Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Economic Development Packet 2022 05-03-22
AGENDA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Tuesday, May 3, 2022 6:00 p.m. City Hall Conference Room 800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville, IL Citizen Comments: Minutes for Correction/Approval: April 5, 2022 New Business: 1. EDC 2022-24 Building Permit Report for March 2022 2. EDC 2022-25 Building Inspection Report for March 2022 3. EDC 2022-26 Property Maintenance Report for March 2022 4. EDC 2022-27 Economic Development Report for April 2022 5. EDC 2022-28 Microbrewery/Brewpub/Microwinery Zoning Code Text Amendment 6. EDC 2022-29 Future Land Use Change – South Eldamain Corridor Properties Old Business: 1. EDC 2020-32 Urban Chickens Additional Business: 2019 – 2021 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, May 3, 2022 6:00 PM CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CITIZEN COMMENTS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MINUTES FOR CORRECTION/APPROVAL: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. April 5, 2022 □ Approved __________ □ As presented □ With corrections --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NEW BUSINESS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. EDC 2022-24 Building Permit Report for March 2022 □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. EDC 2022-25 Building Inspection Report for March 2022 □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. EDC 2022-26 Property Maintenance Report for March 2022 □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. EDC 2022-27 Economic Development Report for April 2022 □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. EDC 2022-28 Microbrewery/Brewpub/Microwinery Zoning Code Text Amendment □ Moved forward to CC __________ □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. EDC 2022-29 Future Land Use Change – South Eldamain Corridor Properties □ Moved forward to CC __________ □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OLD BUSINESS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. EDC 2020-32 Urban Chickens □ 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 – April 5, 2022 Economic Development Committee – May 3, 2022 Majority Committee Approval Minute Taker Name Department DRAFT Page 1 of 4 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Tuesday, April 5, 2022, 6:00pm City Council Chambers 800 Game Farm Rd., Yorkville, IL Note: In accordance with Public Act 101-0640 and Gubernatorial Disaster Proclamation issued by Governor Pritzker pursuant to the powers vested in the Governor under the Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act, remote attendance was allowed for this meeting to encourage social distancing due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. In Attendance: Committee Members Chairman Jason Peterson/in-person Alderman Ken Koch/in-person Alderman Chris Funkhouser/in-person Alderman Joe Plocher/in-person Other City Officials City Administrator Bart Olson/in-person Assistant City Administrator Erin Willrett/in-person Community Development Director Krysti Barksdale-Noble/in-person Senior Planner Jason Engberg/electronic attendance Code Official Pete Ratos/in-person Other Guests City Consultant Lynn Dubajic Kellogg/in-person Troy Mertz, MODA Homes/in-person Engineer Dave Schultz, HR Green/in-person Brad Winick/electronic attendance Scott Shelton/electronic attendance Kyle Smith/electronic attendance Dawn Graves, Bricolage/electronic attendance Dan Maurer, Bristol Bay/in-person Ken Knapp, Bristol Bay/in-person David Holtzman, Bristol Bay/in-person The meeting was called to order at 6:01pm by Chairman Jason Peterson. Citizen Comments None Minutes for Correction/Approval February 1, 2022 The minutes were approved as presented. Page 2 of 4 New Business 1. EDC 2022-14 Building Permit Reports for January and February 2022 Mr. Ratos reported 14 single-family detached home permits and 7 commercial permits for January. No further action. 2. EDC 2022-15 Building Inspection Reports for January and February 2022 There were 481 inspections in January and 427 in February. Mr. Ratos said the weather kept the numbers down. No further action. 3. EDC 2022-16 Property Maintenance Reports for January and February 2022 In January, 3 cases were heard including 2 cases on Honeysuckle which were found liable and fined. In February there was a roof case and the Honeysuckle address was also fined again. 4. EDC 2022-17 Economic Development Reports for February and March 2022 Ms. Dubajic Kellogg reported a number of businesses ready to go including 3 restaurants. The Williams Group is doing very well and includes a coffee shop. Other re- development is occurring downtown and the former Millhurst Ale House has a new owner and new concept and will be announced soon. 5. EDC 2022-18 Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Proposal Alderman Funkhouser asked about new staffing and in particular, new inspectors. One additional inspector was added last year/mid-year and other employees were shifted to assist with Community Development. Outsourcing of reviews will continue and Mr. Ratos said a new inspector would cost about $80,000. Mr. Olson discussed the Bright Farms permit fees and he said a survey of fees in other towns had been done to compare. 6. EDC 2022-19 Aging-in-Community Memorandum of Understanding Ms. Noble said this proposal originated when she was part of CMAP. This proposal would analyze the aging population and determine what steps can be taken to improve this community. Staff has applied to be part of this pilot program and selections are now in the second round. Representatives of this program were present via Zoom. Mr. Kyle Smith a Director in the Metropolitan Mayors Caucus, said communities such as Yorkville have been discussing strategies to help make the communities more livable for older adults. He said MMC and CMAP are attempting to obtain free resources for seniors. Mr. Brad Winick said if Yorkville becomes part of this process, there will be a small core team of 2-4 people along with elected officials and citizen reps. Goals will be identified, workshops will be held and a recommendations report will be compiled. Ms. Noble said this would be the first project prior to a Comp Plan update with the focus on the senior community. Chairman Peterson asked if there are grant opportunities or results from other cities. Grants will not be known until after the goals are identified. She said the county, Senior Services and Parks & Rec would also be involved in this endeavor. Page 3 of 4 Work on this project will be minimal and can be done by current staff, along with a possible intern and high school students. This program was introduced in other communities with success and staff requested input from EDC regarding participation. 7. EDC 2022-20 Bricolage 8721 Route 126 Rezoning Ms. Noble said petitioner Dawn Graves wants to open a third location for her business at this address. The existing house is part of the Windmill Farms, but the PUD never moved forward and Ms. Graves needs B-3 zoning. The property is part of 13 parcels in the PUD and each parcel needs to be removed and rezoned. If this is approved, the Comp Plan will need to be amended as a commercial zone. Staff did an analysis of the site for parking, setbacks and other items. They support rezoning and this will move forward to Planning and Zoning Commission next week. There was some further brief discussion about the setbacks and parking. 8. EDC 2022-21 Ordinance Approving the Second Amendment to the Annexation and Planned Unit Development Agreement for a Portion of the Windmill Farms Development (BW Properties Holdings, LLC/Bricolage Wellness, PLLC) This is the amendment to carve out the parcel for the above rezoning. Ms. Noble said there were 13 parcels and staff was never able to get all property owners together at one time to repeal the Annexation Agreement. The City Attorney recommended that it be done individually to remove those parcels from the Annexation Agreement. Ms. Noble said there is a draft of the amendment and a Public Hearing will occur next week at City Council. Staff is also in talks with the church which owns 3 parcels, to complete this process and there are 3 remaining lots. 9. EDC 2022-22 Bristol Bay Unit 3 Final Plat Amendment Ms. Noble explained that the remaining lots were purchased by Pulte. The new owner, Troy Mertz, MODA Homes, has a new product, but will need some variances and setbacks. They have an application in process to address some of the issues. Because of the adjustments needed, they must increase the number of units and shift some interior lines which will not increase the overall density. There are architectural standards in the original Annexation Agreement, and the owner has included some architectural features suggested by staff, for some design interest. Ms. Noble detailed the features to be included. The proposed Final Plat is included in the agenda packet. Alderman Funkhouser asked to have a setback verified that seems to be encroaching on a corner unit and Mr. Schultz noted that some of the setbacks overlap. 10. EDC 2022-23 Bristol Bay Unit 13 Final Plat This unit had never been sub-divided. It had a Final Plat in 2006 which was not recorded and is therefore, null and void. It is a 25-acre parcel with 69 lots for single-family including a lot for a park, all under contract by NVR. As part of the approval, a $50,000 payment must be made to the Parks and Recreation and must occur prior to recording of the Final Plat. When it was owned by Pulte, most of the underground work was completed, but some is also needed. This will move to Planning and Zoning Commission next week for Final Plat. Page 4 of 4 Kenneth Knapp, a Bristol Bay homeowner, said residents were not notified of the project and he said it is located in the middle of their community. He said they also were not notified of the SSA's which were re-financed and he had concerns about this. Mr. Knapp said that notifications were required to the surrounding residents. He said they were also worried about possible townhouse rentals in the middle of their community and the possible impact on the schools. Mr. Olson responded to these concerns and said Final Plats do not require notifications to nearby property owners as long as the project is generally the same product and unit count. The project owner invited dialog following the meeting. Mr. Knapp also discussed SSA refinancing and said he wished to convey information to other residents. He also asked if the new lots and townhomes would be part of the SSA. Mr. Olson replied that they will, however, the new owner has the ability to pay off the SSA. Mr. Mertz also addressed the SSA and said he would be glad to meet with homeowners to discuss further. Old Business: None Additional Business: Alderman Funkhouser asked to have a discussion about urban chickens at the next meeting. There was no further business and the meeting adjourned at 6:56pm. Minutes respectfully submitted by Marlys Young, Minute Taker/in-person 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 2022-24 Building Permit Report for March 2022 Economic Development Committee – May 3, 2022 Informational None All permits issued in March 2022. D. Weinert Community Development Name Department Prepared by D Weinert UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE BUILDING PERMIT REPORT March 2022 Number of Permits Issued SFD Single Family Dwelling SFA Single Family Attached Multi- Family Apartments Condominiums Commercial Includes all Permits Issued for Commercial Use Industrial Misc. Construction Cost Permit Fees March 2022 151 28 0 0 15 0 108 8,952,504.00 214,559.97 Calendar Year 2022 262 47 8 0 27 0 180 14,837,093.00 365,760.77 Fiscal Year 2022 1380 197 144 0 102 0 937 66,356,470.00 2,288,793.66 March 2021 165 31 8 0 14 0 112 7,159,342.00 302,706.35 Calendar Year 2021 286 67 22 0 27 0 170 16,125,073.00 617,352.28 Fiscal Year 2021 1725 240 116 0 78 0 1291 64,746,757.00 2,904,962.61 March 2020 96 16 0 0 9 0 71 5,030,842.00 159,926.11 Calendar Year 2020 200 33 2 0 27 0 138 8,261,456.00 334,379.86 Fiscal Year 2020 2061 128 32 0 101 0 1800 49,925,906.00 1,589,099.85 March 2019 64 14 0 0 13 0 37 2,971,112.00 162,265.84 Calendar Year 2019 149 41 0 0 37 0 71 13,146,883.00 472,329.94 Fiscal Year 2019 848 210 0 0 112 0 526 52,445,156.00 1,930,052.22 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 2022-25 Building Inspection Report for March 2022 Economic Development Committee – May 3, 2022 Informational None All inspections scheduled in March 2022. D. Weinert Community Development Name Department DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 1DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 1TIME: 12:34:13 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 03/01/2022 TO 03/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------EEI _____ 015-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20201285 947 GILLESPIE LN 103 03/18/2022BF _____ AM 016-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20201287 951 GILLESPIE LN 101 03/18/2022 Comments1: KENDALL MARKETPLACE -- 630-365-7229BF _____ AM 017-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 03/18/2022 Comments1: SEE INSPECTION REPORTBF _____ AM 018-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 03/18/2022PBF _____ AM 019-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 03/18/2022 Comments1: KENDALL MARKET PLACE -- 630-365-7229EEI _____ 020-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 03/18/2022EEI _____ 012-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20201300 950 GILLESPIE LN 148 03/18/2022EEI _____ 012-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20201301 948 GILLESPIE LN 147 03/18/2022EEI _____ 012-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20201302 946 GILLESPIE LN 146 03/18/2022EEI _____ 012-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20201303 944 GILLESPIE LN 145 03/18/2022EEI _____ 012-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20201304 942 GILLESPIE LN 144 03/18/2022PR _____ AM 009-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 20210035 891 HAMPTON LN 134 03/30/2022 Comments1: LUKE 708-543-4777PR _____ AM 010-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 03/30/2022PR _____ AM 011-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 03/30/2022 Comments1: RAINTREE -- LUKE 708-543-4777PR _____ AM 012-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 03/30/2022PBF _____ 014-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 20210149 3732 BAILEY RD 135 03/21/2022 Comments1: WRONG INFORMATION WAS GIVEN -- NO REINSP Comments2: ECTION FEEEEI _____ 015-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 03/28/2022 Comments1: ZACH 224-340-5860--WINTER CONDITIONS, OK Comments2: TO TEMPEEI _____ 015-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20210150 3734 BAILEY RD 1354 03/28/2022 Comments1: ZACH 224-340-5860/WINTER CONDITIONS, OK Comments2: TO TEMPGH _____ 016-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20210151 3736 BAILEY RD 1351 03/23/2022 Comments1: ZACH 224-340-5860 SEE INSPECTION REPORT DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 2DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 2TIME: 12:34:13 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 03/01/2022 TO 03/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ 017-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 03/23/2022GH _____ 018-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 03/23/2022PR _____ 019-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 03/23/2022 Comments1: ZACH 224-340-5860EEI _____ 020-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 03/24/2022 Comments1: ZACH 224-340-5860/WINTER CONDITIONS, OK Comments2: TO TEMPGH _____ 016-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20210152 3738 BAILEY RD 1352 03/23/2022 Comments1: ZACH 224-340-5860GH _____ 017-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 03/23/2022GH _____ 018-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 03/23/2022PR _____ 019-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 03/23/2022 Comments1: ZACH 224-340-5860EEI _____ 020-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 03/24/2022 Comments1: ZACH 224-340-5860 WINTER CONDITIONS, OK Comments2: TO TEMPEEI _____ 015-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20210153 3740 BAILEY RD 1351 03/21/2022 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONS. OK TO TEMPGH _____ 016-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 03/21/2022GH _____ 017-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 03/21/2022GH _____ 018-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 03/21/2022PBF _____ 019-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 03/22/2022GH _____ 014-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20210158 3730 BAILEY RD 1365 03/03/2022 Comments1: 224-340-5860--SEE INSPECTION REPORTGH _____ 015-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 03/03/2022GH _____ 016-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 03/03/2022PBF _____ 017-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 03/03/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE -- 224-340-5860EEI _____ 018-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 03/03/2022 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONS, DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 3DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 3TIME: 12:34:13 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 03/01/2022 TO 03/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BF _____ AM 006-BG BASEMENT AND GARAGE FLOOR 20210170 3145 JUSTICE DR 692 03/21/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE -- CHRIS 224-358-1606GH _____ 007-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 03/29/2022 Comments1: CHRIS/HORTON 224-358-1606GH _____ AM 020-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 20210294 2079 DUNBAR CT 90 03/21/2022PR _____ 007-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20210518 838 ALEXANDRA LN 39 03/03/2022 Comments1: GARY/MARKER 630-977-1868PR _____ 008-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 03/03/2022 Comments1: 630-977-1868PR _____ 009-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 03/03/2022 Comments1: 630-977-1868PR _____ 010-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 03/03/2022 Comments1: 630-977-1868GH _____ 011-INS INSULATION 03/08/2022 Comments1: GARY MARKER/630-977-1868--SEE INSPECTION Comments2: REPORTGH _____ 018-WK SERVICE WALK 20210530 2068 WHITEKIRK LN 96 03/22/2022GH _____ AM 019-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 03/29/2022 Comments1: PATIO -- MIDWEST 815-839-8175GH _____ 009-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20210558 1232 HAWK HOLLOW DR 273 03/10/2022 Comments1: 630-549-9538 -- SEE INSPECTION REPORTGH _____ 010-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 03/10/2022GH _____ 011-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 03/10/2022 Comments1: SEE INSPECTION REPORTPBF _____ 012-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 03/10/2022 Comments1: RAINTREE -- GEORGE 630-549-9538GH _____ 013-INS INSULATION 03/14/2022 Comments1: 630-549-9538GH _____ 014-REI REINSPECTION 03/14/2022 Comments1: FRAMINGGH _____ 015-REI REINSPECTION 03/14/2022 Comments1: MECHANICAL DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 4DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 4TIME: 12:34:13 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 03/01/2022 TO 03/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ 009-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20210559 1234 HAWK HOLLOW DR 273 03/14/2022 Comments1: 630-549-9538GH _____ 010-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 03/14/2022GH _____ 011-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 03/14/2022PBF _____ 012-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 03/14/2022 Comments1: RAINTREE VILLAGE --GEORGE 630-549-9538GH _____ 013-INS INSULATION 03/16/2022 Comments1: 630-549-9538BF _____ AM 003-ELE ELECTRIC SERVICE 20210579 3951 HAVENHILL CT 3029 03/28/2022 Comments1: 630-365-7229BF _____ AM 003-ELE ELECTRIC SERVICE 20210580 3953 HAVENHILL CT 03/28/2022 Comments1: 630-365-7229BF _____ AM 003-ELE ELECTRIC SERVICE 20210581 3955 HAVENHILL CT 03/28/2022 Comments1: 630-365-7229BF _____ AM 003-ELE ELECTRIC SERVICE 20210582 3957 HAVENHILL CT 03/28/2022 Comments1: 630-365-7229GH _____ AM 015-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 20210755 1242 TAUS CIR 121 03/15/2022PR _____ 016-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 03/16/2022 Comments1: DAVE 630-878-5792PR _____ 017-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 03/16/2022 Comments1: DAVE 630-878-5792PR _____ 018-FME FINAL MECHANICAL 03/16/2022 Comments1: DAVE 630-878-5792PR _____ 019-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 03/16/2022 Comments1: DAVE 630-878-5792EEI _____ 020-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 03/17/2022 Comments1: DAVE 630-878-5792BC _____ 008-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 20210894 1244 HAWK HOLLOW DR 2722 03/02/2022BC _____ 008-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 20210895 1242 HAWK HOLLOW DR 2722 03/02/2022PR _____ 014-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20210948 1378 SPRING ST 215 03/16/2022 Comments1: TIM 630-878-5291 DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 5DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 5TIME: 12:34:13 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 03/01/2022 TO 03/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PR _____ 015-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 03/16/2022PR _____ 016-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 03/16/2022PR _____ 017-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 03/16/2022EEI _____ AM 018-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 03/17/2022 Comments1: TIM 630-878-5291PBF _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20210951 1264 HAWK HOLLOW DR 270-1 03/10/2022 Comments1: RAINTREE -- GEORGE 630-549-9538GH _____ PM 006-BG BASEMENT AND GARAGE FLOOR 03/23/2022 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159PBF _____ 006-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20210952 1262 HAWK HOLLOW DR 270-2 03/10/2022 Comments1: RAINTREE -- GEORGE - 630-549-9538GH _____ PM 007-BG BASEMENT AND GARAGE FLOOR 03/23/2022 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159PR _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20210953 1254 HAWK HOLLOW DR 271-1 03/10/2022 Comments1: GEORGE 630-549-9538BC _____ 006-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 03/16/2022 Comments1: GEORGE -- 630-549-9538BF _____ 007-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 03/24/2022 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1151PR _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20210954 1252 HAWK HOLLOW DR 271-2 03/10/2022 Comments1: GEORGE 630-549-9538BC _____ 006-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 03/16/2022 Comments1: GEORGE -- 630-549-9538BF _____ 007-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 03/24/2022 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159GH _____ 013-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20210981 1154 HAWK HOLLOW DR 304-4 03/07/2022 Comments1: 847-456-8082--SEE INSPECTION REPORTGH _____ 014-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 03/07/2022GH _____ 015-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 03/07/2022PR _____ 016-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 03/07/2022 DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 6DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 6TIME: 12:34:13 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 03/01/2022 TO 03/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------EEI _____ 017-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 03/07/2022 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONS, OK TO TEMPGH _____ 012-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20210982 1156 HAWK HOLLOW DR 304-3 03/03/2022 Comments1: 847-456-8082 SEE INSPECTION TICKETGH _____ 013-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 03/03/2022GH _____ 014-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 03/03/2022PR _____ 015-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 03/03/2022EEI _____ 016-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 03/03/2022 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONS, OK TO TEMPGH _____ 012-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20210983 1158 HAWK HOLLOW DR 304-2 03/03/2022GH _____ 013-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 03/03/2022GH _____ 014-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 03/03/2022PR _____ 015-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 03/03/2022EEI _____ 016-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 03/03/2022 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONS, OK TO TEMPGH _____ 013-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20210984 1162 HAWK HOLLOW DR 304-1 03/24/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082GH _____ 014-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 03/24/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082GH _____ 015-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 03/24/2022PR _____ 016-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 03/24/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082EEI _____ 017-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 03/24/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082 -- WINTER CONDITIONS, Comments2: OK TO TEMPGH _____ 013-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211012 840 ALEXANDRA LN 40 03/22/2022 Comments1: GARY - 630-977-1868GH _____ 014-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 03/22/2022GH _____ 015-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 03/22/2022 DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 7DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 7TIME: 12:34:13 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 03/01/2022 TO 03/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PBF _____ 016-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 03/22/2022 Comments1: GARY 630-977-1868EEI _____ 017-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 03/22/2022 Comments1: GARY 630-977-1868 -- CORNER LOT - WINTER Comments2: CONDITIONSBC _____ 014-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211040 2161 COUNTRY HILLS DR 445 03/10/2022 Comments1: JEFF-847-456-8082BC _____ 015-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 03/10/2022BC _____ 016-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 03/10/2022PR _____ 017-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 03/10/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082EEI _____ 018-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 03/10/2022 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONS, OK TO TEMPPR _____ 014-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211041 2141 COUNTRY HILLS DR 446 03/21/2022 Comments1: JEFF -- 847-456-8082 -- SEE INSPECTION R Comments2: EPORTPR _____ 015-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 03/21/2022PR _____ 016-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 03/21/2022PR _____ 017-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 03/21/2022EEI _____ 018-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 03/22/2022 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONS, OK TO TEMPBC _____ 014-STP STOOP 20211042 2121 COUNTRY HILLS DR 447 03/02/2022 Comments1: FRONT AND BACKGH _____ 015-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 03/22/2022 Comments1: JEFF -- 847-456-8082GH _____ 016-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 03/22/2022GH _____ 017-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 03/22/2022PBF _____ 018-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 03/22/2022 Comments1: JEFF -- 847-456-8082EEI _____ 019-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 03/22/2022 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONS, OK TO TEMP DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 8DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 8TIME: 12:34:13 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 03/01/2022 TO 03/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ 013-STP STOOP 20211043 2091 COUNTRY HILLS DR 449 03/02/2022 Comments1: FRONT AND BACKBC _____ 011-STP STOOP 20211044 2101 COUNTRY HILLS DR 448 03/02/2022 Comments1: FRONT AND BACKBF _____ AM 018-WK SERVICE WALK 20211074 2851 ALDEN AVE 288 03/22/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175GH _____ AM 016-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 20211098 2078 ABERDEEN CT 103 03/21/2022GH _____ 017-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 03/28/2022 Comments1: STEVE 630-546-1085GH _____ 018-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 03/28/2022GH _____ 019-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 03/28/2022PBF _____ 020-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 03/28/2022 Comments1: STEVE 630-546-1085EEI _____ 021-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 03/28/2022 Comments1: STEVE 630-546-1085--- WINTER CONDITIONS, Comments2: OK TO TEMPGH _____ AM 018-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 20211099 2102 WHITEKIRK LN 104 03/21/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175GH _____ AM 021-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 20211100 2068 ABERDEEN CT 102 03/21/2022GH _____ 022-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 03/21/2022 Comments1: DECK PADGH _____ AM 018-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 20211101 2077 ABERDEEN CT 100 03/21/2022GH _____ AM 019-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 03/29/2022 Comments1: PATIO-- MIDWEST 815-839-8175BC _____ 008-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20211113 1143 HAWK HOLLOW DR 307-1 03/01/2022BC _____ 009-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 03/01/2022BC _____ 010-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 03/01/2022BC _____ 011-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 03/01/2022PR _____ 012-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 03/01/2022 DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 9DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 9TIME: 12:34:13 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 03/01/2022 TO 03/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ 013-INS INSULATION 03/03/2022 Comments1: SEE INSPECTION REPORTGH _____ 014-STP STOOP 03/18/2022 Comments1: UPLAND JOSE 630-465-1159BC _____ 008-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20211114 1145 HAWK HOLLOW DR 307-2 03/03/2022BC _____ 009-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 03/03/2022BC _____ 010-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 03/03/2022PR _____ 011-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 03/03/2022BC _____ 012-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 03/03/2022GH _____ 013-INS INSULATION 03/07/2022GH _____ 014-STP STOOP 03/18/2022 Comments1: UPLAND JOSE 630-465-1159BC _____ 008-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20211115 1147 HAWK HOLLOW DR 307-3 03/08/2022 Comments1: JEFF -- 847-456-8082BC _____ 009-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 03/08/2022BC _____ 010-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 03/08/2022BC _____ 011-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 03/08/2022PR _____ 012-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 03/08/2022 Comments1: JEFF -- 847-456-8082GH _____ 013-INS INSULATION 03/10/2022 Comments1: JEFF-- 847-456-8082-- SEE INSPECTION REP Comments2: ORTGH _____ 014-STP STOOP 03/18/2022 Comments1: UPLAND JOSE 630-465-1159BC _____ 008-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20211116 1149 HAWK HOLLOW DR 307-4 03/11/2022 Comments1: JEFF--847-456-8082--SEE INSPECTION REPOR Comments2: TBC _____ 009-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 03/11/2022BC _____ 010-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 03/11/2022 DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 10DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 10TIME: 12:34:13 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 03/01/2022 TO 03/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ 011-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 03/11/2022PBF _____ 012-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 03/11/2022 Comments1: RAINTREE VILLAGE--JEFF -847-456-8082GH _____ 013-INS INSULATION 03/15/2022 Comments1: JEFF--847-456-8082 -- SEE INSPECTION TIC Comments2: KETBC _____ AM 014-REI REINSPECTION 03/14/2022 Comments1: MECHANICAL -- JEFF 847-456-8082BC _____ AM 015-REI REINSPECTION 03/14/2022 Comments1: FRAMINGGH _____ 016-STP STOOP 03/18/2022 Comments1: UPLAND JOSE 630-465-1159BC _____ PM 002-FTG FOOTING 20211120 1376 SPRING ST 216 03/03/2022 Comments1: JOHN 630-546-8057BC _____ AM 003-FOU FOUNDATION 03/16/2022 Comments1: JOHN 630-546-8057PR _____ 004-BKF BACKFILL 03/21/2022 Comments1: JOHN/SOPRIS 630-546-8057GH _____ 014-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211121 2466 JUSTICE CT 621 03/21/2022 Comments1: ZACH - 224-340-5860 -- SEE INSPECTION RE Comments2: PORTGH _____ 015-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 03/21/2022GH _____ 016-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 03/21/2022PBF _____ 017-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 03/21/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE -- ZACH 224-340-5860EEI _____ 018-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 03/22/2022 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONS, OK TO TEMPBC _____ 013-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211122 2471 JUSTICE CT 620 03/09/2022 Comments1: ZACH--224-358-1606BC _____ 014-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 03/09/2022BC _____ 015-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 03/09/2022 DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 11DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 11TIME: 12:34:13 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 03/01/2022 TO 03/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PR _____ 016-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 03/09/2022 Comments1: ZACH 224-358-1606--SEE INSPECTION REPORTEEI _____ 017-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 03/10/2022 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONS--OK TO TEMP--ZACH 224- Comments2: 358-1606BC _____ 015-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211123 2465 JUSTICE CT 619 03/11/2022 Comments1: ZACH 224-340-5860BC _____ 016-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 03/11/2022BC _____ 017-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 03/11/2022PBF _____ 018-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 03/11/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE ZACH ---224-358-1606EEI _____ 019-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 03/10/2022 Comments1: ZACH 224-358-1606/WINTER CONDITIONS, OK Comments2: TO TEMPGH _____ AM 003-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211131 1537 STONERIDGE CT 63 03/17/2022 Comments1: tony 630-974-8166 NO EMERGENCY ESCAPE LA Comments2: DDERGH _____ AM 004-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 03/17/2022 Comments1: TONYGH _____ 005-REI REINSPECTION 03/22/2022 Comments1: FINAL FRAME 630-974-8166 -- SEE INSPECTI Comments2: ON REPORTPR _____ 013-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211140 1106 CARLY DR 27 03/08/2022 Comments1: DAVE/MCCUE 630-878-5792PR _____ 014-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 03/08/2022PR _____ 015-FME FINAL MECHANICAL 03/08/2022PR _____ 016-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 03/08/2022 Comments1: DAVE/MCCUE 630-878-5792EEI _____ 017-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 03/08/2022 Comments1: DAVE/MCCUE 630-878-5792--WINTER CONDITIO Comments2: NS, OK TO TEMPGH _____ AM 012-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 20211141 966 S CARLY CIR 104 03/15/2022 DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 12DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 12TIME: 12:34:13 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 03/01/2022 TO 03/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BF _____ AM 016-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211146 4023 SHOEGER CT 26 03/14/2022 Comments1: GRNDE RESERVE -- 630-365-7229BF _____ AM 017-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 03/14/2022BF _____ AM 018-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 03/14/2022PBF _____ AM 019-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 03/14/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE 630-365-7229EEI _____ AM 020-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 03/16/2022 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONS, OK TO TEMPBF _____ AM 016-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211147 4025 SHOEGER CT 26 03/14/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE 630-365-7229BF _____ AM 017-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 03/14/2022BF _____ AM 018-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 03/14/2022PBF _____ AM 019-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 03/14/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE 630-365-7229EEI _____ 020-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 03/16/2022 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONS, OK TO TEMPBC _____ 009-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20211156 3841 BISSEL DR 1181 03/03/2022 Comments1: 224-358-1606BC _____ 010-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 03/03/2022 Comments1: SEE INSPECTION TICKETBC _____ 011-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 03/03/2022PBF _____ 012-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 03/03/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE 224-358-1606GH _____ 014-INS INSULATION 03/08/2022 Comments1: 224-358-1606GH _____ AM 015-STP STOOP 03/11/2022 Comments1: FRONT ONLY -- DAWN 630-232-2255GH _____ AM 010-STP STOOP 20211157 3845 BISSEL DR 1183 03/11/2022 Comments1: FRONT ONLY - DAWN 630-232-2255GH _____ 011-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 03/18/2022 Comments1: CHRIS - 224-358-1606 DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 13DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 13TIME: 12:34:13 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 03/01/2022 TO 03/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ 012-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 03/18/2022GH _____ 013-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 03/18/2022PBF _____ 014-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 03/18/2022 Comments1: CHRIS - 224-358-1606GH _____ 015-INS INSULATION 03/23/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606 -- SEE INSPECTION REP Comments2: ORTBC _____ 010-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20211158 3843 BISSEL DR 1182 03/04/2022 Comments1: CHRIS/DRHORTON 224-358-1606BC _____ 011-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 03/04/2022 Comments1: CHRIS/DRHORTON 224-358-1606BC _____ 012-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 03/04/2022 Comments1: CHRIS/DRHORTON 224-358-1606PBF _____ 013-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 03/04/2022 Comments1: CHRIS/DRHORTON 224-358-1606GH _____ 014-INS INSULATION 03/08/2022 Comments1: 224-358-1606GH _____ AM 015-STP STOOP 03/11/2022 Comments1: FRONT ONLY DAWN--630-232-2255GH _____ AM 009-STP STOOP 20211159 3847 BISSEL DR 1184 03/11/2022 Comments1: FRONT ONLY WEST SUB CONC 630-232-2255BF _____ 010-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 03/24/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606 -- SEE INPECTION REPO Comments2: RTBF _____ 011-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 03/24/2022BF _____ 012-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 03/24/2022PBF _____ 013-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 03/24/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE CHRIS 224-358-1606GH _____ 014-INS INSULATION 03/30/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606GH _____ AM 010-STP STOOP 20211160 3849 BISSEL DR 1185 03/11/2022 Comments1: FRONT ONLY DAWN--630-232-2255 DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 14DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 14TIME: 12:34:13 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 03/01/2022 TO 03/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BF _____ 011-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 03/28/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606 -- SEE INSPECTION REP Comments2: ORTBF _____ 012-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 03/28/2022 Comments1: SEE INSPECTION REPORTBF _____ 013-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 03/28/2022 Comments1: SEE INSPECTION REPORTPBF _____ 014-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 03/28/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE -- CHRIS 224-358-1606GH _____ 015-INS INSULATION 03/30/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606GH _____ 007-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20211165 1144 HAWK HOLLOW DR 303-4 03/24/2022 Comments1: LENNAR 847-456-8082 -- SEE INSPECTION RE Comments2: PORTGH _____ 008-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 03/24/2022 Comments1: LENNAR 847-456-8082GH _____ 009-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 03/24/2022 Comments1: LENNAR 847-456-8082 -- SEE INSPECTION RE Comments2: PORTPBF _____ 010-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 03/24/2022 Comments1: LENNAR 847-456-8082 RAINTREE VILLAGEGH _____ 011-INS INSULATION 03/28/2022 Comments1: LENNAR 847-456-8082/ SEE INSPECTION REPO Comments2: RTGH _____ 012-STP STOOP 03/18/2022 Comments1: UPLAND JOSE 630-465-1159GH _____ 013-REI REINSPECTION 03/25/2022 Comments1: FRAMINGGH _____ 014-REI REINSPECTION 03/25/2022 Comments1: MECHANICALGH _____ 007-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20211166 1146 HAWK HOLLOW DR 303-3 03/18/2022 Comments1: LENNAR 847-456-8082 -- SEE INSPECTION TI Comments2: CKETGH _____ 008-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 03/18/2022 Comments1: LENNAR 847-456-8082 DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 15DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 15TIME: 12:34:13 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 03/01/2022 TO 03/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ 009-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 03/18/2022PBF _____ 010-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 03/18/2022 Comments1: LENNAR 847-456-8082GH _____ 011-INS INSULATION 03/23/2022 Comments1: LENNAR 847-456-8082GH _____ 012-STP STOOP 03/18/2022 Comments1: UPLAND JOSE 630-465-1159GH _____ AM 013-REI REINSPECTION 03/21/2022 Comments1: ROUGH FRAMING JEFF -- 847-456-8082BC _____ 007-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20211167 1148 HAWK HOLLOW DR 303-2 03/16/2022 Comments1: RAINTREE--JEFF/847-456-8082BC _____ 008-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 03/16/2022BC _____ 009-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 03/16/2022BC _____ 010-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 03/16/2022PR _____ 011-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 03/16/2022 Comments1: RAINTREE -- JEFF/ 847-456-8082GH _____ 012-INS INSULATION 03/18/2022 Comments1: JEFF/847-456-8082 -- SEE INSPECTION REPO Comments2: RTGH _____ 013-STP STOOP 03/18/2022 Comments1: UPLAND JOSE 630-465-1159BF _____ 007-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20211168 1152 HAWK HOLLOW DR 303-1 03/14/2022 Comments1: RAINTREE --JEFF 847-456-8082 -- SEE INSP Comments2: ECTION REPORTBF _____ 008-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 03/14/2022 Comments1: SEE INSPECTION REPORTBF _____ 009-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 03/14/2022BF _____ 010-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 03/14/2022PBF _____ 011-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 03/14/2022 Comments1: RAINTREE -- JEFF/847-456-8082GH _____ 012-INS INSULATION 03/17/2022 Comments1: JEFF-847-456-8082 DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 16DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 16TIME: 12:34:13 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 03/01/2022 TO 03/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ 013-REI REINSPECTION 03/16/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082GH _____ 014-STP STOOP 03/18/2022 Comments1: UPLAND JOSE 630-465-1159PR _____ 013-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211179 1151 HAWK HOLLOW DR 306 03/21/2022 Comments1: JEFF -- 847-456-8082PR _____ 014-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 03/21/2022PR _____ 015-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 03/21/2022PR _____ 016-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 03/21/2022EEI _____ 017-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 03/24/2022 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONS, OK TO TEMPGH _____ 013-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211180 1153 HAWK HOLLOW DR 306 03/24/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082GH _____ 014-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 03/24/2022GH _____ 015-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 03/24/2022PR _____ 016-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 03/24/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082EEI _____ 017-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 03/24/2022 Comments1: JEFF - 847-456-8082/WINTER CONDITIONS,OK Comments2: TO TEMPEEI _____ 013-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20211181 1155 HAWK HOLLOW DR 306 03/24/2022 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONS, OK TO TEMPGH _____ 014-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 03/31/2022 Comments1: JEFF- 847-456-8082GH _____ 015-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 03/31/2022 Comments1: JEFF -- 847-456-8082GH _____ 016-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 03/31/2022 Comments1: JEFF-- 847-456-8082PBF _____ 017-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 03/31/2022 Comments1: RAINTREE -- JEFF/847-456-8082EEI _____ 013-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20211182 1157 HAWK HOLLOW DR 306 03/24/2022 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONS/OK TO TEMP DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 17DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 17TIME: 12:34:13 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 03/01/2022 TO 03/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20211199 1124 HAWK HOLLOW DR 301-4 03/01/2022BC _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 03/07/2022 Comments1: JESUS/UPLAND 630-453-9281PR _____ PM 003-SEW SEWER INSPECTION 03/14/2022 Comments1: CATHY 630-387-2001PR _____ PM 004-WAT WATER 03/15/2022 Comments1: CATHY 630-387-2001BC _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20211200 1126 HAWK HOLLOW DR 301-3 03/01/2022BC _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 03/07/2022 Comments1: JESUS/UPLAND 630-453-9281PR _____ PM 003-SEW SEWER INSPECTION 03/14/2022 Comments1: CATHY 630-387-2001PR _____ PM 004-WAT WATER 03/15/2022 Comments1: CATHY 630-387-2001BC _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20211201 1128 HAWK HOLLOW DR 301-2 03/01/2022BC _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 03/07/2022 Comments1: JESUS/UPLAND 630-453-9281PR _____ PM 003-SEW SEWER INSPECTION 03/14/2022 Comments1: CATHY 630-387-2001PR _____ PM 004-WAT WATER 03/15/2022 Comments1: CATHY 630-387-2001BC _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20211202 1132 HAWK HOLLOW DR 301-1 03/01/2022BC _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 03/07/2022 Comments1: JESUS/UPLAND 630-453-9281PR _____ PM 003-SEW SEWER INSPECTION 03/14/2022 Comments1: CATHY 630-387-2001PR _____ PM 004-WAT WATER 03/15/2022 Comments1: CATHY 630-387-2001GH _____ 010-STP STOOP 20211209 2266 RICHMOND AVE 472 03/04/2022 Comments1: COMEX 847-551-9066BF _____ 011-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 03/17/2022 Comments1: LENNAR 847-456-8082 -- SEE INPSECTION RE Comments2: PORT DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 18DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 18TIME: 12:34:13 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 03/01/2022 TO 03/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BF _____ 012-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 03/17/2022 Comments1: LENNAR 847-456-8082BF _____ 013-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 03/17/2022 Comments1: LENNAR 847-456-8082PBF _____ 014-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 03/17/2022 Comments1: LENNAR 847-456-8082GH _____ 015-INS INSULATION 03/21/2022 Comments1: LENNAR 847-456-8082 -- SEE INSPECTION RE Comments2: PORTGH _____ 010-STP STOOP 20211210 2252 RICHMOND AVE 471 03/04/2022 Comments1: COMEX 847-551-9066 -- SEE INSPECTION REP Comments2: ORTBC _____ 011-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 03/14/2022 Comments1: JEFF- 847-456-8082BC _____ 012-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 03/14/2022BC _____ 013-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 03/14/2022PBF _____ 014-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 03/14/2022 Comments1: RAINTREE VILLAGE JEFF 847-456-8082GH _____ 015-INS INSULATION 03/16/2022 Comments1: JEFF--847-456-8082 -- SEE INSPECTION REP Comments2: ORTPR _____ 008-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20211211 2201 COUNTRY HILL DR 470 03/02/2022 Comments1: SEE INSPECTION REORTPR _____ 009-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 03/02/2022PR _____ 010-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 03/02/2022PR _____ 011-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 03/02/2022GH _____ 012-INS INSULATION 03/04/2022 Comments1: SEE INSPECTION REPORTGH _____ 014-STP STOOP 03/04/2022 Comments1: COMEX 847-551-9066BC _____ 014-STP STOOP 20211212 2221 COUNTRY HILLS DR 469 03/02/2022 Comments1: FRONT DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 19DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 19TIME: 12:34:13 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 03/01/2022 TO 03/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ AM 015-STP STOOP 03/04/2022 Comments1: COMEX 847-551-9066GH _____ AM 007-STP STOOP 20211229 3848 BAILEY RD 1191 03/11/2022 Comments1: FRONT -- DAWN 630-232-2255GH _____ AM 007-STP STOOP 20211230 3846 BAILEY RD 1192 03/11/2022 Comments1: FRONT - DAWN 630-232-2255GH _____ AM 007-STP STOOP 20211231 3844 BAILEY RD 1193 03/11/2022 Comments1: FRONT -- DAWN 630-232-2255GH _____ AM 007-STP STOOP 20211232 3842 BAILEY RD 1194 03/11/2022 Comments1: FRONT -- DAWN 630-232-2255GH _____ 014-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211240 601 ASHWORTH LN 514 03/03/2022 Comments1: JEFF--847-456-8082GH _____ 015-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 03/03/2022GH _____ 016-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 03/03/2022PR _____ 017-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 03/03/2022 Comments1: JEFF -- 847-456-8082EEI _____ 018-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 03/03/2022 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONS, OK TO TEMPGH _____ AM 019-WK SERVICE WALK 20211244 2902 ALDEN AVE 323 03/23/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175BF _____ AM 018-WK SERVICE WALK 20211245 2898 ROOD ST 303 03/22/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175GH _____ AM 008-STP STOOP 20211246 621 ASHWORTH LN 513 03/16/2022 Comments1: FRONT AND REAR 847-551-9066GH _____ AM 018-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 20211258 2067 ABERDEEN CT 101 03/21/2022BF _____ 016-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211272 4822 W MILLBROOK CIR 11 03/11/2022 Comments1: ANDREW 331-431-7342BF _____ 017-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 03/11/2022 Comments1: ANDREW 331-431-7342BF _____ 018-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 03/11/2022 Comments1: ANDREW 331-431-7342 DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 20DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 20TIME: 12:34:13 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 03/01/2022 TO 03/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PBF _____ 019-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 03/11/2022 Comments1: ANDREW 331-431-7342EEI _____ 020-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 03/11/2022 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONS, OK TO TEMPPR _____ AM 014-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211282 2861 CRYDER WAY 475 03/23/2022 Comments1: CARMELLA--630-364-0224PR _____ AM 015-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 03/23/2022PR _____ AM 016-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 03/23/2022PR _____ AM 017-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 03/23/2022 Comments1: CARMELLA 630-364-0224GH _____ AM 014-STP STOOP 20211290 2464 JUSTICE CT 622 03/15/2022 Comments1: REAR -- JOSE 630-465-1159GH _____ AM 012-STP STOOP 20211291 2462 JUSTICE CT 623 03/15/2022 Comments1: FRONT AND REAR/JOSE 630-465-1159GH _____ AM 008-STP STOOP 20211292 3108 JUSTICE DR 624 03/15/2022 Comments1: FRONT AND REAR -- JOSE 630-465-1159BF _____ 009-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 03/17/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606 -- SEE INSPECTION REP Comments2: ORTBF _____ 010-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 03/17/2022BF _____ 011-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 03/17/2022PBF _____ 012-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 03/17/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606BF _____ 013-INS INSULATION 03/21/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE -- CHRIS -- 224-358-1606GH _____ 019-WK SERVICE WALK 20211308 2082 WHITEKIRK LN 99 03/22/2022GH _____ 009-STP STOOP 20211309 2274 RICHMOND AVE 473 03/04/2022 Comments1: COMEX 847-551-9066GH _____ 010-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 03/28/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082 -- SEE INSPECTION REPO Comments2: RT DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 21DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 21TIME: 12:34:13 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 03/01/2022 TO 03/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ 011-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 03/28/2022GH _____ 012-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 03/28/2022PR _____ 013-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 03/28/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082GH _____ 014-INS INSULATION 03/30/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082GH _____ 013-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211310 2875 ROOD ST 319 03/02/2022GH _____ 014-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 03/02/2022GH _____ 015-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 03/02/2022PR _____ 016-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 03/02/2022EEI _____ 017-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 03/02/2022 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONSGH _____ AM 018-WK SERVICE WALK 03/23/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175GH _____ 013-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211311 2898 ALDEN AVE 324 03/10/2022 Comments1: JIM -- 331-223-6615 SEE INSPECTION REPO Comments2: RTGH _____ 014-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 03/10/2022GH _____ 015-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 03/10/2022PBF _____ 016-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 03/10/2022 Comments1: JIM 331-223-6615EEI _____ 017-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 03/10/2022 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONS, OK TO TEMPGH _____ AM 018-WK SERVICE WALK 03/23/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175GH _____ 010-STP STOOP 20211312 2282 RICHMOND AVE 474 03/04/2022 Comments1: COMEX 847-551-9066PBF _____ PM 011-SUM SUMP 03/18/2022 Comments1: VERUNA 630-387-2001BF _____ 012-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 03/23/2022 Comments1: JEFF -- 847-456-8082 DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 22DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 22TIME: 12:34:13 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 03/01/2022 TO 03/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BF _____ 013-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 03/23/2022BF _____ 014-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 03/23/2022PBF _____ 015-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 03/23/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082GH _____ 016-INS INSULATION 03/25/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082PBF _____ 006-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20211318 2288 RICHMOND AVE 475 03/03/2022 Comments1: RAINTREE -- 847-456-8082GH _____ AM 007-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 03/04/2022 Comments1: BASEMENT & FRONT STOOP COMEX 847-551-906 Comments2: 6BF _____ 008-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 03/31/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082--SEE INSPECTION REPORTBF _____ 009-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 03/31/2022BF _____ 010-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 03/31/2022PBF _____ 011-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 03/31/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082BF _____ AM 008-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 20211319 581 ASHWORTH LN 515 03/17/2022 Comments1: OSCAR 847-551-9066BF _____ 015-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211329 4838 W MILLBROOK CIR 9 03/23/2022 Comments1: ANDREW/RYAN 331-431-7342BF _____ 016-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 03/23/2022 Comments1: ANDREW/RYAN 331-431-7342BF _____ 017-FME FINAL MECHANICAL 03/23/2022 Comments1: ANDREW/RYAN 331-431-7342PBF _____ 018-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 03/23/2022 Comments1: ANDREW/RYAN 331-431-7342EEI _____ 019-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 03/24/2022 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONS,OK TO TEMPBF _____ AM 005-ELE ELECTRIC SERVICE 20211332 4028 BRADY ST 6 03/28/2022 Comments1: 630-365-7229 DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 23DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 23TIME: 12:34:13 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 03/01/2022 TO 03/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BF _____ AM 005-ELE ELECTRIC SERVICE 20211333 4026 BRADY ST 6 03/28/2022 Comments1: 630-365-7229BF _____ AM 009-ELE ELECTRIC SERVICE 20211334 4003 BRADY ST 8 03/28/2022 Comments1: 630-365-7229BF _____ AM 009-ELE ELECTRIC SERVICE 20211335 4005 BRADY ST 8 03/28/2022 Comments1: 630-365-7229OFD _____ 015-HYD HYDRO TEST 20211336 4043 BRADY ST 10 03/01/2022OFD _____ 015-HYD HYDRO TEST 20211337 4045 BRADY ST 10 03/01/2022BF _____ AM 015-INS INSULATION 20211338 4065 BRADY ST 11 03/02/2022BF _____ PM 016-REI REINSPECTION 03/03/2022 Comments1: INSULATION -- GRANDE RESERVE -- 630-365- Comments2: 7229OFD _____ 017-HYD HYDRO TEST 03/17/2022BF _____ AM 015-INS INSULATION 20211339 4063 BRADY ST 11 03/02/2022BF _____ PM 016-REI REINSPECTION 03/03/2022 Comments1: INSULATION GRANDE RESERVE -- 630-365-72 Comments2: 29BF _____ PM 009-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20211340 4085 BRADY ST 12 03/03/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE 630-365-7229BF _____ PM 010-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 03/03/2022BF _____ PM 011-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 03/03/2022PBF _____ PM 012-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 03/03/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE -- 630-365-7229 -- SEE IN Comments2: SPECTION REPORTBF _____ AM 013-INS INSULATION 03/08/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE 630-365-7229 -- SEE INSPE Comments2: TION REPORTOFD _____ 014-HYD HYDRO TEST 03/17/2022BF _____ PM 009-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20211341 4083 BRADY ST 12 03/03/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE 630-365-7229BF _____ PM 010-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 03/03/2022 DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 24DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 24TIME: 12:34:13 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 03/01/2022 TO 03/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BF _____ PM 011-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 03/03/2022PBF _____ PM 012-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 03/03/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE -- 630-365-7229BF _____ AM 013-INS INSULATION 03/08/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE -630-365-7229 -- SEE INSP Comments2: ECTION REPORTOFD _____ 014-HYD HYDRO TEST 03/17/2022PR _____ 006-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20211375 807 ALEXANDRA LN 11 03/14/2022 Comments1: GARY 630-977-1868BF _____ 007-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 03/21/2022 Comments1: GARY/MARKER 630-977-1868GH _____ AM 003-FOU FOUNDATION 20211397 3155 JUSTICE DR 695 03/01/2022 Comments1: UPLAND 630-453-9281BC _____ 004-BKF BACKFILL 03/04/2022 Comments1: CHRIS/DRHORTON 224-358-1606PR _____ PM 005-WSS WATER & STORM SEWER 03/09/2022 Comments1: TERY-847-526-3788BC _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 20211398 3151 JUSTICE DR 694 03/04/2022 Comments1: CHRIS/DRHORTON 224-358-1606PR _____ PM 004-WSS WATER & STORM SEWER 03/09/2022 Comments1: TERRY 847-526-3788GH _____ 011-INS INSULATION 20211401 3365 SEELEY ST 806 03/01/2022 Comments1: SEE INSPECTION REPORTGH _____ 007-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20211402 3369 SEELEY ST 807 03/08/2022 Comments1: 224-358-1606 -- ANCHOR BOLTS TO BE REINS Comments2: PECTED AT INSULATIONGH _____ 008-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 03/08/2022GH _____ 009-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 03/08/2022PR _____ 010-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 03/08/2022 Comments1: 224-358-1606GH _____ 011-INS INSULATION 03/10/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606 **CANCEL** DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 25DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 25TIME: 12:34:13 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 03/01/2022 TO 03/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ 012-INS INSULATION 03/11/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606GH _____ 013-REI REINSPECTION 03/11/2022 Comments1: ANCHOR BOLTSBF _____ AM 005-ELE ELECTRIC SERVICE 20211411 4006 BRADY ST 7 03/28/2022 Comments1: 630-365-7229BF _____ AM 005-ELE ELECTRIC SERVICE 20211412 4008 BRADY ST 7 03/28/2022 Comments1: 630-365-7229BC _____ 003-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211428 362 WESTWIND DR 11 03/16/2022 Comments1: DECK -- DUSTIN 630-461-8361BC _____ 006-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 20211435 2182 FAIRFAX WAY 510 03/04/2022 Comments1: 847-456-8082PR _____ 007-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 03/10/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082BC _____ 005-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20211438 1965 MEADOWLARK LN 125 03/07/2022 Comments1: DAVE/MCCUE 630-878-5792BC _____ 006-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 03/07/2022BC _____ 007-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 03/07/2022PR _____ 008-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 03/07/2022 Comments1: DAVE/MCCUE 630-878-5792PR _____ 009-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 03/07/2022BC _____ 010-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 03/08/2022 Comments1: 630-273-5932GH _____ 011-INS INSULATION 03/09/2022 Comments1: DAVID 630-878-5792 -- SEE INSPECTION REP Comments2: ORTBC _____ 007-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 20211454 3102 JUSTICE DR 627 03/08/2022 Comments1: CHRIS/DR HORTON 224-358-1606GH _____ AM 008-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 03/16/2022 Comments1: ZACH -- 224-340-5860GH _____ AM 007-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 20211455 3106 JUSTICE DR 625 03/03/2022 Comments1: UPLAND JOSE 630-465-1159 DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 26DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 26TIME: 12:34:13 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 03/01/2022 TO 03/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BF _____ 008-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 03/23/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606BF _____ 009-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 03/23/2022BF _____ 010-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 03/23/2022PBF _____ 011-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 03/23/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606BF _____ 012-INS INSULATION 03/28/2022 Comments1: CHRIS -- 224-358-1606GH _____ PM 013-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 03/29/2022 Comments1: JOSE UPLAND 630-465-1159 GAR & STOOPSGH _____ AM 007-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 20211456 3104 JUSTICE DR 626 03/15/2022 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159GH _____ PM 008-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 03/29/2022 Comments1: JOSE UPLAND 630-465-1159 GAR & STOOPSBC _____ 007-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 20211458 3356 SEELEY ST 726 03/09/2022 Comments1: CHRIS- 224-358-1606-- 2ND GPL INSPECT. Comments2: REQUIRED AT ROUGHPBF _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20211459 3801 BISSEL DR 122-1 03/15/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE -- CHRIS 224-358-1606GH _____ AM 006-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 03/29/2022 Comments1: AND GARAGE ---WEST SUBURBAN--630-232-225 Comments2: 5PBF _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20211460 3803 BISSEL DR 122-2 03/15/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE --CHRIS 224-358-1606GH _____ AM 007-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 03/29/2022 Comments1: AND GARAGE--WEST SUBURBAN 630-232-2255PBF _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20211461 3805 BISSEL DR 122-3 03/15/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE -- CHRIS 224-358-1606GH _____ AM 007-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 03/29/2022 Comments1: AND GARAGE -- WEST SUBURBAN 630-232-225 Comments2: 5PBF _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20211462 3807 BISSEL DR 122-4 03/15/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE -- CHRIS 224-358-1606 DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 27DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 27TIME: 12:34:13 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 03/01/2022 TO 03/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ AM 007-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 03/29/2022 Comments1: AND GARAGE --WEST SUBURBAN 630-232-2255PBF _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20211463 3809 BISSEL DR 122-5 03/15/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE -- CHRIS 224-358-1606GH _____ AM 007-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 03/29/2022 Comments1: WEST SUBURBAN 630-232-2255BC _____ AM 014-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 20211480 4814 W MILLBROOK CIR 12 03/04/2022 Comments1: CANCELLEDBC _____ 015-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 03/03/2022 Comments1: GARAGE FLOOR AND STOOPSBF _____ AM 005-BKF BACKFILL 20211483 641 ASHWORTH LN 512 03/02/2022PBF _____ 006-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 03/18/2022 Comments1: RAINTREE - JEFF 847-456-8082PBF _____ 007-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20211484 2276 FAIRFAX WAY 503 03/04/2022 Comments1: RAINTREE 847-456-8082BC _____ 008-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 03/08/2022GH _____ AM 009-STP STOOP 03/16/2022 Comments1: FRONT AND REAR -- 847-551-9066BF _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20211486 661 ASHWORTH LN 511 03/31/2022 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066BC _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20211487 2282 FAIRFAX WAY 502 03/03/2022BF _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 03/14/2022 Comments1: RAINTREE --JUAN/847-551-9066PBF _____ PM 003-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 03/18/2022 Comments1: VERUNA 630-387-2001BF _____ AM 004-BKF BACKFILL 03/21/2022 Comments1: COMEX 847-551-9066BF _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20211488 2222 FAIRFAX WAY 507 03/31/2022 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066PR _____ PM 001-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 20211517 1133 TAUS CIR 108 03/28/2022 Comments1: JOHN JR/JOHN'S EXCAVATING 815-444-8100 DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 28DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 28TIME: 12:34:13 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 03/01/2022 TO 03/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ AM 013-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 20211528 2142 WHITEKIRK LN 107 03/01/2022GH _____ AM 014-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 03/21/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175BF _____ AM 017-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20211529 2162 WHITEKIRK LN 108 03/03/2022 Comments1: GARAGE AND STOOPS-- PRESTWICK --815-839- Comments2: 8175GH _____ AM 018-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 03/21/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175GH _____ 014-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211530 2112 WHITEKIRK LN 105 03/17/2022 Comments1: STEVE/KHOV 630-546-1085GH _____ 015-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 03/17/2022 Comments1: STEVE/KHOV 630-546-1085GH _____ 016-FME FINAL MECHANICAL 03/17/2022 Comments1: STEVE/KHOV 630-546-1085PBF _____ 017-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 03/17/2022 Comments1: STEVE/KHOV 630-546-1085EEI _____ 018-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 03/18/2022 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONS, OK TO TEMPGH _____ AM 019-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 03/21/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175GH _____ 020-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 03/21/2022 Comments1: DECK PADBF _____ AM 014-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20211531 2122 WHITEKIRK LN 106 03/03/2022 Comments1: GARAGE AND STOOPS -- PRESTWICK-- 815-839 Comments2: -8175GH _____ 015-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 03/21/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175GH _____ 016-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 03/21/2022 Comments1: DECK PADPR _____ 017-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 03/28/2022 Comments1: STEVE 630-546-1085PR _____ 018-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 03/28/2022 DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 29DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 29TIME: 12:34:13 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 03/01/2022 TO 03/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PR _____ 019-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 03/28/2022PR _____ 020-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 03/28/2022 Comments1: STEVE 630-546-1085EEI _____ 021-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 03/28/2022 Comments1: STEVE 630-546-1085 -- WINTER CONDITIONS, Comments2: OK TO TEMPBF _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20211572 2702 NICKERSON CT 171 03/24/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175BF _____ PM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 03/25/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175 (((CANCELLED))))BF _____ AM 003-FOU FOUNDATION 03/28/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175EEI _____ 014-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20211573 2881 ALDEN AVE 293 03/16/2022 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONS--JIM 331-223-6615 -- O Comments2: UTSIDE READER NOT YET INSTALLEDGH _____ 015-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 03/25/2022 Comments1: JIM -- 331-223-6615 -- SEE INSPECTION RE Comments2: PORTGH _____ 016-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 03/25/2022 Comments1: SEE INSPECTION REPORTGH _____ 017-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 03/25/2022PR _____ 018-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 03/25/2022 Comments1: HIM 331-223-6615GH _____ AM 019-WK SERVICE WALK 03/23/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175PR _____ AM 001-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20211599 945 ERICA LN 03/24/2022 Comments1: CALL WITH TIME OF ARRIVAL -- RICK FRENCH Comments2: 262-744-3092PR _____ AM 002-UGE UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC 03/23/2022 Comments1: FRANK SEPHORA 630-329-3435PR _____ AM 003-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 03/28/2022 Comments1: FRANK SEPHORA/KOHLS 630-329-3435GH _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211601 1610 JOHN ST 132 03/07/2022 Comments1: WINDOW -- SAMANTHA--603-521-0444 -- SEE Comments2: INSPECTION REPORT DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 30DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 30TIME: 12:34:13 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 03/01/2022 TO 03/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ AM 013-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 20211605 2056 DUNBAR CT 94 03/17/2022 Comments1: GARAGE AND FRONT ---- MIDWEST 815-839-8 Comments2: 175 -- SEE INSPECTION REPORTGH _____ 014-STP STOOP 03/17/2022GH _____ AM 015-WK SERVICE WALK 03/29/2022 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175BF _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20211606 2716 POTTER CT 148 03/17/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE -- MIDWEST 815-839-8175BF _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 03/21/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175BF _____ AM 003-BKF BACKFILL 03/24/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175PBF _____ 004-WAT WATER 03/25/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE AL'S 630-492-7635EEI _____ 015-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20211607 3002 MCLELLAN BLVD 526 03/16/2022 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONS , OK TO TEMP-- JIM 331 Comments2: -223-6615GH _____ AM 016-PWK PRIVATE WALKS 03/23/2022PBF _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20211660 2362 RICHMOND AVE 480 03/09/2022 Comments1: RAINTREE VILLAGE --JEFF--847-456-8082BF _____ AM 006-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 03/17/2022 Comments1: OSCAR -- 847-551-9066GH _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211669 803 PRAIRIE CROSSING DR 179 03/09/2022 Comments1: WINDOWS -ADAM 563-370-3246NL 12:00 003-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20211672 2251 FAIRFAX WAY 376 03/02/2022 Comments1: PARAMOUNT 630-406-8410PR _____ 008-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20211676 2722 POTTER CT 145 03/08/2022 Comments1: ANDREW 331-431-7342PR _____ 009-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 03/08/2022 Comments1: ANDREW 331-431-7342PR _____ 010-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 03/08/2022 Comments1: ANDREW 331-431-7342 DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 31DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 31TIME: 12:34:13 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 03/01/2022 TO 03/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PR _____ 011-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 03/08/2022 Comments1: ANDREW 331-431-7342GH _____ 012-INS INSULATION 03/10/2022 Comments1: ANDREW 331-431-7342/SEE INSPECTION REPOR Comments2: TGH _____ AM 013-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 03/17/2022 Comments1: GARAGE & STOOP -- MIDWEST 815-839-8175BF _____ 014-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 03/28/2022 Comments1: DECK--ANDREW 331-431-7342BF _____ AM 009-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20211683 2892 ROOD ST 304 03/03/2022 Comments1: GARAGE AND STOOPS -815-839-8175((((CANCE Comments2: LLED))))GH _____ PM 010-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 03/04/2022 Comments1: GARAGE AND STOOPSGH _____ 011-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 03/15/2022 Comments1: JIM--331-223-6625 -- SEE INSPECTION REPO Comments2: RTGH _____ 012-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 03/15/2022GH _____ 013-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 03/15/2022PR _____ 014-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 03/15/2022 Comments1: JIM--331-223-6615GH _____ 015-INS INSULATION 03/17/2022 Comments1: JIM 331-223-6615 -- SEE INSPECTION REPOR Comments2: TGH _____ AM 016-WK SERVICE WALK 03/23/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175BC _____ PM 001-FTG FOOTING 20211684 2717 POTTER CT 140 03/10/2022BF _____ PM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 03/11/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE -- HANNAH 815-839-8175BC _____ AM 003-BKF BACKFILL 03/15/2022 Comments1: HANNAH 815-839-8175PR _____ PM 004-WAT WATER 03/16/2022 Comments1: AL'S FAM 630-492-7635 DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 32DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 32TIME: 12:34:13 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 03/01/2022 TO 03/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PBF _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 03/23/2022 Comments1: ANDREW/RYAN 331-431-7342BF _____ AM 006-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 03/24/2022 Comments1: BASEMENT, GARAGE AND STOOPS -- MIDWEST 8 Comments2: 15-839-8175 ((CANCELLED))BF _____ PM 007-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 03/25/2022 Comments1: BASEMENT, GARAGE AND STOOPS -- MIDWEST 8 Comments2: 15-839-8175GH _____ AM 010-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 20211685 3063 GRANDE TR 556 03/01/2022GH _____ AM 011-STP STOOP 03/01/2022 Comments1: FRONTGH _____ AM 012-REI REINSPECTION 03/02/2022 Comments1: REAR STOOPGH _____ AM 013-STP STOOP 03/01/2022 Comments1: REAR STOOPGH _____ 014-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 03/16/2022 Comments1: JIM -- 331-223-6615-- SEE INSPECTION REP Comments2: ORTGH _____ 015-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 03/16/2022GH _____ 016-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 03/16/2022PR _____ 017-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 03/16/2022 Comments1: JIM -- 331-223-6615GH _____ 018-INS INSULATION 03/18/2022GH _____ AM 019-WK SERVICE WALK 03/23/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175PR _____ 009-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20211686 3053 GRANDE TR 558 03/03/2022PR _____ 010-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 03/03/2022PR _____ 011-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 03/03/2022PR _____ 012-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 03/03/2022GH _____ 013-INS INSULATION 03/07/2022 DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 33DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 33TIME: 12:34:13 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 03/01/2022 TO 03/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------EEI _____ 015-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 03/16/2022 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONS, OK TO TEMP - JIM 331- Comments2: 223-6615GH _____ AM 016-WK SERVICE WALK 03/23/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175BF _____ AM 017-BG BASEMENT AND GARAGE FLOOR 03/31/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175PR _____ AM 007-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211688 2504 LYMAN LOOP 77 03/23/2022 Comments1: AM KITCHEDN 630-933-9323PR _____ AM 008-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 03/23/2022 Comments1: AM KITCHEDN 630-933-9323PR _____ AM 009-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 03/23/2022 Comments1: AM KITCHEDN 630-933-9323MT _____ 002-OCC OCCUPANCY INSPECTION 20211703 306 E VETERANS PKWY 03/24/2022 Comments1: ((((CANCELLED))))GH _____ 003-OCC OCCUPANCY INSPECTION 03/24/2022 Comments1: YORKTOWN VAPE ADAM 773-319-7768--312-45 Comments2: 9-7486 -- SEE INSPECTION REPORTGH _____ 004-REI REINSPECTION 03/28/2022 Comments1: OCCUPANCY ADAM 773-319-7768 OR 312-459- Comments2: 7486MT _____ 005-FFD BKFD FINAL INSPECTION 03/28/2022GH 10:30 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20211705 889 GILLISPIE LN 120 03/08/2022 Comments1: ACOSTA 815-255-2132GH 10:30 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20211706 907 GILLEPSPIE LN 115 03/08/2022 Comments1: ACOSTA 815-255-2132 -- SEE INSPECTION RE Comments2: PORTBF _____ AM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211708 3194 BOOMBAH BLVD 135 03/04/2022 Comments1: SOLAR EDDY 801-837-4586**MAKE THIS THE F Comments2: IRST STOP**--SEE INSPECTION REPORTBF _____ AM 002-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 03/04/2022GH _____ AM 004-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211709 1212 HAWK HOLLOW DR 03/31/2022 Comments1: VICTOR/MATRIX 773-876-2605 DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 34DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 34TIME: 12:34:13 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 03/01/2022 TO 03/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ AM 005-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 03/31/2022 Comments1: VICTOR/MATRIX 773-876-2605GH _____ AM 006-FME FINAL MECHANICAL 03/31/2022 Comments1: VICTOR/MATRIX 773-876-2605BC _____ 006-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 20211710 2712 NICKERSON CT 166 03/01/2022PR _____ 007-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 03/07/2022 Comments1: ANDREW 331-431-7342PR _____ PM 008-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 03/07/2022 Comments1: MDW 815-839-8175GH _____ PM 009-REI REINSPECTION 03/08/2022 Comments1: BASEMENT FLOOR-- HANNAH 815-839-8175PBF _____ AM 010-WAT WATER 03/11/2022 Comments1: AL'S FAMILY 630-492-7635 GRANDE RESERVEBF _____ AM 011-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 03/24/2022 Comments1: GARAGE AND FRONT STOOP -- MIDWEST 815-83 Comments2: 9-8175BF _____ 012-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 03/28/2022 Comments1: ANDREW 331-431-7342-SEE INSPECTION REPOR Comments2: TBF _____ 013-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 03/28/2022 Comments1: SEE INSPECTION REPORTBF _____ 014-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 03/28/2022 Comments1: SEE INSPECTION REPORTPBF _____ 015-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 03/28/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE -- ANDREW 331-431-7342GH _____ 016-INS INSULATION 03/30/2022 Comments1: ANDREW 331-431-7342PBF _____ 006-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20211711 3020 MCLELLAN BLVD 528 03/02/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE -- 331-223-6615 (((((CANC Comments2: ELLED))))PBF _____ 007-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 03/03/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE -- 331-223-6615--NO ACCES Comments2: S DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 35DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 35TIME: 12:34:13 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 03/01/2022 TO 03/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PBF _____ 008-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 03/04/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE -- 331-223-6615BC _____ PM 009-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 03/04/2022 Comments1: SEE INSPECTION REPORTGH _____ AM 010-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 03/16/2022 Comments1: MWC 815-839-8175 -- SEE INSPECTION REPOR Comments2: TGH _____ 011-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 03/25/2022 Comments1: JIM -- 331-223-6615--SEE INSPECTION REPO Comments2: RTGH _____ 012-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 03/25/2022GH _____ 013-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 03/25/2022PR _____ 014-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 03/25/2022 Comments1: JIM- 331-223-6615GH _____ 015-INS INSULATION 03/29/2022 Comments1: JIM 331-23-6615BF _____ AM 017-STP STOOP 03/22/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175GH _____ AM 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20211713 2548 ANNA MARIA LN 593 03/15/2022 Comments1: MIKE -- 630-406-8410, EXT 208, after 10: Comments2: 00 if possibleBC _____ AM 006-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 20211725 3012 MCLELLAN BLVD 527 03/04/2022 Comments1: 331-223-6615PBF _____ 007-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 03/10/2022 Comments1: JIM/RYAN 331-223-6615 GRANDE RESERVEBF _____ AM 008-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 03/11/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE -- HANNAH 815-839-8175GH _____ AM 009-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 03/16/2022 Comments1: MWC 815-839-8175BF _____ AM 011-STP STOOP 03/22/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175GH _____ 012-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 03/31/2022 Comments1: JIM 331-223-6615 DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 36DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 36TIME: 12:34:13 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 03/01/2022 TO 03/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ 013-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 03/31/2022 Comments1: JIM 331-223-6615GH _____ 014-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 03/31/2022PBF _____ 015-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 03/31/2022 Comments1: JIM 331-223-6615BF _____ PM 003-BKF BACKFILL 20211726 2885 ROOD ST 320 03/02/2022PBF _____ PM 004-WAT WATER 03/02/2022 Comments1: AL'S 630-492-7635PBF _____ AM 005-WAT WATER 03/04/2022 Comments1: AL'S GRANDE RESERVE 630-492-7635BC _____ AM 006-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 03/11/2022 Comments1: JIM -- 331-223-6615PR _____ 007-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 03/15/2022 Comments1: JIM 331-223-6615BF _____ AM 008-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 03/18/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175 GRANDE RESERVEBF _____ AM 009-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 03/31/2022 Comments1: STOOPS AND GARAGE -- MIDWEST 815-839-817 Comments2: 5PR _____ AM 004-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20211732 841 GREENFIELD TURN 48 03/15/2022 Comments1: DAVE 630-878-5792GH _____ AM 005-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 03/24/2022 Comments1: NORWOOD 630-878-6103PBF _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20211747 541 ASHWORTH LN 517 03/10/2022 Comments1: RAINTREE -- JEFF 847-456-8082GH _____ AM 006-BG BASEMENT AND GARAGE FLOOR 03/16/2022 Comments1: 847-551-9066BF _____ 007-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 03/23/2022 Comments1: JEFF- 847-456-8082BC _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20211748 521 ASHWORTH LN 518 03/16/2022 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066BF _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 03/25/2022 Comments1: RAINTREE -- JUAN 847-551-9066 DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 37DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 37TIME: 12:34:13 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 03/01/2022 TO 03/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BF _____ AM 003-BKF BACKFILL 03/29/2022 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066BC _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20211749 501 ASHWORTH LN 519 03/16/2022BF _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 03/29/2022 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066BC _____ 005-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 20211750 2493 FAIRFIELD AVE 485 03/02/2022PBF _____ 006-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 03/09/2022 Comments1: RAINTREE VILLAGE -- JEFF-847-456-8082BF _____ 005-ELE ELECTRIC SERVICE 20211752 936 HAYDEN DR 44 03/18/2022 Comments1: REMY 630-379-9610GH _____ AM 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20211757 2028 SQUIRE CIR 197 03/09/2022 Comments1: MIKE -630-406-8410, EXT 208 (((CANCELLED Comments2: )))GH _____ AM 002-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 03/16/2022 Comments1: MIKE -- 630-406-8410, EXT 208GH _____ AM 001-OCC OCCUPANCY INSPECTION 20211758 210 COMMERCIAL DR C 03/22/2022 Comments1: 9:30 AND 10:30 JEANETTE 630-742-3675BKF _____ AM 002-FFD BKFD FINAL INSPECTION 03/22/2022 Comments1: 9:30 AND 10:30PBF _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20220002 2333 FAIRFIELD AVE 498 03/18/2022 Comments1: RAINTREE --JEFF 847-456-8082BC _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 20220003 2327 FAIRFIELD AVE 499 03/07/2022PR _____ PM 003-WSS WATER & STORM SEWER 03/09/2022 Comments1: CATHY-630-387-2001(((CANCELLED)))PR _____ PM 004-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 03/15/2022 Comments1: CATHY 630-387-2001BC _____ AM 005-BKF BACKFILL 03/15/2022 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066BC _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20220004 2305 FAIRFIELD AVE 500 03/03/2022BC _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 03/10/2022BC _____ AM 003-BKF BACKFILL 03/15/2022 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066 DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 38DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 38TIME: 12:34:13 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 03/01/2022 TO 03/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PBF _____ PM 004-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 03/18/2022 Comments1: VERUNA 630-387-2001PR _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20220005 2264 FAIRFAX WAY 504 03/10/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082BC _____ AM 006-BG BASEMENT AND GARAGE FLOOR 03/15/2022 Comments1: OSCAR 847-551-9066GH _____ 007-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 03/22/2022 Comments1: JEFF -- 847-456-8082BC _____ 005-REI REINSPECTION 20220006 2248 FAIRFAX WAY 505 03/01/2022 Comments1: BACKFILL COMEX 847-551-9066PR _____ 006-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 03/10/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082BC _____ AM 007-BG BASEMENT AND GARAGE FLOOR 03/15/2022 Comments1: OSCAR 847-551-9066BC _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 20220007 2236 FAIRFAX WAY 506 03/03/2022 Comments1: COMEX 847-551-9066BC _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 03/07/2022PR _____ PM 004-WSS WATER & STORM SEWER 03/09/2022 Comments1: CATHY 630-387-2001BC _____ 002-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20220008 1503 MONTROSE CT 9 03/02/2022 Comments1: CHRIS UPPER DECK 630-330-8038GH _____ 003-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 03/21/2022 Comments1: DECK --CHRIS 630-330-8038PR _____ 001-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20220012 794 HAYDEN DR 62 03/07/2022 Comments1: JOHN 815-790-9574 BASEMENT FINISHPR _____ 002-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 03/07/2022PR _____ 003-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 03/07/2022PR _____ 004-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 03/07/2022BF _____ AM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220015 1314 SPRING ST 184 03/04/2022 Comments1: SOLAR SIGIE 773-908-6016--SEE INSPECTION Comments2: REPORT DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 39DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 39TIME: 12:34:13 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 03/01/2022 TO 03/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BF _____ AM 002-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 03/04/2022 Comments1: SOLAR SIGIE 773-908-6016BF _____ PM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220019 476 WALSH CIR 66 03/03/2022 Comments1: PHIL SOLAR 518-859-6282BF _____ PM 002-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 03/03/2022 Comments1: PHIL SOLAR 518-859-6282BF 13:00 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220021 1024 S CARLY CIR 114 03/24/2022 Comments1: EDDY 801-837-4586BF 13:00 002-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 03/24/2022 Comments1: SOLAR EDDY 801-837-4586PBF _____ PM 001-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20220028 2942 GRANDE TR 419 03/31/2022 Comments1: FIRE DAMAGED REPAIR BOBBY 331-254-0679PR _____ 006-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20220031 2288 FAIRFAX WAY 501 03/10/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082GH _____ 007-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 03/30/2022 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082PBF _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20220032 2401 FAIRFIELD AVE 493 03/18/2022 Comments1: RAINTREE --JEFF- 847-456-8082BC _____ AM 004-BKF BACKFILL 20220033 508 BRAEMORE LN 535 03/07/2022 Comments1: COMEX 847-551-9066PR _____ PM 005-WSS WATER & STORM SEWER 03/09/2022 Comments1: CATHY 630-387-2001BC _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20220034 362 BENJAMIN ST 36 03/16/2022 Comments1: TOM 708-417-4841GH _____ AM 001-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 20220035 4830 W MILLBROOK CIR 10 03/22/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 630-330-8083PR _____ AM 005-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 20220039 397 WINDHAM CIR 25 03/14/2022 Comments1: JIM FREER 630-878-8244BF _____ PM 001-FTG FOOTING 20220049 3073 GRANDE TR 554 03/17/2022 Comments1: MW 815-839-8175BF _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 03/21/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175 DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 40DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 40TIME: 12:34:13 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 03/01/2022 TO 03/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BF _____ AM 003-BKF BACKFILL 03/24/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175PBF _____ 004-WAT WATER 03/25/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE AL'S 630-492-7635PBF _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 03/31/2022 Comments1: GRANDE RESERVE -- JIM 331-223-6615PR _____ PM 005-OCC OCCUPANCY INSPECTION 20220062 181 WOLF ST C 03/14/2022 Comments1: DAVID 630-608-9308PR _____ PM 006-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 03/14/2022BKF _____ 007-FFD BKFD FINAL INSPECTION 03/14/2022BF _____ AM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220064 2753 GOLDENROD DR 236 03/04/2022 Comments1: SOLAR EDDIE 801-837-4586/SEE INSPECTION Comments2: REPORTBF _____ AM 002-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 03/04/2022 Comments1: SOLAR EDDIE 801-837-4586/SEE INSPECTION Comments2: REPORTGH 11:30 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220065 2838 OLD GLORY DR 281 03/03/2022 Comments1: AMERICA'S BACKYARD ADRIANA 331-452-2271BC _____ PM 001-FTG FOOTING 20220066 2874 OLD GLORY DR 274 03/08/2022 Comments1: HANNAH 815-839-8175BC _____ PM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 03/10/2022BC _____ AM 003-BKF BACKFILL 03/15/2022 Comments1: HANNAH 815-839-8175PR _____ PM 004-WAT WATER 03/16/2022 Comments1: AL'S FAM 630-492-7635PBF _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 03/23/2022 Comments1: JIM--331-223-6615BF _____ AM 006-BG BASEMENT AND GARAGE FLOOR 03/23/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175GH _____ AM 007-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 03/28/2022 Comments1: JIM/RYAN 331-223-6615--SEE INSPECTION TI Comments2: CKET DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 41DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 41TIME: 12:34:13 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 03/01/2022 TO 03/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ PM 008-STP STOOP 03/29/2022 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175BF _____ AM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220072 2779 GOLDENROD DR 231 03/04/2022 Comments1: SUN RUN EDDY 801-837-4586--SEE INSPECTIO Comments2: N REPORTBF _____ AM 002-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 03/04/2022 Comments1: SOLAR EDDY 801-837-4586BC _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20220073 1125 HAWK HOLLOW DR 309-1 03/10/2022 Comments1: JESUS/UPLAND 630-453-9281BC _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 03/15/2022 Comments1: CAP JESUS 630-453-9281PR _____ AM 003-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 03/28/2022 Comments1: CATHY 630-387-2001BC _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20220074 1127 HAWK HOLLOW DR 309-2 03/10/2022 Comments1: JESUS/UPLAND 630-453-9281BC _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 03/15/2022 Comments1: CAP JESUS 630-453-9281PR _____ AM 003-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 03/28/2022 Comments1: CATHY 630-387-2001BC _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20220075 1129 HAWK HOLLOW DR 309-3 03/10/2022 Comments1: JESUS/UPLAND 630-453-9281BC _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 03/15/2022 Comments1: CAP JESUS 630-453-9281PR _____ AM 003-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 03/28/2022 Comments1: CATHY 630-387-2001BC _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20220076 1131 HAWK HOLLOW DR 309-4 03/10/2022 Comments1: JESUS/UPLAND 630-453-9281BC _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 03/15/2022 Comments1: CAP JESUS 630-453-9281PR _____ AM 003-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 03/28/2022 Comments1: CATHY 630-387-2001BC _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20220077 1122 HAWK HOLLOW DR 300-1 03/10/2022 Comments1: JESUS/UPLAND 630-453-9281 DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 42DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 42TIME: 12:34:13 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 03/01/2022 TO 03/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 03/14/2022 Comments1: CAP JESUS 630-453-9281PBF _____ PM 003-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 03/29/2022 Comments1: RAINTREE -- CATHY 630-387-2001BC _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20220078 1120 HAWK HOLLOW DR 300-2 03/10/2022 Comments1: JESUS/UPLAND 630-453-9281BC _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 03/14/2022 Comments1: CAP JESUS 630-453-9281PBF _____ PM 003-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 03/29/2022 Comments1: RAINTREE -- CATHY 630-387-2001BC _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20220079 1112 HAWK HOLLOW DR 300-3 03/10/2022 Comments1: JESUS/UPLAND 630-453-9281BC _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 03/14/2022 Comments1: CAP JESUS 630-453-9281PBF _____ PM 003-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 03/29/2022 Comments1: RAINTREE -- CATHY 630-387-2001BC _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20220080 1110 HAWK HOLLOW DR 300-4 03/10/2022 Comments1: JESUS/UPLAND 630-453-9281BC _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 03/14/2022 Comments1: CAP JESUS 630-453-9281PBF _____ PM 003-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 03/29/2022 Comments1: RAINTREE -- CATHY 630-387-2001NL 12:30 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20220081 575 KELLY AVE 5 03/01/2022 Comments1: TTLC 815-280-8501BF _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20220089 2863 ROOD ST 318 03/24/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175 -- SEE INSPECTION R Comments2: EPORTBF _____ PM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 03/25/2022 Comments1: MIDWEST 815-839-8175GH _____ AM 003-BKF BACKFILL 03/30/2022 Comments1: CHRIS 815-839-8175GH _____ AM 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220092 535 COACH RD 413 03/14/2022 Comments1: ALEX 708-840-3211 DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 43DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 43TIME: 12:34:13 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 03/01/2022 TO 03/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ 002-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20220093 607 HEUSTIS ST 4 03/01/2022 Comments1: ALPHA 630-923-2285GH _____ 003-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 03/09/2022BC _____ PM 001-FTG FOOTING 20220094 2475 FAIRFAX WAY 246 03/11/2022 Comments1: CARMELLA 630-364-0224BF _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 03/21/2022 Comments1: WINDETT RIDGE--CLEAN EDGE 630-364-0224BC _____ AM 002-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20220097 284 WINDETT RIDGE RD 19 03/11/2022 Comments1: DECK -- CHRIS 630-330-8038GH 11:15 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220100 1332 DEERPATH DR 223 03/29/2022 Comments1: MIKE/PARAMOUNT 630-406-8410X208GH 11:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220102 1178 HAWK HOLLOW DR 282-4 03/08/2022 Comments1: IL FENCE 708-840-3211GH _____ PM 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220103 575 COACH RD 417 03/28/2022 Comments1: CLASSIC 630-551-3400GH 11:30 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220105 1616 COTTONWOOD TR 24 03/03/2022 Comments1: CEDAR MTN 815-836-8731GH _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 03/08/2022 Comments1: LETITIA 815-370-6514 -- SEE INSPECTION T Comments2: ICKETGH _____ AM 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220108 2867 ALDEN AVE 291 03/07/2022 Comments1: 708-840-3211 -- WOULD LIKE 11:30ISHGH _____ PM 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220109 567 COACH RD 416 03/28/2022 Comments1: CLASSIC 630-551-3400GH 13:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220110 2483 ELLSWORTH CT 350 03/10/2022 Comments1: CARLA/CEDAR RUSTIC 815-741-1635GH 12:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220111 2181 HEARTHSTONE AVE 427 03/10/2022 Comments1: IL FENCE 708-840-3211GH _____ PM 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220115 2220 HEARTHSTONE AVE 440 03/14/2022 Comments1: ALEX 708-840-3211GH _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 03/18/2022 Comments1: CHANTAL 773-957-3525 DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 44DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 44TIME: 12:34:13 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 03/01/2022 TO 03/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH 12:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20220116 605 HEARTLAND DR 76 03/09/2022 Comments1: 630-923-2285GH _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 03/15/2022 Comments1: FINAL ROOF -- TONY 630-853-9269 -- SEE I Comments2: NSPECTION REPORTGH _____ PM 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220121 3105 REHBEHN CT 638 03/24/2022 Comments1: CLASSIC 630-551-3400GH _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 03/31/2022 Comments1: REBECCA 815-531-5730GH 08:00 AM 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220125 482 OMAHA DR 83 03/14/2022 Comments1: ANNABELLE 630-808-9233GH 13:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220128 2281 FAIRFAX WAY 373 03/10/2022 Comments1: CEDAR/CARLA 815-460-3449GH _____ AM 001-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20220137 1102 GRACE DR 98 03/31/2022 Comments1: MATT -- 630-995-5513GH _____ AM 002-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 03/31/2022GH _____ 003-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 03/31/2022PBF _____ AM 004-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 03/31/2022 Comments1: HEARTLAND CIRCLE -- MATT 630-995-5513BC _____ 001-OCC OCCUPANCY INSPECTION 20220139 634 W VETERANS PKWY CD C&D 03/14/2022 Comments1: BUD 815-582-7202 -- SEE INSPECTION REPOR Comments2: TBKF _____ 002-FFD BKFD FINAL INSPECTION 03/14/2022GH _____ 003-REI REINSPECTION 03/29/2022GH _____ AM 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220142 2765 CROOKER DR 60 03/31/2022 Comments1: CLASSIC 630-551-3400BF _____ PM 001-FTG FOOTING 20220153 1956 MEADOWLARK LN 82 03/22/2022 Comments1: NORWOOD 630-878-6103BF _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 03/25/2022 Comments1: NORWOOD 630-878-6103BF _____ 003-BKF BACKFILL 03/31/2022 Comments1: NORWOOD 630-904-2288 DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 45DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 45TIME: 12:34:13 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 03/01/2022 TO 03/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH 11:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220154 2835 ALDEN AVE 285 03/17/2022 Comments1: AM BKYD, ADRIANNA 331-452-2271GH _____ AM 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220171 486 WINTERBERRY DR 93 03/15/2022 Comments1: 815-570-7026 -- NOT READYGH _____ AM 002-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 03/16/2022GH _____ AM 001-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20220176 2578 ANNA MARIA LN 590 03/29/2022 Comments1: TRAVIS LAFFEY 630-688-4528GH _____ 001-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 20220200 2441 ANNA MARIA LN 706 03/22/2022 Comments1: ADRIANA 331-452-2271GH 11:30 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20220201 1610 SHETLAND LN 43 03/29/2022 Comments1: IL FENCE 815-981-0472GH 11:00 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20220203 613 GREENFIELD TURN 74 03/24/2022 Comments1: CANCELLED 3/24/22 TTLC/AUSTIN 815-205-15 Comments2: 00 X4004GH 11:00 002-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 03/25/2022 Comments1: SEE INSPECTION REPORTGH _____ AM 001-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20220208 577 MANCHESTER LN 398 03/28/2022 Comments1: CANCELLED 3/28/22 DAVE 630-664-3283 -- B Comments2: ASEMENTGH _____ AM 002-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 03/28/2022 Comments1: CANCELLED 3/28/22GH 09:30 001-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 20220209 507 W DOLPH ST 03/29/2022 Comments1: JASON/ABC 331-575-7705PR 14:00 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220225 146 CLAREMONT CT 03/23/2022 Comments1: KATHLEEN SULIVAN 630-383-1886, WATER HEA Comments2: TER REPLACEMENTGH _____ AM 001-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 20220226 492 BIRCHWOOD DR 160 03/28/2022 Comments1: DENISE & HARRY 630-222-6317 ((((CANCELLE Comments2: D))))GH _____ 002-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 03/31/2022 Comments1: DENISEGH _____ PM 001-FME FINAL MECHANICAL 20220266 2397 SUMAC DR 186 03/31/2022 Comments1: FURNACE & AC INSTALL DAN 708-828-0031 DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 46DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 46TIME: 12:34:13 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 03/01/2022 TO 03/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PERMIT TYPE SUMMARY: BSM BASEMENT REMODEL 16 CCO COMMERCIAL OCCUPANCY PERMIT 9 CRM COMMERCIAL REMODEL 6 DCK DECK 9 FNC FENCE 29 HVC HVAC UNIT/S 1 PTO PATIO / PAVERS 1 REM REMODEL 4 REP REPAIR 5 ROF ROOFING 8 SFA SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED 277 SFD SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED 387 SOL SOLAR PANELS 12 WHR WATER HEATER REPLACEMENT 1 WIN WINDOW REPLACEMENT 2INSPECTION SUMMARY: BG BASEMENT AND GARAGE FLOOR 8 BKF BACKFILL 17 BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 17 EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPECTION 44 ELE ELECTRIC SERVICE 11 ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WATER 12 FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 44 FFD BKFD FINAL INSPECTION 4 FIN FINAL INSPECTION 55 FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 31 FME FINAL MECHANICAL 6 FOU FOUNDATION 28 FTG FOOTING 28 GAR GARAGE FLOOR 6 GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 20 HYD HYDRO TEST 5 INS INSULATION 37 OCC OCCUPANCY INSPECTION 5 PHD POST HOLE - DECK 6 PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 25 PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READY 39 PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 37 PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 34 PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 24 PWK PRIVATE WALKS 11 REI REINSPECTION 17 REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 39 RFR ROUGH FRAMING 42 RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 37 ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & WATER 6 SEW SEWER INSPECTION 4 DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 47DATE: 03/31/2022 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 47TIME: 12:34:13 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 03/01/2022 TO 03/31/2022INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ STP STOOP 38 SUM SUMP 1 UGE UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC 1 WAT WATER 11 WK SERVICE WALK 12 WSS WATER & STORM SEWER 5INSPECTOR SUMMARY: BC BOB CREADEUR 117 BF B&F INSPECTOR CODE SERVICE 128 BKF BRISTOL KENDALL FIRE DEPT 3 EEI ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES 44 GH GINA HASTINGS 275 MT MICHAEL TORRENCE 2 NL NICK LEVITA 2 OFD OSWEGO MIRE MARSHAL 5 PBF BF PLUMBING INSPECTOR 73 PR PETER RATOS 118STATUS SUMMARY: C BC 1 C BF 3 C BKF 1 C EEI 2 C GH 7 C MT 2 C PBF 1 C PR 5 I BC 106 I BF 111 I BKF 2 I EEI 14 I GH 201 I NL 2 I OFD 5 I PBF 60 I PR 85 T BC 10 T BF 14 T EEI 28 T GH 67 T PBF 12 T PR 28REPORT SUMMARY: 767 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 2022-26 Property Maintenance Report for March 2022 Economic Development Committee – May 3, 2022 Informational None Pete Ratos Community Development Name Department Page | 1 Property Maintenance Report March 2022 There was 1 case heard in March 2022. 3/7/2022 N 5810 204 A Hillcrest Ave Motor Vehicle on Property Dismissed Memorandum To: Economic Development Committee From: Pete Ratos, Code Official CC: Bart Olson, Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Jori Behland Date March 29, 2022 Subject: March Property Maintenance Case # Case Date TYPE OF VIOLATIONSTATUS VIOLATION LETTER SENTFOLLOW UP STATUSCITATION ISSUEDDATE OF HEARING20220057 3/30/2022 Junk, Trash & RefuseIN VIOLATION20220056 3/24/2022 Patio Installed without a PermitIN VIOLATION20220055 3/24/2022 Patio Installed without a PermitIN VIOLATION20220054 3/21/2022 Open Burning (Wire)CLOSED20220053 3/18/2022 Trash CLOSED COMPLIANT20220052 3/18/2022 Construction DebrisCLOSED COMPLIANT20220051 3/17/2022 Play Equipment Stored on Park PropertyCLOSED COMPLIANT20220050 3/16/2022 Leaves Left at CurbIN VIOLATION3/25/202220220049 3/16/2022 Working Without a PermitCOMPLIANT20220048 3/15/2022 Dumping CLOSED COMPLIANT20220047 3/14/2022 Dumping CLOSED COMPLIANT20220046 3/8/2022 Squatters & Dogs Running at LargeCLOSED COMPLIANT20220045 3/7/2022 Junk, Trash & RefuseCLOSED COMPLIANTCase Report3/1/2022 - 3/31/2022ADDRESS OF COMPLAINT206 River St2272 Emerald Ln2268 Emerald Ln206 Wolf St425 Sutton StNWC Tuscany & Crooker1981 Meadowlark Ln210 E Center St794 Hayden Dr3348 Seeley Allegiance 206 Wolf St1463 Crimson LnPage: 1 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 2022-27 Economic Development Report for April 2022 Economic Development Committee – May 3, 2022 Informational None Bart Olson Administration Name Department 651 Prairie Pointe Drive • Yorkville, Illinois • 60560 Phone 630-553-0843 • Mobile 630-209-7151 Monthly Report – for May 2022 EDC Meeting of the United City of Yorkville April 2022 Activity New Development: - Kendall Marketplace: Sephora inside Kohl’s, opening the first week of May 2022. - Yorkville Crossing: A/K/A Menard’s Center: Belle Tire, previously reported, construction has begun…opening in late 2022. - Yorkville Crossing: A/K/A Menard’s Center: Multi-Tenant building: Noodles & Co, quick casual restaurant will open at 1789 Marketview Drive. This is the multi-tenant building in front of Menards. The restaurant will occupy 1,877 square feet. They will offer dine in, take out, and also have a “pick up” window. The remodel of the space will begin shortly, and Noodles anticipates opening in late summer of 2022. Noodles & Company is an American fast-casual restaurant that offers international and American noodle dishes in addition to soups and salads. Every bowl is prepared to order, allowing guests to customize any dish their way with the fresh, high-quality ingredients that they offer. Noodles & Company was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Broomfield, Colorado. The company went public in 2013 and traded on NLDS (NASDAQ). They have over 450 locations in the USA, and have over 10,500 employees in 30 states - Yorkville Crossing: A/K/A Menard’s Center: Multi-Tenant building: Pets Supply Plus, will also be expanding and remodeling the existing store at 1755 Marketview Dr. Pets Supplies Plus is updating the self-serve dog washes, by replacing the existing 5 wash bays with 6 brand new self-serve dog washes, and also adding a full-service grooming shop to the store. The expansion will also allow them to add additional pet food product lines. This expansion is anticipated to be completed by late summer of 2022, and ownership is planning on having a re- grand opening event to celebrate the expansion. - Gerber Collison & Glass, previously reported. Their architect, and civil are working on plans. They are planning an opening in late 2022/early 2023. - BP and Graham’s Marketplace. (The northeast corner of Route 47 & Route 71) Previously reported… opening in late 2022. They have applied for rezoning, and special use. - Chipotle Mexican Grill: Permit has been issued. Demo and rebuild will begin shortly. Opening targeted for fall of 2022. - Caring Hands Thrift Shop: 4,000 square foot business expansion. The store will remain open during the construction. The project will be completed in late spring 2022. - The Williams Group: Former Investor Tools. Purchase complete and redevelopment continues. All space has been leased. - Second Chance Cardiac Solutions – This Yorkville business will be relocating from their existing location on Garden Street to the office space in the Williams Group building, on June 1st. - Iconic Coffee Shop- Yorkville resident, Laura Intrain, will open this new café in 750 square feet at 109 S. Bridge (The Williams Group). She is focusing on opening around July 1st, and will serve coffee, teas, expresso, baked goods, and snack bites. - Fox’s Den Meadery: Yorkville resident, Enrico “Rico” Bianchi, is preparing to be the first tenant in the 101 S. Bridge, redevelopment (The Williams Group). They will occupy 1,116 square feet on the first floor and 2,000 square feet in the basement. This business will make “Mead Wine”. It is considered a micro-winery. Anticipated opening is around July 1st. - Dakotas - New restaurant concept from Yorkville resident, Yonas Hagos. Restaurant will be Located at 227 Heustis Street, and opening is planned for summer 2022. - Craft’d– Barry Michael and Cory Knowles, restaurant industry veterans with a combined 50+ years of experience, are excited about purchasing the former property Millhurst Ale House. They will be remodeling the space and plan to open in early fall of 2022. - Continue working with a variety of other potential business owners. There are a variety of parties doing due diligence on space to lease and buildings and land to purchase. Information will be forthcoming. Respectfully submitted, Lynn Dubajic 651 Prairie Pointe Drive 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 memorandum. 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 2022-28 PZC 2022-10 Microbrewery/Brewpub/Microwinery (Text Amendment) Economic Development Committee – May 3, 2022 PZC – 04/13/22 Moved forward to EDC agenda. PZC 2022-10 Majority Vote Proposed text amendment to microbrewery/brewpub/microwinery uses to align with liquor license code Jason Engberg Community Development Name Department Summary The City has recently received interest from a business owner to open a microwinery within an existing building in the downtown. In April, the City amended Title 3 of the municipal code regarding liquor license classes to add microwinery/winery to the existing brewpub/microbrewery class to help accommodate the new business. In addition, the maximum allowable amount of wine which may be produced within a year was set to 50,000 gallons which coincides with the current state statute. The City’s zoning ordinance defines the uses of microbrewery/brewpub and microwinery separately and regulates which districts each may be located. Staff is recommending a text amendment to Chapter 2 and Chapter 6 of the code. The proposed changes will assist in clarifying each use and will better align the zoning ordinance with the liquor license code. Additionally, these amendments will ensure that the zoning regulations will match the state statute regarding production of alcohol for these land uses. Liquor License Background Yorkville was approached by the owner of Fox Den Meadery to open a microwinery in downtown Yorkville. As the City’s Clerks Office staff worked with the petitioner on determining the potential required liquor license, they realized there was not a class category for “microwinery” or “winery” defined within the Liquor Control regulations of the City Code. However, the City does have an existing class for microbrewery/brewpub, but it only addresses the brewing of beer. To streamline the classes, the Clerk’s Office proposed an amendment to the liquor license regulations to add microwinery and winery to this existing class. As part of that amendment, the requirement to be ancillary to a restaurant was removed, and the maximum amount of wine allowed to be produced in a year was established at 50,000 gallons per year. The City chose the latter regulation to mirror the current state statute 1 for the maximum amount of alcohol to be produced. The entire adopted regulation can be seen below: 3-3-4(A)(4) Classes of Licenses: M - Microbrewery/brewpub/micro-winery/winery. A microbrewery/brewpub/micro- winery/winery license authorizes the manufacture, only at the designated licensed premises, less than one hundred fifty-five thousand (155,000) gallons of beer or fifty thousand (50,000) gallons of wine per year for sale on the premises for either on-premises or off-premises consumption. Sales may also be made to importing distributors, distributors, and to non-licensees for use and consumption. Microbrewery/brewpub/micro-winery/winery is also authorized to: a) furnish samples of the manufactured/produced wine or beer for consumption on the premises, b) sell the manufactured/produced wine or beer by the glass for consumption on the premises, 1 235 ILCS 5/ Liquor Control Act of 1934 – Article V Memorandum To: Economic Development Committee From: Jason Engberg, Senior Planner CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director Date: April 26, 2022 Subject: PZC 2022-10 Microbrewery/Brewpub/Microwinery (Text Amendment) c) sell the manufactured/produced wine or beer in the original corked, capped or sealed and labeled container for consumption on or off the premises, and d) permit a patron to remove one unsealed and partially consumed bottle of wine for off- premises consumption. A partially consumed bottle of wine that is to be removed from the premises shall be securely sealed by the licensee or an agent of the licensee prior to removal from the premises and placed in a transparent onetime use tamperproof bag. The licensee or agent of the licensee shall provide a dated receipt for the bottle of wine to the patron. Zoning Ordinance Background With regards to these types of alcoholic manufacturing and tasting uses, the Yorkville Zoning Ordinance regulates their definitions in Chapter 2 and their permitted locations and special conditions for each in Chapter 6. The Yorkville Zoning Ordinance currently has separate definitions for “Microbrewery or brewpub”, “Microdistillery”, Microwinery”. These definitions are stated below: Microbrewery or brewpub: A restaurant-brewery that brews beer primarily for sale in the restaurant and/or bar and is dispensed directly from the brewery's storage tanks. Total production capacity shall not exceed one hundred fifty-five thousand (155,000) gallons per calendar year. One (1) U.S. barrel is equivalent to thirty-one (31) gallons. Microdistillery: A small scale artisan manufacturing business that blends, ferments, processes, packages, distributes and serves alcoholic spirits on and off the premises and produces no more than fifteen thousand (15,000) gallons per calendar year on-site. The microdistillery facility may include an ancillary tasting room and retail component in which guests/customers may sample and purchase the product. Off-site distribution of the alcoholic beverages shall be consistent with state law. Microwinery: Combination retail, wholesale and small scale artisan manufacturing business that blends, ferments, processes, packages, distributes and serves wine for sale on or off-site, and produces no more than one hundred thousand (100,000) gallons per year. The microwinery facility may include an ancillary tasting room and retail component in which guests/customers may sample and purchase the product. Off-site distribution of the vinous beverages shall be consistent with state law. All of these uses are permitted in the following districts shown below (extracted from Table 10.06.03): Table 10.06.03 – Business Uses - Excerpt A-1 OS-1 OS-2 E-1 R-1 R-2 R-2D R-3 R-4 O B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 M-1 M-2 Microbrewery/brewpub, microdistillery and microwinery2 - - - - - - - - - - P P P P P P Section 10-6-1 applies each of these special conditions to the uses in the table: G. Microbrewery/brewpubs: 1. Microbreweries/brewpubs, where if off-premises consumption is allowed, all sales must be in a hand capped, sealed container with a total maximum production of one hundred fifty- five thousand (155,000) gallons per calendar year inclusive of on-premises and off-premises sales. 2. Microbrewery/brewpub operations will be ancillary to a restaurant or eating establishment, and the brewing component of the facility shall be no more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the total floor area. H. Microdistilleries and microwineries: 1. Outdoor storage of equipment, production waste or product for microdistilleries and microwineries is strictly prohibited when located in a business district. However, outdoor storage of spent grains or grapes may be permitted to be stored outdoors in appropriate silos or containers in the manufacturing districts, provided the storage is screened from public view. Screening may be with fencing, landscaping or a combination of both. 2. All microdistilleries and microwineries are subject to chapter 13, article C, "Performance Standards", of this title with regards to foul odors, fire and explosive hazards and smoke. 3. All microdistilleries and microwineries located in business districts must have off-street or rear accessible loading and unloading facilities. 4. Microdistilleries or microwineries located in business districts must include an ancillary tasting room with a minimum of one hundred fifty (150) square feet. Retail sales of the product from a microdistillery or microwinery are permitted on-site and shall be consistent with state and City laws. Proposed Text Amendment Community Development staff is proposing a text amendment to both Chapter 2 and Chapter 6 of the Zoning Ordinance to align the zoning ordinance regulations to current state statute and the City’s updated liquor license regulations. Staff is proposing the following changes to the definitions for each land use (redline version of Chapters attached): Brewpub: A restaurant-brewery that brews beer primarily for sale in the restaurant and/or bar and is dispensed directly from the brewery's storage tanks. Total production capacity shall not exceed one hundred fifty-five thousand (155,000) gallons per calendar year. Microbrewery/Microwinery: A combination retail, wholesale, and/or small-scale artisan manufacturing business that brews, ferments, processes, packages, distributes, and serves either beer or wine for sale on or off-site. A microbrewery shall produce no more than one hundred fifty- five thousand (155,000) gallons of beer per year and a microwinery shall produce no more than fifty thousand (50,000) gallons of wine per year for sale on the premises for either on-premises or off-premises consumption. These facilities may include an ancillary tasting room and retail component in which guests/customers may sample and purchase the product. Off-site distribution of the beverages shall be consistent with state law. Microdistillery: A small scale artisan manufacturing business that blends, ferments, processes, packages, distributes and serves alcoholic spirits on and off the premises and produces no more than fifteen thousand (15,000) gallons per calendar year on-site. The microdistillery facility may include an ancillary tasting room and retail component in which guests/customers may sample and purchase the product. Off-site distribution of the alcoholic beverages shall be consistent with state law. The above amendments create a separate definition for a brewpub while combing the microbrewery/microwinery definitions. The microdistillery definition has remained unchanged. This is being proposed to align the zoning ordinance land uses with the new amendments within the liquor license code. Since the amended liquor code removed the requirement for microbreweries and microwineries to be part of a restaurant use, the zoning code definitions now reflect that change. However, a brewpub is the only use which still requires a restaurant component to the business. This was done since the business model of a brewpub is to provide food and beverage service, including onsite produced beer. Additionally, the total maximum amount of wine produced in a year for a “microwinery” has been reduced to 50,000 gallons to meet the previously mentioned state statute. Chapter 6 of the Zoning Ordinance is being amended to reflect the changes made to each definition. Staff is proposing to change the existing 10.06.03 Business Uses Table to the following: Table 10.06.03 – Business Uses – Proposed Amendment A-1 OS-1 OS-2 E-1 R-1 R-2 R-2D R-3 R-4 O B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 M-1 M-2 Brewpub2 - - - - - - - - - - P P P P P P Microbrewery/microwinery and microdistillery2 - - - - - - - - - - P P P P P P Microdistillery2 - - - - - - - - - - P P P P P P Now, each of the defined uses has its own line on the land use table. This helps align the zoning ordinance with the liquor code, as well as provide flexibility if one of these uses is amended in the future Finally, to correspond with the new definitions and land use table, the following special conditions have been reformatted in Section 10-6-1 of the code: G. Brewpub: Brewpub operations will be ancillary to a restaurant or eating establishment, and the brewing component of the facility shall be no more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the total floor area. If off-premises consumption is allowed, all sales must be in a hand capped, sealed container with a total maximum production of one hundred fifty-five thousand (155,000) gallons per calendar year inclusive of on-premises and off-premises sales. H. Microbreweries/microwineries and microdistilleries: 1. Microbreweries where if off-premises consumption is allowed, all sales must be in a hand capped, sealed container with a total maximum production of one hundred fifty-five thousand (155,000) gallons per calendar year inclusive of on-premises and off-premises sales. 2. Outdoor storage of equipment, production waste or product for microdistilleries and microwineries is strictly prohibited when located in a business district. However, outdoor storage of spent grains or grapes may be permitted to be stored outdoors in appropriate silos or containers in the manufacturing districts, provided the storage is screened from public view. Screening may be with fencing, landscaping or a combination of both. 3. All microdistilleries and microwineries are subject to chapter 13, article C, "Performance Standards", of this title with regards to foul odors, fire and explosive hazards and smoke. 4. All microdistilleries and microwineries located in business districts must have off-street or rear accessible loading and unloading facilities. 5. Microdistilleries or microwineries located in business districts must include an ancillary tasting room with a minimum of one hundred fifty (150) square feet. Retail sales of the product from a microdistillery or microwinery are permitted on-site and shall be consistent with state and City laws. Staff Comments The original definitions and permitted district regulations for a microbrewery and brewpub was established in 2010. In 2015, the City approved a text amendment to add microwinery and microdistillery to its definitions and land uses as well as update special regulations for each. At that time, the City chose to keep microbreweries and brewpubs as a single land use which required each to be part of a restaurant use. As evident of the recent change to the liquor license code, staff is recommending the removal of this requirement from microbrewery uses. Brewpub uses will still require a restaurant use to be part of the business. Staff is seeking comments from the Economic Development Committee on these amendments and will be available to answer any questions on Tuesday night. Staff will be conducting a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the proposed text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance at the May 11, 2022 meeting. Attachments 1. Public Hearing Notice 2. Section 10-2-3 Definitions (redline) 3. Section 10-6-0 Uses Tables (redline) 4. Section 10-6-1 Special Conditions (redline) PUBLIC NOTICE OF A HEARING BEFORE THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISION PZC 2022-10 NOTICE IS HEREWITH GIVEN THAT the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, petitioner, is proposing a text amendment to Section 10-2: “Rules and Definitions” and Section 10-6: “Permitted and Special Uses” within the United City of Yorkville Zoning Ordinance. The amendment proposes to amend the definitions of microbrewery, brewpub, and microwinery to provide consistency with current State statutes and the City’s liquor license regulations. Additionally, the land use designation table and special conditions in Section 10-6 of the Yorkville Zoning Ordinance will also be amended to reflect the proposed definitions. NOTICE IS HEREWITH GIVEN THAT the Planning and Zoning Commission for the United City of Yorkville will conduct a public hearing at a meeting on said amendments on Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 7:00 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. Jori Behland City Clerk Created: 2022-01-07 11:53:22 [EST] (Supp. No. 2) Page 1 of 37 10-2-3: Definitions: The following words and terms, wherever they occur in this title, shall be interpreted as herein defined: Abutting: To have a common property line or zoning district. Accessory building or use: One which: A. Is subordinate to and serves a principal building or principal use. B. Is subordinate in area, extent or purpose to the principal building or principal use served. C. Contributes to the comfort, convenience or necessity of occupants of the principal buil ding or principal use served. D. Is located on the same lot and in the same zoning district as the principal use. Acre: A measure of land containing forty-three thousand five hundred sixty (43,560) square feet. Acreage: Any tract or parcel of land having an area of one (1) acre or more which has not been subdivided or platted. Agricultural sales and service: A use primarily engaged in sale or rental of farm tools and implements, feed, grain, tack, animal care products, and farm supplies and farm machinery repair services that are accessory to the principal use. Agricultural use: The employment of land for the primary purpose of raising, harvesting, and selling crops, or feeding (including grazing), breeding, managing, selling, or producing livestock, poultry, furbearing animals or honeybees, or by dairying and the sale of dairy products, by any other horticultural, floricultural or viticulture use, by animal husbandry, or by any combination thereof. It also includes the current employment of land for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit by stabling or training equines including, but not limited to, providing riding lessons, training clinics and schooling shows. Airport: Any area of land designated, set aside, used, or intended for use, for the landi ng and takeoff of aircraft, and any appurtenant areas and uses such as airport buildings or other airport facilities, including approach zones. Alcoholic beverage: Any beverage that is the product of distillation of fermented liquids, whether rectified or diluted, whatever may be the origin thereof, and includes synthetic ethyl alcohol but does not include denatured alcohol or wood alcohol. Alley: A public way, not more than thirty feet (30') wide, which affords only a secondary means of access to abutting property. Amphitheater: A commercial structure with tiers of spectator seating rising around a field or court, intended primarily for use of viewing musical, theatrical, sporting or other similar entertainment events and specifically designed as a place of assembly. Amusement park: A commercially operated facility which may include structures and buildings, with a predominance of outdoor games and activities for entertainment, including motorized rides, water slides, miniature golf, batting cages and similar activities. Animal hospital: Any building, or portion thereof, designed or used for the care, observation or treatment of domestic animals. Antique sales: A building or areas within a building to provide space for the sale of antiques by antique dealers, for items such as clocks, lamps, clothing, rugs, toys, furniture, and similar household goods. Created: 2022-01-07 11:53:22 [EST] (Supp. No. 2) Page 2 of 37 Auction house: A structure, area, or areas within a building used for the public sale of goods, wares, merchandise, or equipment to the highest bidder. Automobile rental: Leasing or renting of automobiles, motorcycles and light trucks and vans, including incidental parking and servicing of vehicles for rent or lease. This definition excludes commercial truck and trailer rental. Automobile repair: Engine rebuilding or major reconditioning of worn or damaged motor vehicles or trailers; collision service, including body, frame or fender straightening or repair and painting of vehicles including incidental repairs, replacement of parts, and motor service to a utomobiles. Automobile repair excludes repair to semi-trucks as defined in this section. Bakery, retail: An establishment primarily engaged in the retail sale of baked products. The products may be prepared either on- or off-site. Bakery, wholesale: A bakery in which there is permitted the production and/or wholesaling of baked goods, excluding retail bakery. Bank: A building for the custody, loan, or exchange of money, for the extension of credit and for facilitating the transmission of funds. This definition includes credit unions, savings and loan facilities, payday loans, personal loan agencies. Basement: That portion of a building that is partly or completely below grade. Bed and breakfast inn (B&B): A private, owner/operator occupied residence with guestrooms, providing overnight accommodations and a morning meal for compensation to transients/travelers. A bed and breakfast inn is operated primarily as a business. Billiard parlor: A business establishment for a principal use as a billiard facility . Block: A tract of land bounded by streets or, in lieu of a street or streets, by public parks, cemeteries, railroad rights-of-way, bulkhead lines or shorelines of waterways or corporate boundary lines of municipalities. Boat sales and rental: A marine retail sales and service use in which boats are rented or sold. Boat storage: A facility where boats are stored including indoor and outdoor. Outdoor facilities shall be enclosed by an opaque fence or wall a minimum six feet (6') in height. Bowling alley: A business establishment with a principal use for the sport of tenpin bowling which may include incidental food services. Brewery: An establishment that engages in the manufacture of beer as such terms are defined in the Liquor Control Act of 1934, as amended, and has obtained a liquor license from the City. Brewpub: A restaurant-brewery that brews beer primarily for sale in the restaurant and/or bar and is dispensed directly from the brewery's storage tanks. Total production capacity shall not exceed one hundred fifty- five thousand (155,000) gallons per calendar year.See definition of Microbrewery or brewpub. Buffer: A strip of land, including landscaping, berms, walls, and fences, that is located between land uses of different character and is intended to physically and visually separate one use area from another. Buildable area: The space remaining on a building lot after the minimum yard requirements of this title have been complied with. Building: Any structure with substantial walls and roof securely affixed to the land and entirely separated on all sides from any other structure by space or by walls in which there are not communicating doors, windows or openings; and which is designed or intended for the shelter, enclosure or protection of persons, animals or chattels. Formatted: Highlight Created: 2022-01-07 11:53:22 [EST] (Supp. No. 2) Page 3 of 37 Building, completely enclosed: A building separated on all sides from the adjacent open space, or from other buildings or other structures, by a permanent roof and by exterior walls or party walls, pierced only by windows and normal entrance or exit doors. Building, detached: A building surrounded by open space on the same zoning lot. Building height: The vertical distance measured from the sidewalk level or its equivalent established grade opposite the middle of the front of the building to the highest point of the roof in the case of a flat roof; to the deck line of a mansard roof; and to the mean height level between eaves and the ridge of a gable, hip or gambrel roof; provided, that where buildings are set back from the street line, the height of the building may be measured from the average elevation of the finished lot grade at the front of the building. (See section 10 -2-4 of this chapter for diagram.) Building Inspector: The designated City official responsible for inspecting buildings within the City. Building line: A line or lines, including the building setback line, on the horizontal surface of a lot, parallel to the front, side and rear lot lines, and located at a distance prescribed by the yard regulations of this title beyond which no portion of a building may extend except as provided by this title. (See section 10 -2-4 of this chapter for diagram.) Building, material sales: Establishments or places of business primarily engaged in retail or wholesale sale, from the premises, of materials used in the construction of buildings or other structures. Building, nonconforming: Any building which does not conform to the regulations of this title prescribing the use, required yards, lot coverage, height and setbacks, minimum required spacing between buildings on a single lot, and minimum required usable open space for the district in which such building is located. Building, principal: A nonaccessory building in which the principal use of the zoning lot on which it is located is conducted. Building setback line: A line parallel to the street line of a distance from it, regulated by the front yard requirements set up in this title. (See section 10 -2-4 of this chapter for diagram.) Building, temporary: Any building not designed to be permanently located in the place where it is, or where it is intended to be placed or affixed. Bulk: The term used to describe the size and mutual relationships of buildings and other structures, as to size, height, coverage, shape, location of exterior walls in relation to lot lines, to the centerlines of the streets, to other walls of the same buildings, and to other buildings or structures, and to all open spaces relating to the building or structure. Business: Any occupation, employment or enterprise wherein merchandise is exhibited or sold, or which occupies time, attention, labor and materials, or where services are offered for compensation. Campground: Any area that is occupied or intended or designed or improved for occupancy by transients using recreational vehicles, travel trailers, and/or tents. Car wash: A building or portion thereof containing facilities for washing more than two (2) motor vehicles, using production line methods. The use of personnel for one (1) or more phases of this operation in conjunction with or without complete automatic or mechanical devices does not alter its classification. Coin -operated devices operated on a self-service basis shall be construed to be the same. Carport: An automobile shelter with two (2) or more sides open. Cemetery: Land used or dedicated to the interment of human or animal remains or cremated remains, including crematoriums, mausoleums, necessary sales, and maintenance facilities. Mortuaries shall be included when operating within the boundary of such cemetery. City: The United City of Yorkville or the City of Yorkville. Created: 2022-01-07 11:53:22 [EST] (Supp. No. 2) Page 4 of 37 City council: The City Council of the City of Yorkville. Club or lodge, private: A for profit or nonprofit association of persons who are bona fide members paying annual dues which owns, hires or leases a building, or portion thereof, the use of such premises being restricted to members and their guests. It shall be permissible to ser ve food and meals on such premises provided that adequate dining room space and kitchen facilities are available. The sale of alcoholic beverages to members and their guests shall be allowed in conjunction with the operation of a dining room for the purpos e of serving food and meals, though such beverages may be served in a separate room or rooms, and provided that such sale of alcoholic beverages is in compliance with the applicable local, federal and state laws, and county ordinances. (See title 3, chapter 3 of this Code.) College: A private or public college or technical institution which provides full-time or part-time education beyond high school that grants Associate, Baccalaureate, or higher degrees. Commercial feeding: A land use or facility used for the confined feeding operation for fish, poultry, swine or livestock. Commercial school, trade school: A school established to provide for the teaching of industrial, clerical, managerial, artistic skills or alternative education. This definition applies to schools that are owned and operated privately for profit or not for profit. Such schools may not contain an auditorium, gymnasium, or any other sort of recreational facilities. Community center: A building or structure used as a place of meeting, recreation or social activity, generally open to the public and designed to accommodate and serve significan t segments of the community. Conforming building or structure: A building or structure which: A. Complies with all the regulations of this title or of any amendment hereto governing bulk of the district in which said building or structure is located; and B. Is designed or intended for a permitted or special use as allowed in the district in which it is located. Contractor facility: A facility where a construction contractor maintains its principal office or a permanent business office including outdoor storage incidental to the business and enclosed with an opaque fence or wall a minimum of six feet (6') in height. Contractor offices: A building used for conducting contracting business that does not use any exterior storage area. Court: An open unoccupied space, other than a yard, on the same lot with a building or group of buildings and which is bounded on two (2) or more sides by such building or buildings. Cultivation center: A facility registered by the Department of Agriculture to perform activities to provide only registered medical cannabis dispensing organizations with usable medical cannabis in compliance with the Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Pilot Program Act, 410 ILCS 130/1 et seq. Curb level: The level of the established curb in front of the building measured at the center of such front. Where a building faces on more than one (1) street, the "curb level" shall be the average of the levels of the curbs at the center of the front of each street. Where no curb elevation has been estab lished, the mean level of the land immediately adjacent to the building shall be considered the "curb level". Dance hall: A place of assembly, open to the public and operated for profit, where dances, parties, receptions and other gatherings are held. Datum point: Any reference point of known or assumed coordinates from which calculation or measurements may be taken. Created: 2022-01-07 11:53:22 [EST] (Supp. No. 2) Page 5 of 37 Daycare facility: Any childcare facility licensed by the State Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) which regularly provides daycare for less than twenty-four (24) hours per day for more than three (3) children under the age of twelve (12) in a facility other than a family home, 225 ILCS 10/2.09. Daycare facility, adult: Any facility, public or private, regulated by the State of Illinois in accordance with the Older Adult Services Act which provides care for less than twenty-four (24) hours per day for older adults (seniors) such as nutritious meals, planned program of activities, and social and health related services. Daycare facility, part day: Any facility licensed by the State Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) and which is conducted by a church, religious organization or social service agency in which individual children are provided care, on an intermittent basis, for up to ten (10) hours per seven (7) day week. Any facility which provides intermittent care for up to ten (10) hours per seven (7) day week shall not provide such care for more than eight (8) hours in any given day during the seven (7) day week. Any facility which provides intermittent care for up to ten (10) hours per seven (7) day week shall provide at least one (1) caregiver per twenty (20) children, 225 ILCS 10/2.10. Daycare home, group: Any in home childcare service licensed by the State Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) which regularly provides care for less than twenty-four (24) hours per day for more than three (3) and up to a maximum of sixteen (16) children under the age of twelve (12) in a family home. The number of children allowed includes the family's natural or adopted children and all other persons under the age of twelve (12), 225 ILCS 10/2.20. Daycare, in home: Any in home childcare service licensed by the State Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) which regularly provides care for less than twenty-four (24) hours per day for more than three (3) and up to a maximum of twelve (12) children under the age of twelve (12) in a family home. The term does not include facilities which receive only children from a single household, 225 ILCS 10/2.09. Decibel (dB): A unit of measurement of the intensity (loudness) of sound. Sound level meters which are employed to measure the intensity of sound are calibrated in "decibels". Density, gross: A ratio of the total number of dwelling units on a site, divided by the total acreage of the site, to include streets, schools, parks, etc., expressed as dwelling units per acre. Density, net: A ratio of the total number of dwelling units on a site, divided by the number of acres used exclusively for a residential type acreage not to include schools, parks, streets, etc., expressed as dwelling units per acre. Department store: A retail business which is conducted under a single owner's name wherein a variety of unrelated merchandise and services are housed enclosed and are exhibited and sold directly to the consumer for whom the goods and services are furnished. Displacement (Earth): The amplitude or intensity of an earthborn vibration measured in inches. The displacement or amplitude is one-half (½) the total earth movement. District: A section or part of the unincorporated portion of the City for which the use regulations are uniform. Drive-through service establishment: A business or establishment which provides all or some of its services through a building opening or window to its patrons who remain in their vehicles. Driveway: A paved or unpaved private roadway providing vehicular access between the right-of-way of the street and a parking space, garage, dwelling or other structure. Dry cleaning establishment: An establishment or business maintained for the pick up and delivery of dry cleaning and/or laundry without the operation of any laundry or dry cleaning equipment or machinery on the premises. Dry cleaning plant: A building, or portion of a building or premises used or intended to be used for cleaning fabrics, textiles, wearing apparel, or articles of any sort by immersion and agitation, or by immersions only, in Created: 2022-01-07 11:53:22 [EST] (Supp. No. 2) Page 6 of 37 cleaning solvents including, but not limited to, nonflammable solvents and/or class I and above combustible liquid solvents. Dwelling: A building or portion thereof, but not including a house trailer or mobile home, designed or used exclusively for residential occupancy, including single-family dwelling units, duplex dwelling units, townhomes and multiple-family dwelling units, but not including hotels, motels, boarding or lodging houses. Dwelling, duplex: A building designed or altered to provide dwelling units for occupancy by two (2) families within a single structure on separate lots, each of which has independent living quarters with direct access to the outside. Dwelling, group: A group of two (2) or more single-family, duplex, townhome and/or multiple-family dwellings occupying a parcel of land under a single ownership and having a yard or court in common, excluding hotels and motels. Dwelling, multiple-family: A building or portion thereof, designed or altered for occupancy by two (2) or more families living independently of each other within a single or attached structure on one (1) lot, which may or may not share common entrances or other spaces and includes apartments, group homes, and condominiums. Dwelling, single-family: A dwelling unit designed exclusively for use and occupancy by one (1) family which is detached from any other dwelling unit and surrounded on all sides by open space on the same lot. Dwelling, townhouse: A single-family dwelling unit constructed in a group of three (3) or more attached units on separate lots in which each unit extends from foundation to roof and with a yard or public way on at least two (2) sides. Dwelling unit: A single unit providing complete independent living facilities for one (1) or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation. Easement: A grant by a property owner for the use of a parcel of land by the general p ublic, a corporation, or a certain person or persons for a specific purpose or purposes. Efficiency unit: A dwelling unit consisting of one (1) principal room, exclusive of bathroom, kitchen, hallway, closets or dining alcove, directly off the principal room. Equivalent opacity: The shade on the Ringelmann Chart that most closely corresponds to the density of smoke, other than black or gray. Erect: The act of placing or affixing a component of a structure upon the ground or upon another such component. Establishment, business: A separate place of business having the following three (3) characteristics: A. The ownership and management of all operations conducted within such establishment is separate and distinct from the ownership and management of operations conducted within other establishments on the same or adjacent zoning lots. B. Direct public access to such "business establishment" is separate and distinct from direct access to any other "business establishment". C. There is no direct public access from within such establishment to any other such establishment. When adjacent places of business lack any one (1) of the aforesaid characteristics with respect to one another, they shall then be considered as a single "business establishment" for the p urpose of this title. Family: One (1) or more persons related by blood, marriage or adoption, or a group of not more than five (5) persons (excluding servants) who need not be related by blood, marriage or adoption, living together and maintaining a common household. Created: 2022-01-07 11:53:22 [EST] (Supp. No. 2) Page 7 of 37 Fence: A structure, including gates, or tree or shrub hedge which is a barrier and used as a boundary or means of protection or confinement. Fence, open: A fence which has over its entirety at least fifty percent (50%) of the surface area in open space as viewed at right angles from the fence; except, that the required open space in louver type fences may be viewed from any angle. Fence, solid: A fence which conceals from view, from adjoining properties, streets or alleys, activities conducted behind it. Floor area, gross (for determining floor area ratio): The sum of the gross horizontal areas of the several floors, including also the basement floor of a building, measured from the exterior faces of the exterior walls or from the centerlines of walls separating two (2) buildings. The "floor area" shall also include the horizontal areas on each floor devoted to: A. Elevator shafts and stairwells. B. Mechanical equipment, except if located on the roof, when either open or enclosed, i.e., bul kheads, water tanks and cooling towers. C. Habitable attic space as permitted by the building code. D. Interior balconies and mezzanines. E. Enclosed porches. F. Accessory uses. The "floor area" of structures used for bulk storage of materials, i.e., grain elevators and petroleum tanks, shall also be included in the "floor area" and such "floor area" shall be determined on the basis of the height of such structures with one (1) floor for each ten feet (10') of structure height and if such structure mea sures less than ten feet (10') but not less than five feet (5') over such floor height intervals, it shall be construed to have an additional floor. The horizontal area in each floor of a building devoted to off-street parking and off- street loading facilities shall not be included in the "floor area". "Floor area" when prescribed as the basis of measurement for off-street parking spaces and off-street loading spaces for any use shall be the sum of the gross horizontal area of the several floors of the bui lding, excluding areas used for accessory off-street parking facilities and the horizontal areas to the basement floors that are devoted exclusively to uses accessory to the operation of the entire building. All horizontal dimensions shall be taken from the exterior of the walls. Floor area, livable: Any floor area within outside walls of a residential building exclusive of areas in basements, lookout basements, unfinished attics, garages, open porches and accessory buildings, but including any area "roughed in" but not completed which is designed and intended for human occupancy. Floor area ratio: The numerical value obtained by dividing the floor area within a building or buildings on a lot by the area of such lot. The floor area ratio as designated for each district when multiplied by the lot area in square feet shall determine the maximum permissible floor area for the building or buildings on the lot. (See section 10-2-4 of this chapter for diagram.) Foot-candle: A unit of illumination, equivalent to the illumination at all points which are one foot (1') distant from a uniform point source of one (1) candlepower. Foot-lambert: A unit of brightness, usually of a reflecting surface. A diffusion surface of uniform brightness reflecting or emitting the equivalent of the light from one (1) candle at one foot (1') distant over one (1) square foot has a brightness of one (1) foot-lambert. Frequency: The number of oscillations per second in a sound wave, measuring the pitch of the resulting sound. Created: 2022-01-07 11:53:22 [EST] (Supp. No. 2) Page 8 of 37 Garage, bus: Any building used or intended to be used for the storage of three (3) or more passenger motor buses or motor coaches used in public transportation, excluding school buses. Garage, private: An accessory building or an accessory portion of the principal building which is intended for and used to store the private passenger vehicles of the family or families resident upon the premises, and in which no business, service or industry connected directly or indirectly with automotive vehicles is carried on; provided, that not more than one-half (½) of the space may be rented for the private vehicles of persons not resident on the premises; except, that all the space in a garage of one (1) or two (2) car capacity may be so rented. Such a garage shall not be used for more than one (1) commercial vehicle and the load capacity of such vehicle shall not exceed five (5) tons. Gasoline service station: A place where gasoline, stored only in underground tanks, kerosene, lubricating oil or grease, for operation of automobiles, are offered for sale directly to the public on the premises, and including minor accessories and the services of automobiles, mechanical or manual washing of automobiles, but not including major automobile repairs. Gasoline service stations shall not include sale or storage of automobiles or trailers (new or used). Golf course: A facility providing a private or public golf recreation area designed for regulation play along with accessory golf support facilities including golf related retail sales, restaurant, golf driving range but excluding miniature golf. Golf driving range: An area equipped with distance markers, clubs, balls and tees for practicing golf drives and putting which may include incidental retail sales and food services, but excludes miniature golf. Grade: The established grade of the street or sidewalk. Where no such grade has been established, the grade shall be the elevation of the sidewalk at the property line. Where no sidewalks exist, the grade shall be the average elevation of the street adjacent to the property line. Except in cases of unusual topographic conditions, as determined by the Director of Public Works, grade shall be the average elevation of the finished surface of the ground adjoining the exterior walls of a building at the base of a structure based upon any technical advice that the Director of Public Works deems necessary. Grocery store: Stores where most of the floor area is devoted to the sale of food products for home preparation and consumption, which typically also offer other home care and personal care products. Group home: A single-family dwelling housing not more than eight (8) service dependent or developmentally disabled people living with professional care staff. Guest, permanent: A person who occupies or has the right to occupy a lodging house, rooming house, boarding house, hotel, apartment hotel or motel accommodation as his domicile and place of permanent residence. Health and fitness club/center: A facility which provides for individual or group exercise activities. Programs may include, but are not limited to aerobics, calisthenics, weight training, running, swimming, court games, studio lessons and all types of instructional classes related to physical fitness. Health and fitness clubs/centers may offer a variety of recreational and fitness amenities such as weightlifting machines, free weights, swimming pools, gymnasiums, studios, sport courts, shower and changing areas and may include incidental uses such as childcare facilities, food services, saunas, and pro shops oriented towards customers during their use of the club/center. Home occupation: An accessory use of a residential dwelling unit which complies with the requirements of section 10-3-9 of this title. Hospital: An institution devoted primarily to the maintenance and operation of facilities for the diagnosis, treatment or care, for not less than twenty-four (24) hours in any week, of three (3) or more nonrelated individuals suffering from illness, disease, injury, deformity or other abnormal physical conditions. The term "hospital", as used in this title, does not apply to institutions operating solely for the treatment of mentally ill or chemically Created: 2022-01-07 11:53:22 [EST] (Supp. No. 2) Page 9 of 37 dependent persons, or other types of cases necessitating restraint of patients, and the term "hospital" shall n ot be used for convalescent, nursing, shelter or boarding homes. Hotel, motel, or inn: An establishment containing lodging accommodations designed for use by transients, or travelers, or temporary guests. Facilities provided may include maid service, laun dering of linen used on the premises, telephone and secretarial or desk service, restaurants, cocktail lounges, meeting rooms and ancillary retail uses, provided access to such uses are from the exterior of the principal use. Householder: The occupant of a dwelling unit who is either the owner or lessee thereof. Impact noise: A short duration sound such as those from a forging hammer or punch press. Incombustible: A material which will not ignite nor actively support combustion during an exposure for five (5) minutes to a temperature of one thousand two hundred degrees Fahrenheit (1,200°F). Kennel, commercial: Any lot or premises or portion thereof on which more than four (4) dogs, cats and other household domestic animals, over four (4) months of age, are kept for sale, or on which more than two (2) such animals are boarded for compensation. Laboratory, commercial: A place devoted to experimental study such as testing and analyzing. Manufacturing assembly or packaging of products is not included within this definition. Land banking: Land that is part of a single lot or development that is set aside or reserved for a later approved use or development. Laundry: A business that provides coin-operated, self-service type washing, drying, dry cleaning and ironing facilities; provided that: A. Not more than four (4) persons, including owners, are employed on the premises; and B. No pick up or delivery service is maintained. Library: A public facility for the use, but not sale, of literary, musical, artistic, or reference materials. Loading and unloading space, off-street: An open, hard surfaced area of land other than a street or public way, the principal use of which is for the standing, loading and unloading of motor vehicles, tractors and trailers to avoid undue interference with public streets and alleys. Such space shall not be less than ten feet in width, twenty - five feet in length and fourteen feet in height (10' x 25' x 14'), exclusive of access aisles and maneuvering space. Lookout basement: A story having more than one-half (½) of its height below the curb level or below the highest level of the adjoining ground. A lookout basement shall not be counted as a story for the purposes of height measurement. Lot: A parcel of land legally described as a distinct portion or piece of land of record. (See section 10-2-4 of this chapter for diagram of lot types.) Lot area: The area of a horizontal plane bounded by the front, side and rear lot lines. Lot, corner: A lot situated at the junction of and abutting on two (2) or more intersecting streets; or a lot at the point of deflection in alignment of a single street, the interior angle of which is one hundred thirty -five degrees (135°) or less. (See section 10-2-4 of this chapter for diagram.) Lot coverage: The area of a zoning lot occupied by the principal building or buildings, accessory buildings and all other impervious areas such as driveways, roads, sidewalks, parking lots and structures, and any area of concrete asphalt. Lot depth: The mean horizontal distance between the front and rear lot lines of a lot measured within the lot boundaries. Created: 2022-01-07 11:53:22 [EST] (Supp. No. 2) Page 10 of 37 Lot, flag: A lot not fronting or abutting a public roadway and where access to the public roadway is limited to a narrow driveway or strip of land between abutting lots, thereby not meeting the minimum lot frontage requirements. (See section 10-2-4 of this chapter for diagram.) Lot frontage: The front of a lot shall be that boundary of a lot along a public or private street; for a corner lot, the front shall be the narrowest side of the lot fronting upon a street; provided that the owner may orient the building toward either street but once frontage is established it shall be maintained. Lot, interior: A lot other than a corner lot or reversed corner lot. (See section 10-2-4 of this chapter for diagram.) Lot line: A property boundary line of any lot held in single or separate ownership; except, that where any portion of the lot extends into the abutting street or alley, the lot line shall be deemed to be the street or alley line. Lot line, front: A lot line which abuts a street shall be the front lot line. For corner lots, the narrowest side of the lot fronting upon a street shall be considered the front of the lot; provided that the owner may orient the building toward either street but once frontage is established it shall be maintained. Lot line, interior: A side lot line common with another lot. Lot line, rear: The rear lot line is the lot line or lot lines most nearly parallel to and more remote from the front lot line. Lot line, side: Lot lines other than front or rear lot lines are side lot lines. Lot of record: A lot which is a part of a subdivision or a parcel of land described by deed and where both the map and the deed were recorded in the Office of the County Recorder. Lot, reversed corner: A corner lot, the rear of which abuts upon the side of another lot, whether across an alley or not. (See section 10-2-4 of this chapter for diagram.) Lot, through: A lot having frontage on two (2) parallel or approximately parallel streets, and which is not a corner lot. On a through lot, both street lines shall be deemed front lot lines. (See section 10-2-4 of this chapter for diagram.) Lot width: The mean horizontal distance between the side lot lines measured within the lot boundaries, or the minimum distance between the side lot lines within the buildable area. Lot, zoning: A plot of ground made up of one (1) or more contiguous parcels which are under single ownership and may be occupied by a use, building or buildings, including the yards and open spaces required by this title. Manufacturer, firearms and ammunition: Any person or entity in: a) the business of transporting, shipping and receiving firearms and ammunition for the purpose of sale or distribution, b) selling firearms at wholesale or retail, c) repairing firearms or making or fitting special barrels, stocks or trigger mechanisms to firearms and operating under the provisions of the applicable local, state and federal licenses. Manufacturing establishment: An establishment, the principal use of which is manufacturing, fabricating, processing, assembly, repairing, storing, cleaning, servicing or testing of materials, goods or products. Marina: A facility for secure mooring of boats, including facilities for storage and repair of boats and sale of boating supplies and fuel. Massage establishment: Any establishment having a source of income or compensation derived from the practice of "massage" as defined in section 10 of the Massage Licensing Act, 225 ILCS 57/10 and which has a fixed place of business where any person, firm, association or corporation engage s in or carries on any of the activities defined in title 3, chapter 9, "Massage Establishments", of this Code. Created: 2022-01-07 11:53:22 [EST] (Supp. No. 2) Page 11 of 37 Medical cannabis dispensing organization: A facility operated by an organization or business that is registered by the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation to acquire medical cannabis from a registered cultivation center for the purpose of dispensing cannabis, paraphernalia, or related supplies and educational materials to registered qualified patients in compliance with the Compas sionate Use of Medical Cannabis Pilot Program Act, 410 ILCS 130/1 et seq. Medical clinic: An establishment where patients are admitted for special study and treatment by two (2) or more licensed physicians or dentists and their professional associates, pr acticing medicine together. Microbrewery or brewpub/Microwinery: A combination retail, wholesale, and/or small-scale artisan manufacturing business that brews, ferments, processes, packages, distributes, and serves either beer or wine for sale on or off-site. A microbrewery shall produce no more than one hundred fifty-five thousand (155,000) gallons of beer per year and a microwinery shall produce no more than fifty thousand (50,000) gallons of wine per year for sale on the premises for either on-premises or off-premises consumption. These facilities may include an ancillary tasting room and retail component in which guests/customers may sample and purchase the product. Off -site distribution of the beverages shall be consistent with state law.A restaurant-brewery that brews beer primarily for sale in the restaurant and/or bar and is dispensed directly from the brewery's storage tanks. Total production capacity shall not exceed one hundred fifty-five thousand (155,000) gallons per calendar year. One (1) U.S. barrel is equivalent to thirty-one (31) gallons. Microdistillery: A small scale artisan manufacturing business that blends, ferments, processes, packages, distributes and serves alcoholic spirits on and off the premises and produces no more than fifteen t housand (15,000) gallons per calendar year on-site. The microdistillery facility may include an ancillary tasting room and retail component in which guests/customers may sample and purchase the product. Off-site distribution of the alcoholic beverages shall be consistent with state law. Microwinery: Combination retail, wholesale and small scale artisan manufacturing business that blends, ferments, processes, packages, distributes and serves wine for sale on or off -site, and produces no more than one hundred thousand (100,000) gallons per year. The microwinery facility may include an ancillary tasting room and retail component in which guests/customers may sample and purchase the product. Off-site distribution of the vinous beverages shall be consistent with state law. Miniature golf course: A novelty version of golf played with a putter and golf ball on a miniature course, typically theme oriented with artificial playing surfaces and including obstacles such as bridges and tunnels. Mobile home: A manufactured home structure transportable in one (1) or more sections, which in the traveling mode is eight (8) body feet or more in width and forty (40) body feet or more in length or when erected on-site is three hundred twenty (320) square feet or more and which is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling unit with or without a permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities, and includes the plumbing, heating, air conditioning and electrical systems that may be contained therein; except that such term shall include any structure that meets all the requirements of this definition except the size requirements and with respect to which the manufacturer voluntarily files a certification required by the Secretary (HUD) and complies with the standards established under this title. For manufactured homes built prior to June 15, 1976, a label certifying compliance to the standard for mobile homes, NFPA 501, in effect at the time of manufacture is required. Mobile home park: A lot, parcel or tract of land developed with facilities for accommodating two (2) or more mobile homes, provided each mobile home contains a kitchen, flush toilet and shower or bath; and such park shall be for use only by nontransient dwellers remaining continuously for more than one (1) month, whether or not a charge is made. It shall not include a sales lot in which automobiles or unoccupied mobile homes or other trailers are parked for the purpose of inspection or sale, except mobile homes located on a site in the mobile home park which are occupied or vacant for not more than ninety (90) days after occupancy may be sold or offered for sale. Modular construction: A structure not built on-site, but which is placed on a permanent foundation and meets building code requirements. Formatted: Highlight Formatted: Highlight Created: 2022-01-07 11:53:22 [EST] (Supp. No. 2) Page 12 of 37 Motels, motor lodges, tourist courts: A group of attached or detached buildings containing individual sleeping units, designed for or used temporarily by automobile tourists or transients, with garage attached or parking space conveniently located to each unit, including auto courts, motels or motor lodges, but not including mobile homes. Motor freight terminal: A building in which freight, brought to said building by motor truck, is assembled and sorted for routing in intrastate and interstate shipment by motor truck. Motor vehicle: A passenger vehicle, truck, truck trailer, trailer or semitrailer propelled or drawn by mechanical power. Nonconforming use: Any building, structure or land lawfully occupied by use or lawfully established which does not conform to the current regulations of the zoning ordinance. Noxious matter: Material which is capable of causing injury to living organisms by chemical reaction or is capable of causing detrimental effects upon the physical, social or economic well being of human beings. Nursery: Retail business whose principal activity is the selling of plants and having outdoor storage, growing and/or display of plants. Nursing home: A home for the care of children or the aged or infirm, or a place of rest for those suffering bodily disorders, but not including facilities for the treatment of sickness or injuries or for surgical care. Octave band: A means of dividing the range of sound frequencies into octaves in order to classify sound according to pitch. Octave band filter: An electrical frequency analyzer designed according to standards formulated by the American Standards Association and used in conjunction with a sound level meter to take measurements in specific octave intervals. (American Standard For Sound-Level Meters/ASA - No. 224.3 - 1944.) Odor threshold: The lowest concentration of odorous matter in air that will produce an olfactory response in a human being. Odor thresholds shall be determined in accordance with ASTM method D 1391 -57, "Standard Method For Measurement of Odor in Atmospheres (Dilution Method)". Odorous matter: Any material that produces an olfactory response among human beings. Office: A place, such as a building, room or suite, in which services, clerical work, professional duties or the like are carried out. Open sales lot: Any land used or occupied for the purpose of buying and selling new or secondhand passenger cars or trucks, motor scooters, motorcycles, boats, trailers, aircraft, monuments, etc., and for the storing of same prior to sale. Outdoor music venue: A property where sound equipment is used to amplify sound that is not fully enclosed by permanent, solid walls or roof. Parapet: An architectural feature of a building where that portion of an exterior wall extends above the roof deck. Parking area, private: An open, hard surfaced area, other than a street or public way, designed, arranged and made available for the storage of private passenger automobiles only of occupants of the building or buildings for which the parking area is developed and is accessory. Parking area, public: An open, hard surfaced area, other than a street or public way, intended to be used f or the storage of passenger automobiles and commercial vehicles under one and one-half (1½) tons' capacity, and available to the public, whether for compensation, free or as an accommodation to clients or customers. Parking space, automobile: Space within a public or private parking area designed in conformance with section 10-16-3 of this title, exclusive of access drives, or aisles, ramps, columns or office and work areas, for the storage of one (1) passenger automobile or commercial vehicle under one and one-half (1½) tons' capacity. Created: 2022-01-07 11:53:22 [EST] (Supp. No. 2) Page 13 of 37 Parking structure: An attached or detached structure that is fully or partially enclosed with one (1) or more levels and is used exclusively for the parking or storage of motor vehicles. This does not include private one -story garages for single-, two-, or multiple-family residential uses. Parking structures may either be above or below grade. Particulate matter: Material which is suspended in or discharged into the atmosphere in finely divided form as a liquid or solid at atmospheric pressure and temperature. Party wall: An interior wall of adjoining structures extending from its footing to the underside of the roof, and which separates and is in common use by such adjoining structures. Pawnbroker/pawnshop: Any person who lends money on deposit or pledge of personal property, or deals in the purchase of personal property on condition of selling the same back at a stipulated price, or who publicly displays at his or her place of business the sign generally used by pawnbrokers to denote the pawnbroker's business, or who publicly displays a sign which indicates, in substance, a business on the premises which "loans money for personal property, or deposit or pledge". The business of a pawnbroker shall not include the lending of money on deposit or pledge of title to property. Performance standard: A criterion to control noise, odor, smoke, toxic or noxious matter, vibration, fire and explosive hazards, or glare or heat generated by or inherent in uses of land or buildings. Philanthropic institution: Any building or group of buildings devoted to and supported by charity. Plan commission: The Plan Commission of the City of Yorkville. Planned unit development: A tract of land which is developed as a unit under single ownership or control, which includes two (2) or more principal buildings, and which is at least four (4) acres in area, except for planned developments operated by a municipal corporation which shall be at least two (2) acres in area, and planned unit developments in manufacturing districts which shall be at least ten (10) acres in area. Porch: A roofed over structure, projecting out from the wall or walls of a main structure and commonly open to the weather in part. Preferred frequencies: A set of octave bands described by the band center frequency and standardized by the American Standards Association in ASA standard N. S1.6-1960, "Preferred Frequencies For Acoustical Measurements". Principal use: The main use of land or buildings as distinguished from a subordinate or accessory use. Professional services: A business that offers any type of professional service to the public which requires, as a condition precedent to the rendering of such service, the obtaining of a license or other legal authorization. By way of example, and without limiting the generality of this definition, professional services include services rendered by certified public accountants, engineers, chiropractors, dentists, physicians, podiatrists, architects, veterinarians, attorneys at law, physical therapists and insurance agents. Public open space: Any publicly owned open area, including, but not limited to, the following: parks, playgrounds, forest preserves, beaches, waterways, parkways and streets. Public utility: Any person, firm, corporation or municipal department duly authorized to furnish, under public regulation, to the public, electricity, gas, steam, telephone, sewers, transportation or water. Railroad passenger station: A facility for the boarding of passengers and related ticketing sales and offices. Railroad right-of-way: A strip of land with tracks and auxiliary facilities for track operation, but not including depot loading platforms, stations, train sheds, warehouses, car shops, car yards, locomotive shops, water towers, etc. Recreation center: A building or structure used as a place of recreation, generally open to the public and designed to accommodate and serve significant segments of the community. Created: 2022-01-07 11:53:22 [EST] (Supp. No. 2) Page 14 of 37 Recreational camp private: An establishment consisting of permanent buildings used periodically by an association of persons where seasonal accommodations for recreational purposes are provided only to the members of such association and not to anyone who may apply. Recreational vehicle: Any type of vehicle used primarily for recreational pleasure or bearing recreational vehicle registration license plates. Examples include, but are not limited to, motor homes, boats, snowmobiles, and all-terrain vehicles. Refuse: All waste products resulting from human habitation, except sewage. Religious institution, large: A building, having four hundred (400) or more seats or larger than eight thousand (8,000) square feet of total gross floor area, wherein persons regularly assemble for religious worship and which is maintained and controlled by a religious body organized to sustain public worship, together with all accessory buildings and uses customarily associated with such primary purpose. Includes church, synagogue, temple, mosque or other such place for worship and religious activities. Religious institution, small: A building, having four hundred (400) or fewer seats or no larger than eight thousand (8,000) square feet of total gross floor area, wherein persons regularly assemble for religious worship and which is maintained and controlled by a religious body organized to sus tain public worship, together with all accessory buildings and uses customarily associated with such primary purpose. Includes church, synagogue, temple, mosque or other such place for worship and religious activities. Resale dealer: Any individual, firm, corporation or partnership engaged in the business of operating a business for profit which buys, sells, possesses on consignment for sale or trades jewelry, stamps, audio -video equipment or any precious metals which may have been previously owned by a co nsumer; or which derives more than thirty-five percent (35%) of its gross receipts from the sale, consignment for sale, pledge or trade of any goods, wares or merchandise which have previously been owned by a consumer, including, but not limited to, furniture, appliances, clothing, automobile accessories, books or metals, whether in bulk or manufactured state. A. The term "resale dealer" shall include, but not be limited to, businesses commonly known as swapshop operators, stamp dealers, coin dealers and jewelers that purchase and resell items from persons other than dealers and suppliers and engage in disassembling, melting and otherwise altering jewelry. The term "resale dealer" shall not include pawnbrokers. B. The fact that any business does any of the following acts shall be prima facie proof that such business is a resale dealer: 1. Advertise in any fashion that it buys or sells used items. Such advertisements shall include, but not be limited to, media advertisements, websites, telephone listings, a nd signs whether in the exterior or interior of business. 2. Devotes a significant segment or section of the business premises to the purchase or sale of used items. Research laboratory: A building or group of buildings in which are located facilities for scientific research, investigation, testing or experimentation, but not facilities for the manufacture or sale of products, except as incidental to the main purpose of the laboratory. Residence: The act or condition of residing or dwelling in a place. Rest home: See definition of Nursing home. Restaurant: Any land, building or part thereof where meals are provided for compensation, including a cafe, cafeteria, coffee shop, lunchroom, drive-in stand, tearoom and dining room, and including the serving of alcoholic beverages when served with and incidental to the serving of meals, where permitted. Restaurant, convenience: An establishment commonly referred to as "fast casual" dining with the following characteristics: a) limited menu items are made to order and are prepared only upon request; b) food is either Created: 2022-01-07 11:53:22 [EST] (Supp. No. 2) Page 15 of 37 ordered and picked up at a counter or served at the patron's table in a limited dine in area; and c) usually part of a chain or franchise establishment. Restaurant, fast-food: A quick service restaurant with the following characteristics: a) typically includes drive- through service; b) limited menu items consisting of prepackaged or quickly prepared food items; c) food is ordered and picked up at a counter with no table service provided; d) limited di ne in area; and e) usually part of a chain or franchise establishment. Retail store: A building or portion of a building providing area for the selling of new or used goods, wares, and merchandise directly to the consumer for whom the goods are furnished. Ringelmann chart: A chart which is described in the U.S. Bureau of Mines Information Circular 6888, and on which are illustrated graduated shades of gray for use in estimating the light obscuring capacity of smoke. Ringelmann number: The number of the area on the Ringelmann Chart that coincides most nearly with the visual density of smoke emission. Roadside stand: A temporary structure which is used solely for the display or sale of farm produce and related materials. No roadside stand shall be more than three hundred (30 0) square feet in ground area and there shall be no more than one (1) roadside stand on any one (1) premises. Roadway: That portion of a street which is used or intended to be used for the travel of motor vehicles. Runway: A strip or area of pavement used exclusively for the landing and taking off of aircraft, or for the movement of vehicles incidental to such use. Salvage yard: An open area where waste, scrap metal, paper, rags or similar materials are bought, sold, exchanged, stored, baled, packed, disassembled or handled, including auto, farm implements and machinery, and building wrecking yards, but excluding similar uses taking place entirely within a completely enclosed building. School: Elementary, high school or college, public or private, or nonprofit junior college, college or university, other than trade, commercial and business schools, including instructional and recreational uses, with or without living quarters, dining rooms, restaurants, heating plants and other incidental facilities for students, teachers and employees. These schools typically contain an auditorium, gymnasium, cafeteria, or other recreational faci lities. Semi-truck: A tractor unit which is used to tow or move semi- trailers. A semi-truck typically has two (2) or three (3) axles and is built for hauling large amounts of products, goods, and heavy machinery. Semi-truck repair: Engine rebuilding or major reconditioning of worn or damaged semi-trucks; collision service, including body, frame or fender straightening or repair and painting including incidentals repairs, replacement of parts and motor service to semi-trucks. Setback: The minimum distance maintained between a street right-of-way and the nearest supporting member of any structure on the lot, except where otherwise regulated in this title. Setback, established: When forty percent (40%) or more of the lots fronting on one (1) side of a street within a block are improved, the existing setbacks of such improved lots shall be the "established setback" for determining the depth of the required front yards for the remainder of the lots along such street frontage, as regulated in this title. Setback line, building: See definition of building setback line. Shooting gallery/gun range, indoor: An enclosed facility, public or private, specifically for the purpose of providing a place in which to discharge various types of firearms, shoot air guns and /or archery equipment at designated targets and designed to contain all projectiles fired within the confines of the building. Auxiliary training and instructional classroom facilities may also be provided, as well as ancillary retail sales of firearms, ammunition and associated products upon proof of applicable local, state and federal licensure. Created: 2022-01-07 11:53:22 [EST] (Supp. No. 2) Page 16 of 37 Short-term rental: A home occupation of a single-family dwelling unit that is used as a primary residence by owners or renters, or a portion of such a dwelling unit that is rented for less than thirty (30) days at a time to transients and temporary guests. Skating rink: An establishment that provides facilities for participant skating. Smoke: Small gasborne particles other than water that form a visible plume in the air. Smoke unit: The number obtained by multiplying the smoke density in Ringelmann numbers by the time of emission in minutes. For the purpose of this chart, Ringelmann density reading is made at least once every minute during the period of observation; each reading is then multiplied by the time in minutes during which it is observed, and the various products are added together to give the total number of smoke units observed during the total period under observation. Sound level meter: An electronic instrument which includes a microphone, an amplifier and an output meter which measures noise and sound pressure levels in a specified manner. It may be used with the octave band analyzer that permits measuring the sound pressure level in discrete octav e bands. Sound pressure level: The intensity of a sound measured in decibels mathematically described as twenty (20) times the logarithm to the base-10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound to a reference pressure of 0.0002 microbar. Stable, private: Any building which is located on a lot on which a dwelling is located and which is designed, arranged, used or intended to be used for housing horses for the private use of occupants of the dwelling. Stable, public (riding or boarding stable): A building and grounds which are designed, arranged, used or intended to be used for the storage, boarding or breeding of horses, including accessory uses which may include riding and horsemanship instructions and the hire of riding horses. Stacking requirements: The number of cars that must be accommodated in a reservoir space while awaiting ingress or egress to specified business or service establishments. Stadium: Any facility, building, corral, arena, or structure of any kind designed for use as either a sports facility (including animal sports, i.e., rodeos, horseraces, etc.), entertainment facility, whether for profit or not, where activities are to be undertaken generally for the entertainment of others. Said description includes ball fields, when any type of structure is involved, skating rinks, racetracks, football or soccer fields, softball fields, gymnasiums, swimming facilities, music halls, theaters, stages or any other type of field or facility. Story: That portion of a building included between the surface of any floor and the surface of the floor above it, or if there is no floor above, then the space between the floor and ceiling next above it. Any portion of a story exceeding fourteen feet (14') in height shall be considered as an additional story for each fourteen feet (14') or fraction thereof. Story, half: That portion of a building under a gable, hip or mansard roof, the wall plates of which on at least two (2) opposite exterior walls are not more than four and one-half feet (4½') above the finished floor of each story. In the case of one-family dwellings, two-family dwellings and multiple-family dwellings less than three (3) stories in height, a half story in a sloping roof shall not be counted as a story for the purpose of this title. In the case of multiple-family dwellings three (3) or more stories in height, a half story shall be counted as a story. Street: A way other than an alley which affords a primary means of access to abutting property. Street line: A line separating an abutting lot, piece or parcel from a street. Structural alterations: Any change other than incidental repairs which would prolong the life of the supporting members of a building or structure such as bearing walls, columns, beams and girders. Structure: Anything constructed or erected which requires location on the ground or is attached to something having location on the ground. Created: 2022-01-07 11:53:22 [EST] (Supp. No. 2) Page 17 of 37 Tattoo and body piercing establishments: Any establishment which performs or provides services for tattooing and/or body piercing as defined in title 3, chapter 10 of this Code. Tavern or lounge: A building where liquors are sold to be consumed on the premises, but not including restaurants where the principal business is serving food. Taxicab business: A service that offers transportation in passenger automobiles and vans to persons in return for remuneration. The business may include facilities for servicing, repair, and fueling the taxicabs or vans. Terrace, open: A level and rather narrow plane or platform which, for the purpose of this title, is located adjacent to one (1) or more faces of the principal structure and which is constructed not more than four feet (4') in height above the average level of the adjoining ground. Theater: A structure used for dramatic, operatic, motion pictures for admission to which money is received. Such establishments may include related services such as food and beverage sales and other concessions. Title: Reference to "title" herein shall be construed to be the Yorkville Zoning Ordinance. Toxic materials: Substances (liquid, solid or gaseous) which are inherently harmful and likely to destroy life or impair health or capable of causing injury to the well being of persons or damage to property. Trailer: A vehicle without motive power, designed to be towed by another vehicle but not designed for human occupancy and which may include a utility trailer, boat trailer, horse trailer or cargo trailer. Trailer, camping: A trailer designed and constructed for temporary dwelling purposes which does not contain built in sanitary facilities and has a gross floor area of less than one hundred thirty (130) square feet. Trailer house or mobile home: See definition of Mobile home. Trailer, travel: A trailer designed and constructed for dwelling purposes which may contain cooking, sanitary and electrical facilities and has a gross floor area of one hundred thirty (130) square feet or more but less than three hundred twenty (320) square feet. Treatment center: One (1) or more buildings designed and used for the medical and surgical diagnosis and treatment. This definition excludes hospitals and nursing homes. Truck and trailer rental: Leasing or renting of trucks and trailers, including incidental parking and servicing of vehicles for rent or lease. Truck storage yard: Any land used or intended to be used for the storage or parking of trucks, trailers, tractors, and including commercial vehicles, while not loading or unloading, and which exceed one and one-half (1½) tons in capacity. Usable open space: Ground area of a lot, landscaping and recreational facilities may qualify as usable open space provided that it is an area unobstructed from the ground to the sky and which : A. Is not devoted to public or private roadways or driveways and off-street parking and loading; B. Is accessible and available only to occupants of dwelling units on the premises, except balconies; C. Is not covered by buildings, except not more than five percent (5%) of the required open space may be recreational facilities enclosed within a building for the use of occupants of the dwelling units on the premises; D. Has not less than ten feet (10') at its narrowest dimension between either a lot lin e and an area not qualifying as usable open space; and E. Is developed, landscaped and maintained suitable for pedestrian, recreational and leisure use. Use: The purpose for which land or a building thereon is designed, arranged or intended, or for which it is occupied or maintained, let or leased. Created: 2022-01-07 11:53:22 [EST] (Supp. No. 2) Page 18 of 37 Use, lawful: The use of any building, structure or land that conforms with all of the regulations of this title and which conforms with all of the codes, ordinances and other legal requirements as existing when the structure or land is being examined. Use, nonconforming: See definition of Nonconforming use. Use, permitted: Any use which is or may be lawfully established in a particular district or districts, provided it conforms with all requirements, regulations, and when applicable, performance standards of this title for the district in which such use is located. Use, principal: The dominant use of land or buildings as distinguished from a subordinate or accessory use. Use, special: A use that has unusual operational, physical or other characteristics that may be different from those of the predominant permitted uses in a district, but which is a use that complements and is otherwise, or can be made, compatible with the intended overall development within a district. Compliance with special standards not necessarily applicable to other permitted or conditional uses in the district shall be required as regulated in this title. Vacant land: A lot or parcel of land on which no improvements or structures have b een constructed or actively used for any land use purpose. Vibration: The periodic displacement, measured in inches, of earth at designated frequency cycles per second. Warehouse: A structure, part thereof, or an area used principally for the storage of goods and merchandise for wholesale or distribution, excluding bulk storage of materials that are inflammable or explosive or that present hazards. Yard: An open area on a lot which is unobstructed from its lowest level to the sky, except as otherwise provided in this title. Yard, front: A yard extending along the full width of a front lot line between the side lot lines, and has a depth between the front lot line and the front yard line. Yard, interior side: A side yard which adjoins another lot or an alley separating such side yard from another lot. Yard line: A line in a lot that is parallel to the lot line along which the applicable yard extends and which is not nearer to such lot line at any point than the required depth or width of the applicable y ard. A building, structure or other obstruction shall not encroach into the area between the "yard line" and such adjacent lot line, except for such permitted obstructions in yards as are set forth in this title. (See section 10 -2-4 of this chapter for diagram.) Yard, rear: A yard extending along the width of the rear lot line between the side lot lines, and from the rear lot line to the rear yard line in depth. Yard, side: A yard extending along the length of a side lot line between the rear yard line and front yard line, from the side yard line to the side lot line in width. Yard, side adjoining a street: A yard which is bounded by the front lot line, side yard adjoining a street line and rear lot line. Yard, transitional: A yard that must be provided on a lot in a business district which adjoins a lot in a residential district as a buffer and subject to regulations provided in the landscape ordinance. Zone: A "district", as defined in this section. Zoning Board of Appeals: See title 2, chapter 2 of this Code. (Ord. 2014-73, 11-25-2014; amd. Ord. 2015-32, 6-9-2015; Ord. 2016-35, 4-26-2016; Ord. 2017-02, 1-24-2017; Ord. 2017-32, 5-23-2017; Ord. 2019-08, 1-29-2019; Ord. 2019-29, 5-14-2019; Ord. 2019-40, 7-23-2019) Created: 2022-01-07 11:53:25 [EST] (Supp. No. 2) Page 19 of 37 10-6-0: Use tables: TABLE 10.06.01 RESIDENTIAL USES Use Category Zoning Districts Ag Open Space Residential Business Manufacturing A- 1 OS- 1 OS- 2 E- 1 R- 1 R- 2 R- 2D R- 3 R- 4 O B- 1 B- 2 B- 3 B- 4 M-1 M-2 Dwelling, duplex - - - - - - P P P - - - - - - - Dwelling, multi-family - - - - - - - P P - P2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 Dwelling, single-family P - - P P P P P P - - - - - - - Dwelling, townhouse - - - - - - - P P - - - - - - - Mobile home park - - - - - - - S1 S1 - - - - - - - Short-term rental - - - P P P P P P - - - - - - - P = Permitted use S = Special use - = Not permitted use Notes: 1. 10 acre minimum. 2. Apartments above the first floor in a building used for business or as live/work space above a manufacturing use shall be permitted up to a maximum of 2 apartments. (Ord. 2014-73, 11-25-2014; amd. Ord. 2019-29, 5-14-2019) TABLE 10.06.02 INSTITUTIONAL USES Use Category Zoning Districts Ag Open Space Residential Business Manufacturing A- 1 OS- 1 OS- 2 E- 1 R- 1 R- 2 R- 2D R- 3 R- 4 O B- 1 B- 2 B- 3 B- 4 M-1 M-2 Cemetery S S S S S S S S S - - - - - - - College, university or junior college S - - S S S S S S P P P P P - - Created: 2022-01-07 11:53:25 [EST] (Supp. No. 2) Page 20 of 37 Hospital S - - S S S S S S - P P P P - - Library - - - - - - - - - P P P P P - - Nursing home/rest home S - - S S S S S S - P P - - Philanthropic institution S - - S S S S S S - - - - - - - Religious institution, large S - - S S S S S S P P P P P S S Religious institution, small S - - S S S S S S P P P P P S S School, public or private - - - P P P P P P - - - - - - - P = Permitted use S = Special use - = Not permitted use (Ord. 2014-73, 11-25-2014) TABLE 10.06.03 BUSINESS USES Use Category Zoning Districts Ag Open Space Residential Business Manufacturing A- 1 OS- 1 OS- 2 E- 1 R- 1 R- 2 R- 2D R- 3 R- 4 O B- 1 B- 2 B- 3 B- 4 M-1 M-2 Adult daycare facility - - S S S S S S - S S S S S S S Adult oriented uses - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S S Advertising agency - - - - - - - - - P P P P P - - Agricultural implement sales, storage and services of agriculturally oriented products2 S - - - - - - - - - - - S P - - Agricultural uses P S S - - - - - - - - - - - - - Amphitheater - - P - - - - - - - S S S S S S Amusement park S - S - - - - - - - - - S S S S Animal feed, storage preparation, mixing and wholesale and retail S Animal hospital S - - - - - - - - - - - S - - Antique sales - - - S - S - S S - P P P P - - Created: 2022-01-07 11:53:25 [EST] (Supp. No. 2) Page 21 of 37 Apiaries P - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Appliance - service - - - - - - - - - - - - P P - - Art galleries/art studio - - - - - - - - - - - P P P P P Auction house P - - - - - - - - - - - - P - - Automobile parts/accessories sales - - - - - - - - - - - P P P - - Automobile rental - - - - - - - - - - - P P P - - Automobile repair - - - - - - - - - - - - P P P P Automobile sales and service/ open sales lot - - - - - - - - - - - - P P - - Bakery, retail - - - - - - - - - - P P P P S1 S1 Bank with drive-through facilities - - - - - - - - - P P P P P - - Barber/beauty shop - - - - - - - - - P P P P P - - Bed and breakfast inn S - - S S - - - - - S S S - - - Bicycle shop/repair - - - - - - - - - - - P P P - - Billiard parlor - - - - - - - - - - S P P P - - Boat sales and rental - S S - - - - - - - P P P P - - Boat storage - S S - - - - - - - S S S S S S Bookkeeping service - - - - - - - - - P P P P P - - Bookstore - - - - - - - - - - P P P P - - Bowling alley - - - - - - - - - - - P P P - - Brewery - - - - - - - - - - S S S S P P Brewpub - - - - - - - - - - P P P P P P Building equipment, building materials, lumber, coal, sand and gravel yards, and yards for contracting equipment of public agencies, or public utilities, or materials or equipment of similar nature, ready mix batch plants, and asphalt manufacturing plants - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S S Building material sales - - - - - - - - - - - - P P - - Campground S - S - - - - - - - - - - - - - Car wash without mechanical repair - - - - - - - - - - - - P P P P Carpet and rug cleaning - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P P Catering service - - - - - - - - - - - - P P - - Formatted: Highlight Created: 2022-01-07 11:53:25 [EST] (Supp. No. 2) Page 22 of 37 Clothes - pressing and repair - - - - - - - - - - P P P P - - Club/lodge, private2 S - - - - - - - - P P P P P - S Coffee shop - - - - - - - - - P P P P P - - Commercial feeding of fish, poultry, livestock S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Commercial laboratory - - - - - - - - - P P P P P - - Commercial school, trade school - offering training in classroom study - - - - - - - - - P P P P P S S Community center - - P - - S S S S - P P P P S S Contractor facilities with outdoor storage - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S S Contractor offices - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P P Cultivation of nonfood crops and seeds used of cellulosic biofuels production P - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dance hall - - - - - - - - - - - P P P - - Daycare facility and preschools S - S S S S S S - S S S S S S S Department store - - - - - - - - - - - P P P - - Detective agency - - - - - - - - - P P P P P - - Dressmaker-seamstress - - - - - - - - - - P P P P - - Dry cleaning establishment - - - - - - - - - S P P P P - - Dry cleaning plant - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S S Employment office - - - - - - - - - P P P P P - - Farming P S S - - - - - - - - - - - - - Fertilizer sales with storage and mixture S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Forestation P - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Funeral home/ mortuary/ crematorium - - - - - - - - - - P P P P - - Furniture repair and refinishing - - - - - - - - - - - - P P - - Gasoline service station - - - - - - - - - - - S S S S S Golf course2 S - S P P P P P P - - - - - - - Golf course, miniature S - - - - - - - - - - - P P - - Golf driving range S - S - - - - - - - - - P P - - Grain elevators and storage P - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Created: 2022-01-07 11:53:25 [EST] (Supp. No. 2) Page 23 of 37 Grocery store - - - - - - - - - - P P P P - - Health and fitness club/center - - - - - - - - - - - P P P P - Heavy machinery and equipment rental - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P P Hotel/motel/motor lodges/tourist courts - - - - - - - - - - - P P P - - Indoor shooting gallery/gun range2 - - - - - - - - - - S S S S S S Interior decorating studio - - - - - - - - - - P P P - - Kennel, commercial or private dog kennels S - - - - - - - - - - - P P - - Liquor store - - - - - - - - - - P P P P - - Locksmith - - - - - - - - - - - P P P - - Massage establishment - - - - - - - - - P P P P P - - Medical clinic - - - - - - - - - P P P P P - - Microbrewery/brewpub, microdistillery and microwinery2 - - - - - - - - - - P P P P P P Microdistillery - - - - - - - - - - P P P P P P Milk processing and distribution2 S - - - - - - - - - - - - - P P Motorcycle sales and service - - - - - - - - - - - - P P - - Musical instrument sales/repair - - - - - - - - - - - P P P - - Newspaper publishing - - - - - - - - - - - P P P P P Nursery/greenhouses S - - - - - - - - - - - P P - - Off-track betting (OTB) establishments - - - - - - - - - - - S - - - - Outdoor music venues - - P - - - - - - - S S S S S S Parks - P P P P P P P P P P P P P - - Pawnbrokers/pawnshops - - - - - - - - - - P P P P - - Pet stores/pet supply - - - - - - - - - - - P P P - - Photography studio/camera repair shop - - - - - - - - - - P P P P - - Playground - P P P P P P P P - P P P P - - Post office/retail mail or package service - - - - - - - - - - P P P P - - Professional services/offices - - - - - - - - - P P P P P - - Formatted: Highlight Formatted: Highlight Created: 2022-01-07 11:53:25 [EST] (Supp. No. 2) Page 24 of 37 Public storage facilities/miniwarehouse storage2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S S Radio and television studios - - - - - - - - - - P P P P - - Recreation center - - P - - - - - - - P P P P P P Recreational camp - private S - S - - - - - - - - - - - - - Recreational vehicle sales and service - - - - - - - - - - - - P P - - Repair of household or office machinery or equipment - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P P Resale dealers - - - - - - - - - - P P P P - - Restaurant, convenience and fast food - - - - - - - - - - P P P P - - Retail store includes pharmacy/drugstore - - - - - - - - - S P P P P S - Riding academies with stables S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Roadside stand P - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Salvage yard2 S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S Semi-truck repair - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P P Shoe and hat repair - - - - - - - - - - P P P P - - Skating rink - - S - - - - - - - - - P P - - Stables or paddocks P - S - - - - - - - - - - - - - Stadium - - S - - - - - - - - - S S S S Swimming pool - indoor - - S - - - - - - - P P P P - - Tattoo and body piercing establishment - - - - - - - - - - P P P P P P Tavern - nightclub or lounge - - - - - - - - - - S S S S S S Taxidermist - - - - - - - - - - - P P P - - Theater - - - - - - - - - - - P P P - - Trailer camp/park S - - - - - - - - - P P P P - - Treatment center - - - - - - - - - - P P P P - - Truck and trailer rental - - - - - - - - - - - - S P - - Truck, truck-tractor, truck trailer, car trailer or bus storage yard - not include motor freight terminal - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P P Upholstery shop - - - - - - - - - - - - P P - - Veterinary clinic - - - - - - - - - - - - P P - - Created: 2022-01-07 11:53:25 [EST] (Supp. No. 2) Page 25 of 37 Watch and clock sales and repair - - - - - - - - - - - P P P - - Weaving and mending - custom - - - - - - - - - - - P P P - - P = Permitted use S = Special use - = Not permitted use Notes: 1. Appurtenant to wholesale. 2. See section 10-6-1, "Special Conditions", of this chapter. (Ord. 2014-73, 11-25-2014; amd. Ord. 2015-32, 6-9-2015; Ord. 2015-33, 6-9-2015; Ord. 2016-35, 4-26-2016; Ord. 2017-02, 1-24-2017; Ord. 2017-32, 5-23-2017; Ord. 2019-08, 1-29-2019; Ord. 2019-13, 2-26-2019) TABLE 10.06.04 MANUFACTURING USES Use Category Zoning Districts Ag Open Space Residential Business Manufacturing A- 1 OS- 1 OS- 2 E- 1 R- 1 R- 2 R- 2D R- 3 R- 4 O B- 1 B- 2 B- 3 B- 4 M-1 M-2 Any assembly, production, manufacturing, testing, repairing or processing that can and does operate in compliance with performance standards1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P P Aggregate materials extraction, processing and site reclamation (stone and gravel quarries) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S Bakery (wholesale - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P P Created: 2022-01-07 11:53:25 [EST] (Supp. No. 2) Page 26 of 37 retail component special use) Blacksmith or welding shop S - - - - - - - - - - - - - P P Manufacturer of firearms and ammunition - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P P Medical cannabis cultivation center and dispensaries1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S S Research laboratories - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P P Wholesaling and warehousing - local cartage express facilities - not including motor freight terminal - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P P P = Permitted use S = Special use - = Not permitted use Notes: 1. See section 10-6-1, "Special Conditions", of this chapter. TABLE 10.06.05 TRANSPORTATION USES Use Category Zoning Districts Ag Open Space Residential Business Manufacturing A- 1 OS- 1 OS- 2 E- 1 R- 1 R- 2 R- 2D R- 3 R- 4 O B- 1 B- 2 B- 3 B- 4 M-1 M-2 Airport S - - - - - - - - - - - - - S S Bus or truck garage or streetcar house - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P P Bus or truck storage yard - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P P Created: 2022-01-07 11:53:25 [EST] (Supp. No. 2) Page 27 of 37 Marina - - S - - - - - - - - S S S S S Motor freight terminals - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S S Railroad passenger station S - - S S S S S S S S S S S S S Railroad repair shops, maintenance buildings and switching yards S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S Taxicab business - - - - - - - - - - - - P P S S P = Permitted use S = Special use - = Not permitted use TABLE 10.06.06 UTILITY USES Use Category Zoning Districts Ag Open Space Residential Business Manufacturing A- 1 OS- 1 OS- 2 E- 1 R- 1 R- 2 R- 2D R- 3 R- 4 O B- 1 B- 2 B- 3 B- 4 M-1 M-2 Communications use S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Electric substation S S S S S S S S S - P P P P P P Filtration plant S - - S S S S S S - - - - - P P Fire station S - - S S S S S S P P P P P P P Police station S - - S S S S S S P P P P P P P Public utility - electric substations and distribution centers, gas regulation centers and underground gas holder stations S S S - - - - - - - - - - - P P Created: 2022-01-07 11:53:25 [EST] (Supp. No. 2) Page 28 of 37 Other public utility facilities S - S P P P P P P - - - - - P P Radio and television towers - commercial S - - S S S S S S - - - - - P P Sanitary landfill - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S S Sewage treatment plant - - - S S S S S S - - - - - P P Solid waste disposal site - - - - - - - - - S S S S S P P Utility company maintenance yard - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P P Utility service yard or garage - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P P Watchman quarters (dwelling units) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P P P = Permitted use S = Special use - = Not permitted use TABLE 10.06.07 ALTERNATIVE ENERGY USES Use Category Zoning Districts Ag Open Space Residential Business Manufacturing A- 1 OS- 1 OS- 2 E- 1 R- 1 R- 2 R- 2D R- 3 R- 4 O B- 1 B- 2 B- 3 B- 4 M-1 M-2 Solar farm S S S - - - - - - S - - - - - - Building- mounted solar energy systems (BSES) S - P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Freestanding solar energy systems (FSES) S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S Wind farm S - S - - - - - - S - - - - - - Building- mounted S - P S S S S S S S S S S S S S Created: 2022-01-07 11:53:25 [EST] (Supp. No. 2) Page 29 of 37 wind energy system (BWES) Freestanding wind energy system (FWES) S S S S S S - - - S - - - - S S P = Permitted use S = Special use - = Not permitted use TABLE 10.06.08 MISCELLANEOUS USES Use Category Zoning Districts Ag Open Space Residential Business Manufacturing A- 1 OS- 1 OS- 2 E- 1 R- 1 R- 2 R- 2D R- 3 R- 4 O B- 1 B- 2 B- 3 B- 4 M-1 M-2 Accessory building/use and structures P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Planned unit development (PUD) S - - S S S S S S S S S S S S S P = Permitted use S = Special use - = Not permitted use (Ord. 2014-73, 11-25-2014) TABLE 10.06.09 ADULT USE CANNABIS BUSINESSES Use Category Zoning Districts Ag Open Space Residential Business Manufacturing A- 1 OS- 1 OS- 2 E- 1 R- 1 R- 2 R- 2D R- 3 R- 4 O B- 1 B- 2 B- 3 B- 4 M-1 M-2 Adult-use cannabis craft grower S - - - - - - - - - - - - - S S Adult-use cannabis S - - - - - - - - - - - - - S S Created: 2022-01-07 11:53:25 [EST] (Supp. No. 2) Page 30 of 37 cultivation center Adult-use cannabis dispensing organization - - - - - - - - - - - - S - S S Adult-use cannabis infuser organization or infuser - - - - - - - - - - - - S - S S Adult-use cannabis processing organization or processor - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S S Adult-use cannabis transporting organization or transporter - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S S P = Permitted use S = Special use - = Not permitted use (Ord. 2019-84, 11-26-2019) 10-6-1: Special conditions: A. Agricultural implementation sales, storage and service of agriculturally oriented products: 1. Sales yards, wholesale or retail, for agricultural products in A-1, Agricultural District; refer to section 10- 9-3, "Special Uses", of this title. B. Club/lodge, private: 1. Private clubs or lodges in A-1, Agricultural District; refer to section 10-9-3, "Special Uses", of this title. C. Golf courses: 1. Regulation size golf courses are permitted provided that no clubhouse or accessory building shall be nearer than five hundred feet (500') to any dwelling on an adjacent zoning lot. 2. Golf courses, miniature golf courses and driving ranges in A-1, Agricultural District; refer to section 10- 9-3, "Special Uses", of this title. D. Indoor shooting galleries/gun ranges: 1. When located in a multiple-tenant building, shall only be located in an end unit and with the gallery/range not adjacent to an adjoining unit. Created: 2022-01-07 11:53:25 [EST] (Supp. No. 2) Page 31 of 37 2. The minimum building setback for indoor shooting gallery/gun range facilities shall be fifty feet (50') from any property line that abuts a residentially zoned property. 3. The retail operations of any indoor shooting gallery/gun ranges shall occupy not more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the total floor area. E. Manufacturing uses: 1. All business, production, servicing and processing shall take place within completely enclosed buildings unless otherwise specified. Within one hundred fifty feet (150') of a residence district, all storage shall be in completely enclosed buildings or structures, and storage located elsewhere in the manufacturing districts may be open to the sky but shall be enclosed by solid walls or fences (including solid doors or gates thereto) at least eight feet (8') high, but in no case lower in height than the enclosed storage and suitably landscaped. 2. However, open off-street loading facilities and open off-street parking of motor vehicles under one and one-half (1½) tons' capacity may be unenclosed throughout the manufacturing districts, except for such screening of parking and loading facilities as may be required under provisions of chapter 16 of this title. F. Medical cannabis cultivation center: . Cultivation center and medical cannabis dispensing organization in compliance with the Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Pilot Program Act, 410 ILCS 130/1 et seq., provided, that the distance requirements set forth in that Act are also required for public parks and rel igious institutions for such use. G. Microbrewery/bBrewpubs: 1. Microbreweries/brewpubsBrewpubs, where operations will be ancillary to a restaurant or eating establishment, and the brewing component of the facility shall be no more than twenty -five percent (25%) of the total floor area. Iif off-premises consumption is allowed, all sales must be in a hand capped, sealed container with a total maximum production of one hundred fifty-five thousand (155,000) gallons per calendar year inclusive of on-premises and off-premises sales. 2. Microbrewery/brewpub operations will be ancillary to a restaurant or eating establishment, and the brewing component of the facility shall be no more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the total floor area. H. Microbreweries/microwineries and Microdistilleries and microwineries: 1. Microbreweries where if off-premises consumption is allowed, all sales must be in a hand capped, sealed container with a total maximum production of one hundred fifty-five thousand (155,000) gallons per calendar year inclusive of on-premises and off-premises sales. 2. Outdoor storage of equipment, production waste or product for microdistilleries and microwineries is strictly prohibited when located in a business district. However, outdoor storage of spent grains or grapes may be permitted to be stored outdoors in appropriate silos or containers in the m anufacturing districts, provided the storage is screened from public view. Screening may be with fencing, landscaping or a combination of both. 23. All microdistilleries and microwineries are subject to chapter 13, article C, "Performance Standards", of this title with regards to foul odors, fire and explosive hazards and smoke. 34. All microdistilleries and microwineries located in business districts must have off-street or rear accessible loading and unloading facilities. Formatted: Highlight Formatted: List 1 Created: 2022-01-07 11:53:25 [EST] (Supp. No. 2) Page 32 of 37 45. Microdistilleries or microwineries located in business districts must include an ancillary tasting room with a minimum of one hundred fifty (150) square feet. Retail sales of the product from a microdistillery or microwinery are permitted on-site and shall be consistent with state and City laws. I. Milk processing and distribution: 1. When located in the A-1, agricultural district milk processing and distribution, including pasteurizing and manufacture of ice cream, but not including the processing or manufacture of cheese, shall be considered a special use. J. Public storage facilities/miniwarehouse storage: 1. Whenever a special use is granted for miniwarehouse storage under the M-1 zoning district or any other permitted zoning district, the following restrictions shall apply: a. If the facility is within one hundred fifty feet (150') of a residential district, all storage shall be in completely enclosed buildings or structures, and storage located elsewhere in this district may be open to the sky, but shall be enclosed by solid walls or fences (including solid doors or gates thereto) at least eight feet (8') high, but in no case lower in height t han the enclosed storage buildings and suitably landscaped consistent with the City's landscape ordinance. b. A minimum of three (3) parking spaces shall be provided. c. There shall be a minimum of twenty feet (20') between buildings. K. Salvage yards: 1. Salvage yards in A-1, agricultural district; refer to section 10-9-3, "Special Uses", of this title. L. Cannabis businesses: 1. Definitions: Cannabis craft grower: A facility operated by an organization or business that is licensed by the Illinois Department of Agriculture to cultivate, dry, cure and package cannabis and perform other necessary activities to make cannabis available for sale at a dispensing organization or use at a processing organization, per the Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act (P.A. 101-0027), as it may be amended from time to time, and regulations promulgated thereunder. Cannabis cultivation center: A facility operated by an organization or business that is licensed by the Illinois Department of Agriculture to cultivate, process, transport and perform necessary activities to provide cannabis and cannabis-infused products to licensed cannabis business establishments, per the Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act (P.A. 101-0027), as it may be amended from time to time, and regulations promulgated thereunder. Cannabis dispensing facility or dispensary: A facility operated by an organization or business that is licensed by the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation to acquire cannabis from licensed cannabis business establishments for the purpose of selling or dispensing cannabis, cannabis - infused products, cannabis seeds, paraphernalia or related supplies to purchasers or to qualified registered medical cannabis patients and caregivers, per the Cannabis Regulation an d Tax Act (P.A. 101-0027), as it may be amended from time to time, and regulations promulgated thereunder. Cannabis infuser facility or infuser: A facility operated by an organization or business that is licensed by the Illinois Department of Agriculture to directly incorporate cannabis or cannabis concentrate into a product formulation to produce a cannabis-infused product, per the Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act (P.A. 101-0027), as it may be amended from time to time, and regulations promulgated thereunder. Cannabis processing facility or processor: A facility operated by an organization or business that is licensed by the Illinois Department of Agriculture to either extract constituent chemicals or compounds Created: 2022-01-07 11:53:25 [EST] (Supp. No. 2) Page 33 of 37 to produce cannabis concentrate or incorporate cannabis or cannabis concentrate into a product formulation to produce a cannabis product, per the Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act (P.A. 101 -0027), as it may be amended from time to time, and regulations promulgated thereunder. Cannabis transporting business or transporter: An organization or business that is licensed by the Illinois Department of Agriculture to transport cannabis on behalf of a cannabis business establishment or a community college licensed under the Community College Cannabis Vocational Training Pilot Program, per the Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act (P.A. 101 -0027), as it may be amended from time to time, and regulations promulgated thereunder. 2. Special use distance requirements and restrictions: a. Cannabis craft grower: (1) Facility may not be located within five hundred feet (500') of the property line of a pre - existing public or private nursery school, preschool, primary or secondary school, day care center, day care home, residential care home, public parks or religious institutions, regardless of corporate boundary. Commercial/trade schools shall not be classified as a public or private school for purposes of this section. (2) Facility may not be located within two hundred fifty feet (250') of the property line of a pre-existing property zoned or used for residential purposes, unless in the A-1 zoning district where the residential use is owned by the same owner as the adult -use cannabis craft grower, regardless of corporate boundary. (3) Facility may not conduct any sales or distribution of cannabis other than as authorized by the Act. (4) Cannabis craft growers may co-locate with a dispensing organization or a cannabis infuser organization, or both, only on properties zoned within the M-1 or M-2 districts. (5) For purposes of determining required parking, cannabis craft grower shall be classified as "industrial uses" per section 10-16-3 Off-Street Parking Requirements, provided, however, that the City may require that additional parking as part of the special use conditions. (6) Cannabis craft grower shall be limited to one (1) facility within the boundaries of the City. b. Cannabis cultivation center: (1) Facility may not be located within five hundred feet (500') of the property line of a pre - existing public or private nursery school, preschool, primary or secondary school, day care center, day care home, residential care home, public parks or religious institutions, regardless of corporate boundary. Commercial/trade schools shall not be classified as a public or private school for purposes of this section. (2) Facility may not be located within two hundred fifty feet (250') of the property line of a pre-existing property zoned or used for residential purposes, regardless of corporate boundary. (3) Facility may not conduct any sales or distribution of cannabis other than as authorized by the Act. (4) For purposes of determining required parking, adult-use cannabis craft growers shall be classified as "industrial uses" per section 10-16-3 Off-Street Parking Requirements, provided, however, that the City may require that additional parking as part of the special use conditions. Created: 2022-01-07 11:53:25 [EST] (Supp. No. 2) Page 34 of 37 (5) Cannabis cultivation center shall be limited to one (1) facility within the boundaries of the City. c. Cannabis dispensing organization: (1) Facility may not be located within five hundred feet (500') of the property line of a pre - existing public or private nursery school, preschool, primary or secondary school, day care center, day care home, residential care home, public parks or religious institutions, regardless of corporate boundary. Commercial/trade schools shall not be classified as a public or private school for purposes of this section. (2) Facility may not be located in a dwelling unit or within two hundred fifty feet (250') of the property line of a pre-existing property zoned or used for residential purposes, regardless of corporate boundary. (3) Facility shall have a maximum gross floor area of five thousand (5,000) square feet, of which at least seventy-five percent (75%) of the floor area occupied by a dispensing organization shall be devoted solely to the activities the dispensing cannabis or cannabis products as authorized by the Act, and shall not sell food or alcohol for consumption on the premises. (4) Drive-through facilities are prohibited. (5) E-commerce delivery service platforms are prohibited. (6) The facility shall be classified as "commercial uses" per section 10-16-3 Off-Street Parking Requirements, provided, however, that the City may require that additional parking as part of the special use conditions. (7) Cannabis dispensing organizations shall be limited to one (1) facility within the boundaries of the City. d. Cannabis infuser organization: (1) Facility may not be located within five hundred feet (500') of the property line of a pre- existing public or private nursery school, preschool, primary or secondary school, day care center, day care home, residential care home, public parks or religious institutions, regardless of corporate boundary. Commercial/trade schools shall not be classified as a public or private school for purposes of this section. (2) Facility may not be located in a dwelling unit or within two hundred fifty feet (250') of the property line of a pre-existing property zoned or used for residential purposes, regardless of corporate boundary. (3) Infuser organizations may co-locate with a dispensing organization or a cannabis craft grower organizations, or both, only on properties zoned within the M-1 or M-2 districts. In such instances, the maximum gross floor area dedicated to the dispensing organization shall be five thousand (5,000) square feet of which seventy -five percent (75%) of the floor area must be devoted to the activities authorized by the Act. (4) For purposes of determining required parking, said facilities shall be classified as "industrial uses" per section 10-16-3 Off-Street Parking Requirements, provided, however, that the City may require that additional parking as part of the special use conditions. (5) Cannabis infuser organizations shall be limited to one (1) facility within the boundaries of the City. e. Cannabis processing organization: Created: 2022-01-07 11:53:25 [EST] (Supp. No. 2) Page 35 of 37 (1) Facility may not be located within five hundred feet (500') of the property line of a pre - existing public or private nursery school, preschool, primary or secondary school, day care center, day care home, residential care home, public parks or religious institutions, regardless of corporate boundary. Commercial/trade schools shall not be classified as a public or private school for purposes of this section. (2) Facility may not be located in a dwelling unit or within two hundred fifty feet (250') of the property line of a pre-existing property zoned or used for residential purposes, regardless of corporate boundary. (3) At least seventy-five percent (75%) of the floor area occupied by a dispensing organization shall be devoted solely to the activities the dispensing cannabis or cannabis products as authorized by the Act, and shall not sell food or alcohol for consumption on the premises. (4) For purposes of determining required parking, said facilities shall be classified as "industrial uses" per section 10-16-3 Off-Street Parking Requirements, provided, however, that the City may require that additional parking as part of the special use conditions. (5) Cannabis processing organizations shall be limited to one (1) facility within the boundaries of the City. f. Cannabis transporting organization: (1) Facility may not be located within five hundred feet (500') of the property line of a pre- existing public or private nursery school, preschool, primary or secondary school, day care center, day care home, residential care home, public parks or religious institutions, regardless of corporate boundary. Commercial/trade schools shall not be classified as a public or private school for purposes of this section. (2) Facility may not be located in a dwelling unit or within two hundred fifty feet (250') of the property line of a pre-existing property zoned or used for residential purposes, regardless of corporate boundary. (3) The transporting organization shall be the sole use of the space in which it is located. Facility may not conduct any sales or distribution of cannabis other than as authorized by the Act. (4) For purposes of determining required parking, said facilities shall be classified as "industrial uses" per section 10-16-3 Off-Street Parking Requirements, provided, however, that the City may require that additional parking as part of the special use conditi ons. (5) Cannabis transporting organization shall be limited to one (1) within the boundaries of the City. 3. Business hours: Business hours for all cannabis businesses shall be from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Sundays. 4. On-premises consumption: On-premises consumption of cannabis products in all cannabis businesses operations is prohibited. 5. Signage: a. Recreational cannabis dispensaries shall be limited to one (1) wall -mounted sign per business. b. All cannabis establishments shall be prohibited from having electronic message board signs. c. Signage for cannabis establishments shall not contain cannabis imagery such as leaves, plants, smoke, paraphernalia, or cartoonish imageries. Created: 2022-01-07 11:53:25 [EST] (Supp. No. 2) Page 36 of 37 6. Special use application requirements: a. Applicant name and the business name of the proposed adult use cannabis establishment for which the special use is sought, including addresses, telephone numbers and e -mail addresses of: (1) sole proprietors; (2) business entities with financial interest in the business, and (3) all officers, directors, partners, managers and owners. A post office box may not be submitted as the address of the applicant. b. Copy of licensure or registration that the organization is authorized to conduct an adult use cannabis business establishment in the State of Illinois. c. The commonly known address, permanent index number (PIN) and legal description of the proposed location of the adult-use cannabis establishment. d. Property ownership information. Written statement that the applicant owns or has under contract the property of the proposed adult-use cannabis establishment. e. The proposed hours of operation. f. Copy of a business plan to be kept on file with the Yorkville Police Department and confidential to the extent permitted by law, including but not limited to the following: (1) Proposed number of employees. (2) A description of the products and services that the proposed adult use cannabis establishment will offer. (3) Description or statement of training and education that will be provided to the proposed adult use cannabis dispensary agents/staff. (4) A security plan that will describe how the proposed use will address concerns related to inventory tracking and prevention of theft; measures to control customer overflow and access to restricted areas; employee restrictions to limited access areas and restricted area; and video surveillance/alarm system. g. Aerial map of the subject property identifying the current zoning and land uses of all surrounding parcels within five hundred feet (500'). h. Site plan including, but not limited to, nearest utility connection, points of access, internal site circulation, lighting/photometric plan, landscape plan, off-street parking, trip generation calculations. i. Floor plans and elevations of proposed adult use cannabis establishment, including the location of enclosed and secured loading and trash handling and disposal facilities. j. Signage plans. k. Information on co-location with another adult-use cannabis establishment. 7. Standards for special use for cannabis businesses: a. Impact of the proposed facility on the existing or planned uses located within the vicinity of the subject property. b. Suitability of the proposed facility and its co-location with another cannabis business establishment. c. Adequate waste management plan for the storage, security and disposal of discarded cannabis products and materials. d. Distance to existing cannabis establishment. Created: 2022-01-07 11:53:25 [EST] (Supp. No. 2) Page 37 of 37 (Ord. 2014-73, 11-25-2014; amd. Ord. 2015-32, 6-9-2015; Ord. 2019-84, 11-26-2019) 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 2022-29 PZC 2022-09 Kendall County Petition 22-09 (Future Land Use Change) Economic Development Committee – May 3, 2022 PZC – 04/13/22 Moved forward to EDC agenda. PZC 2022-09 Majority Vote Review of changes being proposed on Kendall County Future Land Use Map Jason Engberg Community Development Name Department SUMMARY: Staff has received a petition from the Kendall County Planning, Building, and Zoning Department along with the subsequent attached documents. In the fall of 2020, the Kendall County Comprehensive Land Plan and Ordinance Committee initiated discussions regarding the funding for the Eldamain Road Bridge and Extension project and potential future land uses along the southern leg of the new thoroughfare. Since then, the Committee has been in discussion with the adjacent communities, including Yorkville, about each municipality’s plans for the future of the area. After debating the topic in more depth and reaching out to property owners in the area, the Committee has decided to move forward and have proposed to amend the Kendall County Future Land Use map. They are proposing to redesignate three (3) properties west of Eldamain and south of the railway from “Rural Residential” to “Mixed Use Business.” BACKGROUND & PROPOSED CHANGES: It was announced at the end of 2020 that the planned bridge construction and extension of Eldamain Road south of the Fox River was funded and construction began in 2021. The extension begins at River Road and crosses the river heading south and connects to the existing W Highpoint Road. It terminates after Stagecoach Trail (State Route 71) at a realigned Highpoint Road. After the announcement of funding, the Kendall County Comprehensive Land Plan and Ordinance Committee began discussing the potential future land uses along the southern extension. The committee felt the area would be ideal for Mixed Use Business, as this new roadway connects State Route 71 with U.S. Route 30. In the spring of 2021, the County contacted the surrounding communities to evaluate the future land use plans along the extension. City staff attended the meeting to discuss potential future land use changes. Memorandum To: Economic Development Committee From: Jason Engberg, Senior Planner CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director Date: April 26, 2022 Subject: PZC 2022-09 Kendall County Petition 22-09 (Future Land Use Change) South Eldamain Corridor Properties Staff informed the committee that Eldamain Road creates the boundary between Yorkville and Plano’s future planning areas which is also stipulated in the municipalities’ boundary agreement. Therefore, only the properties on the east side of the roadway were designated for future Yorkville annexation. The current 2016 Comprehensive Plan has these areas designated as “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. It is very similar to the County’s “Rural Residential” land use designation. The committee requested that Yorkville consider changing their future land use designations in the area to align with the County’s plans. This information was provided to the elected officials in the summer of 2021. Since then, the committee has been contacting property owners in the area which are currently designated for “Rural Residential” land uses on the existing Kendall County Future Land Use Map (shown above) to see if they wanted to have their properties changed to the Mixed Use Business category. Contacting the owners is an essential step in any long-term planning process as it will have an effect on the properties’ future development potential. After reaching out to many of the property owners in the area, a majority wanted to remain within the “Rural Residential” designation. There was a single property owner who was interested in converting three (3) of their parcels from “Rural Residential” to “Mixed Use Business” (shown above). The Kendall County Comprehensive Land Plan and Ordinance Committee has decided to move forward with amending the County’s Future Land Use Map for these three (3) properties. The public hearings for this amendment were held on April 27, 2022 in front of the Kendall County Regional Plan Commission at 7:00PM and May 2, 2022 in front of the Kendall County Zoning Board of Appeals at 7:00PM. Both hearings will be held at the Kendall County Office Building, Rooms 209 and 210, at 111 W. Fox Street, Yorkville, IL. Staff Comments Staff has reviewed the materials and has no objections to the County’s Future Land Use Map amendment. The proposed future land use designations are on the west side of Eldamain Road which is outside the City’s planning boundary. Also, the conversions of these properties to the County’s “Mixed Use Business” designation has little, to no effect, on the City’s future planning efforts. It should be noted that the new bridge and improved roadway may affect potential future land uses in the area. As stated in the attached June 3, 2021 memorandum to the Planning and Zoning Commission, there are many considerations to be contemplated when changing a future land use designation. Staff’s recommendation is to reevaluate the potential for different types of future developments in this area when the City begins updating its Comprehensive Plan within the next few years. Staff is seeking comments from the Economic Development Committee regarding the proposed Kendall County Future Land Use map amendment and will forward them to the County. This item is scheduled to be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 8, 2022 and by City Council on June 28, 2022. Attachments 1. Petition 22-09 with attachments 2. Yorkville Future Land Use Map 3. Planning and Zoning Commission Memorandum - June 3, 2021 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING & ZONING 111 West Fox Street • Room 203 Yorkville, IL • 60560 (630) 553-4141 Fax (630) 553-4179 MEMORANDUM To: Kendall County ZPAC From: Matthew H. Asselmeier, AICP, CFM Senior Planner Date: 3/25/2022 Subject: Potential Changes to the Future Land Use Map Along the Eldamain Road Corridor In October 2020, the Kendall County Comprehensive Land Plan and Ordinance Committee initiated discussions regarding changing the Future Land Use Map for properties located along the Eldamain Road Corridor south of the Fox River, in light of the funding for the Eldamain Road Bridge and the abandonment of the centerline for the Prairie Parkway. In particular, the Committee discussed possible commercial and/or manufacturing investment in this area. The Kendall County Future Land Use Map currently calls for this area to be Rural Residential (Max Density 0.65 DU/Acre) and Mixed Use Business. A copy of the existing Future Land Use Map is attached. The Yorkville Future Land Use Map currently calls for this area to be Estate Residential. The Millbrook Future Land Use Map currently calls for this area to be Business Park Office and Commercial with Industrial near the former Prairie Parkway alignment. The Plano Future Land Use Map currently calls for the area in their planning jurisdiction to be Estate Residential (0-0.8 DU/Acre). Copies of all of the Future Land Use Maps for this area are attached. Following meetings with property owners in the area in October and December 2021, the Committee decided to limit changes to three (3) properties along the railroad tracks west of Fox Road. Letters to impacted property owners were mailed in mid-December 2021, mid-February 2022, and mid-March 2022. At their meeting on February 23, 2022, the Comprehensive Land and Ordinance Committee voted to forward the proposal to the Kendall County Regional Planning Commission. At their meeting on March 24, 2022, the Kendall County Regional Planning Commission voted to initiate the amendment to the Future Land Use Map. A copy of the updated map is attached. Petition information will be sent to Fox Township, the Village of Millbrook, and the United City of Yorkville on March 28, 2022. If you have any questions regarding this memo, please let me know. Thanks, MHA Encs.: Kendall County Future Land Use Map Proposed Changes to Kendall County Future Land Use Map United City of Yorkville Future Land Use Map Village of Millbrook Future Land Use Map City of Plano Future Land Use Map Future Land Use Plan in Kendall County, IL 0 1.5 Mi d d l e 15 71 BUDDRD RIVERRD POPL A RDRPA V I L L I ONR DFOX RD LEGIONRD EHIGHPOINT RD ROUTE71 TIM B ERCREEKDRWHIGHPOINTRDYORKVILLE Harris F.P. Subat F.P. Hoover F.P. SILVER SPRINGS River Road F.P. (Tree Mitigation) Fox River Bluffs Created: 11/19/2020 Kendall County GIS 111 West Fox Street - Room 308 Yorkville, Illinois 60560 630.553.4212 TOWNSHIPS URBAN AREAS - INCORPORATED SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL - MAX DENSITY 1.00 DU ACRES RURAL RESIDENTIAL MAX DENSITY 0.65 DU ACRES RURAL ESTATE RESEDENTIAL MAX DENSITY 0.45 DU ACRE COUNTRYSIDE RESIDENTIAL MAX DENSITY 0.33 DU ACRE COMMERCIAL MIXED USE BUSINESS COMMONWEALTH EDISON TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS MINING POTENTIAL MINING DISTRICT PUBLIC/ INSTITUTIONAL AGRICULTURE FOREST PRESERVE/STATE PARKS OPEN SPACE PROPOSED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS Proposed Future Land Use Plan 0 0.5 10.25 Miles YORKVILLE BUDD RD FOX R D WHIGHPOINTRDWHIGHPOINT R DLISBONRDROUT E 71COTSWOLDDRFOX C T PAVILL ION RD Created: 12/27/2021 Kendall County GIS 111 West Fox Street - Room 308 Yorkville, Illinois 60560 630.553.4212 L A N D U S E T Y PE U R BA N A R E A S - I N CO R P O R AT E D S U B U R BA N R E S I D E N T I A L - M A X D E N S I T Y 1 . 0 0 D U AC R E S RU R A L R E S I D E N T I A L M A X D E N S I T Y 0 . 65 D U AC R E S RU R A L E STAT E R E S E D E N T I A L M A X D E N S I T Y 0 . 45 D U AC R E CO U N T RYS I D E R E S I D E N T I A L M A X D E N S I T Y 0 . 33 D U AC R E CO M M E RC I A L M I X E D U S E B U S I N E S S CO M M O N W E A LT H E D I S O N PRO P O S E D ROA DWAY I M PROV E M E N T S TOW N S H I P S PROPOSED MIXED USE BUSINESS 82 SECTION 4 - COMMUNITY VISION AND LAND USE STRATEGY THE YORKVILLE PLAN • CONNECTING OUR PAST TO THE FUTURE Figure 4.1 - Future Land Uses North of the Fox River Figure 4.1: Future Land Uses North of the Fox River LAND USE CHANGES The Land Use Strategy and Future Land Use Map presented above describes the distribution of general land use categories (Residential, Commercial, industrial, Open Space and Parks, and so on) that will set the framework for achieving the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. It is not a zoning map but should set the stage for future changes and modifications to the Yorkville Zoning Ordinance. The Land Use Strategy seeks to “re-position” Yorkville’s future land use pattern given current development conditions in Yorkville since the 2008 economic downturn and the unlikelihood that the Prairie Parkway will be constructed within this Plan’s time horizon. Several changes in land use classifications are proposed from those included in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. Changes in the land use categories are summarized below: RESIDENTIAL A Mid-Density Residential land use zone is proposed in order to encourage new multi-family housing types in Yorkville; new housing types could diversify housing opportunities and provide housing at different price points that what is currently offered in Yorkville’s housing market. The Rural Neighborhood land use classification in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan is eliminated given that such residential development is unlikely to occur in the southeastern portions of the Yorkville planning area where there are significant infrastructure and market constraints. The primary infrastructure constraint is the need to construct a lift station along a ridge line, generally located south of Illinois Route 71. In its place, an Estate/Conservation Residential land use category has been created to accommodate large-lot residential development in areas where infrastructure exists and smaller-lot single family residential subdivisions are less likely to be supported by market demand. Conservation subdivisions should also be encouraged in order to preserve significant environmental and topographical features, provide alternative housing types, and provide opportunities to expand Yorkville’s open space network. A Metra Station TOD zone is also included to plan accordingly for future development even if the Metra Station is years away from construction. COMMERCIAL Several new commercial land use categories are suggested in this Comprehensive Plan. A Downtown Mixed-Use Core zone is intended to focus revitalization and redevelopment efforts in Yorkville’s traditional downtown; new mixed-use development is envisioned on various opportunity sites that expand the Downtown’s footprint further to the east on Van Emmon Street with potential residential and commercial development. The need to address particular development design and land use issues within the Downtown necessitates the need for a Downtown-specific land use classification. The general Commercial land use classification in the 2008 Plan is now designated Destination Commercial to recognize that a high percentage of commercial land in Yorkville accommodates large format and chain store formats, usually located along major transportation thoroughfares. Destination Commercial uses have their own particular physical design and development issues and should be distinguished from commercial uses located in the Downtown and in neighborhood retail areas. A Commercial Office land use category has been created to accommodate small-scaled office uses in single developments or as part of an office park setting; INSTITUTIONAL PARKS AND OPEN SPACE COMMERCIAL OFFICE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL Legend - Future Land Use Map FUTURE ROADWAY ESTATE/CONSERVATION RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOODS AGRICULTURAL ZONE METRA STATION TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT DOWNTOWN MIXED-USE CORE TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL MID-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESTINATION COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL RIVERS / STREAMS 83 SECTION 4 - COMMUNITY VISION AND LAND USE STRATEGY THE YORKVILLE PLAN • CONNECTING OUR PAST TO THE FUTURE Figure 4.2: Future Land Uses South of the Fox River 35 EXHIBIT C 36 EXHIBIT D 37 EXHIBIT E 34 | Plano, Illinois | 2017 Comprehensive Plan Maramech Forest Preserve Subat Forest Preserve Jay Woods Forest Preserve Planned Prairie Parkway Future Land Use ´DEKALB COUNTYKENDALL COUNTYKANE COUNTY KENDALL COUNTY £¤ 34 Galena Rd Sears Rd Rock Creek RdGalena Rd Creek RdLi t t l e R o c k R d Tyler RdMiller Rd Cr e e k R d Vilmin RdLittle Rock RdFrazier RdSandy Bluff RdGriswold Springs Rd Bur r O a k R d Millhurst Rd Fox R dFox River DrEldamain RdEldamain RdNeedham RdFaxon Rd Ha l e R d Schaefer Rd Blackhawk RdW Ab e S t N Cent e r S t Lee St SUGAR GROVE BOUNDARY AGREEMENT SANDWICH Millbrook Yorkville Yorkville Yorkville Fox River Big Rock CreekLittleRock Creek Agricultural Low Density Residential (.9 - 2.25 DU/AC) Medium Density Residential (2.26 - 6 DU/AC)* High Density Residential (>6 DU/AC)* Silver Springs State Fish and Wildlife Area Clark RdJeter RdGeneral Business Industrial/Office/ Research Institutional/Public City Center Mixed Use Plano Boundary Open Space Parks Estate Residential (0 - .8 DU/AC) Transit Oriented Development Corneils Rd YorkvilleYorkville *Existing built densities are not planned to increase Alternate Transit Oriented Development SANDWICH SANDWICH Proposed Roadway Planned Prairie Parkway Planning BoundaryLew StWhitfield RdGranart RdRob Roy Cr e e k River Rd 0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25 Miles £¤34 Illustration 6 82 SECTION 4 - COMMUNITY VISION AND LAND USE STRATEGY THE YORKVILLE PLAN • CONNECTING OUR PAST TO THE FUTURE Figure 4.1 - Future Land Uses North of the Fox River Figure 4.1: Future Land Uses North of the Fox River LAND USE CHANGES The Land Use Strategy and Future Land Use Map presented above describes the distribution of general land use categories (Residential, Commercial, industrial, Open Space and Parks, and so on) that will set the framework for achieving the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. It is not a zoning map but should set the stage for future changes and modifications to the Yorkville Zoning Ordinance. The Land Use Strategy seeks to “re-position” Yorkville’s future land use pattern given current development conditions in Yorkville since the 2008 economic downturn and the unlikelihood that the Prairie Parkway will be constructed within this Plan’s time horizon. Several changes in land use classifications are proposed from those included in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. Changes in the land use categories are summarized below: RESIDENTIAL A Mid-Density Residential land use zone is proposed in order to encourage new multi-family housing types in Yorkville; new housing types could diversify housing opportunities and provide housing at different price points that what is currently offered in Yorkville’s housing market. The Rural Neighborhood land use classification in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan is eliminated given that such residential development is unlikely to occur in the southeastern portions of the Yorkville planning area where there are significant infrastructure and market constraints. The primary infrastructure constraint is the need to construct a lift station along a ridge line, generally located south of Illinois Route 71. In its place, an Estate/Conservation Residential land use category has been created to accommodate large-lot residential development in areas where infrastructure exists and smaller-lot single family residential subdivisions are less likely to be supported by market demand. Conservation subdivisions should also be encouraged in order to preserve significant environmental and topographical features, provide alternative housing types, and provide opportunities to expand Yorkville’s open space network. A Metra Station TOD zone is also included to plan accordingly for future development even if the Metra Station is years away from construction. COMMERCIAL Several new commercial land use categories are suggested in this Comprehensive Plan. A Downtown Mixed-Use Core zone is intended to focus revitalization and redevelopment efforts in Yorkville’s traditional downtown; new mixed-use development is envisioned on various opportunity sites that expand the Downtown’s footprint further to the east on Van Emmon Street with potential residential and commercial development. The need to address particular development design and land use issues within the Downtown necessitates the need for a Downtown-specific land use classification. The general Commercial land use classification in the 2008 Plan is now designated Destination Commercial to recognize that a high percentage of commercial land in Yorkville accommodates large format and chain store formats, usually located along major transportation thoroughfares. Destination Commercial uses have their own particular physical design and development issues and should be distinguished from commercial uses located in the Downtown and in neighborhood retail areas. A Commercial Office land use category has been created to accommodate small-scaled office uses in single developments or as part of an office park setting; INSTITUTIONAL PARKS AND OPEN SPACE COMMERCIAL OFFICE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL Legend - Future Land Use Map FUTURE ROADWAY ESTATE/CONSERVATION RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOODS AGRICULTURAL ZONE METRA STATION TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT DOWNTOWN MIXED-USE CORE TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL MID-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESTINATION COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL RIVERS / STREAMS 83 SECTION 4 - COMMUNITY VISION AND LAND USE STRATEGY THE YORKVILLE PLAN • CONNECTING OUR PAST TO THE FUTURE Figure 4.2: Future Land Uses South of the Fox River Summary On March 24, 2021, Community Development staff attended a meeting upon request of the Kendall County Comprehensive Land Plan and Ordinance Committee to discuss future land use plans for the area south of the river along Highpoint Road. The long-planned road extension and expansion received partial funding last year and is considered under “Initial Construction” per the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). To view a map of the project, click the link below. https://www.gettingaroundillinois.com/MapViewer/?confi g=ANNconfig.json. The road creates the southern planning boundary between Yorkville on the east side and Plano on the west side. Similar to the roadway improvements on North Eldamain Road, this new thoroughfare and access across the river may change the potential long-term land uses in and around the area. The committee requested that staff discuss the idea of reviewing the proposed future land uses outlined in the City’s Comprehensive Plan with City officials to consider possible revisions to the plan. Kendall County Comprehensive Land Plan and Ordinance Committee Meeting The meeting held in March was attended by members of the committee, County staff, Yorkville staff, and representatives from Plano and Millbrook. There was a broad discussion about what the County’s future land use plan has designated for the unincorporated areas along the future South Eldamain Road. Currently, per their Land Resource Management Plan’s Future Land Use Map (attached) the western side of the road is currently designated as mixed-use business while the eastern portions which are not within Yorkville’s boundary are designated for Rural Residential. The members of the committee considered designating all of this area for mixed-used business. They then asked municipal representatives what their plans for this area currently are and if they would be open to discuss changes to align with Kendall County’s plans. As seen in the image above, the entire eastern edge of the road is a light shade of green which designates this area for Estate/Conservation Residential Land Use. 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 properties to the west of the road are outside the City’s planning boundary as Eldamain Road is the border of an existing boundary agreement with Plano. Therefore, the City does not have a future land use for this area. Memorandum To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Jason Engberg, Senior Planner CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director Date: June 3, 2021 Subject: Comprehensive Plan – Future Land Use Review Staff stated that the request to review the City’s future land use map would be brought to the attention of elected officials. The extension of Eldamain Road across the river and its connection to Route 71 will definitely have an impact and future development in the area. Before amending the Comprehensive Plan, there are many factors to consider as outlined below. Considerations The County is seeking to expand the mixed-use business designation on their future land use map and have requested that Yorkville evaluate their future land use map to better coincide with the County’s plan. While strategizing regionally is a solid planning principle, there are many factors to consider when making the decision to reevaluate the City’s Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use Map. Current Projections The current designated future land use as Estate/Conservation Residential was provided as this area is currently outside of the City’s boundary and far from the planning the other developed parts of town. The 2016 plan focused on development and improvement of Yorkville’s core and existing unfinished developments from the 2008 recession. The properties east of Highpoint Road are on the edge of the City’s planning boundary and were designated this way as development of this area was unlikely when the plan was created. Considerations need to be made on determining whether the Eldamain Road extension will change the possibility of development in this area being located far from the City’s current developments. Scope of the Plan The 2016 Comprehensive Plan has a general planning horizon of 10 years. When developing a Comprehensive Plan, all existing conditions, imminent projects, and future projections are all considered during the drafting of the plan. Making projections past this 10-year horizon is difficult as certain local, regional, and national events can impact the projection. Some examples include funding for a new road, an economic recession, or global pandemic. Community Development staff have scheduled for a new or updated plan to be drafted by 2026. This project would require extensive research into the existing conditions and focus on changes from the 2016 plan. Similar to the previous plan, an update or new plan will require assistance from a consultant and would most likely be a two-year process. Which means the evaluating of current conditions of the area could start between 2023- 2024. With a potential update occurring in the next few years along with the length of time it will take to have the roadway built, it might be best to consider waiting until a full update of the plan is complete. Metra Rail Access While the extension of Eldamain Road will definitely impact traffic flows and potential types of development in the area, there are other potential factors that may play into future land uses in this area such as a commuter train station. Metra is currently creating a long-term plan for extended rail service to Montgomery, Oswego, Yorkville, Plano, and Sandwich. Metra has been in contact with staff and officials to determine where a commuter station could be located. At this moment, there are two possible locations including one near Route 47 and the other near Eldamain Road which both intersect the BNSF railway. Both locations could change the type of potential uses in this area. While just a plan for potential future expansion of rail service, this needs to be taken into consideration when drafting future plans for the City as well. Utility Access Any major development whether it is residential, commercial, or industrial will need utilities provided to them. Currently, this area has no major water or sanitary facilities in the area with the closest being at the Route 71 and Route 47 intersection. Development of this area will depend on a developer or business installing and paying for utilities to be brought to these properties. Again, this needs to be considered when determining the future land use of an area due to its likelihood for future growth within the plans horizon. Guide for Development It should always be noted that while a Comprehensive Plan is a necessary tool for proper growth and implementing a vision for the community, it is still a guiding document that is not codified. As has happened in the past, certain developments may be better suited in some areas even though the future land use map illustrates a different designated use. Things change and a written long-term document cannot predict certain events or developments. It is up to committee members and elected officials to determine if a proposed project meets the vision of the community and whether the designation on the future land use map is justified at the time. Therefore, the Estate/Conservation Residential land use is not set in stone and does not hinder development of potential future projects. Potential Other Land Uses In conjunction with the other considerations in the memorandum, the County has expressed interest into expanding their mixed-use business land use designation but there may be better and more likely future land uses in the area. The development of a large mixed-use business area is enticing as it would provide jobs and tax revenue for the City, it does not necessarily mean this area is not better utilized for another land use. With all the other forces in play as listed above, considerations into all types of land uses should be considered. Economic Development Committee This item was brought forth for review at the May 4, 2021 Economic Development Committee Meeting. The committee stated it would discuss the request at a City Council level on June 8, 2021 as it wanted input from all members of the Council. At the time of this PZC meeting, the item will have been discussed by City Council and staff will relay their comments to this committee. Staff Comments/Next Steps Staff is seeking input from the Planning and Zoning Commission on the request from the Kendall County Comprehensive Land Plan and Ordinance Committee. Staff is seeking input and feedback from the committee to provide to the County. Attachments 1. Yorkville’s Future Land Use Map 2. Kendall County Land Resource Management Plan Map 3. Yorkville and Kendall County Future Land Use Comparison Map 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 Old Business #1 Tracking Number EDC 2020-32 Urban (Domesticated) Chickens Economic Development Committee – May 3, 2022 EDC – 01/05/21 Discussion ended on this matter; item not moved forward EDC 2020-32 None Informational Discussion regarding permitting and regulating urban (domesticated) chickens in residentially zoned districts. Bart Olson Administration 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)