 11:58:32 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 11/01/2020 TO 11/30/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PBF _____ AM 006-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20201442 1172 TAUS CIR 125 11/13/2020 Comments1: DAVE 630-878-5792BF _____ 007-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 11/18/2020 Comments1: 630-904-2288BC 14:00 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20201444 2877 MCMURTRIE WAY 228 11/05/2020 Comments1: SOLARBC _____ 002-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 11/05/2020 Comments1: WIRE MANAGEMENT UNDER ARRAYS, REPAIR FRA Comments2: YED GROUND WIRE IN SUBPANE, SECURE GROUN Comments3: D LUG IN SUBPANELBC _____ PM 003-REI REINSPECTION 11/09/2020 Comments1: SOLARGH 13:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20201449 1415 ASPEN LN 88 11/30/2020BC _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20201450 525 SUTTON ST 213 11/05/2020 Comments1: WINDOWSBC _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20201460 2025 SQUIRE CIR 206 11/05/2020BF _____ PM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 11/06/2020 Comments1: 815-839-8175PR _____ AM 004-WAT WATER 11/12/2020 Comments1: AL'S FAMILY 815-405-3599BC _____ AM 005-BKF BACKFILL 11/13/2020 Comments1: MIDW 815-839-8175PBF _____ 006-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 11/18/2020 Comments1: JIM 331-223-6615BF _____ 007-BGS BASEMENT GARAGE STOOPS 11/19/2020 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175GH 08:30 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20201462 1489 CORNERSTONE DR 38 11/20/2020BC _____ AM 007-FOU FOUNDATION 20201468 801 FREEMONT ST 46 11/03/2020BF _____ 008-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 11/18/2020 Comments1: 630-977-1868BF _____ 009-STP STOOP 11/18/2020 Comments1: 630-977-1868 DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 27DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 27TIME: 11:58:32 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 11/01/2020 TO 11/30/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH 14:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20201474 807 MORGAN ST 11/18/2020BC _____ 003-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20201479 1603 CYPRESS LN 30 11/06/2020 Comments1: 1. FINISH ALL FRAMING INCLUDING ROOF STR Comments2: UCTURE. 2. CUT OUT AND FRAME DOORWAY TO Comments3: EXISTING GARAGE. 2 INSTLL A MININ OF ONE Comments4: ELEC OUTLET. 4. ADD 2 ANCHOR BOLTS ON WBC _____ 004-REI REINSPECTION 11/24/2020 Comments1: ROUGH FRAMING & ELECTRICBC _____ AM 007-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 20201481 820 ALEXANDRA LN 30 11/13/2020BC _____ AM 008-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 11/13/2020BC _____ AM 009-STP STOOP 11/13/2020BF _____ 010-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 11/25/2020 Comments1: GARY 630-977-1868BF _____ 011-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 11/25/2020BF _____ 012-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 11/25/2020PBF _____ 013-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 11/25/2020 Comments1: GARY 630-977-1868BC _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 20201491 569 MANCHESTER LN 397 11/16/2020PR _____ 004-SEW SEWER INSPECTION 11/24/2020PR _____ 005-WAT WATER 11/24/2020PBF _____ PM 003-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 20201492 556 MANCHESTER LN 387 11/06/2020 Comments1: 630-387-2001BF _____ AM 004-BKF BACKFILL 11/06/2020 Comments1: COMEX 847-551-9066PR _____ PM 005-SUM SUMP 11/16/2020PBF _____ 006-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 11/18/2020 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082BC _____ AM 007-BG BASEMENT AND GARAGE FLOOR 11/20/2020 Comments1: COMEX 847-551-9066BC _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 20201503 2688 PATRIOT CT 220 11/02/2020 DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 28DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 28TIME: 11:58:32 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 11/01/2020 TO 11/30/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PBF _____ 003-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 11/12/2020 Comments1: 331-223-6615PBF 11:30 AM 004-WAT WATER 11/06/2020 Comments1: 630-492-7635BC _____ PM 005-BKF BACKFILL 11/05/2020BC _____ PM 006-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 11/13/2020BC _____ PM 007-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 11/13/2020BC _____ PM 008-STP STOOP 11/13/2020BC _____ AM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20201508 2684 PATRIOT CT 221 11/12/2020PBF _____ PM 004-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 20201526 2263 FAIRFAX WAY 375 11/06/2020 Comments1: 630-387-2001PR _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 11/20/2020 Comments1: 847-456-8082BC _____ AM 006-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 11/24/2020 Comments1: COMEXBC _____ AM 007-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 11/24/2020 Comments1: COMEXPR _____ 007-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20201527 2832 SHERIDAN CT 197 11/24/2020PR _____ 008-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 11/24/2020PR _____ 009-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 11/24/2020PR _____ 010-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 11/24/2020PR _____ 011-INS INSULATION 11/30/2020BC _____ 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20201536 284 WINDETT RIDGE RD 19 11/02/2020 Comments1: DRIVE & WALK SALINAS 630-675-8810BC _____ 002-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 11/02/2020BC _____ 003-STP STOOP 11/02/2020PBF _____ 001-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 20201540 807 FREEMONT ST 43 11/04/2020 Comments1: JOHN 815-970-2591 DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 29DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 29TIME: 11:58:32 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 11/01/2020 TO 11/30/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ AM 002-FTG FOOTING 11/12/2020BC _____ AM 003-FOU FOUNDATION 11/18/2020BC _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20201543 2021 WHITEKIRK LN 74 11/16/2020BF _____ 002-FOU FOUNDATION 11/20/2020 Comments1: UPLAND 630-453-9281BC _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 11/30/2020BF _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20201544 1712 CALLANDER TR 55 11/06/2020 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8174BC _____ 002-FOU FOUNDATION 11/12/2020BC _____ PM 003-BKF BACKFILL 11/17/2020PBF _____ 004-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 11/20/2020 Comments1: 630-200-7660BC _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20201545 2051 WHITEKIRK LN 77 11/09/2020BC _____ PM 003-BKF BACKFILL 11/17/2020PBF _____ 004-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 11/20/2020 Comments1: NOT READYPR _____ 004-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20201546 2041 WREN RD 27 11/02/2020BF _____ PM 005-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 11/03/2020 Comments1: 815-839-8175PR _____ AM 006-SEW SEWER INSPECTION 11/12/2020PR _____ AM 007-WAT WATER 11/12/2020BC _____ 002-FOU FOUNDATION 20201547 1702 CALLANDER TR 54 11/04/2020BC _____ PM 003-BKF BACKFILL 11/09/2020PBF _____ 004-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 11/13/2020 Comments1: STEVE 630-546-1085PBF _____ 005-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 11/18/2020 Comments1: SERVICE 1ST 815-210-3338GH 12:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20201550 408 W RIDGE ST 11/02/2020 Comments1: PARTIAL DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 30DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 30TIME: 11:58:32 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 11/01/2020 TO 11/30/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH 12:00 002-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 11/03/2020BC _____ AM 004-REI REINSPECTION 20201562 758 KENTSHIRE DR 114 11/16/2020 Comments1: CALL 903-452-5434 WHEN ON YOUR WAYBC _____ 001-TRN TRENCH - (GAS, ELECTRIC, 20201576 961 OMAHA DR 26 11/17/2020BC _____ 002-BND POOL BONDING 11/17/2020BC _____ PM 001-FTG FOOTING 20201581 2089 SQUIRE CIR 217 11/30/2020BF _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20201582 2786 GAINS CT 187 11/20/2020 Comments1: 815-839-8175BF _____ PM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 11/24/2020 Comments1: CANCELBC _____ 003-FOU FOUNDATION 11/25/2020GH 11:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20201587 507 BUCKTHORN CT 76 11/30/2020BC _____ AM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20201594 278 WALSH DR 89 11/24/2020 Comments1: CALL IVAN WHEN ON YOUR WAY 903-452-5434PR _____ AM 001-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20201603 308 CENTER PKWY 11/02/2020PR _____ AM 002-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 11/02/2020BC _____ AM 003-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 11/18/2020 Comments1: GARAGE SOFFET VENT COVERS NOT INSTALLED Comments2: GARAGE DOORS NOT INSTLLED WINDOWS MUST B Comments3: E SEALED WITH FOAMGH 13:30 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20201604 2471 ANNA MARIA LN 709 11/18/2020BC _____ PM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20201607 3436 RYAN DR 69 11/20/2020BC _____ 002-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 11/20/2020BC 13:00 001-OCC OCCUPANCY INSPECTION 20201617 507 KENDALL DR CSD 11/25/2020BC _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20201620 676 HAYDEN DR 68 11/24/2020GH 11:30 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20201626 732 KENTSHIRE DR 117 11/03/2020GH 11:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20201630 1121 WHEATLAND CT. 127 11/13/2020GH _____ 001-PHO PHOTOS I&W 20201631 492 BIRCHWOOD DR 11/25/2020 DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 31DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 31TIME: 11:58:32 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 11/01/2020 TO 11/30/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ 002-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20201635 606 GREENFIELD TURN 83 11/02/2020 Comments1: PARTIAL BACKGH 11:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20201638 804 TERI LN 11/18/2020 Comments1: ONLY 1 ROW OF I&W INSTALLED - NOT ENOUGHGH 12:30 002-REI REINSPECTION 11/18/2020 Comments1: ADDED ADDT'L 1/2 ROWGH 11:30 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20201639 404 JOHNSON ST 11/13/2020BC _____ AM 004-FOU FOUNDATION 20201645 348 WESTWIND DR 8 11/02/2020BC _____ 005-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 11/02/2020BF _____ 006-BKF BACKFILL 11/04/2020 Comments1: RSS 630-546-0735BC _____ AM 003-REI REINSPECTION 20201646 524 BUCKTHORN CT 83 11/18/2020BC _____ PM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20201647 635 HAYDEN DR 73 11/03/2020BC _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20201665 2423 WYTHE PL 2 11/12/2020 Comments1: 847-551-9066BC _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 11/13/2020 Comments1: COMEX 847-551-9066BC _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 11/16/2020 Comments1: NOT READY, STILL STRIPPING THE FORMSBC _____ 004-REI REINSPECTION 11/19/2020PR _____ 005-WAT WATER 11/23/2020 Comments1: 630-387-2001PR _____ 006-SEW SEWER INSPECTION 11/23/2020GH _____ 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20201675 483 PARKSIDE LN 108 11/02/2020BF 10:30 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20201681 510 WINDETT RIDGE RD 173 11/03/2020 Comments1: IVAN 903-452-5434BF 10:30 002-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 11/03/2020 Comments1: IVAN 903-452-5434BF 12:00 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20201682 2422 FITZHUGH TURN 146 11/03/2020 Comments1: IVAN 903-452-5434 DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 32DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 32TIME: 11:58:32 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 11/01/2020 TO 11/30/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BF 12:00 002-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 11/03/2020 Comments1: IVAN 903-452-5434BC _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20201689 105 E KENDALL DR 11/05/2020 Comments1: PAVERSGH 10:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20201690 602 SUTTON ST 165 11/02/2020GH 11:30 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20201691 1564 WALSH DR 0 11/06/2020GH 11:30 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20201692 1568 WALSH DR 19 11/06/2020BC _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20201695 498 SUNFLOWER CT 5 11/09/2020BC _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20201697 2411 WYTHE PL 1 11/10/2020 Comments1: 847-551-9066 COMEXBC _____ PM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 11/12/2020BC _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 11/19/2020PR _____ 004-SEW SEWER INSPECTION 11/23/2020 Comments1: 630-387-2001PR _____ 005-WAT WATER 11/23/2020GH 11:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20201700 632 WHITE OAK WAY 58 11/04/2020 Comments1: 630-688-5671GH 11:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20201701 2667 EMERALD LN 385 11/04/2020BC _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20201702 2935 ELLSWORTH DR 411 11/19/2020 Comments1: WINDOWSGH 12:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20201703 811 E MAIN ST 39 11/06/2020PBF _____ 001-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 20201705 814 ALEXANDRA LN 27 11/13/2020 Comments1: JOHN 815-970-2591BC _____ AM 002-FTG FOOTING 11/18/2020BC _____ AM 003-FOU FOUNDATION 11/25/2020BC _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20201706 1162 CLEARWATER DR 245 11/23/2020BC _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 11/25/2020PBF 12:00 001-SEW SEWER INSPECTION 20201707 1282 DEERPATH DR 228 11/20/2020 Comments1: REQUESTED TIME 12-1PM TIM GREYER 630-878 Comments2: -5291 DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 33DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 33TIME: 11:58:32 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 11/01/2020 TO 11/30/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PBF 12:00 002-WAT WATER 11/20/2020 Comments1: REQUESTED TIME 12-1PM TIM GREYER 630-878 Comments2: -5291BC _____ AM 003-FTG FOOTING 11/24/2020BC _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20201708 2045 WHITEKIRK LN 76 11/24/2020BC _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20201709 2033 WHITEKIRK LN 75 11/19/2020BC _____ 002-FOU FOUNDATION 11/24/2020GH 12:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20201712 831 GREENFIELD TURN 50 11/05/2020 Comments1: PARTIALGH 12:00 002-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 11/06/2020 Comments1: PARTIALBC _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20201713 2810 SHERIDAN CT 202 11/12/2020 Comments1: MIDW 815-839-8175BC _____ PM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 11/17/2020PBF 11:00 003-WAT WATER 11/20/2020BF _____ 004-BKF BACKFILL 11/20/2020 Comments1: 815-839-8175GH 11:15 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20201714 2633 LILAC WAY 314 11/30/2020GH _____ 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20201716 1833 WALSH DR 60 11/06/2020 Comments1: NO ONE WORKINGGH _____ 001-PHO PHOTOS I&W 20201719 1904 BANBURY AVE 40 11/09/2020BC _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20201720 805 BRISTOL AVE 11/06/2020GH 11:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20201721 2662 FAIRFAX WAY 264 11/20/2020GH 09:15 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20201722 2164 KINGSMILL DR 117 11/13/2020GH _____ AM 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20201726 4433 PLEASANT CT 1202 11/06/2020GH 10:30 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20201728 491 WINTERBERRY DR 115 11/06/2020GH 12:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20201730 326 WINDHAM CIR 72 11/03/2020GH 09:30 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20201732 357 PENSACOLA ST 1146 11/09/2020 DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 34DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 34TIME: 11:58:32 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 11/01/2020 TO 11/30/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BF _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20201734 1198 HAWK HOLLOW DR 2772 11/23/2020 Comments1: UPLAND JEFF 630-330-6705BF _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20201735 1196 HAWK HOLLOW DR 2772 11/23/2020 Comments1: UPLAND JEFF 630-330-6705GH _____ 001-PHO PHOTOS I&W 20201747 2531 EMERALD LN 124 11/07/2020BF _____ AM 001-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20201748 1077 CANARY AVE 251 11/13/2020 Comments1: GARAGE RENOVATION DUSTIN 630-723-1546BF _____ AM 002-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 11/13/2020 Comments1: GARAGE RENOVATION DUSTIN 630-723-1546GH _____ 001-PHO PHOTOS I&W 20201752 1056 STILLWATER CT 97 11/11/2020GH 11:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20201753 278 WALSH CIR 89 11/05/2020GH 10:30 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20201754 275 WALSH CIR 27 11/06/2020GH 13:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20201756 204 OAKWOOD ST 23 11/09/2020 Comments1: PARTIAL - BACK AND LEFT SIDEGH 10:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20201764 253 WALSH CIR 33 11/13/2020 Comments1: NO ONE WORKING - CALLED BUT NO CALL BACKGH 10:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20201769 207 WALSH CIR 44 11/17/2020GH 11:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20201771 604 STATE ST 11/12/2020GH 11:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20201772 2401 FAIRFAX WAY 240 11/12/2020GH 11:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20201778 1636 WALSH DR 23 11/13/2020 Comments1: FRONT ONLYGH 11:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20201779 1638 WALSH DR 23 11/13/2020 Comments1: FRONT ONLYGH 10:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20201788 107 E CENTER ST 11/17/2020BC _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20201791 2445 WYTHE PL 6 11/30/2020BC _____ 002-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 11/30/2020GH 11:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20201795 627 WHITE OAK WAY 52 11/19/2020 Comments1: NO ONE WORKINGGH 11:00 002-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 11/20/2020 Comments1: ONLY 1 ROW OF I&W INSTALLED DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 35DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 35TIME: 11:58:32 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 11/01/2020 TO 11/30/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH 12:00 003-REI REINSPECTION 11/20/2020 Comments1: FRONT ONLY - 2 ROWS NOW INSTALLEDGH _____ 004-PHO PHOTOS I&W 11/21/2020GH 13:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20201797 311 DRAYTON CT 11/30/2020GH _____ AM 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20201804 223 HILLCREST AVE A 11/30/2020 DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 36DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 36TIME: 11:58:32 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 11/01/2020 TO 11/30/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PERMIT TYPE SUMMARY: ADD ADDITION 2 AGP ABOVE-GROUND POOL 1 CCO COMMERCIAL OCCUPANCY PERMIT 1 COM COMMERCIAL BUILDING 5 CRM COMMERCIAL REMODEL 1 DCK DECK 1 FNC FENCE 20 GAR GARAGE 4 IGP IN-GROUND POOL 5 MIS MISCELLANEOUS 2 MSC MISCELLANEOUS 5 PRG PERGOLA 1 PTO PATIO / PAVERS 4 REM REMODEL 1 ROF ROOFING 40 RS ROOFING & SIDING 1 SFA SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED 239 SFD SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED 363 SOL SOLAR PANELS 18 SPA SAUNA / HOT TUB 1 WIN WINDOW REPLACEMENT 3INSPECTION SUMMARY: ABC ABOVE CEILING 2 ADA ADA ACCESSIBLE WALK WAY 1 BG BASEMENT AND GARAGE FLOOR 3 BGS BASEMENT GARAGE STOOPS 1 BKF BACKFILL 45 BND POOL BONDING 2 BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 26 EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPECTION 23 EPW ENGINEERING- PUBLIC WALK 20 ESS ENGINEERING - STORM 5 ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WATER 6 FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 28 FEM ROUGH FRM, ELE, MECH 1 FIN FINAL INSPECTION 53 FME FINAL MECHANICAL 23 FOU FOUNDATION 44 FTG FOOTING 27 GAR GARAGE FLOOR 21 INS INSULATION 25 OCC OCCUPANCY INSPECTION 1 PHD POST HOLE - DECK 3 PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 19 PHO PHOTOS I&W 5 PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READY 32 PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 24 DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 37DATE: 11/30/2020 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 37TIME: 11:58:32 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 11/01/2020 TO 11/30/2020INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 44 PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 14 PWK PRIVATE WALKS 26 REI REINSPECTION 17 REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 26 RFR ROUGH FRAMING 26 RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 23 ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & WATER 33 RST FIRE OR DRAFT STOPPING 2 SEW SEWER INSPECTION 14 STP STOOP 11 SUM SUMP 4 TRN TRENCH - (GAS, ELECTRIC, ETC) 1 WAT WATER 27 WK SERVICE WALK 4 WKS PUBLIC & SERVICE WALKS 6INSPECTOR SUMMARY: BC BOB CREADEUR 264 BF B&F INSPECTOR CODE SERVICE 105 EEI ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES 27 GH GINA HASTINGS 61 PBF BF PLUMBING INSPECTOR 66 PR PETER RATOS 195STATUS SUMMARY: A GH 3 C BC 22 C BF 14 C EEI 20 C GH 2 C PBF 8 C PR 74 I BC 240 I BF 91 I EEI 5 I GH 56 I PBF 58 I PR 113 T BC 2 T EEI 2 T PR 8REPORT SUMMARY: 718 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 Community Development Purchasing Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number New Business #3 Tracking Number EDC 2021-03 Property Maintenance Report for November 2020 Economic Development Committee – January 5, 2021 Informational None Pete Ratos Community Development Name Department Page | 1 Property Maintenance Report November 2020 Adjudication: There were 6 Property Maintenance cases heard in November. 11/09/2020 N 4249 706 Heustis St Weeds Dismissed N 4250 102 Worsley St Weeds Dismissed 11/16/2020 N 4251 407 Adams St Obstructing Sidewalk Dismissed 11/23/2020 N 4252 206 Wolf St Weeds Liable $750 11/30/2020 N4254 471 E Kennedy Rd Building Code Permits Continued N4253 301 Jackson St Off-Street Parking Dismissed Memorandum To: Economic Development Committee From: Pete Ratos, Code Official CC: Bart Olson, Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Lisa Pickering Date: December 1, 2020 Subject: November Property Maintenance Case # Case Date TYPE OF VIOLATIONSTATUS VIOLATION LETTER SENTFOLLOW UP STATUSCITATION ISSUEDDATE OF HEARING20200497 11/30/2020 Roof still has tarp from storm damageTO BE INSPECTED20200496 11/25/2020 Junk, Trash & RefuseIN VIOLATION20200495 11/20/2020 Cleared Natural Area Around Pond behind 1543 Montrose CtPENDING 11/24/202020200494 11/23/2020 Weeds IN VIOLATION 11/23/202020200493 11/23/2020 Working without a PermitCLOSED 11/23/2020 COMPLIANT20200492 11/23/2020 Working without a PermitPENDING20200491 11/20/2020 Cleared Natural Area Around PondPENDING 11/24/202020200490 11/19/2020 Erosion Control PillowsCOMPLIANT20200489 11/18/2020 Dead Tree IN VIOLATION 11/19/202020200488 11/17/2020 Working without a PermitIN VIOLATION20200487 11/16/2020 Subdivision Sign in Need of RepairCLOSED20200486 11/10/2020 Junk, Trash & RefuseCLOSED COMPLIANT20200485 11/9/2020 Junk, Trash & RefuseCLOSED 11/10/2020 COMPLIANT20200484 11/9/2020 RV ParkingCLOSED COMPLIANT20200483 11/4/2020 Inoperable truck, logs in ROW & weedsIN VIOLATION20200482 11/4/2020 Junk, Trash & RefuseCLOSED 11/4/2020 COMPLIANTCase Report11/01/2020 - 11/30/2020ADDRESS OF COMPLAINT613 Greenfield Turn206 River StParcel 05-10-202-0011203 Deer St311 Walter St1007 N Carly Cir1543 Montrose Ct1023 S Carly CirParcel # 02-32-403-001 (behind 1604 Shetland LnGreenbriar & Walsh DrBristol Bay Vacant Lots1023 S Carly Cir301 Sanders Ct206 Heustis St125 W Hydraulic AvePage: 1 of 2 20200481 11/3/2020 Working without a PermitCLOSED 11/3/2020 COMPLIANT20200480 11/3/2020 Working without a PermitCLOSED COMPLIANT20200479 11/3/2020 Height of Porch CLOSED COMPLIANT12/1/2020207 W Hydraulic Ave3178 Boombah Blvd207 W Hydraulic Total Records: 19Page: 2 of 2 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 Community Development Purchasing Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number New Business #4 Tracking Number EDC 2021-04 Economic Development Report for December 2020 Economic Development Committee – January 5, 2021 Informational None 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 January 2021 EDC Meeting of the United City of Yorkville December 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 actually had a total of nine businesses that received BIG Grant Round 1, with a total of $150,000 in awards. Yorkville had five businesses receive Childcare Restoration Grants which totaled $1,052,396. In September, Illinois rolled out the State of IL BIG Grant Round 2. This program awarded up to $150,000 per business, and is open to many more of our businesses. The program has now been closed, and all awards have been made. Yorkville had 26 grant award winners for BIG 2 Grant Program for a total of $1,540,000. I have compiled a list so that we have a good understanding of how our businesses did, on these programs. - 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. The State of Illinois has completed the review of the grants that we submitted and Yorkville has a total of 16 winners for a total dollar amount of $334,250. - There have been 56 Award winners of State of Illinois grants in Yorkville for a total of $3,076,646. This dollar amount does NOT include the $400,000 City of Yorkville program. - Worked very closely with Erin Willrett on the City of Yorkville’s grant program. I also worked closely with the business owners on the completion of their applications. This program made a significant difference i n these lives of these businesses, and the individual business owners are very grateful to the City of Yorkville for this opportunity. There were 42 award winners for a total of $400,000. Congratulations to all business, who received grants during this very difficult time. - With the new Federal Stimulus bill, there will be another round of PPP Grants. Information is being released now, but is also changing. I will continue to work with our business community in an effort to provide information, that we receive on both federal and state programs, as it becomes available. - Continue to work with the Yorkville Chamber to drive information about our local business and the changing regulations during the Covid19 pandemic. - 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: Signature Fitness…Owner remains committed to Yorkville location. Opening will take place early in the new year. - Kendall Marketplace: Shopping Center owner has decided to big a multi-tenant building on a front out lot (near Target). There has been a great deal of interest in such a building. Construction will begin in 2021. - Yorkville resident and entrepreneur Yonas Hagos is joining forces with other Yorkville residents Brandon Partridge and Joe Porretta to become the new owners of BlackStone Bar & Grill. The partners are planning to remodel the establishment, and create an outdoor patio area. More information will follow, as it becomes available. Business name will change to “Silver Fox”. - Continue to work City on planning for new City Hall and Municipal Facility at Prairie Pointe. Respectfully submitted, 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/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: See attached memo. Informational Item. Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Community Development Purchasing Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number New Business #5 Tracking Number EDC 2021-05 Annual Foreclosure Tracking Economic Development Committee – January 5, 2021 N/A N/A N/A Annual update on newly filed foreclosures from calendar year 2020 Jason Engberg Community Development Name Department 1 Below is the foreclosure comparison from calendar year 2020. These results are compared to the same months for 2019 and all data is provided by http://www.public-record.com. Based on these results, the total number of foreclosures decreased from 51 in CY 2019 to 19 in CY 2020. The following graphs illustrate the trend in foreclosures month by month for 2019 and 2020. It also breaks down the amount of foreclosures by ward, subdivision and property type (residential, commercial, etc.). COVID-19 IMPACT The data for this past year is subject to the impact COVID-19 has had at the national, regional, and local levels. Due to the increase in unemployment and the recession caused by the pandemic, the Federal Government passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) on March 25, 2020. The CARES act had significant effect over the total foreclosure numbers for the calendar year by providing financial assistance to homeowners. The most influential in terms of foreclosure rates was the establishment of the forbearance period. Under the CARES Act, any borrower of a federally backed mortgage can request forbearance from having to make mortgage payments for a period of up to one year. The borrower may request forbearance from payment every three months. The relief provided by the bill has drastically reduced the number of foreclosures in Yorkville which is apparent from the data and charts illustrated in this memorandum. MONTHLY BREAKDOWN The number of total foreclosures from 2019 to 2020 decreased by approximately 63%. In total, there were 51 newly filed foreclosures in 2019 and 19 in 2020, a decrease by thirty-two (32) less filings. While this represents a substantial decline in foreclosure filings, the data before the CARES Act was fairly consistent with 2019 rates. 2019 VS. 2020 MONTHLY FORECLOSURES Memorandum To: Economic Development Committee From: Jason Engberg, Senior Planner CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director Date: December 16, 2020 Subject: Annual Foreclosure Update – Calendar Year 2020 2 WARD BREAKDOWN As indicated in the graph below, all Wards saw a decrease in total foreclosures in 2020. Ward 3 had the most foreclosures filed with a total of 11 and Ward 4 saw the largest decrease from 17 filings in 2019 to 2 filings in 2020. If projecting out for an entire normal year, it would be likely that Ward 3 would surpass its 2019 total. This ward saw only 3 less foreclosures in the span of 3 months versus the entire year of 2019. SUBDIVISION BREAKDOWN There were numerous subdivisions throughout the City that recorded newly filed foreclosures. Staff took 9 subdivisions for a comparison and grouped all other subdivisions into the “Other” category. As indicated in the graph below, Bristol Bay had the highest amount of newly filed foreclosures in 2020 which surpassed the 2019 filings. Kylyn’s Ridge saw an increase of 1 and Raintree Village equaled its 2019 total. Additionally, Autumn Creek saw no foreclosures in 2020 and many of the other smaller subdivisions saw a sizeable decrease as well. 2019 VS. 2020 SUBDIVISION BREAKDOWN 2019 VS. 2020 WARD BREAKDOWN 3 PROPERTY TYPE BREAKDOWN As indicated in the graph below, Single-Family Residential properties remains the most foreclosured upon unit type in Yorkville. There was a decrease in total number of filings from 39 in calendar year 2019 to 13 in 2020. Multi-Family units stayed equal while townhomes saw a slight decrease in the number of filings. Commercial properties saw a decline in the number of newly filed foreclosures, while there were no Industrial foreclosures in 2019 or 2020. SUMMARY Month Breakdown: The monthly breakdown of foreclosures indicates a fluctuating pattern from month to month in years from 2015 and 2020. However, following the trend lines for each year, typically foreclosure filings are high at the beginning of the year and tend to decline over the year. Foreclosures in 2020 followed this trend but was expected due to the CARES Act. The decrease towards the end of the year has happened 4 out of the past 6 years. The other 2 years, 2017 and 2019, saw slight increases over the year but were generally consistent throughout the year. The graphs at the top of the following page illustrate the monthly results since 2015. Ward Breakdown: Ward 3 had the highest amount of newly filed foreclosures of all the wards in Yorkville with 11 filings in 2020 which made up approximately 58% of all foreclosures. Bristol Bay is one of the larger subdivisions in Ward 3 in terms of population density, which would indicate the reason for the higher amount of foreclosures. Ward 1 had the second most newly filed foreclosures in 2020, which accounted for about 26% of all foreclosures. Raintree Village, which is also one of the larger residential developments in the City is in Ward 1 produced the most foreclosures within this ward. Finally, Wards 4 and 1 had the fewest number of filings with 3 foreclosures combined which accounts for just 16% of filings. 2019 VS. 2020 PROPERTY TYPE BREAKDOWN 4 Subdivision Breakdown: Bristol Bay had the highest amount of newly filed foreclosures in calendar year 2020 which is understandable due to the higher density of population within the single-family, townhome, and condominium development. Unfortunately, the amount of foreclosures surpassed the 2019 total within only 3 months before the CARES Act was passed. Also, the 7 filings in Bristol Bay is almost equal to the 2018 filings (8). However, Autumn Creek saw no foreclosures in 2020 which is down from its typical 6-8 over the past few years. Both Grande Reserve and Fox Hill saw a decrease in their filings numbers with both only having 1 foreclosure in 2020 compared to 5 each in 2019. This is positive but is likely due to COVID-19 as projecting these numbers out for a whole year would put them near the previous year’s filings. Finally, all of the dwellings within the other areas of Yorkville, such as the original Bristol and Yorkville areas, have seen a significant decease in filings (25 in 2019 to 2 in 2020). Property Type Breakdown: The largest amount of newly filed foreclosures in calendar year 2020 continues to be single-family residences. Since a majority of the housing stock in Yorkville is single family-detached, this statistic is anticipated. 2015-2020 COMPARISONS 5 Future Trends: According to RealtyTrac (http://www.realtytrac.com/statsandtrends/foreclosuretrends/il), Illinois has a newly filed foreclosure rate of 1 in every 7,268 homes (down from 1 in every 1,336 in 2019). Kendall County has a nearly identical rate as the state with a newly filed foreclosure rate of 1 in every 7,225 homes. Yorkville faired even better than both the state and county with a filed foreclosure rate of 1 in every 8,721 homes, as of November 2020. These rates are extremely low compared to the 2019 data. For example, Kendall County had a rate of 1 in every 840 homes and Yorkville had a rate of 1 in every 872 homes in 2019. The provisions in the CARES Act has created a drop-off in foreclosure rates in the City, County, and State for a majority of 2020. As with most issues in 2020, making a prediction or having an expectation for the future is uncertain. Whenever the pandemic is over and/or the CARES Act provisions are no longer valid, one would expect to see foreclosure rates to rise back to 2015-2019 levels. There is a flaw in this assumption as the economy has now entered a recession and the duration of the downturn is completely unknown. Additionally, the CARES Act provides temporary relief with the forbearance period of 1 year but does not regulate how the mortgage companies can collect on their loans after the period has expired. If no regulations are passed, then the mortgage companies could ask lenders for a lump some payment or increase payment amounts directly after the forbearance period ends. This would probably result in a larger than usual amount of foreclosure filings. Since it is known that the forbearance period lasts until March 2021, we can assume that the beginning of 2021 will be similar to the end of 2020. 2009-2020 ANNUAL COMPARISON 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: See attached memorandum. Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Community Development Purchasing Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number New Business #6 Tracking Number EDC 2021-06 PZC 2020-13 9261 Kennedy Road Variance (1.5 mile review) Economic Development Committee – January 5, 2021 Mile and one-half review of a variance request in Kendall County for a driveway location Jason Engberg, AICP Community Development Name Department SUMMARY: Staff has reviewed a request from Kendall County Planning and Zoning Department along with the subsequent documents attached. This property is located within one and a half miles of the planning boundary for Yorkville, allowing the City the opportunity to review and provide comments to Kendall County. The petitioners, Kris and Hillary Wieschhaus, are requesting a variance to allow installation of a driveway at zero feet (0’) from the eastern property line instead of the required five-foot (5’) setback. The approximately 6.4-acre property is located at 9261 Kennedy Road which is about a half mile east of Route 47 on the north side of Kennedy Road. The property is adjacent to the rear of 9227 Kennedy Road which fronts the right-of-way. Memorandum To: Economic Development Committee From: Jason Engberg, Senior Planner CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director Date: November 25, 2020 Subject: PZC 2020-13 –County Case 20-30 9261 Kennedy Road (Variance) 1.5 Mile Review PROPOSED PROJECT: According to the site plan, as shown in the illustration to the right, the petitioner plans to install an eighteen foot (18’) wide driveway along the eastern boundary of the property. An access point and private drive already exist along Kennedy Road and this driveway would provide better access to the property. The petitioner is requesting relief from the Kendall County Zoning Ordinance to allow installation of a driveway at zero feet (0’) from the eastern property line instead of the required five-foot (5’) setback. The petitioner is making this request to avoid the 100-year floodplain on the property (see petition attached). The only location outside of the floodplain is along the eastern boundary of the parcel. In the future, the owner plans on constructing a single-family detached home on the property. This house would be located north of the floodplain and near the end of the proposed driveway. YORKVILLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Yorkville’s 2016 Comprehensive Plan designation for this property is Estate/Conservation Residential. This future land use is intended to provide flexibility for residential design in areas of Yorkville that can accommodate low-density detached single- family housing but also include sensitive environmental and scenic features that should be retained and enhanced. The most typical form of development within this land use will be detached single family homes on large lots. The proposed variance for a driveway will not affect the future land use designated in the Comprehensive Plan. As stated in the petitioner’s application, they plan on constructing a single-family home on this parcel in the future which aligns with Yorkville’s future land use plan. Additionally, the property is not likely to be annexed into the City any time soon and if the property were annexed into the City, it would most likely be part of a larger redevelopment project which would have this driveway removed. Staff Recommendation & Comments Staff has reviewed the request for variance authorization and does not have an objection to the petitioner’s request. Staff is seeking input from the Economic Development Committee for this request. This review will also be brought to the Planning and Zoning Commission at the January 13, 2021 meeting. This item was delivered to the City on November 19, 2020. Attachments 1. Application with Attachments ZBA Memo – Prepared by Matt Asselmeier – November 19, 2020 Page 1 of 3 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING & ZONING 111 West Fox Street • Room 203 Yorkville, IL • 60560 (630) 553-4141 Fax (630) 553-4179 Petition 20-30 Kris and Hillary Wieschhaus Driveway Setback Variance INTRODUCTION Kris and Hillary Wieschhaus installed a driveway without a permit at 9261 Kennedy Road in Bristol Township. A large portion of the property is within the one hundred (100) year floodplain (Zone AE). The driveway was constructed within the required setback to avoid the floodplain. The application materials are included as Attachment 1. The plat of survey is included as Attachment 2. The aerial of the property with showing the driveway floodplain is included as Attachment 3. SITE INFORMATION PETITIONER Kris and Hillary Wieschhaus ADDRESSES 9261 Kennedy Road, Yorkville LOCATION Approximately 0.4 Miles East of Route 47 on the North Side of Kennedy Road TOWNSHIP Bristol PARCEL #S 02-21-200-028 LOT SIZE 6.4 +/- Acres EXITING LAND USE Vacant ZONING R-1 LRMP Current Land Use Vacant Future Land Use Suburban Residential (1.00 DU/Acre Max) Roads Kennedy Road is a Minor Collector Road Maintained by Bristol Township Trails Yorkville has Trail Planned Along Kennedy Road Floodplain/ Wetlands Blackberry Creek is Located North of the Property and a Large Portion of the Property is in the 100 Year Flood Plain (Zone AE); Base Flood Elevation is 625.7 REQUESTED ACTION Variance to allow installation of a driveway at zero feet (0’) from the eastern property line instead of the required five feet (5’) setback. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS §11:02.F.7.b – Side Yard Setback for Driveways ZBA Memo – Prepared by Matt Asselmeier – November 19, 2020 Page 2 of 3 §13:04 – Variation Procedures and Requirements SURROUNDING LAND USE Location Adjacent Land Use Adjacent Zoning LRMP Zoning within ½ Mile North Single Family Residential R-2 (Yorkville) Suburban Neighborhoods (Yorkville) R-2 and M-2 (Yorkville) South Single Family Residential R-3 (County) Suburban Residential (1.00 DU/Acre Max) R-3 (County) R-2 (South) East Single Family Residential and Vacant R-1 (County) Suburban Residential A-1 and R-3 (County) West Farmstead R-1 (Yorkville) Estate Residential (Yorkville) A-1 and R-3 (County) R-1 and B-3 (Yorkville) GENERAL INFORMATION The Petitioners wish to construct a house on the property in the future. As noted on the plat of survey (Attachment 2), the base flood elevation is 625.7. The driveway elevations are above the base flood elevation. As noted on the aerial (Attachment 3), the driveway is not located in the one hundred (100) year floodplain, but is located in the five hundred (500) year flood plain. The proposed driveway will be approximately eighteen feet (18’) in width. The property has been zoned R-1 since 1988. BRISTOL TOWNSHIP Bristol Township was emailed this proposal on November 19, 2020. UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE The United City of Yorkville was emailed this proposal on November 19, 2020. BRISTOL-KENDALL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The Bristol-Kendall Fire Protection District was emailed this proposal on November 19, 2020. FINDINGS OF FACT § 13:04.A.3 of the Zoning Ordinance outlines findings that the Zoning Board of Appeals must make in order to grant variations. They are listed below in italics. Staff has provided findings in bold below based on the recommendation: That the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical condition of the specific property involved would result in a particular hardship or practical difficulty upon the owner if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out. Because of the large amount of one-hundred-year floodplain on the property, the ZBA Memo – Prepared by Matt Asselmeier – November 19, 2020 Page 3 of 3 Petitioners are limited to where a driveway can be installed. The proposed location allows the Petitioners to install the driveway without impacting the floodplain. That the conditions upon which the requested variation is based would not be applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. This is true. The Petitioners wish to obtain the variance because of the location of the floodplain on the property and no other condition. That the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. The owners did not create the floodplain on the property and have limited options for constructing a driveway at other locations on the property without impacting the floodplain. That the granting of the variation will not materially be detrimental to the public welfare or substantially injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. The requested variance should not negatively impact any of the neighbors and will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion in the public streets or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Adding the proposed driveway will not impair any of the above items. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requested variance subject to the following conditions: 1. The setback on the east side of the subject property may be reduced to zero feet (0’) for the installation of the driveway only. This variation shall not apply to any of the other required setbacks contained in the Kendall County Zoning Ordinance. 2. The driveway shall be installed at substantially the location shown on the plat of survey shown on Attachment 2. 3. Installation of the driveway shall follow all applicable Federal, State, and Local laws. 4. This variance shall be treated as a covenant running with the land and is binding on the successors, heirs, and assigns. ATTACHMENTS 1. Application (Including Petitioner’s Findings of Fact) 2. Plat of Survey 3. Aerial Last Revised: 9.28.12 Special Use Date Stamp Here If Checklist Is Complete DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING & ZONING 111 West Fox Street  Yorkville, IL  60560 (630) 553-4141 Fax (630) 553-4179 APPLICATION PROJECT NAME ______________________________FILE #:__________ NAME OF APPLICANT CURRENT LANDOWNER/NAME(s) SITE INFORMATION SITE ADDRESS OR LOCATION ASSESSOR’S ID NUMBER (PIN) ACRES EXISTING LAND USE CURRENT ZONING LAND CLASSIFICATION ON LRMP REQUESTED ACTION (Check All That Apply): _____SPECIAL USE ___ MAP AMENDMENT (Rezone to ____) ___ VARIANCE ___ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE ___ A-1 CONDITIONAL USE for:______________ ___ SITE PLAN REVIEW ___ TEXT AMENDMENT ___ RPD (___Concept; ___ Preliminary; ___ Final) ___ ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL ___ PRELIMINARY PLAT ___ FINAL PLAT ___ OTHER PLAT (Vacation, Dedication, etc.) AMENDMENT TO A SPECIAL USE ( Major; Minor) 1PRIMARY CONTACT PRIMARY CONTACT MAILING ADDRESS PRIMARY CONTACT EMAIL PRIMARY CONTACT PHONE # PRIMARY CONTACT FAX # PRIMARY CONTACT OTHER #(Cell, etc.) 2ENGINEER CONTACT ENGINEER MAILING ADDRESS ENGINEER EMAIL ENGINEER PHONE # ENGINEER FAX # ENGINEER OTHER # (Cell, etc.) I UNDERSTAND THAT BY SIGNING THIS FORM, THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION MAY BE VISITED BY COUNTY STAFF & BOARD/ COMMISSION MEMBERS THROUGHOUT THE PETITION PROCESS AND THAT THE PRIMARY CONTACT LISTED ABOVE WILL BE SUBJECT TO ALL CORRESPONDANCE ISSUED BY THE COUNTY. I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION AND EXHIBITS SUBMITTED ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND THAT I AM TO FILE THIS APPLICATION AND ACT ON BEHALF OF THE ABOVE SIGNATURES. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE FEE PAID:$________________ CHECK #:________________ 1Primary Contact will receive all correspondence from County 2Engineering Contact will receive all correspondence from the County’s Engineering Consultants Kris & Hillary Wieschhaus Kris & Hillary Wieschhaus 6 9261 Kennedy Rd 02-21-200-028 Vacant (future home site)Residential Suburban Residential Kris Wieschhaus Attachment 1, Page 1 Please fill out the following findings of fact to the best of your capabilities. § 13.04 of the Zoning Ordinance outlines findings that the Zoning Board of Appeals shall take into consideration the extent to which the following conditions have been established by the evidence: That the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical condition of the specific property involved would result in a particular hardship or practical difficulty upon the owner if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out. That the conditions upon which the requested variation is based would not be applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. That the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. That the granting of the variation will not materially be detrimental to the public welfare or substantially injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion in the public streets or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Overview: This variance is to allow the placement of a driveway directly along the east side of 9261 Kennedy Road (02-21-200-028). The driveway to the property was placed on the property line and lacks the 5 foot setback required by code. The adjoining neighbor has agreed that the placement of the driveway is fine and has no issues with the current configuration. Due to the topographical condition of the property it is impracticle to place the driveway anywhere else to to low-lying areas of the property. It has not It will not. Note: This property is not part of a neighborhood. The variation will have no ipact on light or supply of air to the adjacent property. Attachment 1, Page 2 Attachment 1, Page 3 Attachment 1, Page 4 Attachment 1, Page 5 Attachment 1, Page 6 Attachment 1, Page 7 Attachment 1, Page 8 Attachment 1, Page 9 Attachment 1, Page 10 Attachment 1, Page 11 Novem er 18, 202() K ndall Co Parcels pare Ad ress Poit ts SA Flood Hazard Ar as 11111 % Annual Cha ce Floo azarcl 0.2% Ann al Chance Flood Hazard Incorporated Areas Yorkville Ki! dall �-01.rl ,·wei, GIS V'::.•,•� G -r--o-: am a ;:,'NfllfWD)�aa11. _J�i· :partrr-en:s..�ge:::grap� lri'"onria 1:::n---;:,�:�rns.ag::,--::irsaa .. rner a.�e, Attachment 3 Kendall County Zoning Board of Appeals 12-14-2020 Remote Meeting Attendance In accordance with the Governor’s Executive Order 2020-07, Kendall County Board Chairman Scott Gryder is encouraging social distancing by allowing remote attendance to the Kendall County Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting/Hearing scheduled for Monday, December 14, 2020, at 7:00 p.m. Instructions for joining the meeting are listed below. For your safety and others, please attend the hearing/meeting by phone or computer, if possible. The East Wing Conference Room located at the Kendall County Historic Courthouse at 110 W. Madison Street (also addressed as 109 W. Ridge Street), in Yorkville, will have limited seating available. Masks are required when social distancing is not possible. If you plan to attend in person, please follow all social distancing requirements. If anyone from the public would like to make a comment during the hearing/meeting there will be an allotted time on the agenda for public comment, and all of the county board rules of order still apply. We will also accept public comment by emailing: masselmeier@co.kendall.il.us. Members of the public may contact Kendall County PBZ Department prior to the meeting for assistance making public comment at 630-553-4139; email correspondence is preferred. ________________________________________________________________________________ Microsoft Teams Meeting Click here to join the meeting Or call in (audio only) +1 309-248-0701 United States, Rock Island (Toll) Phone Conference ID: 756 909 888# Find a local number | Reset PIN Kendall County Learn More | Meeting options | Legal ________________________________________________________________________________ Kendall County Zoning Board of Appeals Information: https://www.co.kendall.il.us/transparency/agendas-packets-and-meetings-schedules/planning-building- and-zoning/zba-zoning-board-of-appeals For information about how to join a Microsoft Teams meeting, please see the following link. https://support.office.com/en-us/article/join-a-meeting-in-teams-1613bb53-f3fa-431e-85a9- d6a91e3468c9 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: Majority Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: See attached memo. Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Community Development Purchasing Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number New Business #7 Tracking Number EDC 2021-07 Nonconforming Signs – Text Amendment Economic Development Committee – January 5, 2021 Vote Proposed text amendment regarding legally nonconforming monument signs. Krysti Barksdale-Noble, AICP Community Development Name Department Summary A proposed text amendment to Sections 10-20-4: Definitions and 10-20-11: Nonconforming Signs of the City’s Zoning Ordinance to allow for certain existing nonconforming freestanding monument signs to be modified without the requirement to bring the sign fully into compliance with the current code regulations. Specifically, allowing a one-for-one replacement of an existing static message board sign (i.e., manual changeable copy) with a new electronic message board of the same size for those non-residential land uses seeking to upgrade to current technology. Staff originally published the request to limit the text amendment to only affect signs located along major thoroughfares such as IL-47, US-34, IL-71 and Eldamain Road. Additionally, the text amendment proposes to define the word “maintenance” in the Zoning Ordinance to provide further clarity for staff and the public about activities permitted in the upkeep of existing nonconforming signs. Background Over the past decade, the City Council approved two (2) comprehensive revisions to the Sign Ordinance, the first in 2008 and the most recent in 2014. In both of these comprehensive revisions, the City Council has tightened its regulations on signs with specific requirements related to type, material, number and size. Many signs, particularly those located along major roadways, were constructed in the 1990s and 2000s and are generally “legally nonconforming” to the current standards. Meaning they were legally erected and met the sign ordinance at the time of their installation but are not congruent with the current regulations. It was contemplated that all nonconforming signs would transition to comply with the current code within 5 years after the adoption of the general nonconforming uses and structures chapter of the zoning ordinance (Section 10-15-4). However, compliance of this transition period was not strictly enforced after the adoption of specific criteria for nonconforming signs in Section 10-20-11. However, compliance is sought when business owners seek building permit approval for any alteration or modification, outside of routine maintenance, to a nonconforming sign. Typically, business owners or their sign companies are aware of the City’s ordinances and apply for the permits in compliance with the regulations (dozens of sign permits are issued each year without conflict). While there are occasions when sign permits for nonconforming sign alterations are denied, the sign company or business owner usually retools their design and resubmits to the City without incident. Recently, a local businessowner wanted to replace their existing static message board sign with an electronic message board sign of roughly the same size but was denied due to the existing sign’s nonconformities with the current ordinance’s regulations related to the sign type, overall size and Memorandum To: Economic Development Committee From: Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator Date: December 24, 2020 Subject: PZC 2020-14 Nonconforming Signs (Text Amendment) Proposal to exempt certain nonconforming signs from elimination if replacing a static message board with an electronic message board height. The businessowner stated it would be a financial hardship to bring the sign into full compliance. Based upon this, it was direction from the Mayor at a recent City Council meeting for staff to revisit this section of the sign ordinance to allow for certain modifications/upgrades to existing nonconforming signs without the added expense of bringing the entire sign into conformance with the current ordinance. Proposed Text Amendment Considering the recent economic stress on businesses during the pandemic, recent roadway improvements to widen and reconstruct major thoroughfares in Yorkville to accommodate increased vehicular travel, and industry changes to sign technology, staff proposes the following text amendments to the Sections 10-20-4: Definitions and 10-20-11: Nonconforming Signs of the City’s Zoning Ordinance to define the term “maintenance” as it relates to nonconforming signs and provide for an exemption to certain nonconforming signs to allow the installation of electronic message boards: Section 10-20-4: Definitions Amend and insert the following definition: MAINTENANCE: care associated with the general upkeep of a sign which includes minor repair of rusted or damaged components, including nailing, cleaning and replacement of nuts and bolts, repainting, replacing of malfunctioning parts, and re-facing of existing signs when the re-facing does not result in any structural alterations, additional signs or additional sign appendages. Lighting fixtures may be repaired or replaced with fixtures of a similar size, including but not limited to repairs or replacements that increase energy efficiency. Routine maintenance of a nonconforming sign shall not include any addition of or increase in illumination, structural alterations, enlargements or expansions unless the alteration, enlargement or expansion will result in the elimination of the nonconforming aspects of the signs. Section 10-20-11: Nonconforming Signs Amend and insert the following: G. The replacement of an existing non-conforming freestanding static message board signs with an electronic message board sign is permitted if such replacement does not increase the overall existing sign size. Analysis of Existing Nonconforming Signs Staff conducted a very cursory review of existing signage along the City’s major thoroughfares (IL-126, IL-71, IL-47, US-34 and Eldamain Road), and commercial/industrially zoned areas not along major roadways. The following charts provide an overview of the number of signs per roadway, number of signs that are covered by an annexation, planned unit development (PUD) or other agreement, and the number/percent signs which are potentially legally nonconforming. Major Thoroughfare Number of Signs Annexation/PUD/Other Agreement Potentially Legally Nonconforming IL-47 (Bridge) 79 20 38 US 34 (Veterans) 39 15 13 Eldamain 0 0 0 IL-71 (Stagecoach) 5 1 3 IL-126 (Schoolhouse) 5 0 2 TOTAL 128 36 56 Non-Major Thoroughfare Number of Signs Annexation/PUD/Other Agreement Potentially Legally Nonconforming Van Emmon St. 1 0 1 Hydraulic St. 1 0 1 Boombah Blvd./Commercial Drive (Yorkville Business Center) 3 2 1 Deer/Badger/Wolf/Beaver (Fox Industrial Park) 15 0 10 McHugh Rd. 4 3 1 Cannonball Trail 4 3 1 Galena Rd. 1 0 0 Kendall Drive/Center Pkwy/Countryside 13 5 9 John St. 3 3 1 TOTAL 45 16 25 Based upon the preliminary data above regarding the existing ground-mounted signage along the five (5) major thoroughfares in Yorkville, 36 (28%) of the 128 signs are permitted through an annexation, planned unit development or another approving ordinance (i.e. variance). Of those existing signs, there are 56 (44%) potentially legally nonconforming. Most of the legally non-conforming signs are located along IL-47 (Bridge). When further amendments to the Sign Ordinance are proposed, considerable attention should be given to the number and location of these signs. In regard to the preliminary data related to existing ground-mounted signage along the non-major thoroughfares in Yorkville, 16 (35%) of the 45 signs are allowed as part of an annexation, planned unit development or another approving ordinance (i.e. variance).Of those existing signs, there are 25 (55%) potentially legally nonconforming. The majority of the legally nonconforming signs are within the Fox Industrial Park and along Kendall Drive/Center Parkway/Countryside Parkways roadways, which are in the oldest areas in the City and developed long before the more recent revisions to the Sign Ordinances in 2009 and 2014. Staff Comments/Recommendation: Staff believes the proposed text amendment allowing for certain existing nonconforming freestanding monument signs to be modified so that static message boards can be replaced with a same- sized electronic message boards without bringing the entire sign fully into compliance would be beneficial to city businesses. While the original proposed text amendment focused on those businesses located along major thoroughfares which have been heavily impacted by recent roadway widenings where existing stationary signs may be deemed less effective and inefficient when updating consumer messaging, there is some merit in expanding it to non-residential uses throughout the city. Based upon this, staff feels the text amendment is warranted and appropriate. A public hearing is scheduled for the January 13, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) meeting to consider the proposed text amendment. Following the PZC meeting, a formal recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council at the January 26th meeting. Staff will be available at Tuesday night’s meeting to answer any questions. Attachments 1. Title 10: Zoning, Chapter 20: Signs 2. Public Hearing Notice 3. 2020 Zoning Map 4. 2020 Development Map CHAPTER 20 SIGNS SECTION: 10-20-1: Principles 10-20-2: Purpose 10-20-3: Scope 10-20-4: Definitions 10-20-5: Signs Exempt From This Chapter 10-20-6: General Provisions 10-20-7: Prohibited Signs 10-20-8: Permitted Signs; Agricultural And Residential Zoning Districts 10-20-9: Permitted Signs; Business Zoning Districts 10-20-10: Permitted Signs; Manufacturing Zoning Districts 10-20-11: Nonconforming Signs 10-20-12: Permitting Procedures 10-20-13: Sign Variations 10-20-1: PRINCIPLES: The provisions of this chapter recognize that: A. There is a significant relationship between the manner in which signs are displayed and public safety and the value, quality of life and economic stability of adjoining property and overall city. B. The reasonable display of signs is necessary as a public service and necessary to the conduct of competitive commerce and industry. C. Signs are a constant and very visible element of the public environment and as such should meet the same high standards of quality set for other forms of development in the city. (Ord. 2014-73, 11-25-2014) 10-20-2: PURPOSE: The regulation of signs by this chapter is intended to promote and protect the public health, safety and welfare by: A. Enhancing the economic condition of the city by promoting reasonable, orderly and effective use and display of signs. B. Enhancing the physical appearance of the city. C. Protecting the general public from damage and injury which might be caused by the faulty and uncontrolled and inappropriate construction and use of signs within the city. D. Protecting the public use of streets and rights of way by reducing advertising distractions that may increase traffic accidents and congestion. E. Preserving the value of private property by assuring the compatibility in design and scale of signs with adjacent properties and uses. Accordingly, it is deemed necessary and in the public interest to regulate signs. To this end, this chapter: A. Establishes minimum standards for the display of signs in direct relationship to the functional use of property and to the intensity of development as permitted within the zoning districts which are provided in this chapter. B. Regulates the size, location, height, installation and other pertinent features of new signs. C. Requires the removal of derelict signs and the amortization of nonconforming signs. D. Provides for the effective administration and enforcement of these regulations. (Ord. 2014-73, 11-25-2014) 10-20-3: SCOPE: The regulations of this chapter shall govern and control the erection, enlargement, expansion, alteration, operation, maintenance, relocation and removal of all signs within the city and any sign not expressly permitted by these regulations shall be prohibited. The regulations of this chapter relate to the location of signs, by function and type, within zoning districts and shall be in addition to provisions of the city of Yorkville building code and the city of Yorkville electrical code. (Ord. 2014-73, 11-25-2014) 10-20-4: DEFINITIONS: ANIMATED, FLASHING OR MOVING SIGN: Any sign that uses lights that flash or alternate or which include action or motion or the appearance of action or motion either physically or electronically. AWNING, CANOPY OR MARQUEE SIGN: A sign that is mounted or painted on, or attached to, an awning, canopy or marquee that is otherwise permitted by this chapter. The construction materials and the manner of construction of all awnings, canopies and marquees shall be in accordance with the Yorkville building code. BANNER: Any sign made of vinyl, fabric, or similar material that is displayed on a pole or building. National, state or municipal flags, and official flags of any institution or business shall not be considered banners. BILLBOARD: A structure for the permanent display of off premises advertisement which directs attention to a business, commodity, service or entertainment conducted, sold, or offered at a location other than the lot on which the sign is located. For the purposes of this chapter, this definition does not include off premises sponsorship banners. BUSINESS SIGN: A sign which directs attention to a business or profession conducted, or to a commodity or service sold, offered or manufactured, or to an entertainment offered, on the premises where the sign is located or to which it is affixed. A business sign shall be a wall, canopy, awning, marquee, or window sign. COLD AIR INFLATABLE DEVICE: An inflatable device, without a frame, used as a portable sign for promotions, sales or special events. A cold air balloon shall be ground mounted. CONSTRUCTION SIGN: A sign erected on a lot on which construction is taking place, indicating the names of the architects, engineers, landscape architects, contractors, and similar artisans, and the owners, financial supporters, sponsors and similar persons or firms having a role or interest with respect to the structure or project. Said sign shall be erected only so long as construction is occurring on the lot. A construction sign shall be a wall or freestanding sign. ELECTRONIC MESSAGE DISPLAY PANEL: A separate portion of a lawful sign capable of displaying fixed or changing text, characters, figures or images using light emitting diodes (LEDs), liquid crystal display (LCD), fiber optics, light bulbs or other illumination devices that can be electronically changed by remote or automatic means. The following terms for electronic message display panels shall be defined as follows: Animation: The illusion of movement to drawings, models or inanimate objects by putting separate pictures together to form the illusion of continuous motion. Character: A letter, number, punctuation mark or decimal point. Dissolve: Where static messages are changed by means of varying light intensity or pattern, where the first message gradually appears to dissipate and lose legibility simultaneous to the gradual appearance and legibility of the subsequent message. Fade: Where static messages are changed by means of varying light intensity, where the first message gradually reduces intensity to the point of not being legible and the subsequent message gradually increases intensity to the point of legibility. Nits: A luminance unit equal to one foot-candle per square meter measured perpendicular to the rays from the source. Scrolling: Where the message is changed by the apparent vertical movement of the letters or graphic elements of the message. Static: Graphics having no motion or movement of any type. Text: Graphics consisting of letters, words, numbers, punctuation or decimal points only that do not include any animation or video. Travel: Where the message is changed by the apparent horizontal movement of the letters or graphic elements of the message. Video: Moving images that are a sequence of images of continuous motion and breaking it up into discrete frames for subsequent display. FREESTANDING SIGN: Any sign supported by structures or supports that are placed on or anchored in the ground and that are independent from any building or other structure. GRAND OPENING TEMPORARY SIGN: A temporary sign used for the purpose of advertising a grand opening of a new business. A grand opening temporary sign may be a wall, marquee, canopy, awning, or freestanding sign. Promotions, anniversary sales, special sales, or going out of business sales do not apply. GROUND MOUNTED/MONUMENT SIGN: A sign that is supported on a base that is equal in width and depth to the frame of the sign itself. A ground mounted/monument sign must be constructed of materials to match the principal structure. IDENTIFICATION SIGN: A sign giving the name and address of a residential building, business, development, industry, or other building or establishment. Such signs may be wholly or partly devoted to a readily recognized symbol. An identification sign shall be a freestanding, wall, canopy, awning, or marquee sign. MENU BOARD SIGN: A sign at a remote location on a lot giving product and price information about products sold on the lot to motorists in a waiting vehicle. MESSAGE BOARD SIGN: A sign designed so that characters, letters or illustrations can be changed manually without altering the face or surface of the sign. OFF PREMISES SPONSORSHIP BANNER: Temporary signs which display advertisement for sponsors of an event or facility, such as an athletic event or field, on the location where the sign is located. POLE SIGN: A freestanding sign supported by a column or columns whose total width is less than fifty percent (50%) of the sign face depth. PORTABLE SIGN: A movable sign, excluding trailer signs, that is not attached to a structure or affixed to the ground or surface upon which it is located. PROJECTING SIGN: A sign which in whole or in part is dependent upon the building for support and projects more than twelve inches (12") from such building, except for awning, canopy and marquee signs. REAL ESTATE SIGN: A sign indicating the sale, rental, lease, or development of the lot, a portion of the lot, or a building on the lot on which the sign is located. A real estate sign shall be a wall or freestanding sign. ROOF SIGN: A sign that is wholly dependent upon a building for support or mounted on the roof, which projects more than six inches (6") above the highest point of a building or roof to which it is attached. SANDWICH SIGN OR A-FRAME SIGN: A temporary, portable sign constructed of two (2) boards hinged together toward the top to permit the sign to stand when the bottom edges of the boards are spread; each side of which is no more than twelve (12) square feet. SNIPE SIGNS: A temporary or permanent nongovernmental sign in a public right of way which is tacked, nailed, posted, pasted, glazed or otherwise affixed to a pole, stake, fence, traffic sign, traffic control device, utility pole, tree or the ground. TEMPORARY SIGNS: Any sign, banner, pennant, streamer, or advertising display constructed of cloth, canvas, light fabric, cardboard, wallboard, or other lightweight material. TRAILER SIGN: A sign mounted on a chassis with or without wheels. VEHICLE SIGN: Any vehicle primarily situated to serve as a sign rather than as transportation. An automobile, van, or truck displaying the name and/or other information regarding the related establishment used for normal business operation or for employee transportation is not a vehicle sign. WALL SIGN: A sign fastened to or painted on the wall of a building or structure in such a manner that the wall becomes the supporting structure for, or forms the background surface of, the sign and which does not project more than twelve inches (12") from such building or structure. WIND FEATHER (Also Known As WIND FLAG, TEARDROP BANNER AND BLADE): Fabric or plastic attention getting devices supported by a single pole and having a tall, narrow orientation whose rotation is determined by the wind direction. WINDOW SIGN: A sign which is applied or attached to or located within three feet (3') of the interior of a window, which sign may be seen through the window from the exterior of the structure. (Ord. 2014- 73, 11-25-2014) 10-20-5: SIGNS EXEMPT FROM THIS CHAPTER: Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as exempting the following signs from the building code or those portions of this code applicable to signs. The following signs are otherwise exempt from regulations of this chapter: A. Flags, symbols or crests of nations, states, cities or political, fraternal, religious or civic organizations. One logo flag of a business shall be permitted on a lot provided that it is flown with the American flag and shall not be larger than the American flag. B. Decorations customarily and commonly associated with a national, local or religious holiday, celebration or anniversary provided that such decorations shall not be displayed for more than sixty (60) consecutive days. C. Signs four (4) square feet or less in area and mounted five feet (5') in height or less on private property regulating on premises traffic and parking. D. Bulletin boards, message boards, and similar devices no greater than thirty two (32) square feet in area, five feet (5') high and not in the vision triangle, used solely to give information about and accessory to a public, charitable, educational or religious institution located on the lot. E. Legal notices, identification, informational, directional, traffic or other sign erected or required by governmental authority. F. Memorial signs or tablets eight (8) square feet or less in area, containing the names of a building and the date of construction, when cut into any masonry surface so as to be part of the building or when constructed of bronze or some other noncombustible material and permanently attached to a building. G. Nonilluminated window signs painted on or covering no more than fifty percent (50%) of the window area, excluding glass doors. H. Real estate signs six (6) square feet or less in area, provided that no more than one such sign shall be permitted in each yard abutting a street. Real estate signs shall be freestanding signs and set back a minimum of five feet (5') from any lot line and shall be five feet (5') or less in height and shall not be illuminated. I. Menu boards accessory to a restaurant drive-up window facility, provided such signs are thirty six (36) square feet or less in area. J. Signs used to identify the type of model home when used in conjunction with a developing residential subdivision. Each type of model home is allowed one sign not to exceed eight (8) square feet in area and five feet (5') in height. Such sign shall be located on the lot where the model home is located and shall be removed upon occupancy of the home for normal residential use. K. "No Trespassing", "Beware Of Dog" and other similar warning signs four (4) square feet or less in area. L. Name and address plates which give only the name and address of the resident(s) of the building less than three (3) square feet on single- and two-family dwellings and five (5) square feet for multi-family dwellings. M. Garage sale, farm produce sale signs provided there is only one sign per lot and it is present only during the duration of the sale and is less than four (4) square feet in area. N. Building interior signage. O. Political signs. Signs sixteen (16) square feet or less in area and announcing candidates for political office or political issues. P. Construction signs under eight (8) square feet. Q. Illuminated window signs covering no more than sixty percent (60%) of the window area excluding glass doors. R. Permanent, nonflashing signs on vending machines, gas pumps, ice and propane storage units. (Ord. 2014-73, 11-25-2014) 10-20-6: GENERAL PROVISIONS: A. Sign Area: The area of the sign face which is also the sign area of a wall sign or other sign with only one face shall be computed by means of the smallest square, rectangle, circle, triangle or combination thereof that will encompass the extreme limits of the writing representation, emblem or other display, together with any material or color forming an integral part of the background of the display or used to differentiate the sign from the backdrop or structure against which it is placed. It does not include any supporting framework, bracing or decorative fence or wall when such fence or wall otherwise meets zoning ordinance regulations and is clearly incidental to the display itself. A double faced sign shall count as a single sign. Building mounted wall sign area calculations are based on each wall of an exterior building facing a lot line and a public right-of-way. An exterior building wall which faces a lot line may contain more than a single wall for sign area calculation purposes. If portions of the exterior building wall face the same lot line and are separated by four feet (4') or more in depth from that lot line, then they are considered two (2) separate walls for sign area calculation purposes. If separated by less than four feet (4') they shall be considered a single exterior building wall for sign area calculation purposes. If two (2) exterior walls create an angle greater than one hundred thirty five degrees (135°) on the horizontal plane then it shall be considered a single exterior wall. Any two (2) exterior walls which create an angle of less than one hundred thirty five degrees (135°) on the horizontal plane shall be considered two (2) separate walls. Additionally, for any multi-tenant building, if the area where a building mounted sign is being placed is located between two (2) pillars, posts, or other architectural features, the area between the features will be considered the exterior wall for sign area calculations. EXAMPLE 1: SINGLE USE BUILDING (DEPTH GREATER THAN 4 FEET) EXAMPLE 2: SINGLE USE BUILDING (DEPTH LESS THAN 4 FEET) EXAMPLE 3: MULTI-TENANT BUILDING (BETWEEN ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES) EXAMPLE 4: MULTI-TENANT BUILDING EXAMPLE 5: MULTI-STORY, MULTI-TENANT BUILDING (Ord. 2018-57, 10-23-2018) B. Sign Height: The height of a sign shall be computed as the distance from the grade of the centerline of the adjacent street to the top of the highest attached component of the sign. C. Yard Requirements: Except as otherwise provided, signs shall be located at least five feet (5') from any driveway and lot line. Furthermore, no sign shall be erected or located in a public right-of- way except as established by the authorized public entity responsible for the right-of- way. No sign having a height more than thirty inches (30") shall be located within that part of the yard or open area of a corner lot included within a triangular area of twenty five feet (25') from the point of intersection of two (2) street right-of-way lines forming such a corner lot. D. Illumination Of Signs: The illumination of all signs shall be diffused or indirect and shall be so arranged that there will be no direct or reflecting rays into the public way or any lot on the perimeter of the premises on which the sign is located. Exposed light bulbs, neon tubing, flashing, blinking, traveling and similar illumination, including illuminated canopies are not permitted. Illuminated signs permitted in or adjacent to residential areas shall not be illuminated between the hours of eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M. and five o'clock (5:00) A.M. unless the use to which the sign pertains is open. E. Sign Maintenance: The owner of a sign and the owner of the premises on which the sign is located shall be jointly and severally liable to maintain such sign or signs subject to the following standards: 1. Signs shall be maintained in a neat and orderly condition and good working order, including illumination sources, at all times. 2. Signs shall be properly painted unless galvanized or otherwise treated to prevent rust or deterioration. 3. Signs shall conform to maintenance provisions of the building and electrical codes as adopted by the city of Yorkville. F. Abandoned Signs: Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any temporary sign installed for a period of thirty (30) days or more, or any sign which pertains to a time, event, or purpose which no longer applies, shall be removed. Permanent signs applicable to a business because of change in ownership or management of such business shall be deemed abandoned if the property remains vacant for a period of six (6) months or more. An abandoned sign is prohibited and shall be removed by the owner of the sign or owner of the premises. G. Removal Of Signs: Any sign found to be improperly maintained, abandoned or otherwise in violation of this chapter which is not removed or repaired within thirty (30) days of written notice of the code official may be removed by the code official. Any expense incidental to such removal or repair shall be charged to the owner of the property upon which the sign is located and shall constitute a lien upon the property. (Ord. 2014-73, 11-25-2014) 10-20-7: PROHIBITED SIGNS: The following signs shall not be permitted: A. Moving, animated and flashing signs, except electronic message boards. B. Roof signs. C. Vehicle signs. D. Signs which constitute a hazard to public health or safety. E. Signs which obstruct ingress or egress from any fire escape, door, window, or other exit or entrance. F. Signs which, by reason of size, location, content, color, or manner of illumination, obstruct the vision of motorists or interfere with the visibility or effectiveness of any traffic sign or control device on public streets. G. Signs which make use of words such as "stop", "look", "one-way", "danger", "yield" or any similar word, phrase, symbol or light so as to interfere with or confuse pedestrian or vehicular traffic. H. Billboards. I. Trailer signs, except directional or informational signs exempted by subsection 10-20-5E of this chapter. J. Searchlights, except searchlights for grand openings and special civic events. K. Snipe signs. L. Signs displaying obscene or indecent matter. M. Moving, rotating or animated signs except traditional barber poles not exceeding two feet (2') in height and projecting not more than twelve inches (12") from the building utilized only to identify a haircutting establishment. N. Pole signs. (Ord. 2014-73, 11-25-2014) 10-20-8: PERMITTED SIGNS; AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS: A. Permanent Signs: 1. Freestanding Identification Or Business Signs: All nonresidential uses in the agricultural and residential zoning districts may have one freestanding business or identification sign. Nonresidential uses in the agricultural and residential zoning districts on a corner lot with entrances on both streets may have one freestanding sign on each street frontage. Said sign shall be thirty two (32) square feet or less in area, five feet (5') or less in height and set back at least ten feet (10') from the street or entrance drive. Freestanding signs must be constructed with the base and supporting columns, if present, of the same brick, stone or masonry material that the exterior walls of the principal building are made of. The sign panel containing the type and the type must match the color and type used on any wall mounted signage. No more than fifty percent (50%) of the freestanding sign area may be composed of a message board sign. 2. Building Mounted Identification Or Business Signs: All nonresidential uses in the agricultural or residential zoning districts shall be permitted to have identification or business signage for each exterior wall of that part of the building facing a public right of way. No more than fifty percent (50%) of the building mounted sign area may be composed of a message board sign. Building mounted signage cannot extend more than seventy five percent (75%) of the building facade of the building to which it is attached. 3. Subdivision And Residential Complex Identification Signs: Two (2) permanent subdivision or residential complex identification signs, one on each side of the street, at primary entrances to a residential subdivision or complex containing no commercial advertising is permitted. Such signs shall be thirty two (32) square feet or less in area and eight feet (8') or less in height and constructed out of premium building materials such as brick or stone. For the purposes of this provision this sign may be installed in two (2) components, one on each side of the street. B. Temporary Signs: 1. Real Estate Signs: On nonsingle-family residential lots, one real estate sign per street frontage no greater than thirty two (32) square feet in area or five feet (5') in height. 2. Residential Marketing Signs: Residential marketing signs at major entrances to residential subdivisions not to exceed one hundred (100) square feet and twelve feet (12') in height. 3. Off Site Marketing Signs: Residential off site marketing signs to call attention to and give directions to residential developments in Yorkville shall be allowed at no more than four (4) off site locations, and shall be no greater than one hundred (100) square feet in area and twelve feet (12') in height. Signs for a given development may be located in any zoning district provided that there is at least one-fourth (1/4) mile separation from the other off site marketing signs of that development and that no off site marketing sign be closer to a residence than one hundred feet (100'). Off site marketing signs for different developments must be at least two hundred fifty feet (250') from any other off site marketing sign. 4. Grand Opening Signs: One grand opening sign not to exceed thirty two (32) square feet in area and eight feet (8') in height. 5. Construction Signs: One construction sign per nonsingle-family lot not to exceed thirty two (32) square feet in area and five feet (5') in height. 6. Off Premises Sponsorship Banner: Banners shall be on city property. Individual banners shall be mounted on an outfield fence, backstop or scoreboard. Banners mounted on an outfield fence shall be a dimension of three feet by six feet (3' x 6') in size and shall face the playing field. Banners mounted on a scoreboard or backstop shall be a maximum area of thirty two (32) square feet. (Ord. 2014-73, 11-25-2014) 10-20-9: PERMITTED SIGNS; BUSINESS ZONING DISTRICTS: A. Permanent Signs: 1. Freestanding Business Signs: On lots less than three (3) acres with one street frontage, one freestanding business sign thirty two (32) square feet or less feet in area and twelve feet (12') or less in height shall be allowed. If the lot has more than one street frontage, one freestanding business sign thirty two (32) square feet or less in area and twelve feet (12') or less in height per street frontage with an entrance/exit shall be allowed. On lots three (3) acres or larger with one street frontage, one freestanding business sign sixty four (64) square feet or less in area and twelve feet (12') or less in height shall be allowed. If the lot has more than one street frontage, one freestanding business sign sixty four (64) square feet or less in area and twelve feet (12') or less in height per street frontage with an entrance/exit shall be allowed. On lots three (3) acres or larger that have a street frontage(s) in excess of eight hundred feet (800') with two (2) entrances/exits at least six hundred feet (600') apart may have two (2) freestanding business signs sixty four (64) square feet or less in area and twelve feet (12') or less in height on each street frontage. Freestanding signs must be constructed with the base and supporting columns, if present, constructed of the same brick, stone or masonry material that the exterior walls of the principal building are made of. The sign panel color and type must match the color and type used on any wall mounted signage. No more than fifty percent (50%) of the freestanding sign area may be composed of a message board sign. (Ord. 2014-73, 11-25-2014) 2. Building Mounted Business/Identification Signs: a. Single Use Building: (1) A business having a public entrance in an exterior building wall or having an exterior wall facing a public right-of-way shall be permitted to have building mounted identification signage or building mounted business signage for each exterior wall of that part of the building in which it is located, provided said wall contains a public entrance or faces a public right-of-way. The maximum area of such sign shall not exceed two (2) square feet for each one linear foot of the exterior wall of the building. No wall sign shall extend more than seventy five percent (75%) of the width of the exterior wall to which it is attached and shall be no closer than one foot (1') from the vertical or horizontal edge of any wall to which it is affixed. The business cannot transfer sign area between its adjoining exterior walls. (2) In addition to the signs permitted in subsection A2a(1) of this section, a business on an exterior wall not having a public entrance or facing a public right-of-way may have a building mounted business/identification sign on such a wall not exceeding in size one square foot in area for each one linear foot of the width of that exterior wall and shall not extend more than fifty percent (50%) of the length of that exterior wall and shall be no closer than one foot (1') from the vertical or horizontal edge of any wall to which it is affixed. Such a sign shall not be illuminated either internally or externally if that sign faces residential land uses. b. Multi-Tenant Buildings: (1) Each tenant having a public entrance in an exterior building wall or having an exterior wall facing a public right-of-way shall be permitted to have building mounted business or building mounted identification signage for each such exterior wall that is adjacent or a part of its owned or leased premises. The maximum area of such a sign shall not exceed two (2) square feet in area for each one linear foot of the tenant's exterior wall. No wall sign shall extend more than seventy five percent (75%) of the width of that part of the tenant's exterior wall and shall be no closer than one foot (1') from the vertical or horizontal edge of any wall to which it is affixed. (2) In addition to the signs permitted in subsection A2b(1) of this section, a tenant on an exterior wall not having a public entrance or facing a public right-of-way may have a building mounted business/identification sign, on that portion of a wall that is adjacent or a part of its owned or leased premises. The size of such a sign shall not exceed one square foot in area for each one linear foot of the width of the tenant's exterior wall and shall not extend more than fifty percent (50%) of the length of the tenant's exterior wall and shall be no closer than one foot (1') from the vertical or horizontal edge of any wall to which it is affixed. Such a sign shall not be illuminated either internally or externally if that sign faces residential land uses. (Ord. 2018-57, 10-23-2018) 3. Electronic Message Display Panel: a. There shall only be one permitted sign per lot that may contain an electronic message display panel. b. A permanent freestanding business sign may be composed of an electronic message display panel. c. The electronic message display panel shall not make the sign otherwise not in compliance with all the requirements of this title and this Code. d. Except for an electronic message display panel in a permitted sign for a movie theater, all other electronic message display panels shall not display video but may display static text and animation that dissolves, fades, scrolls or travels. Between each display shall be the delay indicated in table 10.20.01 of this section. e. The brightness of the electronic message display panels shall not be more than five thousand (5,000) nits in the daytime and one thousand seven hundred fifty (1,750) nits in the nighttime. f. Prior to issuing a permit for a sign that contains an electronic message display panel, the applicant shall provide a written certification from the sign manufacturer that the light intensity has been factory preset not to exceed the levels specified in this section and the intensity level is protected from end user manipulation by password protected software or other method deemed appropriate by the City. g. Malfunctioning electronic message display panels shall automatically turn off or be turned off within twenty four (24) hours of the malfunction. h. A sign with an electronic message display panel shall be constructed with the other components of the sign in a natural material in the same brick, stone or masonry construction of the principal building's exterior walls. i. Table 10.20.01 of this section shows the maximum size of the electronic message display panel. TABLE 10.20.01 SIZE OF ELECTRONIC MESSAGE SIGNS (COMMERCIAL) Type Of Commercial Building And Location Maximum Area Of Electronic Message Display Panel Minimum Time Between Video, Animation Or Static Text Single commercial tenant building on parcel adjacent to major arterial (Illinois Routes 47, 126, and 71, and U.S. Route 34) 32 sq. ft.5 seconds Multiple commercial tenant building on parcel adjacent to major arterial 32 sq. ft.5 seconds Single commercial tenant building on parcel not adjacent to major arterial 32 sq. ft.8 seconds Multiple commercial tenant building on parcel not adjacent to major arterial 24 sq. ft.8 seconds Commercial planned unit development Maximum sign height - 10 feet 75 sq. ft.5 seconds B. Temporary Signs: 1. Searchlights. 2. Cold air inflatable devices. 3. Grand opening signs. One grand opening sign not to exceed thirty two (32) square feet in area and eight feet (8') in height. 4. Commercial real estate signs. On commercial lots, one real estate sign per street frontage no greater than thirty two (32) square feet in area and five feet (5') in height. 5. Construction signs. One construction sign per lot not to exceed thirty two (32) square feet in area and five feet (5') in height. 6. Wind feathers. No limit on the quantity per lot. Time period not to exceed thirty (30) days. 7. Banners. One special business event sign per business not to exceed thirty two (32) square feet in area. 8. Portable signs. One portable sign per business not to exceed sixteen (16) square feet in area. 9. Off premises sponsorship banner. Banners shall be on City property. Individual banners shall be mounted on an outfield fence, backstop, or scoreboard. Banners mounted on an outfield fence shall be a dimension of three feet by six feet (3' x 6') in size and shall face the playing field. Banners mounted on a scoreboard or backstop shall be a maximum area of thirty two (32) square feet. (Ord. 2014-73, 11-25-2014) 10-20-10: PERMITTED SIGNS; MANUFACTURING ZONING DISTRICTS: A. Permanent Signs: 1. Freestanding Business Sign: On lots less than three (3) acres or on lots that face a residentially zoned or used lot with one street frontage, one freestanding business sign shall be allowed. Said sign shall be thirty two (32) square feet or less in area and twelve feet (12') or less in height. If the lot has more than one street frontage, one freestanding business sign thirty two (32) square feet or less in area and twelve feet (12') or less in height per street frontage with an entrance/exit shall be allowed. On lots three (3) acres or larger with one street frontage, one freestanding business sign shall be allowed. Said sign shall be a maximum of sixty four (64) square feet or less in area and twelve feet (12') or less in height shall be allowed. If the lot has more than one street frontage, one freestanding business sign sixty four (64) square feet or less in area and twelve feet (12') or less in height per street frontage with an entrance/exit shall be allowed. On lots three (3) acres or larger that have a street frontage(s) in excess of eight hundred feet (800') with two (2) entrances/exits at least six hundred feet (600') apart may have two (2) freestanding business signs sixty four (64) square feet or less in area and twelve feet (12') or less in height on each street frontage. Freestanding signs must be constructed with the base and supporting columns, if present, of the same brick, stone or masonry material that the exterior walls of the principal building are made of. The sign panel containing the type and the type must match the color and type used on any wall mounted signage. No more than fifty percent (50%) of the freestanding sign area may be composed of a message board sign. (Ord. 2014-73, 11-25-2014) 2. Building Mounted Business/Identification Signs: a. Single Use Building: (1) A business having a public entrance in an exterior building wall or having an exterior wall facing a public right-of-way shall be permitted to have building mounted identification signage or building mounted business signage for each exterior wall of that part of the building in which it is located, provided said wall contains a public entrance or faces a public right-of-way. The maximum area of such sign shall not exceed two (2) square feet for each one linear foot of the exterior wall of the building. No wall sign shall extend more than seventy five percent (75%) of the width of the exterior wall to which it is attached and shall be no closer than one foot (1') from the vertical or horizontal edge of any wall to which it is affixed. The business cannot transfer sign area between its adjoining exterior walls. (2) In addition to the signs permitted in subsection A2a(1) of this section, a business on an exterior wall not having a public entrance or facing a public right-of-way may have a building mounted business/identification sign on such a wall not exceeding in size one square foot in area for each one linear foot of the width of that exterior wall and shall not extend more than fifty percent (50%) of the length of that exterior wall and shall be no closer than one foot (1') from the vertical or horizontal edge of any wall to which it is affixed. Such a sign shall not be illuminated either internally or externally if that sign faces residential land uses. b. Multi-Tenant Buildings: (1) Each tenant having a public entrance in an exterior building wall or having an exterior wall facing a public right-of-way shall be permitted to have building mounted business or building mounted identification signage for each such exterior wall that is adjacent or a part of its owned or leased premises. The maximum area of such a sign shall not exceed two (2) square feet in area for each one linear foot of the tenant's exterior wall. No wall sign shall extend more than seventy five percent (75%) of the width of that part of the tenant's exterior wall and shall be no closer than one foot (1') from the vertical or horizontal edge of any wall to which it is affixed. (2) In addition to the signs permitted in subsection A2b(1) of this section, a tenant on an exterior wall not having a public entrance or facing a public right-of-way may have a building mounted business/identification sign, on that portion of a wall that is adjacent or a part of its owned or leased premises. The size of such a sign shall not exceed one square foot in area for each one linear foot of the width of the tenant's exterior wall and shall not extend more than fifty percent (50%) of the length of the tenant's exterior wall and shall be no closer than one foot (1') from the vertical or horizontal edge of any wall to which it is affixed. Such a sign shall not be illuminated either internally or externally if that sign faces residential land uses. (Ord. 2018-57, 10-23-2018) 3. Electronic Message Display Panel: a. There shall only be one permitted sign per lot that may contain an electronic message display panel. b. A permanent freestanding business sign may be composed of an electronic message display panel. c. The electronic message display panel shall not make the sign otherwise not in compliance with all the requirements of this title and this Code. d. Except for an electronic message display panel in a permitted sign for a movie theater, all other electronic message display panels shall not display video but may display static text and animation that dissolves, fades, scrolls or travels. Between each display shall be the delay indicated in table 10.20.02 of this section. e. The brightness of the electronic message display panels shall not be more than five thousand (5,000) nits in the daytime and one thousand seven hundred fifty (1,750) nits in the nighttime. f. Prior to issuing a permit for a sign that contains an electronic message display panel, the applicant shall provide a written certification from the sign manufacturer that the light intensity has been factory preset not to exceed the levels specified in this section and the intensity level is protected from end user manipulation by password protected software or other method deemed appropriate by the city. g. Malfunctioning electronic message display panels shall automatically turn off or be turned off within twenty four (24) hours of the malfunction. h. A sign with an electronic message display panel shall be constructed with the other components of the sign in a natural material in the same brick, stone or masonry construction of the principal building's exterior walls. i. Table 10.20.02 of this section shows the maximum size of the electronic message display panel. TABLE 10.20.02 SIZE OF ELECTRONIC MESSAGE SIGNS (MANUFACTURING) Size Of Parcels Maximum Area Of Electronic Message Display Panel Minimum Time Between Video, Animation Or Static Text Manufacturing parcel of 3 acres or less 32 sq. ft.8 seconds Manufacturing parcel of more than 3 acres 36 sq. ft.8 seconds B. Temporary Signs: 1. Real Estate Signs: On industrial lots, one real estate sign per street frontage no greater than thirty two (32) square feet in area or five feet (5') in height. 2. Construction Signs: One construction sign per industrial lot not to exceed thirty two (32) square feet in area and ten feet (10') in height. 3. Banners/Special Business Event Sign: One banner/special business event sign per business not to exceed thirty two (32) square feet in area and ten feet (10') in height. 4. Portable Sign: One portable sign per business not to exceed sixteen (16) square feet in area. 5. Wind Feathers: No limit on the quantity per lot. Time period not to exceed thirty (30) days. 6. Off Premises Sponsorship Banner: Banners shall be on city property. Individual banners shall be mounted on an outfield fence, backstop or scoreboard. Banners mounted on an outfield fence shall be a dimension of three feet by six feet (3' x 6') in size and shall face the playing field. Banners mounted on a scoreboard shall be a maximum area of thirty two (32) square feet. (Ord. 2014-73, 11- 25-2014) 10-20-11: NONCONFORMING SIGNS: A. Any sign for which a permit has been lawfully granted prior to the effective date of this or any subsequent amendment to this chapter and which does not comply with the provisions of such amendment may nonetheless be completed in accordance with the approved plans, provided construction of the sign is started within ninety (90) days after the passage of the chapter amendment and is completed within sixty (60) days after beginning construction. B. Whenever a nonconforming sign has been discontinued for a period of six (6) months, or whenever there is evidence of a clear intent on the part of the owner to abandon a nonconforming sign, such sign shall not, after being discontinued or abandoned, be reestablished and the sign hereafter shall be in conformity with the regulations of this chapter. C. Normal maintenance of a nonconforming sign is permitted, including necessary nonstructural repairs or incidental alterations which do not extend or intensify the nonconforming features of the sign. D. No structural alteration, enlargement or extension shall be made in a nonconforming sign except when the alteration will actually result in eliminating the nonconformance. E. If a nonconforming sign is damaged or destroyed by any means to the extent of fifty percent (50%) or more of the replacement value at the time, the sign can be rebuilt or used thereafter only for a conforming use and in compliance with the provisions of this chapter. In the event the damage or destruction is less than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement value based upon prevailing costs, the sign may then be restored to its original condition and the use may be continued which existed at the time of such partial destruction until the nonconforming sign is otherwise abated by the provisions of this chapter. In either event, a permit for restoration or repair must be applied for within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of damage or destruction, and be completed within sixty (60) days after beginning restoration or repair. F. Existing temporary signs shall expire at the termination date specified on the permit, but in no case later than six (6) months from the passage date hereof. New temporary signs shall be allowed only in conformance with the provisions contained in this chapter. Such signage must be removed by the close of business of the day the temporary sign permit expires. (Ord. 2014-73, 11-25-2014) 10-20-12: PERMITTING PROCEDURES: Permits for permanent and temporary signs: A. Permit Required: No sign shall be erected, enlarged, expanded, altered or relocated unless the person proposing to erect, alter or move such sign shall obtain a permit from the code official. Such permit shall be issued only when the sign complies with all of the applicable provisions of this chapter. The fee for granting such a permit for signs shall be established by the city council. The schedule of fees for signs shall be posted in the city offices and may be amended only by the city council. A deposit of fifty dollars ($50.00) shall be required at the time of permit application for any temporary banner sign, which deposit shall be returned to the applicant upon removal of the temporary banner sign, unless the applicant is in violation of the provisions of this chapter. Routine sign maintenance, changing of parts designed for change, or changing the content of a sign in any manner which does not change the functional classification of the sign shall not, standing alone, be considered an alteration of the sign requiring the issuance of a permit, unless such change of parts or content relates to or is occasioned by a change in the ownership or nature of the activity to which the sign relates or which is conducted on the premises on which the sign is located. B. Application For Permit: Any person desiring a permit for a permanent or temporary sign shall file a permit application which shall contain or have attached the following information: 1. A copy of plans and specifications showing the method of construction, illumination, if any, and support of such sign. Calculations showing the sign is designed for dead load and wind pressure in any direction in the amount required by other applicable laws and ordinances of the city may be required. 2. A plat of survey showing the location of the sign(s) on the lot and a drawing indicating the location of the sign(s) on any building or structure on the lot. 3. A sketch, drawn to scale, showing sign faces, exposed surface areas and the proposed message and design, accurately represented as to size, area, proportion and color. 4. The written consent of the owner(s) or agent of the building, structure, or land on which the sign is erected. 5. The name, address and phone number of the applicant. 6. The name of the person, firm, corporation or association erecting, altering or moving the sign. C. Temporary Sign Permit Frequency And Duration Per Business: TABLE 10.20.03 TEMPORARY SIGN PERMIT FREQUENCY AND DURATION Type Of Sign Maximum Duration Maximum Frequency Banners 30 days 5 times per year Cold air inflatable device 72 hours Once per year Commercial real estate 6 months Renewable Construction During active building permit issuance Grand opening 45 days Once per business Industrial real estate 6 months Renewable Off premises sponsorship banner 8 months: March through October Residential marketing 6 months Renewable Sandwich board or A-frame 6 months Renewable Searchlights 72 hours Once per year Wind feather (per property)30 days ($25.00 fee)Renewable ($5.00 fee) (Ord. 2014-73, 11-25-2014) 10-20-13: SIGN VARIATIONS: In addition to the procedures and standards listed in section 10-4-7 of this title regarding variations from the requirements, the zoning board of appeals shall also consider the following factors in hearing testimony and making decisions regarding sign variance requests: A. If the sign was erected legally with a sign permit. B. If there are any unique physical characteristics of the property. C. If there are limited available locations for signage on the property. D. The cost to the applicant of complying with the requirements of this chapter. E. If the sign is on or faces a street with a forty (40) mile per hour or higher speed limit. F. If the sign is on a street with twenty thousand (20,000) or higher vehicle trips per day. G. If the sign would be blocked by existing or required landscaping. H. If it is a wall sign facing a public right of way without a public entrance. (Ord. 2014-73, 11-25-2014) PUBLIC NOTICE OF A HEARING BEFORE THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISION PZC 2020-14 NOTICE IS HEREWITH GIVEN THAT the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, petitioner, is proposing a text amendment for consideration of updates to “Chapter 20: Signs” of the United City of Yorkville Zoning Ordinance. The amendment to the text is related to non- conforming signs which proposes to define the term “maintenance” of said signage. Additionally, the text amendment will provide an exemption for the replacement of existing non- conforming freestanding monument static message board signs with electronic message board signs along a major thoroughfare, if such replacement does not increase the overall existing sign size. NOTICE IS HEREWITH GIVEN THAT the Planning and Zoning Commission for the United City of Yorkville will conduct a public hearing on Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 7 p.m. at the Yorkville City Hall, located at 800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville, Illinois 60560. The public hearing may be continued from time to time to dates certain without further notice being published. All interested parties are invited to attend the public hearing and will be given an opportunity to be heard. Any written comments should be addressed to the United City of Yorkville Community Development Department, City Hall, 800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville, Illinois, and will be accepted up to the date of the public hearing. By order of the Corporate Authorities of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois. LISA PICKERING City Clerk 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 Community Development Purchasing Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number New Business #8 Tracking Number EDC 2021-08 Sign Code – Discussion Economic Development Committee – January 5, 2021 A discussion will take place at the meeting. Bart Olson Administration Name Department 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: See attached memo. Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Community Development Purchasing Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number Old Business #1 Tracking Number EDC 2020-32 Urban (Domesticated) Chickens Economic Development Committee – January 5, 2021 Majority Vote Discussion regarding permitting and regulating urban (domesticated) chickens in residentially zoned districts. Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, AICP Community Development Name Department Summary: At the December 2020 Economic Development Committee (EDC) meeting staff was given direction to draft an ordinance permitting urban (domesticated) chickens for single-family residentially zoned parcels one (1) acre or larger in size. The EDC also recommended the proposed regulations be modeled after the moderate scope of regulations presented in staff’s memo dated July 20, 2020 and include specific language regarding enforcement. Policy Proposals: Based on the feedback provided to staff from the EDC, the following regulations have been incorporated into the attached draft ordinance: PROPOSED REGULATIONS PERMITTED ZONING (see attached map) Lot must be used for residential purposes  E-1 (2 parcels)  R-1 (24 parcels)  R-2 (39 parcels) Total 65 parcels MIN. LOT SIZE One (1) acre MAX. NUMBER OF CHICKENS Max. of 8 chickens LOCATION/SETBACK Rear/Side Yard 25 ft. setback from property lines SANITATION Performance Standards & Property Maintenance Code applies. Prohibit feed from being scattered on the ground. ENCLOSURE/COOP Enclosure constructed with a covered, predator-proof roof which allows for two (2) square feet per hen. Chicken run and/or yard fence required. SLAUGHTERING Prohibited ROOSTERS Permitted up to 4 months of age PERMIT REQUIRED Required w/o Inspection ($25.00 one-time fee) 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: December 8, 2020 Subject: Urban (Domesticated) Chickens Proposed Code Amendments: The regulations permitting domesticated chickens are proposed as an amendment to Title 8: Building Regulations as an allowed accessory use/structure, similar to the ordinance approving beekeeping on residential properties. Additional amendments to Title 5: Police Regulations will also be required. The following are areas in each aforementioned section which would require amending, text in red is proposed to be added: Title 8: Building Regulations Creation of a new chapter, Chapter 19: Domesticated Chickens, providing all regulatory requirements for permitting chickens in designated residential districts. 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 Title 8 Chapter 19, 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 Title 8 Chapter 19, 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 Title 8 Chapter 19.” 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 Title 8 Chapter 19 or are confined within an enclosure on land zoned A-1 agricultural zoning district, in accordance with title 10, chapter 9 of this code.” Proposed Enforcement & Concerns: In regard to proposed enforcement, the following exist regulations would apply: 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. Additionally, the draft ordinance provides that approval of a permit would allow building staff to have the right to inspect any enclosure or coop between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. with prior notice to the permittee, when practical. 5. Administration Adjudication - All of the above provisions would require processing through the City’s Administration Adjudication procedures which, in addition to compel compliance, but may also issue fines and/or fees to violators. 6. Enforcement Concerns - the Police Department has expressed concern 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. Chief Jensen will be in attendance at the EDC meeting to discuss their concerns in detail. Staff Comments: Staff is seeking formal direction from the Economic Development Committee (EDC) on the proposed draft ordinance. If it is the concurrence of the Committee to adopt the regulations for urban chickens as presented, staff recommends forwarding the ordinance to the next City Council for final consideration. Attachments 1. Proposed Draft Ordinance 2. 12-1-20 EDC Packet Materials 34 126 47 71 47 71 34 Walker Rd Galena R d Bridge StHelmar Rd River Rd Ashley RdRoute 47 Fox Rd Route 71 Eldamain RdAment Rd Caton Farm RdLisbon RdImmanuel RdRoute 30 Budd Rd Corneils Rd Kennedy Rd Church RdMinkler RdFox St Cannonball Trl Faxon Rd Baseline Rd Hollenback RdLegion Rd Sears Rd Mill Rd Hughes Rd Route 34 Concord Dr Mchugh RdMain St Stagecoa c h Trl Highpoint RdSpring St Dickson RdW Veterans Pkwy Needham RdPenman RdLew S t Hillto p R dFields DrTuma R d Van Em m o n R d Rout e 1 2 6 Gordon RdWalsh DrMill StMiller Rd Pavil l ion Rd B r i s t o l R i d g e R d Mitchell DrE South S t Schaefer Rd Grande Tr l Sundo wn Ln Country Rd Hale Rd Klatt St Hoffman St Reservati o n R d Tuscany Trl E m e r a l d L nBeecher RdJohn StKeller StAshe RdCountryside Pkwy Gates Ln Sleepy Hollow RdErica Ln Park St Somonauk St Foli St Rickard DrBristol Bay Dr E Veterans Pkwy Bertram D r Abe St Fairfax WayPoplar DrHa l e S t Lee St Jeter RdPrescott DrBlock Rd 2005-33841Hoover D r Audrey AveAlan Dale LnTroon Dr Kristen StEdward LnBerrywood Ln Cente r S t Center PkwyVan Emmon St Parkside LnDrivewayMorgan StOrange St Adam Ave Foster Dr Poplar RdClark RdState StRock Creek RdHeart l a n d D r Ke n d a l l D r Willow LnFreemont StLakewood Creek DrOmaha DrPrairie St Henn i n g R d Oak Creek D r Wren RdMaple St Hayden DrExit Dr L i l l i a n L n Big Bend Dr Ent r a n c e D rTeri LnDeer StHampton LnJustice DrOrchid St Andrew St Blackhawk RdWashington St Liberty StSu t t o n S t Hil l s i d e D r Ki n g m o o r L n Bailey StSumac DrMaple LnP a r kw a y D rAlden AveOak St Boombah Bl v d Wacker DrAvalon Ln Winding C r e e k R dBurr StDearborn S t King StBlackberry Shore Ln Sweetbriar Pl Elm St Patterson Rd Rain t ree Rd Western Ln Alyssa S t Marketview DrQuinsey Ln Prairie Crossing DrFairfield AveIsabel DrGame Farm RdRonhill RdFairhaven Dr Julie Ln Colton StLake Side Bruell StCoach RdBeaver St Ravine CtGreenbriar Rd Foxtail LnRoute 126 S t a c y C i r Kingsm i l l S t Bluest e m Dr Brian Ln Madeline DrSunset AveDeerpoint DrDerby Dr Kelly AvePratt StCreek L n Nawakwa LnLauren DrWoodview St Polo Club DrLynn Dr Wing RdEast S t May StHighland Dr Carly Cir Elden DrDanielle LnRiley R d Ryan DrWhiteki r k L n Sch o o l h o u s e R d Griffin DrJenna Cir Grace DrSouth St Thunder Gulch RdLarkspur LnDillon St Bailey RdSycamore RdKate DrEileen St Fo x C t Walsh Cir Bernadette Ln Iroquois Ln West StCryder WayKensey Ct Prairie LnHeatherwood DrFoxbor o DrAlexis StHillt o p Heather Ln Redbud Dr Blaine StChr is tophe r S tEsta D r Banbury Ave Charles St Searl StTitus DrE m i l y C t Canyon Trl Millrace LnPark Dr Churchill Dr Andrew Tr l Fox Glen Dr Deere C r o s s i n g D r Farm C t River Birch Dr Garden St Weston Ave Elizabeth St Acorn LnHuntington Ln Evergreen LnO l i v e L n Barrett Dr Allen StEllsworth DrL a v e n d a r W a y Lexington Cir Harris Ln Greenfield Turn Pensacola St Lewis St York v i l l e R d Riverwood DrLong Grove RdBrady StAspen LnBonnie LnEdgelawn D r Ruby Dr Ca r l y D r Lotus Ridge RdRedhorse LnPinewood DrWyt h e P l Brookside LnE Kenda l l D r Clover Ct Ridge St Walnu t D r Deames St Dickson Ct Wilson CtCole CtBirch C t Rebecca Ct Dolph St Jete r C t Slate CtCardinal LnOak Ln Sanders CtHa l e R d Cannonball TrlFaxon R d Route 71 Route 34 Hale S t DrivewayDriveway Driveway Main St Driveway Route 71 DrivewayTroon Dr Be e c h e r R d John StDriveway E Veterans PkwyUnited City of Yorkville, Illinois URBAN CHICKEN PERMITTED LOCATIONS ADDRESS: 800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville Illinois DATA: All permit data and geographic data are property of the United City of Yorkville LOCATION: (I:)//Community Development/Urban Chickens DATE: December 8, 2020 Ordinance No. 2021-____ Page 1 Draft 12/02/20 Ordinance No. 2021- _____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS, ALLOWING BACKYARD COOPS/ENCLOSURES FOR DOMESTICATED CHICKENS IN CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AS A PERMITTED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND SUBJECT TO CERTAIN REGULATIONS 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, domesticated chickens are of benefit to mankind by providing fresh eggs, garden fertilizer services, and companionship to their owners; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to sections 11-5-3, 11-5-6, and 11-20-9 of the Illinois Municipal Code, as amended, (65 ILCS 5/11-5-3, 5/11-5-6, and 5/11-20-9) the City has the power and authority to regulate the licensing, treatment and prevention of nuisances regarding animals in the City. WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council deem it necessary to allow and regulate domesticated chickens in order to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the City’s residents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, as follows: Section 1: That Title 8 of the United City of Yorkville Code of Ordinances is hereby amended by adding Chapter 19 to read as follows: CHAPTER 19 DOMESTICATED CHICKENS 8-19-1: Definitions As used in this chapter, the following words and terms shall have the meanings ascribed in this section unless the context of their usage clearly indicates another meaning: A. “Coop” means an enclosure constructed with a covered roof. B. “Domesticated Chicken” means all life stages of the 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 this Title. C. “Rooster” means an adult male chicken of the subspecies of the species Gallus Domesticus. D. “Slaughtering” means the killing of an animal for food or other reason. Ordinance No. 2021-____ Page 2 8-19-2: Certain conduct declared unlawful. A. The keeping by any person of domesticated chickens in the City is prohibited except in compliance with this Chapter or upon any property zoned for agricultural uses. B. The purpose of this article is to establish certain requirements of sound domesticated chicken practices, which are intended to avoid problems that may otherwise be associated with the keeping of chickens in populated areas. C. Notwithstanding compliance with the various requirements of this Chapter, it shall be unlawful for any persons to keep any domesticated chickens in such a manner or of such disposition as to cause any unhealthy condition, interfere with the normal enjoyment of human or animal life of others, or interfere with the normal use and enjoyment of any public property or property of others. 8-19-2: Restrictions A. Domesticated chickens shall be permitted on lots used for residential purposes of one (1) acre or greater in area and zoned within the E-1 Estate, R-1 Single-Family Suburban Residence and R-2 Single-Family Traditional Residence districts. B. A maximum of eight (8) chickens shall be permitted on any lot. C. Roosters shall be prohibited. D. Domesticated chickens and associated enclosures, coops and fencing shall be located within rear or side yard of any lot and must maintain a minimum setback of twenty-five (25) feet from any property line. E. Slaughtering of domesticated chickens shall be prohibited. 8-19-3: Coop and fence type. All domesticated chicken enclosures or coops shall be constructed with a covered, predator-proof roof which allows for a minimum of two (2) square feet per chicken. A chicken run or yard fence shall be required. 8-19-4: Sanitation A. Enclosures or coops for domesticated chickens shall be kept clean and sanitary at all times. Any dirt or refuse resulting from the fowl or livestock shall be disposed in a clean and sanitary fashion. B. All feed for domesticated chickens shall be kept in containers that are rodent proof until put out for consumption in appropriate feeding vessel. No feed shall be scattered on the ground. Ordinance No. 2021-____ Page 3 8-19-5: Permit. A. Permit applications for domesticated chickens shall be obtained from and submitted to the Community Development Director or his/her designee. At the time of permit application, the applicant shall: 1. Submit proof of authorization from the property owner to allow domesticated chickens if the property is not owner occupied; and 2. Pay a twenty-five dollar ($25.00) nonrefundable application fee. B. Permit approval shall allow the Community Development Director or designees to have the right to inspect any enclosure or coop between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Where practicable, prior notice shall be given to the permittee. 8-19-6: Compliance. Upon receipt of information that any domesticated chicken enclosure or coop situated within the City is not being kept in compliance with this article, the Community Development Director or designee shall cause an investigation to be conducted. If grounds are found to exist to believe that one or more violations have occurred notices of violation for administrative adjudication pursuant to Chapter 14 of Title 1 may be issued or a complaint filed in the circuit court of Kendall County. Section 2: That Subsection 5-2-1: Definitions of the United City of Yorkville Police Regulations of the Yorkville City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: “AGRICULTURAL ANIMAL: Livestock, poultry with the exception of domesticated chickens as regulated in Title 8 Chapter 19, and other farm animals.” “DOMESTIC ANIMAL: Dogs, cats and any other types of animals or fowl, including domesticated chickens as regulated in Title 8 Chapter 19, normally maintained as a household pet or guardian.” “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 Title 8 Chapter 19.” Section 3: That Subsection 5-2-5: Agricultural Animals of the United City of Yorkville Police Regulations of the Yorkville City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: “Agricultural animals are prohibited within the corporate limits of the city, unless they are domesticated chickens regulated in Title 8 Chapter 19 or are confined within an enclosure on land zoned A-1 agricultural zoning district, in accordance with title 10, chapter 9 of this code.” Ordinance No. 2021-____ Page 4 Section 4: 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 __________________, 2021. ______________________________ CITY CLERK KEN KOCH _________ DAN TRANSIER _________ JACKIE MILSCHEWSKI _________ ARDEN JOE PLOCHER _________ CHRIS FUNKHOUSER _________ JOEL FRIEDERS _________ SEAVER TARULIS _________ JASON PETERSON _________ APPROVED by me, as Mayor of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois this ____ day of __________________, 2021. ______________________________ MAYOR Summary: At the September 1st Economic Development Committee (EDC) meeting, it was recommended that staff research the existing residential subdivision’s homeowners’ association (HOA) declarations to determine if there are any restrictions in place prohibiting “urban/backyard” chickens which would make the proposed zoning amendment to permit chickens in residential districts moot. This is due to a significant portion of Yorkville’s residentially zoned land is part of a master planned development. Additionally, staff was tasked with creating a brief web survey presented to the community about the topic of allowing chickens in residential districts. Subdivision Homeowner’s Association Research: Staff researched all residential subdivision homeowners’ associations (HOA) declarations on file with the Kendall County Recorder’s Office to determine if there were any restrictions to allowing backyard chickens in the City’s master-planned developments. Below is a chart of the findings: Name of Current Development Unit Type(s) Covenant Record Doc. # Date of Covenant Restrictions/ Prohibits Chickens (Y/N) Covenant Section & Language 1 Autumn Creek #20060008954 3/27/2006 Y Sec. 8.5 pg. 18: "No animals, livestock or poultry…" Single Family Town Homes 2 Blackberry Woods #201000012125 7/14/2010 Y Sec. 6 Animals: "No animals, livestock, or poultry of any kind shall be raised, bred, or kept on Lot, except that dogs, cats or other household pets may be kept provided that they are not kept, bred, or maintained for any commercial purpose." Single Family 3 Briarwood #200700000625 1/5/2007 Y Sec. 3.2 (j) pg. 7 "No animals, livestock or poultry…" Single Family 4 Bristol Bay #200600003313 1/31/2006 Y Article VIII Sec. 1 (f) pg. 13 "No animals, reptiles, rabbits, livestock, fowl or poultry…" Single Family Duplex Town Homes Condominiums 5 Caledonia Single Family #200600026078 8/21/2006 N No language specific to pets 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: September 30, 2020 Subject: Urban (Domesticated) Chickens 6 Not Recorded N/A N N/A Cannonball Estates Single Family 7 Cimarron Ridge #199200921219 2/10/1992 Y Article III Sec. 1 pg. 2 "No poultry…" Single Family Duplex 8 Country Hills #199509501815 3/17/1995 Y Article III Sec. 16 (g) pg. 8 "No animals other than household pets such as cats and dogs." Single Family Duplex 9 Fox Highlands #200100012188 7/10/2001 Y Article V Sec. 6 pg. 14 "No animals except cats or dogs…" Single Family Town Homes Duplex 10 Fox Hill #199509500419 #199509507391 #200700032452 01/18/1995 09/13/1995 11/02/2007 Y Article III Sec. 3.9 pg. 6 "No chickens…" Article 7 Sec. 7.6 pg 18 "No animals except cats and dogs…" Article 3 Section 3.10 (f) pg 18 "No animals or any kind shall be raised, bred or kept in any Unit or in the Common Elements except for those animals assisting disabled persons or animals that are being examined or treated by a certified veterinarian who is maintaining a veterinary medicine practice in any of the Units." Single Family Town Homes Duplex 11 Grande Reserve #200500002378 1/25/2005 Y Article X Sec. 10.02 pg 42 "No poultry..." Single Family Duplex Town Homes Apartments 12 Greenbriar Single Family Duplex #199709707331 7/28/1997 N No language specific to pets 13 Heartland Circle Single Family #2004000002598 1/30/2004 Y Sec. 5.03 (a) pg. 9 "No poultry..." 14 Heartland Subdivision #200100006495 4/19/2001 Y Sec. 5.03 (a) pg. 11 "No poultry..." Single Family 15 Heartland Meadows Not Recorded N/A N/A N/A Single Family 16 Kendall Marketplace Not Recorded N/A N/A N/A Single Family Town Homes 17 Kylyn's Ridge 200300036916 30‐Sep‐03 N No language specific to pets Single Family 18 Longford Lakes 200400000827 12‐Jan‐04 N No language specific to pets Townhomes 19 Prairie Gardens 200400006116 15‐Mar‐04 N No language specific to pets Age Restricted 20 Prairie Meadows 200500003507 3‐Feb‐05 N No language specific to pets Single Family Multi‐Family 21 Prestwick of Yorkville Single Family 200700014390 2‐May‐07 Y 4.3.11 Dogs and Cats: No more than a total of two (2) dogs or two (2) cats or one (1) dog and one (1) cat can be maintained, kept or housed in any residential unit whether or not such animal is the property of the owner of such residential unit. No such animal shall be allowed outside of a residential unit unless accompanied and attended at all times by an occupant of such residential unit and no dogs shall be allowed to bark as to create any type of nuisance to neighbors. 22 Raintree Village 201900008500 26‐Jun‐19 Y Section 8.04 Pets: No animals, livestock or poultry of any kind shall be raised, bred, or kept in the Community Area. The Board may from time to time adopt rules and regulations governing (a) the keeping of pets in Detached Home or Duplex Home, which may include prohibiting certain species of pets from being kept in a Detached Home or Duplex Home and (b) the use of the Community Area by pets. Single Family Duplex Town Homes 23 River's Edge Single Family 200100025428 31‐Dec‐01 N No language specific to pets 24 Sunflower Estates 200700019804 27‐Jun‐07 N HOA Rescinded Single Family 25 Whispering Meadows 200500011560 25‐Apr‐05 N No language specific to pets Single Family 26 White Oak Estates Single Family 198900895534 27‐Sep‐89 Y Article VII, Section 7: No animals, livestock, or poultry of any kind shall be raised, bred, or kept on any lot except that dogs, cats, or other household pets may be kept provided that they are not kept, bred, or maintained for any commercial purpose. 27 Wildwood 198900891588 27‐Mar‐89 N No language specific to pets Single Family 28 Windett Ridge 200300034331 22‐Mar‐03 N No language specific to pets Single Family From the information in the above table, 14 of the 28 developments (50.0%) have regulations that specifically do not allow chickens within their HOA covenants. Of the remaining 14 (indicated in red in the table), 10 of the developments (35.7%) have no language specific to any pets and 4 (14.3%) have no HOA covenants recorded. Urban Chicken Public Survey Results: In regard to the public survey, the following summarizes the questions asked and the responses provided as of the date of this memo: From the preliminary results of the survey, respondents are split (37% Yes to 37% No) to interest in raising chickens in their backyards, but an overwhelming percentage of respondents (68%) are okay with their neighbor having the right to raise backyard chickens if it was clean and regulated by the City. As far as respondents in support of backyard chickens, 87% would want them for their fresh eggs, while those opposed cited the impact to appearance (78%), the noise (75%) and disease and/or predators has major concerns. Finally, respondents preferred very large rural lots (53%) and typical subdivision lots of 12,000 square feet (50%) to raise backyard chickens and overwhelming thought a small flock of 3-4 chickens was appropriate (37%). Staff Comments: Based upon the research of the City’s HOA covenants, only 50% have specific language restricting the raising of backyard chickens. This is consistent with the resident survey responses with 50% supporting backyard chickens in residential subdivisions and 50% opposed. Therefore, staff is seeking formal direction from the Economic Development Committee (EDC) regarding the request 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 the City’s Code, 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. Memorandum to Economic Development Committee (EDC) from staff dated July 20, 2020 with attachments presented at the September 9, 2020 meeting. 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)